What's new

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

Yeah, thanks. I read it. Is this all there is? The article is saying that the Trump admin was holding financial aid to Ukraine for a week. It's also saying that Trump was asking Ukraine's President Zelensky to investigate corruption. However, there needs to be some evidence that links these two things, something that shows they're connected and related to Biden--that Trump was holding back funds in order to directly pressure Zelensky to investigate corruption, and to expose Biden specifically.

The article says, "Trump’s order to withhold aid to Ukraine a week before his July 25 call with Volodymyr Zelensky is likely to raise questions about the motivation for his decision and fuel suspicions on Capitol Hill that Trump sought to leverage congressionally approved aid to damage a political rival." Okay, but that's just speculation on the author's part.

The article is questioning Trump's motive, and is insinuating that Trump might have been pressuring Ukraine to investigate and expose Biden, but the Dems need evidence that this is the case and not just a WaPo writer's innuendo. Things like "raising questions" and "fueling suspicions" make a weak case.

Who is this whistle-blower?
Some people find Trump's insistence on another country investigating his political rivals under the guise of fighting corruption something worth getting upset about.

I understand you don't find yourself in that camp, but that alone is impeachable.

I mean look, Trump's campaign lawyer Rudy Giuliani was going rogue, undermining our Ambassadors and State Dept for the benefit of, in his words, "My client." It seems like you are saying that all this is fine as long as there isn't a clear and obvious example of Trump asking for a quid pro quo. Trump is dumb, but I don't think even he is that dumb.

You are right about one thing, we need more answers. Thankfully the Democrats have finally begun a formal impeachment inquiry which should provide us with some.
 
Last edited:
From the Ukrainian Foreign Minister:

“I know what the conversation was about and I think there was no pressure,” Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told the Hromadske media outlet. "There was talk, conversations are different, leaders have the right to discuss any problems that exist. This conversation was long, friendly, and it touched on many questions, sometimes requiring serious answers."

Another in a long series of nothing burgers.

The FM said absolutely nothing of substance. “I think there was no pressure”.

If that is your defense, keep grasping.
 
I'd be a lot more impressed if the whistle blower had actually been in on the call. Instead he was apparently given a second-hand impression of it, and that is the basis of impeachment proceedings. Wow.

You don’t know that. This is from Fox News:

“It's unclear if the individual read a transcript of the call, heard about it in conversation, or learned of it another way”.
 
Can you think of a more tragic American story than Giuliani’s. The guy went from the most admired and respected mayor to total brain dead corrupt trash.

Shakespeare would have a field day with his story. Pretty sad I used to like the dude.
 
Some people find Trump's insistence on another country investigating his political rivals under the guise of fighting corruption something worth getting upset about.

Yeah, but is that what happened? You need evidence. Where does the word "insistence" originate from? Is that your term? Because it sounds as though the U.S. has already sent the financial aid to Ukraine prior to the fiscal-year deadline.

I understand you don't find yourself in that camp, but that alone is impeachable.

If a real crime was committed, then that is, of course, impeachable. When Nixon was impeached, it was because a burglary took place. That's a crime. There was no dispute about it. Then it was eventually shown that Nixon was party to it. Then Nixon resigned.

But having a conversation with a foreign leader about corruption during a phone call isn't going to get Trump or anyone else impeached. That actually sounds noble. At least with the Mueller probe, there were Russian agents that allegedly hacked into servers.

The Dems need a crime, a real and undeniable cause of action, or this is going to come up empty.
 
Yeah, but is that what happened? You need evidence. Where does the word "insistence" originate from? Is that your term? Because it sounds as though the U.S. has already sent the financial aid to Ukraine prior to the fiscal-year deadline.



If a real crime was committed, then that is, of course, impeachable. When Nixon was impeached, it was because a burglary took place. That's a crime. There was no dispute about it. Then it was eventually shown that Nixon was party to it. Then Nixon resigned.

But having a conversation with a foreign leader about corruption during a phone call isn't going to get Trump or anyone else impeached. That actually sounds noble. At least with the Mueller probe, there were Russian agents that allegedly hacked into servers.

