Convinced yet?

[edwardmurphy]

Kinda looks like the President tried to extort the Ukrainians into opening an investigation of the Biden family by threatening to withhold military aid at a time when Ukraine (supposedly an ally) is under severe military pressure from Russia (supposedly a hostile power). So there's some corruption bordering on treason.

Here's a copy of the whistleblower's letter.

That's on top of Trump's denials that the Russians interfered in our election (a position in direct opposition to that of the entire US intelligence apparatus), his multiple, illegal obstructive acts aimed at derailing the investigation, his constant, flagrant violation of the emoluments clause, among other things.

Seems like the impeachment circus will begin shortly. I sincerely hope that the "rule of law" party takes the law seriously and does their constitutional duty.

[Byblos]

Kinda looks like the President tried to extort the Ukrainians into opening an investigation of the Biden family by threatening to withhold military aid at a time when Ukraine (supposedly an ally) is under severe military pressure from Russia (supposedly a hostile power). So there's some corruption bordering on treason.

Here's a copy of the whistleblower's letter.

That's on top of Trump's denials that the Russians interfered in our election (a position in direct opposition to that of the entire US intelligence apparatus), his multiple, illegal obstructive acts aimed at derailing the investigation, his constant, flagrant violation of the emoluments clause, among other things.

Seems like the impeachment circus will begin shortly. I sincerely hope that the "rule of law" party takes the law seriously and does their constitutional duty.

That's your perspective.

No matter how you see it, the fact that Trump wanted Giuliani and even Barr involved tells you he wasn't trying to hide anything. This ax will fall on the democrats a lot harder than it will on Trump. If anything, it will virtually ensure his reelection. Impeachment is going nowhere.

[DBowling]

Seems like the impeachment circus will begin shortly. I sincerely hope that the "rule of law" party takes the law seriously and does their constitutional duty.

Sigh...

Unfortunately the GOP is no longer the party of the "rule of law" and have become the party of Trump.
I have no doubt that the House will impeach Trump.
I am equally sure that the Senate will never convict Trump (not even if he shoots someone in the middle of Times Square)

If the GOP fails to purge their party of the cancer of Trump, then the GOP as a whole deserves to face the verdict of the jury of American voters in 2020.

[Philip]

How is anyone to know that this so-called and unidentified "whistleblower," without witnessing the events themself, passing along the equivalent of hearsay, A) knows the accuracy of what he or she passed along, and B) even whether such hearsay is true? Because, the individual relied on second-hand accounts, they simply have no idea! So people are willing to go beyond what can be factually known to assert an impeachable offense on such? Biased much???!!! And if the transcript is accurate, there certainly is no smoking gun worthy of an impeachable offense. And before this country's leadership goes down THAT road, it better make dang sure there is a very serious offense to do it over. Because it has the potential to tear this country even further apart.

The irony is, Biden tried to put the kibosh on the Ukrainian prosecutor to take the heat off of whatever money making scheme his son was involved with over there, and he did so while vice president - and bragged about it! Looks to me like the Democrats behind the scenes are trying for a "win-win" - get rid of Trump with the same attack that takes out Biden.

And what about what Democrats pressed the Ukraine on just this last May? Even the Washington Post questioned the double standard here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... han-trump/

"CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake."

[RickD]

DBowling wrote:
If the GOP fails to purge their party of the cancer of Trump, then the GOP as a whole deserves to face the verdict of the jury of American voters in 2020.

The cancer of Trump?

Seriously?

You can't think of anything positive that has happened since the Trump administration has begun?

[DBowling]

The irony is, Biden tried to put the kibosh on the Ukrainian prosecutor to take the heat off of whatever money making scheme his son was involved with over there, and he did so while vice president - and bragged about it!

You might want to fact check that one... and see what was really going on with Biden there.
That is another case of Trump just throwing nonsense out there as a smoke screen.

Kinda like Obama wasn't born in the US.
Or Cruz's father was with Oswald.

[DBowling]

DBowling wrote:
If the GOP fails to purge their party of the cancer of Trump, then the GOP as a whole deserves to face the verdict of the jury of American voters in 2020.

The cancer of Trump?

Seriously?

You can't think of anything positive that has happened since the Trump administration has begun?

Sure I can...
And you know I have, so I don't understand the purpose of that question.

Nixon did some good things too...
And so did Clinton...
But just because Nixon and Clinton did some good things that doesn't mean they shouldn't be held to account for their lawless criminal behavior.

And yes, I believe that Trump is a cancer that has already corrupted and could possibly destroy the GOP.

