if it was a real story republicans would have investigated this when they controlled both houses of congress and guiliani was trying to make it a thing

this isn't a new story, we know about this story at the time

examples:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/05/14/hunter-bidens-new-job-at-a-ukrainian-gas-company-is-a-problem-for-u-s-soft-power/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biden-son-ukraine/white-house-says-no-issue-with-bidens-son-ukraine-gas-company-idUSBREA4C0YU20140514

ukraine anti-corruption stuff started in the end of 2014, we started pushing back against corruption in 2015 and into 2016

republicans controlled both houses of congress, they showed no objections to baseless investigations and could have easily investigated biden if they thought there was even a little bit of a story. the fact that they didn't tells you everything you need to know.

nepotism isn't a crime, boards of companies all over the world are made up of unqualified people picked for their connections or reputation

[Edited on November 22, 2019 at 12:08 PM. Reason : .]

11/22/2019 11:49:50 AM

^

11/22/2019 12:38:05 PM

Quote :

" nepotism isn't a crime, boards of companies all over the world are made up of unqualified people picked for their connections or reputation"

I’ve made this point to Earl multiple times on here. He’s a nihilist who would prefer Trump over everyone but Bernie (and I’m skeptical even then tbh). He has no desire for anything but “burn it all to the ground.”

11/22/2019 12:48:30 PM

You also can't just start investigating people as a fishing expedition, there has to be some clear indication of wrongdoing, which there is not in the Hunter Biden case. Also people keep talking about Hunter like he's a child, he's a grown ass man with a long career in law...

GOP appointed mueller, whistleblower complain went through several layers of review before being taken seriously. The Hunter Biden thing is a baseless political smear.

11/22/2019 1:02:02 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-admits-to-ukraine-military-aid-quid-pro-quo-tv-2019-11

11/22/2019 3:02:25 PM

https://twitter.com/vickypjward/status/1198060634690248707?s=21

This would be something dumbass Nunes does but also it’s from one of Rudy’s indicted pals who wants immunity so huge grain of salt.

Still,

11/22/2019 9:43:44 PM

he provided some recordings too

11/25/2019 12:57:35 PM

Court rules mcgahn has to testify, probably on to appeal

Also ruled that communication about delay has to be turned over

11/25/2019 5:59:44 PM

Good shit.

11/25/2019 6:17:29 PM

Quote :

"This is complete lie. Almost every story I’ve seen the entire time has explicitly stated that no votes were changed. In fact, they’ve also stated that they couldn’t conclude if any voters minds were even changed due to the hacked emails or any disinformation..."

They don't go that far into it most of the times. Usually, when Russia comes up, they will say, "Russia, who by the way hacked our election" or "threatened our democracy". Use of the words election in place of campaign and democracy in place of process are what create the need to say "no votes were changed" in the first place.

Quote :

"" nepotism isn't a crime, boards of companies all over the world are made up of unqualified people picked for their connections or reputation""

Its not a crime but the people don't like it. Thats how democrats know exposing it would cost Biden which is why they were so butthurt about it in the first place. Which is why this whole impeachment thing started...Good public officials have nothing to worry about during an alleged fake investigation. Investigate me or take my emails and you will just find out that I've been doing my job really well.

Quote :

"He’s a nihilist who would prefer Trump over everyone but Bernie (and I’m skeptical even then tbh). He has no desire for anything but “burn it all to the ground.” "

Nihilists aren't passionate about causes. You can't call someone a purist and a nihilist at the same time. Nihilists don't point to specific countries or candidates that do things the "right way". It'd be easier to make the argument that centrists and moderates are more like nihilists. I want to burn this trash down to the ground precisely because I have a specific way I believe things could be run well.

You are skeptical I would support Bernie because you literally conflate supporting a candidate with blindly following everything they say and agreeing with them 100% of the time. It all stems from me saying I will not listen to Bernie after he loses and becomes a sheepdog for the DNC. The thing about independent thinkers, is that we don't just blindly follow someone because of their policies, name, or party. Its nearly impossible for two independent thinkers to agree 100% of the time. Not even twins have the same experiences and perspectives.

