I don't know about you, but the wagon wheels on this impeachment iniative are starting to come off. The recent challenge by Trump for Pelosi to bring the impeachment inquiry to a house vote is a win-win move. If it comes to a vote and they decide not to impeach, then we go back to waiting for the Barr and Durham report to come out with their damning information. By the way, this whole impeachment inquiry thing is a distraction to the real investigation on real corruption being undertaken by Barr and Durham. It's a smoke screen to divert from the truth. If they vote to impeach, then it goes to the Republican controlled Senate where they have the power to subpoena all the players both Democrats and Republicans in their investigation. Everything gets exposed. They can bring the whistleblower, Schiff, Comey, Brennan, Obama, Biden, and others to be questioned and televised for all the world to see. Right now the Democrats are subpeoning only the people that support their political motives. The Democrats don't want exposure. If they don't bring it to a house vote, then we go back to arguing over statutes where the president and his team have the right to refuse to hand over documents. It's a set up to draw out all the wolves and entrap them. What do you think? Get your popcorn out. It will get interesting.
Donald Trump asked a foreign leader to specifically investigate the son of a political rival, whom who named, a year before a general election. That's the equivalent of Obama asking a foreign leader to investigate Mitt Romney's son a year before the 2012 general election. That would have been an abuse of authority, and so is this. It warrants an impeachment inquiry, and that is exactly what is happening.
"It's a smoke screen to divert from the truth."
If it's all made up, then six high-level officials are lying as well as an inspector general who interviewed them and testified under oath to Congress.
It's becoming more clear every day that enough Senate Republicans will vote guilty.
Not really. The Senate Republicans will bring everyone to testify. We will eventually find that the Obama administration committed high crimes and misdemeanors by using our intel agencies to bring down the Trump campaign. They will also find numerous pay to play crimes committed by key Democratic leaders and their friends. The whole thing stinks. The Democrats are very scared at this time. It's a set up.
Asking Pelosi to bring the impeachment to a vote would allow McConnell to fast-track a trial before all the evidence is gathered. Did you happen to miss the Kavanaugh kangaroo court proceedings?
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what presidents do? They can ask other presidents to look into corruption. The transcript proves there was no coercion. The president of Ukraine says he was not coerced. The Democrats have no case. They have been set up. The real crimes and criminals will be exposed.
With all due respect, U.S. Presidents do not ask foreign leaders to dig up dirt on political rivals in the middle of an election cycle. It violates U.S. election laws.
The transcript does not prove there was no coercion. The transcript released to the public is both incomplete and doctored.
"Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what presidents do? They can ask other presidents to look into corruption."
Trump didn't ask President Zelensky to investigate corruption. He specifically asked him to investigate Biden and/ or Biden's son:
"The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great".
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u … 9.2019.pdf
if that's not the case, then please point out where in the entire conversation the word "corruption" is used, even once.
Using the office of the President of the United States to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival, and/ or his son, a year before a general election, is an abuse of authority, and warrants an impeachment inquiry.
It's missing one key ingredient. There is no mention of withholding military aid. We can read into the situation as much as we want, but there is no crime here. However, there is a lot of suspicious activity between Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and the Ukrainian oil company. That's worth investigating.
Impeachment does not require a crime to have taken place. The quid is enough, the quo pro isn't necessary.
Irrespective of that, there is enough information to reasonably conclude there was a quid pro quo. So it would be more accurate to say Congress has not found more evidence of quid pro quo (yet). It's right for Congress to try to find all the relevant evidence. That is what an impeachment inquiry is for.
Now, how many times did the word "corruption" appear in the partial transcript of his conversation with President Zelensky? If, as you say, he just wanted to address corruption in Ukraine, he must have mentioned it a few times. Exactly how many?
There is also circumstantial evidence, which is common in a court of law.
The fact that Trump ordered Ukraine aid halted right before the call is credible circumstantial evidence.
You're right, I would be just as happy changing that sentence to "...there is enough circumstantial evidence to reasonably conclude there was a quid pro quo" because there is.