[Philip]

The prosecutor claimed in May that he was fired because he was actively investigating Burisma. Supposedly, the investigation was no longer active. But it does look strange that Joe Biden cared that deeply about internal politics of a country like the Ukraine, especially suspicious because his son served on the board. Hunter was getting over a half a million a year to serve on some board - why? Almost surely because these people were trying to buy U.S. influence. So, it's unclear why Joe got directly involved in issues surrounding this.

DID Joe brag about getting the guy fired? Did he use U.S. aid and his position to force internal politics in the Ukraine?

NPR reports (https://www.npr.org/2019/09/24/76350282 ... s-answered): "In March 2016, Biden made one of his many trips to Ukraine and told the country's leaders that they had to get rid of the prosecutor if they wanted $1 billion in U.S. aid. Biden told the story last year at the Council on Foreign Relations:

"I said, 'You're not getting the [$1 billion]. I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' Well, son of a b****. He got fired," Biden said.

[edwardmurphy]

That's your perspective.

No matter how you see it, the fact that Trump wanted Giuliani and even Barr involved tells you he wasn't trying to hide anything.

Did you read the document? It clearly states that the Administration took great pains to try to hide the details of that conversation. It provides details.

[DBowling]

The prosecutor claimed in May that he was fired because he was actively investigating Burisma. Supposedly, the investigation was no longer active. But it does look strange that Joe Biden cared that deeply about internal politics of a country like the Ukraine, especially suspicious because his son served on the board. Hunter was getting over a half a million a year to serve on some board - why? Almost surely because these people were trying to buy U.S. influence. So, it's unclear why Joe got directly involved in issues surrounding this.

DID Joe brag about getting the guy fired? Did he use U.S. aid and his position to force internal politics in the Ukraine?

NPR reports (https://www.npr.org/2019/09/24/76350282 ... s-answered): "In March 2016, Biden made one of his many trips to Ukraine and told the country's leaders that they had to get rid of the prosecutor if they wanted $1 billion in U.S. aid. Biden told the story last year at the Council on Foreign Relations:

"I said, 'You're not getting the [$1 billion]. I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' Well, son of a b****. He got fired," Biden said.

Here's the "rest of the story" that Trump and his misinformation machine is neglecting to mention...
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump ... d-ukraine/

[edwardmurphy]

Phil, did you read the rest of the article you quoted from?

Like this?

The question of a possible conflict of interest — with Hunter Biden profiting in a country where his father was actively working with the government — was raised publicly at the time.

Joe Biden said that he followed government ethics regulations and that his son was a private citizen who made his own decisions.

Also, the Obama administration actually supported investigations into corruption. This included looking into the gas company because the owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, was close to the ousted president and they had both fled the country before the Bidens became regular visitors.

Or this?

This is what Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, are suggesting. But they have not provided evidence of illegal actions. Multiple fact checks have called Trump's accusations of corruption by the Bidens misleading.

Or this?

They argue that Joe Biden wanted the prosecutor ousted to protect his son from being investigated. But there has been no evidence of wrongdoing, and Joe Biden was tasked as vice president with helping to weed out corruption in Ukraine.

The key figure in pushing the corruption narrative appears to be Giuliani. He has been in contact with Ukraine multiple times and urged officials there to look into the Bidens. The story has been percolating for the past few months. Giuliani has repeatedly tweeted about it and discussed it on TV.

There's no evidence that Biden or his son did anything wrong. Zip. Zilch. Zero. It's Uranium One all over again.

Trump, on the other hand...

[Philip]

Yes I read it! And it looks really bad - even if Trump's narrative is wrong or taking major liberties with it. This ain't good for Biden and son!

But as for the rest of it, we have no idea who fed the whistleblower his story - and more importantly - whether it's true or not. And given the incentive of those rabidly determined to take Trump down, NOTHING sinister calculated to do it would surprise me. I mean, just look at what they tried to do to Kavanaugh. And the fact that people are ceasing onto something unsubstantiated and running with it - it just shows me their bias. BTW, if others knew something, they didn't need to leak to a third party, because they could have anonymously given this up themselves, if they were so concerned. And now there will most certainly be an investigation and they'll be outed anyway. ALWAYS be skeptical of anonymous sources - and especially second-hand ones!

[DBowling]

Yes I read it! And it looks really bad - even if Trump's narrative is wrong or taking major liberties with it. This ain't good for Biden and son!

From a legal perspective, Biden and his son are ok because previous investigations show that Trump's accusations have no basis in fact.

From a political perspective, Trump's making stuff up and throwing it out there is having the desired effect.
Despite a total the lack of basis in fact, Trump has been able to smear Biden and his son, because a lot of people don't bother to take the time to check out the facts of what really happened and why it happened.