The Dems need a crime, a real and undeniable cause of action, or this is going to come up empty.
Well as far as having to commit a crime to be impeached goes, I think the meuller report (and a **** load of lawyers) said that Trump obstructed justice which is a crime and what Clinton was impeached for. So there's that

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Well as far as having to commit a crime to be impeached goes, I think the meuller report (and a **** load of lawyers) said that Trump obstructed justice which is a crime and what Clinton was impeached for. So there's that

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Whether Trump really obstructed justice during the Mueller investigation is subject to legal interpretation and the standard that Trump is being held to. He wanted to have Mueller fired on an investigation where there was no underlying criminality on his part. It was supposed to be a collusion/conspiracy investigation. Mueller avoided making a judgement on the question of obstruction, and so far, Nadler's Judiciary Committee hearings on obstruction have been getting nowhere. The Dems know can't hang their impeachment hopes on Mueller, especially when Attorney General Barr can expose how the FBI investigation came about in the first place.

The whistle-blower in this Ukraine so-called scandal had better have something pretty solid, or all this is going to do is embarrass Joe Biden and the Dems.
 
Yeah, but is that what happened? You need evidence. Where does the word "insistence" originate from? Is that your term? Because it sounds as though the U.S. has already sent the financial aid to Ukraine prior to the fiscal-year deadline.



If a real crime was committed, then that is, of course, impeachable. When Nixon was impeached, it was because a burglary took place. That's a crime. There was no dispute about it. Then it was eventually shown that Nixon was party to it. Then Nixon resigned.

But having a conversation with a foreign leader about corruption during a phone call isn't going to get Trump or anyone else impeached. That actually sounds noble. At least with the Mueller probe, there were Russian agents that allegedly hacked into servers.

The Dems need a crime, a real and undeniable cause of action, or this is going to come up empty.
It's been reported from a variety of outlets that he wanted Ukraine to reopen investigations into Biden and his son. He did this via Giuliani, an Ambassador to Ukraine, and personally on a phone call with the President of Ukraine. This took place over the course of months. Again, this alone, disregarding the defense aid to Ukraine is illegal and worthy of impeachment. It's not "noble" to send your lawyer to try to persuade foreign governments to dig up dirt on your political adversaries. This is a pretty obvious abuse of power.

As for the money he did send it eventually. But he did withhold it for some time, until about a week before his call with Zelensky. Interestingly he never gave McConnell a reason for why he was directing his chief of staff to hold up the payment, and has since given seemingly contradictory explanations for it.

You are right that Nixon was found to have been party to a crime, but criminal behavior in the White House isn't actually the standard for impeachment. There are a whole litany of ways the President can abuse the powers of his office without actually running afoul of the law.

In any case, beginning impeachment proceedings is the first step in the investigation. If we already knew he was guilty and worthy of removal there wouldn't be a need for investigative congressional committees and hearings etc. This was true of Nixon as well. There was a suspicion of wrong doing by the President and it took months of impeachment hearings to get to the truth.
 
It's been reported from a variety of outlets that he wanted Ukraine to reopen investigations into Biden and his son. He did this via Giuliani, an Ambassador to Ukraine, and personally on a phone call with the President of Ukraine. This took place over the course of months. Again, this alone, disregarding the defense aid to Ukraine is illegal and worthy of impeachment. It's not "noble" to send your lawyer to try to persuade foreign governments to dig up dirt on your political adversaries. This is a pretty obvious abuse of power.

If Ukraine's gas company was paying Joe Biden's son Hunter $50k per month in order to gain influence with Biden during the Obama administration, and if Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion from Ukraine unless they fired a state prosecutor who was supposed to investigate corruption (something he admitted at the CFR), then what.....you're okay with this? Because this actually is abuse of power, the very thing that Dems are accusing Trump of doing. The difference is that Biden is on tape admitting it and bragging about it to the Council on Foreign Relations.

But if Trump calls on Ukraine to investigate corruption, that's tantamount to trying to get a foreign power to dig up dirt on a political opponent?

What's likely to happen is that the "dirt" on Biden is going to get exposed, and it's going to take Biden out of the race for the 2020 nomination.

Here's a worthwhile NPR article --
 
Last edited:
If Ukraine's gas company was paying Joe Biden's son Hunter $50k per month in order to gain influence with Biden during the Obama administration, and if Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion from Ukraine unless they fired a state prosecutor who was supposed to investigate corruption (something he admitted at the CFR), then what.....you're okay with this? Because this actually is abuse of power, the very thing that Dems are accusing Trump of doing. The difference is that Biden is on tape admitting it and bragging about it to the Council on Foreign Relations.

But if Trump calls on Ukraine to investigate corruption, that's tantamount to trying to get a foreign power to dig up dirt on a political opponent?

What's likely to happen is that the "dirt" on Biden is going to get exposed, and it's going to take Biden out of the race for the 2020 nomination.

