Impeachment hearings

[_canpakes]

Please answer my question, and we can review the evidences that are

Evidences is a term for apologetics. FYI.

It would also help if there were actual 'evidences'.

Markk can't begin to address why Trump didn't ask the DoJ to investigate; I don't think he'll be equipped to 'review' much of anything else.

[_moksha]

The angry creamsicle claims to love the poorly educated, like markkk,

I thought the education in St. Petersburg was fairly good since they produced many Russian hackers.

[_Markk]

Markk can't begin to address why Trump didn't ask the DoJ to investigate; I don't think he'll be equipped to 'review' much of anything else.

You can address my answer at anytime...

I will use doc' opinion of the question... as a lead to my answer...while I encourage you to answer the questions (see bold) in my answers to the question below, and also ask for you to expound on why my answer in wrong IYO, that is beyond your typical "nuh uh" answer.

I also ask this..."Have you read my answer at all?"

wHY. DIdN't. Trump Ask. The. DoJ. tO. iNvEsTigaTe. tHe. BidENs?

Because he did not need to? (rhetorical), as I wrote in the beginning of this circle, "why is there air in a basketball?" It is equally a stupid but obvious question with a equally obvious answer. There is air in a basketball so it can bounce, and Trump did not ask the DoJ, because he did not have to, he is President and it is his job to make sure we, our country, are not giving money away to a corrupt Ukraine, and he acted accordingly, legally, and has been acquitted for any wrong doing, as accused by his politically enemies.

He had Rudy looking into the corruption before Biden announced his run for President. He then asked the President (Z.) of the Ukraine, in a transcribed phone call, who FYI, was recently elected by the the Ukrainian people to root out the corruption (see Sondland testimony) that had taken place under the Biden and Obama watch. Trump then asked Z. to look into it on "our " behalf, and told President Z. that both Rudy and the DoJ would look into it more, as the whistle blower testified. And as you are most likely unaware of (or refuse to acknowledge), today, the DoJ and others are looking into the corruption that occurred under Obama's and Biden's watch, which President Trump took the lead on, per his legal right.

In other words he did his job, and has no legal or constitutional requirement to ask the DOJ to first look into goverment corruption, but he did anyway after setting the table. There are other likely reasons I did not discuss much, like inheriting a "Washington" that has more leaks than Swiss cheese has holes. He obviously trusted Rudy enough to start the ball rolling, who is obviously more than qualified as a prosecutor...that is not even debatable given his record.

I understand you don't like my answer. I understand you can't refute my answer with factual evidence, logic or reason. I understand you can't defend and expound on your answer to your own question...but maybe you will go for it sooner than later.

A President has every right to have folks other than the DoJ investigate corruption, again as Biden did for Obama (which you refuse to even slightly acknowledge and discuss). Joe was either investigating and acting on the corruption there, or he is guilty of most everything you are accusing Trump of...which is it Canpakes? (another question you won't answer if you have even read this far)

Please acknowledge or expound on Biden's quid pro quo, which is on tape, it is not even debatable? He was acting as both judge and jury against the Ukrainian prosecutor, threatening a foreign goverment with holding back congress approved monies, unless they did what he told them to do. And he admitted that they bowed to his threat. That is by definition a quid pro quo.

What he told them to do was fire a prosecutor that was involved in an investigation of a company that was without any doubts corrupt. That his son was an attorney for. If the reason was valid or not is not really a question, what the question is "does it raise enough concern for a investigation? " And as we know the answer is yes it does, and the DoJ is currently investigating it.

To set precedence to my answer, who was Obama's point man for Obama's investigation of corruption in the Ukraine? The answer is obviously Biden, so I could ask the same question; "Why didn't Trump Obama ask the DOJ to investigate corruption in the Ukraine." It is equally a dumb question, that can be answered generally "because he did not need to." There was corruption in the Ukraine, and Obama "assigned" Biden to root out the corruption.

Joe dealt with and "advised" both Poroshenko, and Yanukovych, two Ukrainian Presidents that were accused of corruption, and the latter convicted and is in exile in Russia. Biden had Yankovych's personal cell phone and called him privately often, whichis important to note given his son's involvement with a corrupt Ukrainian Company.

At any rate...Biden took the lead from Obama on rooting out corruption, Obama did not ask the DoJ to do this, it was his executive privilege, and as with Trump, his duty to do so as President, and given the fact Biden was also given the charge to give out Billions to both China and the Ukraine.


When you are ready to defend or expound beyond the talking points you parrot, let me know, in th emean while I will just keep answering the question with more data, as I did int this...which is really interesting.