Quote :

"You also can't just start investigating people as a fishing expedition, there has to be some clear indication of wrongdoing,"

oh the irony...

11/26/2019 2:21:19 AM

ok

11/26/2019 8:44:09 AM

so busy day yesterday, it was really easy to miss something. kevin kruse had a good recap:

https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1199104035225247744

Quote :

"Just today: … federal subpoenas were issued in inquiry into Giuliani's consulting firm … one judge ruled that the White House Counsel has to testify before Congress … another judge ordered the release of administration documents on the stalled Ukraine aid That's just today. Oh, also today: … the lawyer for Giuliani's associate Lev Parnas says he's ready to testify under oath about Devin Nunes' plans to go to Ukraine, which were cancelled when he realized that Adam Schiff would find out about it And also today: … the Defense Secretary admitted he fired the Secretary of the Navy on the president's orders, and the fired Secretary of the Navy then did an interview in which he said the president's pardons of those convicted of war crimes shows contempt for the "rule of law" I missed this one, but also today: ... the Manhattan DA has interviewed National Enquirer’s David Pecker about the Trump Organization’s ties to hush money payments. Mondays, huh?"

11/26/2019 8:49:50 AM

50 vs 43% of Americans want Trump impeached and removed
60% of women want him gone

Highest numbers pro-impeachment for any President

This is not going to turn out well for the GOP in the medium term if they stick by Trump. They're basically letting uneducated white men harass everyone else... which I guess is sort of the story of the country, but still.

11/26/2019 11:57:44 AM

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-26/trump-denies-sending-rudy-giuliani-to-ukraine-for-biden-probe

Trump has the bus in gear and Giuliani in the headlights

11/26/2019 8:59:17 PM

Guiliani says he has insurance in case trump turned on him

Which, btw, can you imagine a real attorney saying that?

11/26/2019 9:13:47 PM

Yeah it’s wild the presidents personal lawyer went on tv twice to say he basically has evidence of crimes the president committed but he’s keeping quiet unless the president reveals evidence of crimes his lawyer committed.


This isn’t event a 3rd rate scandal nowadays. It’s incredible.

11/26/2019 10:27:17 PM

Well, at least the republicans can at least agree now that the president withholding vital foreign aid for his own personal political agenda is a very serious crime.

11/27/2019 12:20:31 AM

horosho pwnt


[Edited on November 27, 2019 at 2:06 AM. Reason : horosho defeated, falls to 274-3]

[Edited on November 27, 2019 at 2:06 AM. Reason : but you know it hasn't moved republicans]

11/27/2019 1:37:53 AM

^It might help if you trying looking at this week's polls instead of last week's, bro. LOL!

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/public_approval_of_the_impeachment_inquiry_of_president_trump-6956.html

11/27/2019 2:01:49 AM

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191203_-_full_report___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf

Quote :