Here's a worthwhile NPR article --

I knew I'd be needing this post by @sirkickyass by the end of the day-

Important background information:

Victor Yanukovych was the Russian backed president of Ukraine from 2010 to 2014. He's an important figure in the US/Ukrainian relationship for a couple reasons.

1. Paul Manafort worked on Yanukovich's political campaigns, funded largely with the help of Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, including his 2010 Presidential campaign. He did so even though the US government opposed Yanukovich's candidacy - effectively working AGAINST stated US interests in the region. Manafort later was Trump's campaign manager during the critical primary and convention period. (Source: https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/28/politics/mueller-search-warrants-manafort/index.html). Manafort was ultimately convicted of crimes related to this work.

2. Yanukoych's work as President of Ukraine ultimately led to a revolution in the country in the 2014. I've posted pictures of the Maidan before where the revolution happened. The country largely revolted over Yanukovych corruptly turning his back on further integration with the West through a cooperation agreement with the European Union. Yanukovych did so because he was personally profiting by stronger relationships with Europe. He committed treason against his country as president by putting his own financial interests ahead of Ukraine's. Yanukovych has been in exile in Southern Russia for more than five years and was convicted, in absentia, of treason. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych )


These dates, and names are important because Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma Holdings, a large oil and gas extraction company in Ukraine, approximately two months after the Euromaidan revolution. Further, Burisma was founded by Mykola Zlochevsky, who was a Yanukovich political ally, to the extent that he served as the minister of ecology and natural resources during the early portions of the Yanukovich administration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykola_Zlochevsky

The investigation into Burisma holdings was tied to Zlochevsky's position as the minister of ecology and natural resources. This is a position that he held from 2010 -2012. Zlochevksy later had a position on the national security council in Ukraine from 2012, until the government collapsed in February 2014. The allegation (probably true) was that Zlochevksy used his position in the government to grant his own companies, including Burisma, licenses that it would not have otherwise gotten. In effect, self-dealing. (Source: https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/trump-whistleblower-scandal-explained-from-ukraine.html) . No one has EVER alleged that any of those activities occurred after Hunter Biden was named to the board of Burisma - a few months after Zlochevsky and Yanukovich fled the country. As a result, it is completely and utterly incorrect to suggest that any prosecutor in Ukraine was ever looking into Hunter Biden personally. The conduct that Burisma was investigated for happened entirely before he was ever involved with the company.

The Prosecutor:

Viktor Shokin is the former general prosecutor of Ukraine, and was appointed in 2015 - some three years after the investigation into Zlovhevsky's activities had been initiated. After the 2014 revolution, the position of general prosecutor turned over several times. Shokin was the third general prosecutor appointed to the position in twelve months. Several allies of the Yanukovych administration remained in various governmental positions and were frustrating investigations into the previous administration by stonewalling and hiding information. Prosecutors had been sabotaging investigations into Zlochevsky's activities since at least 2014, more than a year before Shokin came into office. (Source (Russian language): https://gordonua.com/news/politics/...r_cju1d0zj90sut8gci7ucvnbxaeb9jqfeas8woba4f30 )

Shokin was prosecutor for barely a year and was INTENSELY unpopular in Ukraine, public protests were held demanding his resignation approximately six months before Joe Biden pushed for his firing. (Source: https://www.unian.info/society/1170...nce-demanding-shokins-resignation-photos.html). The irony here is that the complaint was that Shokin was not doing ENOUGH to prosecute old corruption cases. Shokin was not a anti corruption crusader who was looking into the wrong people. In fact, under Shokin's watch, the Ukrainian government agreed to unfreeze $23.5 million worth of property claimed by Zlochevsky. Shokin was a non-functioning officer in a country with deep seated corruption problems who was not actively prosecuting these cases.

There is also no indication that Shokin took any particular interest in the Burisma case until there was an opportunity for reprisal against Joe Biden. The best English language Kyiv newspaper was unable to find any public statements by Shokin about Burisma or Hunter Biden while in office. ( https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/trump-whistleblower-scandal-explained-from-ukraine.html ). As a result, there's literally no reason for anyone to believe that either Joe or Hunter Biden perceived Shokin as a personal threat. For there to be a conflict of interest, they would have to know that Shokin was actually potentially a detriment to their personal fortunes. There is no evidence that this was true.

Feel free to share with all your conservative friends. And I'm willing to answer follow up questions. Reading the GOP story about this whole thing is beyond frustrating if you follow the local news there.
 