We will see how this all plays out. I believe the Dems have stepped into a big bear trap and will pay the price for their duplicity and deception.
The name Biden in this situation is synonymous with corruption; therefore, he did ask Zerensky about corruption. He, Biden, even boasted about withholding billions in aid if they didn't fire the prosecutor looking into the company Hunter worked for. If anyone used their political position to gain favors, this dude abused it to the hilt.
"He, Biden, even boasted about withholding billions in aid if they didn't fire the prosecutor looking into the company Hunter worked for."
Biden boasted about getting rid of a prosecutor that Democrats, the US, France, Germany and even some Republicans all believed was soft on corruption, because he wanted a prosecutor who would do more to fight corruption in Ukraine not less.
In contrast, Trump has asked a foreign leader to investigate a political rival, and/or his son, with no other mention of corruption in the entire conversation, and no evidence of any wrongdoing, a year before a general election. That is an abuse of authority and deserves to be investigated which, I'm glad to say, it is.
The president of Ukraine denied on TV that he was coerced. The case is closed. You don't impeach on weak circumstantial evidence. Moreover, Pelosi, Biden, and even Romney all have economic ties into Ukraine. This is going to get bigger than we can even imagine. Again, get your popcorn. It's going to get very interesting.
The case will remain open or be closed when the House decides to proceed with impeachment articles or not.
And you impeach on whatever the House decides is impeachable.
Trump asking a foreign leader to investigate a political rival and/ or his son, with no evidence of wrongdoing, and no mention of corruption, a year before a general election, is an abuse of authority and warrants further investigation. That is what the House is doing via the current impeachment inquiry.
Having economic ties to another country does not equate to corruption. If it does, then Donald Trump and his entire family are in trouble.
What we have been witness to this past decade, is that "the law" applies however to who-ever, based on who is in control of its application.
We saw Comey clear Clinton of any legal repercussions for her various crimes, despite it not exactly being in his purview or beholden of his position to do so.
And we were witness to a Russian Conspiracy investigation based on false accusations and fabricated evidence brought on by the people in position to do so (FBI, CIA, DOJ, etc.).
It should be clear from these two examples alone that our "justice system" is now little more than an apparatus of the political machinations and corruption rampant in D.C.
Fifty-seven percent of respondents in a new poll said they support a Justice Department probe into former Vice President Joe Biden’s and son Hunter Biden’s dealings in Ukraine and China. While only 37 percent said they were against investigating the two, this according to a poll by Investor’s Business Daily/TIPP that was published on Oct. 4.
The poll also showed that among Democrats the Ukraine issue has 8 percent more likely to vote for Biden while 23 percent said they were more likely to vote against him.
I would say in today's America there is no black and white when it comes to facts, law, or legal implications. Its about who is in power, and who controls those in power, and how they want to implement the law.
At the end of the day, all this is going to make Trump more popular with the general population, not less. I have been warning of this all along, it will prove itself out in the 2020 election.
Democrats will be swept out of power in 2020, unless we are under a major recession at that time. its a certainty because of their own stupidity.
Do you think the fact that the Ukrainian president has only been in office since May 2019 is a consideration? He spoke of the Biden and American situation during his running for office. His platform was on ending corruption in the Ukraine. So, does it stand to reason he would want to investigate the "Biden and American" situation?"
No it doesn't, Mike. There was clearly pressure put on the Ukraine president to investigate Biden. This is why the WH blocked Sondland from testifying this morning. Too much for Trump to lose for him to be allowed to tell the truth...
I think the Ukrainians voted in a Comedian with no political experience for the same reasons Americans voted in a Reality TV Billionaire with no political experience...
The people are tired of the corruption which they can clearly see, they are tired of being lied to while those in political power make themselves filthy rich at the expense of the very people they are supposed to be governing on behalf of.
I think the Media & Politicians doubling down on the lies and corruption, and trying to dispose of Trump any way possible will in fact get him, re-elected.
They cannot see this, because they are essentially within their own echo-chamber that is reinforced by what they see on the news, and on major college campuses.