[_canpakes]

Mark, you just keep dodging the question. Instead, you ask other questions expecting folks to entertain your dodge.

Why didn’t Trump ask the DoJ to investigate?

You desperately want folks to explore your own random, disconnected questions as a diversion, but you can’t even draw the connecting line from the US aid package to Burisma, to begin. You’re dead in the water at the starting line.

It’s why you won’t dare answer the question of why Trump didn’t ask the DoJ to investigate.

[_Markk]

No I‘m not, my answer is clear in that your question is subjective...there can be multiple answers to the question and you just believe that there is one answer, “that there is not enough evidence.“ However there is enough evidence to do exactly what other presidents have done, including Obama and Biden, which is “investigate possible corruption. “

My questions and my expounding on my position, are clear and accurate and can be backed up with factual evidence and common sense.

You are ducking questions, in that you have backed yourself into a corner by parroting a question you simply did not think out, and are not equipped to defend such a subjective, ignorant question.

Why did Obama ask Biden to investigate the Ukraine, and not the DOJ...? Because there was evidence of corruption, and likewise my answers/s include evidences that totally and without a doubt support there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation into a Bidens.

If I am wrong, then tell me how the evidences I provided in my answer are invalid and do not warrant and investigation? There are far more evidences I haven’t even opined on, that we can get into if you really want to discuss the issue. What are you afraid of, this is a very small discussion board, its not like you will go to jail or anything if you are wrong.

As of now, you are stuck between a rock and hard place...pride vs common sense, and expounding on factual data that blew your straw-man down long ago.

My position is easy to defend, your answer is just a nuh uh, that you refuse to even elaborate on...it is that telling.

We haven’t even discussed China yet and the Biden connection to possible corruption.

[_honorentheos]

Why did Obama ask Biden to investigate the Ukraine...

He didn't. He asked Vice-President Biden to handle the executive branch's diplomatic and foreign relations with the Ukraine. He was not investigating anything. Not was he given judiciary responsibilities for the Ukraine. It is a bad faith statement you keep making that needs corrected.

[_canpakes]

Why did Obama ask Biden to investigate the Ukraine...

He didn't. He asked Vice-President Biden to handle the executive branch's diplomatic and foreign relations with the Ukraine. He was not investigating anything. Not was he given judiciary responsibilities for the Ukraine. It is a bad faith statement you keep making that needs corrected.

Agreed. Markk can't get traction with his bad faith statements, and cannot make a good faith effort to answer why Trump didn't ask the DoJ to investigate.

[_canpakes]

My position is easy to defend, your answer is just a nuh uh, that you refuse to even elaborate on...it is that telling.

BS is always easy to defend. Just spoon out more BS. It's why you can't answer the question of why Trump didn't ask the DoJ to investigate with anything other than, "he didn't have to!!1!" ... that sure is some sad BS you're spooning out.

And now, it's why you can't make enough sense of your parroted list of disparate bad-faith claims to even tell me details of Burisma's supposed connection to the US assistance effort for Ukraine.

Maybe you should look into that; it'll help you to admit to yourself the actual reason why Trump didn't ask the DoJ to investigate. ; )

[_Jersey Girl]

There's what, 25 pages of nonsense and BS generated by your stupidity and you still don't know what the hell you're talking about here. You just keep pathologically whacking out even more BS.

What he told them to do was fire a prosecutor that was involved in an investigation of a company that was without any doubts corrupt.

That his son was an attorney for.

I am significantly stupider from reading your posts and I don't know about anyone else here but I can't afford that crap.

[_Markk]

Why did Obama ask Biden to investigate the Ukraine...

Why did Obama ask Biden to investigate the Ukraine...
He didn't. He asked Vice-President Biden to handle the executive branch's diplomatic and foreign relations with the Ukraine. He was not investigating anything. Not was he given judiciary responsibilities for the Ukraine. It is a bad faith statement you keep making that needs corrected.

I'm not sure where to start in that there is so many things to touch on with your post.

I'll start here...

Like I wrote umpteen times, Biden was given the task of handing out aid to the Ukraine. With that comes the responsibility of making sure the the corruption that was rampant does not divert the aid to where it was intended to go. Obama, knew this, the European countries also offering aid knew this, as did Biden. He wrote in his memoir...