Yeah, I wouldn't call Goldberg a conservative. Or if he somehow is, he's an anti-Trump conservative. And thank goodness, I can click that quote to enlarge it some more.
Lol, yeah man. Jonah Goldberg, Sr Editor for the National Review for two decades, author of the book titled "Liberal Fascism" isn't a conservative.

K.
 
Last edited:
Lol, yeah man. Jonah Goldberg, Sr Editor for the National Review for two decades, author of the book titled "Liberal Fascism" isn't a conservative.

K.

I love how radical right wingers are eating each other. I’m guessing Pompeo and Rudy are going to be ratting each other out by the weekend. Mick “is going to have his turn in the barrel.”

Anyone else remember that one from Steve Bannon?
 
Rudy must really hate Pompeo



Wait does Rudy admit at 0:35 that he’s read the classified transcript??? That’s legal?


My read on today's reporting and Giuliani's appearances on Fox News is that they are all rushing to throw each other under the bus as quickly as they can.
 
I knew I'd be needing this post by @sirkickyass by the end of the day-

Important background information:

Victor Yanukovych was the Russian backed president of Ukraine from 2010 to 2014. He's an important figure in the US/Ukrainian relationship for a couple reasons.

1. Paul Manafort worked on Yanukovich's political campaigns, funded largely with the help of Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, including his 2010 Presidential campaign. He did so even though the US government opposed Yanukovich's candidacy - effectively working AGAINST stated US interests in the region. Manafort later was Trump's campaign manager during the critical primary and convention period. (Source: https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/28/politics/mueller-search-warrants-manafort/index.html). Manafort was ultimately convicted of crimes related to this work.

2. Yanukoych's work as President of Ukraine ultimately led to a revolution in the country in the 2014. I've posted pictures of the Maidan before where the revolution happened. The country largely revolted over Yanukovych corruptly turning his back on further integration with the West through a cooperation agreement with the European Union. Yanukovych did so because he was personally profiting by stronger relationships with Europe. He committed treason against his country as president by putting his own financial interests ahead of Ukraine's. Yanukovych has been in exile in Southern Russia for more than five years and was convicted, in absentia, of treason. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych )


These dates, and names are important because Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma Holdings, a large oil and gas extraction company in Ukraine, approximately two months after the Euromaidan revolution. Further, Burisma was founded by Mykola Zlochevsky, who was a Yanukovich political ally, to the extent that he served as the minister of ecology and natural resources during the early portions of the Yanukovich administration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykola_Zlochevsky

The investigation into Burisma holdings was tied to Zlochevsky's position as the minister of ecology and natural resources. This is a position that he held from 2010 -2012. Zlochevksy later had a position on the national security council in Ukraine from 2012, until the government collapsed in February 2014. The allegation (probably true) was that Zlochevksy used his position in the government to grant his own companies, including Burisma, licenses that it would not have otherwise gotten. In effect, self-dealing. (Source: https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/trump-whistleblower-scandal-explained-from-ukraine.html) . No one has EVER alleged that any of those activities occurred after Hunter Biden was named to the board of Burisma - a few months after Zlochevsky and Yanukovich fled the country. As a result, it is completely and utterly incorrect to suggest that any prosecutor in Ukraine was ever looking into Hunter Biden personally. The conduct that Burisma was investigated for happened entirely before he was ever involved with the company.

The Prosecutor:

Viktor Shokin is the former general prosecutor of Ukraine, and was appointed in 2015 - some three years after the investigation into Zlovhevsky's activities had been initiated. After the 2014 revolution, the position of general prosecutor turned over several times. Shokin was the third general prosecutor appointed to the position in twelve months. Several allies of the Yanukovych administration remained in various governmental positions and were frustrating investigations into the previous administration by stonewalling and hiding information. Prosecutors had been sabotaging investigations into Zlochevsky's activities since at least 2014, more than a year before Shokin came into office. (Source (Russian language): https://gordonua.com/news/politics/...r_cju1d0zj90sut8gci7ucvnbxaeb9jqfeas8woba4f30 )

Shokin was prosecutor for barely a year and was INTENSELY unpopular in Ukraine, public protests were held demanding his resignation approximately six months before Joe Biden pushed for his firing. (Source: https://www.unian.info/society/1170...nce-demanding-shokins-resignation-photos.html). The irony here is that the complaint was that Shokin was not doing ENOUGH to prosecute old corruption cases. Shokin was not a anti corruption crusader who was looking into the wrong people. In fact, under Shokin's watch, the Ukrainian government agreed to unfreeze $23.5 million worth of property claimed by Zlochevsky. Shokin was a non-functioning officer in a country with deep seated corruption problems who was not actively prosecuting these cases.