"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States, uncovered a months-long effort by President Trump to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election. As described in this executive summary and the report that follows, President Trump’s scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential reelection campaign. The President demanded that the newlyelected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, publicly announce investigations into a political rival that he apparently feared the most, former Vice President Joe Biden, and into a discredited theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 presidential election. To compel the Ukrainian President to do his political bidding, President Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcement of the investigations: a coveted White House visit and critical U.S. military assistance Ukraine needed to fight its Russian adversary. During a July 25, 2019, call between President Trump and President Zelensky, President Zelensky expressed gratitude for U.S. military assistance. President Trump immediately responded by asking President Zelensky to “do us a favor though” and openly pressed for Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden and the 2016 conspiracy theory. In turn, President Zelensky assured President Trump that he would pursue the investigation and reiterated his interest in the White House meeting. Although President Trump’s scheme intentionally bypassed many career personnel, it was undertaken with the knowledge and approval of senior Administration officials, including the President’s Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry. In fact, at a press conference weeks after public revelations about the scheme, Mr. Mulvaney publicly acknowledged that the President directly tied the hold on military aid to his desire to get Ukraine to conduct a political investigation, telling Americans to “get over it.” President Trump and his senior officials may see nothing wrong with using the power of the Office of the President to pressure a foreign country to help the President’s reelection campaign. Indeed, President Trump continues to encourage Ukraine and other foreign countries to engage in the same kind of election interference today. However, the Founding Fathers prescribed a remedy for a chief executive who places his personal interests above those of the country: impeachment. Accordingly, as part of the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in coordination with the Committees on Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs, were compelled to undertake a serious, sober, and expeditious investigation into whether the President’s misconduct warrants that remedy. In response, President Trump engaged in an unprecedented campaign of obstruction of this impeachment inquiry. Nevertheless, due in large measure to patriotic and courageous public servants who provided the Committees with direct evidence of the President’s actions, the Committees uncovered significant misconduct on the part of the President of the United States. As required under House Resolution 660, the Intelligence Committee, in consultation with the Committees on Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs, has prepared this report to detail the evidence uncovered to date, which will now be transmitted to the Judiciary Committee for its consideration."

[Edited on December 3, 2019 at 2:54 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2019 2:52:39 PM

Gonna wait for the Bill Barr summary before drawing any conclusions, tbh.

And then I’ll wait for the our resident media critic to call out John Solomon, the Hill and Fox News for laundering Rudy et al’s propoganda.

12/3/2019 2:57:52 PM

banjoman and horosho can tell us that none of this is evidence and none of this is illegal without and and it's not even impeachable if dems say something to the press

12/3/2019 3:31:41 PM

Parnas' attorney is going after Nunes now

12/3/2019 4:41:37 PM

I’m not a lawyer but is there any chance the public feud between parnas and nunes is a red herring?

I don’t see how that helps parnas

12/4/2019 12:07:43 AM

Parnas is fishing for a deal.

12/4/2019 1:43:55 AM

it's evidence for sure. The scheme is laid out right there in front of us with tons of corroborating testimony.

The problem is that there is still no direct email, or link, connecting this directly to trump holding back aid to open an investigation on biden.

He is a very powerful person, and you are gonna need a smoking gun to actually get him out of office. And at the end of the day, his transcript with the president is still prolly the most damning piece of evidence.

12/4/2019 2:08:30 AM

It’s amazing that so many people in this country are convicted of crimes, despite NOT being video/audio recorded in the process of their misdeeds. It’s almost as if other types of evidence exist that don’t rely on everyone being physically present when the crime is taking place...

12/4/2019 2:21:33 AM

Yes. The justice system is a joke that convicts poor people and people of color for crimes without sufficient evidence all the time. Thanks for highlighting the systemic injustice embedded into the fabric of our country.

12/4/2019 2:52:30 AM

^ mostly true

Thing is, though, that impeachment is not a criminal trial and the senate trial does not need to reach a beyond reasonable doubt standard. The only question that needs to be answered in the affirmative is “did POTUS use the power of his office to obstruct and for personal gain.” That is, across many fronts and not only Ukraine, a resounding yes.

And no, it doesn’t matter because the GOP is a complete cult and no amount of smoking gun evidence would ever result in a conviction and removal.

12/4/2019 7:25:59 AM

the facts aren't in question, even republicans don't disagree with the fact findings of the inquiry and they offered no fact witnesses to contradict anything. the republican strategy has simply been to try to obstruct and obfuscate the facts.

Quote :

" The evidence of the President’s misconduct is overwhelming, and so too is the evidence of his obstruction of Congress. Indeed, it would be hard to imagine a stronger or more complete case of obstruction than that demonstrated by the President since the inquiry began. "

Quote :

"In response, President Trump engaged in an unprecedented campaign of obstruction of this impeachment inquiry. "

12/4/2019 9:16:50 AM

Process arguments for days.

It’s so patently obvious that no one except the deepest of GOP hacks want anything to do with defending Trump so it’s all process all the time.

Until Gaetz and Gohmert throw down.