But that is not the "Middle Class" or the 'Working Class" ... the 90 or so million people that work every day, that disregard the media, that ignore the daily political drama will ultimately decide the coming election.
What will matter to them is what is going on with their wallet, their jobs, and their kids.
The majority of Americans voted for Trump's rival, Ken. Many of us knew Trump was a crook long before he ran for POTUS. You guys apparently had no clue as to how corrupt he was and is. So why is Trump fighting releasing his taxes so forcefully if he's on the up and up? Inquiring minds and all that...
You are right that the president of the Ukraine is a former actor in a comedy sitcom. I find it interesting that he played the role of the president of the Ukraine in the show. He has no political experience. It's very similar to here. He is doing things the life long politicians hate and are challenging him every step of the way. My relatives over there really like him.
No point in arguing. Might as well wait until it all plays out. The lines are drawn, the trenches are deep. No one cares what anyone thinks, if that thinker disagrees with them.
Washington is corrupt, to the core. My opinion is those who lament Trump's behavior, without blasting across the board corruption, don't have a point I would waste time listening to. They are biased to a fault.
Not one of them has any problem with the spying on Trump when he was a candidate, but a phone call with no clear evidence of quid pro quo and they scream impeach.
Joe Biden never had a chance to last long enough to win the nomination. If he was corrupt it needs to be brought to light.
Two things I greatly disagree with here. One - that the US spied on Trump. A FISA warrant was re-granted on Carter Page with two weeks left in the election, a full month after he left the Trump campaign because it became public that he went to Russia while working for the Trump campaign and met with high level officials. Those meetings happened after the Russians had hacked the DNC. Protecting America's elections is not spying and Page, who had previously been recruited as a foreign agent by Russia, had been previously under FISA surveillance for that recruitment. Add to the fact that the Federal District Court judges that signed off on the wiretapping of Mr. Page were: Judges Rosemary Collyer, Michael Mosman, Anne C. Conway and Raymond J. Dearie. All were appointed by Republican presidents. Lastly, the fact that he was no longer with the campaign and yet you equate that to Trump is a reach, at best.
Second, Biden and other leaders from around the world pressured Ukraine to oust Shokun for NOT investigating more corruption. If Biden was working on behalf of his son's company, he would have lobbied to keep Shokun in his post. And second, the corruption accusation was for incidents that happened to Burisma before Biden's son even joined the company, so pinning that on him doesn't add up in terms of timelines.
Third, the decision to oust Shokun was supported in 2016 by multiple Senators (Kirk-R, Portman-R, Johnson-R) from both parties.
So the logic of the pretense for an investigation is completely false. Investigating someone for wanting more accountability in terms of corruption?
If what you have stated were factual I could see your point. Clearly.
The FISA warrant date was released after Nunes' half-truths were released. The Democratic rebuttal had the time frame laid out. (https://www.vox.com/world/2018/2/24/170 … chiff-memo)
As for the letter supporting the US policy on removing Shokun, a simple search using 'letter on shokun ukraine' will yield any number of sources for the bipartisan support for withholding money until Shokun was removed.
I think what the primary differences are is that you have a basic trust that our government works in good faith, so you are more inclined to believe things. I am not, because I have a basic distrust in the government and believe most politicians work for partisan or personal interests.
I'll wait for the investigation into the investigation to be completed and released.
You can certainly say there was bipartisan support for the efforts to drive Shokun out but you cannot explain away the appearance of wrongdoing when you look at how Hunter benefited monetarily from the chain of events.
I'm sorry, but until I am given clear facts and information, I still think those defending the left appear to be highly hypocritical.
So, although I am certainly open to changing my mind with new information; to me the water is too muddy still. And all I see is the democrats in the House mucking around, diligently attempting to ensure the waters never clear. I'd venture to say that is because they are all as dirty, or dirtier, than Trump.
The current government? Nope, I have zero faith that the DOJ and cabinets are working in good faith. I do trust the intelligence services, for the most part, as they are stocked with people who typically put aside their partisan beliefs for the good of the country. A great example was when Haspel went against the things Trump was selling to confirm MBS was clearly responsible for Kashoogi's death.