There is also no indication that Shokin took any particular interest in the Burisma case until there was an opportunity for reprisal against Joe Biden. The best English language Kyiv newspaper was unable to find any public statements by Shokin about Burisma or Hunter Biden while in office. ( https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/trump-whistleblower-scandal-explained-from-ukraine.html ). As a result, there's literally no reason for anyone to believe that either Joe or Hunter Biden perceived Shokin as a personal threat. For there to be a conflict of interest, they would have to know that Shokin was actually potentially a detriment to their personal fortunes. There is no evidence that this was true.

Feel free to share with all your conservative friends. And I'm willing to answer follow up questions. Reading the GOP story about this whole thing is beyond frustrating if you follow the local news there.

Okay, interesting. Thanks for sharing...

The article below was just posted by Washington Post, which is clearly a much more 'liberal' and anti-Trump publication. It's a story like this that makes me think the Dems know full well that they're throwing Biden under the bus.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...tigation-might-do-more-hurt-biden-than-trump/

Democrats’ double standard on Ukraine
By Marc A. Thiessen

We don’t yet know whether President Trump delayed some military aid to Ukraine as leverage to get Ukraine’s president to reopen an investigation into Hunter Biden. But if we are concerned about U.S. officials inappropriately threatening aid to Ukraine, then there are others who have some explaining to do.

It got almost no attention, but in May, 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. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”

So, it’s okay for Democratic senators to encourage Ukraine to investigate Trump, but it’s not okay for the president to allegedly encourage Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden?

Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) says President Trump's alleged misuse of his office has raised a new level of concern. (Joshua Carroll/The Washington Post)
This weekend, Biden told reporters, “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” That is flatly untrue. Hunter admitted in an interview with the New Yorker that his father expressed concern about the Burisma post at least once: “Dad said, ‘I hope you know what you are doing,’ and I said, ‘I do.’” Moreover, the New Yorker reports that, “In December, 2015, as Joe Biden prepared to return to Ukraine, his aides braced for renewed scrutiny of Hunter’s relationship with Burisma. Amos Hochstein, the Obama Administration’s special envoy for energy policy, raised the matter with Biden.” That same month, the New York Times published an article about how Hunter’s business dealings in Ukraine undermined the vice president’s anti-corruption message, which quoted a Biden spokesman saying it had no impact.

So, Biden was fully aware of his son’s involvement with Burisma when he pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor in 2016. He should have known that his using U.S. aid as leverage to force the prosecutor’s dismissal would create, at a bare minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Federal ethics regulations require “all employees to recuse themselves from participating in an official matter if their impartiality would be questioned.” Biden violated these rules. Imagine if Trump pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who was investigating a company that employed Donald Trump Jr. as a board member. No one would be giving Trump a pass.

On Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced that Congress will initiate a formal impeachment inquiry over the Ukraine episode, a move Joe Biden endorsed in a speech, declaring, “It’s time for the Congress to fully investigate the conduct of this president.” Such an investigation will be far more damaging for Biden than the president. It will keep the story of Biden’s conflict of interest in the news through the 2020 election. Millions of Americans will learn the word “Burisma.” Senate Republicans can demand that Hunter Biden testify, and subpoena Obama White House aides such as Hochstein to explain under oath what the vice president knew and when he knew it.

Put aside the prosecutor’s firing. Hunter took the position with a Ukrainian natural gas company just a few weeks after his father visited Ukraine in 2014 to urge its government to increase its natural gas production. Hunter Biden had no expertise in Ukraine or natural gas. It will not just be Republicans calling this suspicious; nonpartisan experts in ethics law will testify that this a major conflict of interest.

And the focus will not just be on Ukraine but also how, as The Post reported, “for more than two decades, [Hunter’s] professional work often tracked with his father’s life in politics, from Washington to Ukraine to China.” Trump will use an investigation to paint Joe Biden as a creature of the Washington swamp who used his official position to enrich his son. While Senate Republicans will not remove Trump from office, Democratic primary voters might decide that Biden and his troubles are a distraction they do not need. The irony is the Democrats’ investigation might do more to deny Biden the presidency than Trump.
 
I love how radical right wingers are eating each other. I’m guessing Pompeo and Rudy are going to be ratting each other out by the weekend. Mick “is going to have his turn in the barrel.”

Anyone else remember that one from Steve Bannon?
Honestly. If John Bolton turns out to be the whistle blower, he'll be branded a leftist Trump hater within an hour.
 
Back
Top