12/4/2019 10:36:40 AM

Quote :

"And no, it doesn’t matter because the GOP is a complete cult and no amount of smoking gun evidence would ever result in a conviction and removal."

This is mostly true, but had giulani and pompeo testified and released phone records and text messages indicating Trump negotiating the quid pro quo, then he would have more than likely resigned.

The one thing that the hearings accomplished, aside from establishing a rather clear timeline of events, is the confirmation from both sides of the aisle that withholding foreign aid to pressure a foreign state into investigating a us citizen would be a very serious crime.

12/4/2019 11:37:14 AM

republicans actually made the argument that it's not a crime and it's normal and okay

12/4/2019 11:41:36 AM

Quote :

"“did POTUS use the power of his office to obstruct and for personal gain."

You have a lot of problems providing evidence that the intent was for personal gain. Mostly because you are defining political gain in a very subjective, political way but the circumstances don't really add up. Lets assume Trump accomplished his goal of committing this crime and we accept the baseless calim that he did it to win the election in 2020 AND we accept that as "personal gain". Assuming you summit that mountain of assumptions. How would that have played out?

Scenario 1: Biden is investigated, aid is delivered

1a- investigation does not damage Biden candidacy:
How does this benefit Trump? How would you provide evidence that Trump assumed this would help him beat Biden?



1b- investigation damages Biden candidacy: Well its October 2019. Biden is no longer in the primary. Sanders, Warren or Buttigeig become the nominee. Is it really plausible that massive amounts of voters say "Joe Biden is a dirty sob so theres no way I can vote for (dem nominee)?

Its not really logical. No reasonable gain can be assumed there.


The timing is off for Scenario one to be assumed a clear benefit to Trump. If it were in Fall 2020, it'd be valid, but this is too early to support that claim. The timing doesn't make sense. It would've given the dems way out.

Scenario 2: Biden is not investigated, aid is not delivered

Don't really see how there is personal gain here either. Unless you can show how Trump was going to pocket the money or planning to get a kickback from Russia, theres no case here.

Keep in mind that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. We have to assume Trump is NOT acting for personal gain unless we have overwhelming evidence suggesting such. Thats not me liking Trump, its just how modern criminal trials are supposed to work.

12/4/2019 1:34:00 PM

yOu hAvE A LoT oF pRoBlEmS

12/4/2019 1:36:19 PM

trump didnt want an investigation, he wanted an announcement of an investigation.

12/4/2019 1:37:56 PM

on CNN

12/4/2019 1:41:45 PM

Yeah, I’m not responding to that. Irrespective of believing Trump did or did not require an announcement of an investigation in to Biden are we seriously arguing that any investigation would not be politically beneficial to Trumps re-election chances? This is crazy town. Of course it would serve Trump personally with no NatSec benefit.

12/4/2019 2:21:36 PM

Quote :

"1b- investigation damages Biden candidacy: Well its October 2019. Biden is no longer in the primary. Sanders, Warren or Buttigeig become the nominee. Is it really plausible that massive amounts of voters say "Joe Biden is a dirty sob so theres no way I can vote for (dem nominee)? Its not really logical. No reasonable gain can be assumed there. "

"It's not really logical"???? LOL! Good one, bro!

Lemme mansplain some real logic for you, son: When the results of the last presidential election would have been changed simply by changing less than 100,000 votes, you don't need to change "massive amounts" of votes to change the outcome.

Duh!

12/4/2019 2:49:10 PM

Heres the deal:

Quote :

"Congress must establish Trump’s intent in making the request. Was it done in good faith, with U.S. foreign or domestic interests in mind, or in bad faith, merely for Trump’s personal and political benefit? To prove the latter, Congress can’t rely on Trump’s words alone; it must show that the charges of corruption against the Bidens are baseless and that Trump’s request to Ukraine is part of a pattern of bad faith demonstrating that the nation no longer can tolerate his incumbency."