Biden's son making money off his father's name is quite a different issue than Biden using his office to influence a foreign government.
Since when do Trump supporters believe in clear facts? The truth isn't the truth, alternative facts, and a recent study that found that only 40% of Trump supporters believe he asked Ukraine to investigate Biden, even though the memo that was released quotes Trump as having done just that. So 60% of Trump supporters, when faced with material presented from their own sources, still deny the truth of them.
That's where we stand currently.
Comey made clear his personal interests superseded his responsibility and duty. Peter Strok also.
I'll be honest. Hillary on the campaign trail, well before any of this came to light, was (to me) bizarrely talking about Russia. I remember thinking it was so odd. Too many observations made along the way have led me to mistrust the official explanations.
I'm the type of person who has never just said 'OK, if you say so'. If circumstances do not match up to actions and words uttered, I won't accept your (or anyone's) word for it. I need proof. A lot of times, bs is offered as proof. But if things don't line up I doggedly remain unconvinced until I find the truth. We don't have it. The government the way it has been for many years leads me to believe we may never have it.
But, I do know for a fact that the left has been calling for impeachment before the President took office. That, in and of itself, raises the bar for them to prove an impeachable offense; since their motives are suspect.
Inspector General's report confirmed that Strzok took no actions that could be seen as biased. All the right has is his personal disdain for Trump. No matter how hard they tried, they could not point to any action in his official capacity that showed the slightest bias. Again, completely disagree with you using that as an example. As for Comey, if anything, his actions hurt Clinton by re-opening the investigation publicly, against department policy, a few weeks before the election.
Speaking of motives, the person elected from the right, when backed by a hostile foreign government, has never had his questioned by his followers. On top of that, it is clear that he broke multiple campaign finance laws to get elected. When a president breaks laws, especially to earn election, some people, who don't blindly follow his lies, believe he should be impeached.
Right. I'm afraid I'll wait for the final investigation to end.
The bottom line is, the bar you are using to make your arguments is not the same bar you are using when judging Trump. The same bar used for Trump would change your argument, entirely.
Your version of the facts don't come close to matching what others have uncovered:
Glenn Beck is your go-to guy on Ukraine? This explains a lot.
Time described Beck as "a gifted storyteller with a knack for stitching seemingly unrelated data points into possible conspiracies", proclaiming that he has "emerged as a virtuoso on the strings" of conservative discontent by mining "the timeless theme of the corrupt Them thwarting a virtuous Us".
That was an interesting video Ken. Now, all we have to do is decide who's version of events/facts to believe; The Left's MSM version, or the Right's Glen Beck version. Hmm . . .
Even considering the spin, Beck's version is thought-provoking.
Interestingly, both versions seem to support the idea that Hunter Biden didn't really do anything more wrong than be on Burisma's board.
This is true, this is the sad state of affairs in our Nation, where we can't trust our own "news media", and we know what information can be found through the internet is becoming increasingly censored as well.
The thing about Beck, which is not clear in his presentation, is that he bases his presentations off of official statements, reports, events that can be researched and proven... each matter can be researched if the viewer so desires.
While Hunter Biden doesn't get implicated, the company whose board he sat on, helped make Billions in U.S. fund go unaccounted for.
I don't think that is what Beck was aiming at however, he was aiming at showing how deep the ties went from the Obama Admin and the DNC into the corruption in the Ukraine, and how it ties into the investigation that began into Trump.
Beck never noted that the initial revolt/overthrow of the Ukraine government that installed the very sympathetic pro-American admin was fostered by the CIA and efforts by SoS Clinton.