President Obama was always mindful of the concerns of the Big Four in Europe—Britain, Germany, France, and Italy—whose leaders he was in touch with constantly. The senior member of the quartet, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, was on record with her worry about “a confrontation [in Ukraine] which risks spiraling out of control.” She and the others were even more worried about the political backlash they would face at home when the economic sanctions and embargoes on Russia started to pinch their own business communities. And none of them were hot to spend their political capital to save an emerging democracy whose leaders had exhibited a penchant for corruption, self-dealing, and self-destructive behavior. I was probably swayed in my own thinking by my frequent contacts with the leaders of our more recent allies in Europe—in Poland, Romania, the Baltic states, the Balkans. Putin’s move in Ukraine felt like the canary in the coal mine to them. They were afraid that if the West didn’t stand firm there, Putin might start carving off pieces of their territory near the Russian border. Or more.

It was almost ten at night when Finnegan and the staff and I finally settled into our rooms at the Westin, but I wasn’t ready to sleep. I looked over the briefing materials again and started gaming out the next few days. I was going to be giving a speech at the Munich conference Saturday afternoon and had more than half a dozen formal meetings scheduled that weekend. The most important was a trilateral talk just before noon on Saturday with Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko and Chancellor Merkel. Merkel and French president François Hollande were in the middle of a tense negotiation with Putin about defining and implementing a new and improved version of the shaky Minsk cease-fire. Merkel had a phone call with Putin scheduled for the next day, so I wanted to be there at Poroshenko’s side in our three-way meeting to make sure Merkel understood that the United States remained ready to stand tough for him and his nation’s borders. But before any of that, I wanted to make sure to be in the audience for Merkel’s own address to the security conference. So that was the first thing up on my public calendar—less than ten hours away.

The chancellor was strong in her speech that next morning. Ukraine was “seeing both its territorial integrity and sovereignty disregarded,” she said. “International law is being violated.” But she was not strong enough for my taste; the passive voice weakened her statement. And I was disappointed when, after her speech, she flatly refused to consider providing any real weaponry to Ukraine’s overmatched military. “The progress that Ukraine needs cannot be achieved by more weapons,” she said. She seemed to have the sympathy of the crowd on that point.

I left the Merkel event and told my staff we had to revise my own remarks. My words needed to be as direct and declarative as possible. We had less than four hours to fix the speech, and I had to do the meeting with Merkel and Poroshenko first. I instructed my team to start un-lawyering the language of the speech. I wanted them to make absolutely sure that the plain meaning could not be missed, and told them I would be back to help with rewrites as soon as I could.


The room for the meeting with President Poroshenko and Chancellor Merkel was nothing fancy. We sat at a relativelysmall table in the corner of a conference room, which meant it was an intimate talk. Poroshenko seemed relieved I was there. He knew I was committed to Ukraine’s success for its own sake and also as a proof to Russia of European resolve. I thought the outcome of the Ukraine crisis would set the tone for central and eastern Europe for decades, for good or for ill. I had been hard on Poroshenko since his election nine months earlier. I’d made it clear to him that he could not afford to give the Europeans any excuse for walking away from the sanctions regime against Russia. He had to continue to fight the elements of corruption that were embedded in the political culture of Ukraine’s Soviet and post-Soviet governance—both in Yatsenyuk’s rival party and in Poroshenko’s own. But the Ukrainian president also knew I had gone to bat for him to get aid packages from the International International Monetary Fund and loan guarantees from the United States. That I had been pushing hard at the Principals Committee meetings to provide training for his military, and had already been able to get him nonlethal equipment like the special radars Ukraine’s military needed to identify the location of Russian mortars. Poroshenko could not have missed my own sense of urgency where the future of Ukraine was concerned.


Biden, Joe. Promise Me, Dad (pp. 101-104). Flatiron Books. Kindle Edition.

The American press certainly understood this...

KYIV, Ukraine —

Four days before President Trump was inaugurated in January 2017, the outgoing vice president, Joe Biden, was in Ukraine — his sixth visit in seven years — to deliver a rousing farewell speech.

“You’re fighting both against the cancer of corruption, which continues to eat away at Ukraine’s democracy within, and the unrelenting aggression of the Kremlin,” he told local leaders, politicians and parliamentarians in Kyiv, the capital


“It’s imperative that you continue to strengthen all of your anti-corruption institutions to root out those who would return Ukraine to rule by cronyism and kleptocracy,” he added.

The rousing speech reflected not only Biden’s focus on driving out entrenched corruption in Ukraine, but also the Obama White House efforts to help the former Soviet republic on its difficult path to democracy.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/ ... r-scrutiny

His infamous Quid pro quo, was claimed to be, by Joe, because Shokin was not going after corruption, in which Joe did the following...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE7PwqmzSu0


More later