Trump has successfully used these kind of baseless smear tactics against his 'enemies' before, and they have worked. He realizes that Biden is currently his largest political threat, so now the target of his latest smear campaign is Biden.

But as for the rest of it, we have no idea who fed the whistleblower his story - and more importantly - whether it's true or not.

Actually even at this stage, we do have corroborating evidence for at least part of the whistleblower complaint.
The transcript of Trump's call with the Ukrainian President already corroborates part of the whistleblower complaint.

This corroboration of the whistleblower that we already have is very different from the Democrats uncorroborated smear campaign against Kavanaugh or Trumps uncorroborated smear campaign against Biden.

We will have to wait and see if the rest of the whistleblower complaint is as accurate as the part that has already been corroborated.

[Kurieuo]

[edwardmurphy]

That's your perspective.

Now that I have a minute I'd like to address this idea of perspective.

This part is my perspective:

So there's some corruption bordering on treason.

I sincerely hope that the "rule of law" party takes the law seriously and does their constitutional duty.

Seems like the impeachment circus will begin shortly.

This part is fact:

Kinda looks like the President tried to extort the Ukrainians into opening an investigation of the Biden family by threatening to withhold military aid at a time when Ukraine (supposedly an ally) is under severe military pressure from Russia (supposedly a hostile power).

Here's a copy of the whistleblower's letter.

That's on top of Trump's denials that the Russians interfered in our election (a position in direct opposition to that of the entire US intelligence apparatus), his multiple, illegal obstructive acts aimed at derailing the investigation, his constant, flagrant violation of the emoluments clause, among other things.

The whistleblower's complaint isn't just some guy talking. The complaint was made to the IG, who reviewed it and found it to have merit. It was based on a call that Trump made, which the whistleblower and others listened to. Trump's people were sufficiently concerned about that call that they went to great lengths to hide the transcript and keep Congress from getting the full version. Beyond that, there's a huge pile of circumstantial evidence outlined in the letter. Sources are cited. It's there to be seen and, if you so choose, fact checked.

The Biden story, by comparison, truly is just some guy talking. Rudy Giuliani took a couple of facts, pulled them out of context, and invented this scandal. It's precisely the same thing as Uranium One - thoroughly debunked fake news that some people are hanging on to for partisan political reasons.

Regarding obstruction of justice, let's look at the facts:

1) Bill Clinton was impeached by House Republicans - some of whom are still in office - for obstruction of justice. Therefore obstruction of justice is something that the GOP believes to be an impeachable offense. That's a fact.

2) The Russians interfered in the 2016 election in support of Donald Trump. That's a fact.

3) Donald Trump insisted, throughout the entire investigation, that there was no Russian interference, and by doing so he went against all of his own intelligence agencies. That's a fact.

4) Donald Trump tried to interfere with and undermine the Mueller Investigation from the very beginning to the very end. Again, this is fact. He did it in plain sight, completely unapologetically.

5) Mueller laid out 10 instances that, in his opinion as the former Director of the FBI, look like obstruction of justice, but he held back from seeking prosecution because he was bound by a DoJ rule that a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime by the DoJ, only impeached by Congress. I read the law and I read the report, and I agree that it's obstruction. Obviously I'm not a lawyer, so my opinion on this matter doesn't mean a whole lot, but I also read this letter, signed by more than 700 former federal prosecutors. They are lawyers, and their opinion holds some weight. And they're not all Democrats, either. Many of the signatories served under Republican administrations. Their expert opinion, based on years of legal training and prosecutorial experience, is that Barr mischaracterized Mueller's findings on obstruction, Trump obstructed justice on multiple occasions, and impeachment is warranted. So again, fact. Trump's behavior meets the legal definition of obstruction, period.

This is incredibly frustrating. These are well documented facts, but the American right (and some oddly invested foreigners) is largely responding by pretending that they're not. The hypocrisy is stunning to me. The bar for claims by Republicans is so low that Rudy Giuliani can clear it by simply asserting that Biden is crooked, and his claim holds up even after it's been completely discredited. Meanwhile, the bar for claims from anyone who thinks that Trump is violating the ethics, laws, and norms of his office is so high that the findings of the Mueller Report - a Republican led investigation - mean nothing, even backed by the expert opinions of 700+ federal prosecutors.

I can see pushing back against criticism of Trump's communication style, or ignoring his infidelity, or agreeing with his decision to dismantle the Federal regulatory apparatus. I think it all sucks, but we can agree to disagree. But denying Russian election interference? Or the obstruction of the investigation into said interference? Those are well established facts. If you want to dispute them you're stuck either pretending that reality isn't real or declaring that the President can do whatever he wants, your Party comes before the Constitution, and the United States is only a nation of laws when it's convenient for your side. Either way, what... the... [love]...?