And that it wasn't until that government was removed, that Trump made the call to the new president who had no loyalties or connections to the previous (Obama) Administration.
https://off-guardian.org/2017/03/24/wha … raine-did/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/emai … nian-donor
Taking publicly available information and putting an anti-Democratic spin on it is not difficult. What's more interesting to me is the fact that Beck strangely "forgot" to mention the following facts:
1. Part of the reason Viktor Shokin was removed from the role of General Prosecutor was because he was bad at it, as reported by Daria Kaleniuk who founded Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Action Center:
"'Shokin was fired,' Kaleniuk observed, 'because he failed to do investigations of corruption and economic crimes of President Yanukovych and his close associates, including [overseer of all Ukrainian energy firms] Zlochevsky, and basically it was the big demand within society in Ukraine, including our organization and many other organizations, to get rid of this guy...By getting Shokin removed, Biden in fact made it more rather than less likely that the oligarch who employed his son would be subject to prosecution for corruption.."
https://theintercept.com/2019/05/10/rum … rmer-says/
2. Ousting Shokin was an international effort: "The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite. He was one of several political figures in Kiev whom reformers and Western diplomats saw as a worrying indicator of a return to past corrupt practices, two years after a revolution that was supposed to put a stop to self-dealing by those in power".
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/worl … cutor.html
3. The Deputy General Prosecutor of Ukraine resigned in 2016 because he said the office was a "hotbed of corruption". Who was the General Prosecutor at that time? Viktor Shokin, the man who was fired thanks, in part, to Biden.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ukrai … KKCN0VO1J8
Now obviously I don't have a sexy blackboard with photos so I'm clearly not a real investor like Beck , but I do have a functioning brain which can deduce the reason Beck did not include any of this information is because it undermines the narrative he is pushing, which also happens to be the same narrative Trump is pushing, which also happens to be the narrative you have chosen to push, for reasons known only to you.
Actually Beck did touch on some of that information.
I guess you missed the part where he discussed the formation of the Anti-Corruption Action Center and how it was tied to the Obama Admin and the DNC.
So, I have to wonder why you want to ignore all this information, and why you are pushing the narrative you have chosen to push.
Just like I have to wonder why the Obama Administration decided to topple Libya, Syria and Ukraine, and all but start an international war with Russia.
If there were some national economical necessity for it, or we were trying to divert from WWIII (which Obama's actions only increased the chances of) I might understand.
But while we were toppling Russia's remaining old USSR allies (Libya, Syria, Ukraine), we were allowing China to grow unchecked to become a superior economic, industrial, and technological powerhouse.
So he touched on the information. Correction, touched on some of the information. Oh well, that makes his anti-Democratic screed perfectly objective then. Come on Ken, the video was a regurgitation of publicly available information spun to support a narrative. It could easily be spun the other way. So it's basically useless.
Obama? There you go again with irrelevant whataboutisms Ken. The relevant points are that Viktor Shokin was a terrible General Prosecutor and wasn't doing his job properly. Even his own deputy said his office was a "hotbed of corruption" (I missed the part in Beck's monolog where he mentioned that, perhaps you can point it out for me). So the US and various European countries wanted him gone. Biden got the job done. Trump, Beck (and you apparently) want to push the narrative that Biden got the prosecutor fired to hide corruption, when publicly available evidence (that isn't spun by a partisan hack) indicates the opposite is true and that the US and Europe wanted Shokin gone so that more would be done about corruption. That's the reality Ken.
by ptosis 2 weeks ago
Putin denied interfering in the 2016 president election and Trump accepted his denial. Putin said, “I got the impression that my answers satisfied him.”Trump took the word of the Russian autocrat over the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security...
by Credence2 3 years ago
Background articlehttps://news.yahoo.com/trump-admits-ask … 51988.htmlYour thoughts?
by peter565 6 years ago
With more circumstantial evidence favour election fraud, is Hilary possibly the real President elect
by Sharlee 3 years ago
Today Adam Schiff stood before our Senate and told a long ongoing story. A story that he could not prove. Yet he was allowed to go on and on telling his story. Schiff used all the drama he could muster. He even had the audacity to provide videos of witnesses that testified in the House...
by Readmikenow 18 months ago
I have been confused as to exactly how to handle a Biden presidency. I consider him a babbling old fool who got rich selling out the United States and his vice president as a female who is a socialist/communist and had to sleep her way into a career. My opinion of both is extremely...
by Sharlee 3 years ago
Would the current Senate vote to Impeach President Trump? I would like to hear your thoughts, please share.
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|