A. President does (action) that happens to benefit his election probability is not impeachable

B. President does (action) knowing that it will also benefit his election probability is not impeachable

C. President does (action) solely because it will benefit his election probability might be impeachable


A could be literally anything done by any president. B is most things done by most presidents and C is not necessarily impeachable. To be impeachable, (action) must also be egregious, therefore, we should focus more on if (action) was inherently egregious/illegal than if it could benefit the president.

I can't think of any president who would do something that wouldn't benefit their election probability with an election a year out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keXx0zxTarE
You are opening up a precedent where this, and nearly everything a president does would become impeachable.

With that said, that brings us to the ultimate question. Is it egregious to ask a foreign country to investigate a US citizen?

Expert analysis:

Quote :

"As George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley explains, “It is not uncommon for an attorney general, or even a president, to ask foreign leaders to assist with ongoing investigations. Such calls can shortcut bureaucratic red tape, particularly if the evidence is held, as in this case, by national security or justice officials.”"

So the action, in itself isn't egregious unless you combine it with assumed intent and premeditated baseless claims which proving would be a tall order.

Seems like enough to cast doubt. Remember, I'm not arguing about the probability that Trump had egregious intent, I'm arguing about the lack of certainty which is going to be more than enough to acquit. This should nothing to do with if you think Trump is bad or if he WOULD do something like this and everything to do with proof.

[Edited on December 4, 2019 at 3:00 PM. Reason : you guys think its impeachable just because you BELIEVE trump did it for a certain reason]

[Edited on December 4, 2019 at 3:03 PM. Reason : should obama have been impeached?]

12/4/2019 2:59:29 PM

bAsElEsS cLaImS!

12/4/2019 3:00:50 PM

Is he talking about the rightwing talking point about Obama’s comment on flexibility to Medvedev? Please tell me he isn’t. Please.

Also, kudos on citing the literal GOP witness from today.

[Edited on December 4, 2019 at 6:34 PM. Reason : Earl: Matt Gaetz has a point. We should be impeaching Obama right now. Actually.]

12/4/2019 6:33:58 PM

i cannot fathom why you people even acknowledge him.

12/4/2019 7:21:28 PM

Jonathan Turley opinion from 2014:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-impeachment/2014/08/01/1f00f4ea-1808-11e4-9e3b-7f2f110c6265_story.html

Quote :

" 2. An impeachable offense must involve a violation of criminal law. While there’s a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable. Serious misconduct or a violation of public trust is enough. Madison saw impeachment as “defending the community against the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief magistrate.” And the founders emphasized that impeachments were about what happened in the political arena: involving “political crimes and misdemeanors” and resulting in “political punishments.” So consider the $454 million Obama shifted out of the Affordable Care Act’s Prevention and Public Health Fund. He wouldn’t have to pocket that money to warrant impeachment. But he’d have to do more than he did: redirect it to another purpose without congressional approval and offer a faulty interpretation of the act. If the president were to openly defy clear federal authority and order unlawful acts, he would move from the realm of using arguable discretion to that of being a danger to the system as a whole."

Obama could have been impeached if he had defied federal authority on the $454 million, but i guess the $600 million Trump defied federal authority to withhold for personal gains isn't impeachable

[Edited on December 5, 2019 at 8:52 AM. Reason : .]

12/5/2019 8:52:21 AM

Even Turley agrees we're in impeachment territory:

Quote :

"The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense."

Of course, he went on to bury that with complaints about process and political divides and angry puppies.

12/5/2019 11:28:15 AM

Nancy Pelosi is savage. #Ipray4thepresident

12/5/2019 11:39:07 AM

So dumb to speed this along

12/5/2019 12:25:15 PM

i didn't watch her announcement, is she limiting articles of impeachment to just the ukraine issues?

12/5/2019 12:27:05 PM

The scope was still left to the investigating committees. Which, I guess, means that if Schiff finds something it can be added. And if Nadler wants to include obstruction of Mueller, he can.

12/5/2019 1:15:38 PM

I really just skimmed it, my biases may have led to misinterpretation

12/5/2019 4:42:07 PM