Impeaching Donald Trump

[John Camp]

<snip>
*For those unfamiliar with Madison, he served as one of the Virginia delegates to the 1787 convention, was a principal drafter of the constitution that ultimately was adopted, and in 1808 was elected third president of the United States.

Fourth. (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe...)

[Alan Klein]

Is that where the 2nd Amendment kicks in?

You misread what I said.   It must be the language barrier.  I think you ought to read it three or four more times until you comprehend it.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Fourth. (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe...)

That sounds like a street map in Chicago, around the Millennial* park

* on a side note, how did the worst generation in history get its own park!? Ooops, my bad, it is actually Millennium Park

[Chris Kern]

Fourth. (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe...)

Yes.  Thanks.  Corrected.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I know.  Your hands are clean.  So how about asking your Democrat friends why they are complaining about Trump and emoluments and his kids?  I don't buy your sudden fake innocence.  You've supported these Democrat charges all along.   To argue now that you're "not personally involved" or you "can't personally impeach the president" is just a weird argument.    Is that the best you can do?

Let me spell this out clearly for you so you might accuse me of things justifiably.  Is Trump benefiting financially from being President?  I don't know the full answer but look at his golf outings to Trump properties and his regular trips to Mar-A-Lago.  I'm sure that the Secret Service and other agencies that service the President get billed for all this.  We don't know whether they get billed at cost or cost +.  I could care less about the Trump Hotel here in DC.  Sure there are people staying there who think they are currying favor with the President.  That's chump change for me.  What is curious was the decision not to move the FBI building after all the years and RFPs for a new location that would bring them all under one roof.  The current property is in prime downtown DC location and ideally suited for a large hotel.  Did the fact that it is only a couple blocks from the Trump Hotel influence this decision, one doesn't know.

I don't care what his kids do (other than the phony piousness of Jared and Ivanka who had to search for a Rabbi who would let them attend the Inaugural ball on a Friday night; hypocrisy is not a crime.  It is curious however that after this, China issued a number of copyrights and trademarks to Ivanka but of course that may just be coincidence).  I do believe that there is something more to the Trump/Giuliani nexus than we currently know.  Further investigations are warranted.  The American people did not elect Giuliani to any position in this government.  He has not been confirmed by the Senate, nor has he taken any oath to the Constitution that foreign service officers and diplomats must do.  Yet...................he is somehow involved in this Ukraine mess.  Maybe one of the two associates who is planning to testify will unlock some of this.  I do think that Trump has not drained the swamp as he promised (that was something I was really looking forward to).  His cabinet appointees have been lack luster and in some cases have lied to Congress and falsified business expenses at a cost to we taxpayers.  I dislike the President because he has not released his tax forms as have others, because he is directing all those in his administration not to cooperate with Congress, because he is spending too much time at campaign rallies and playing golf and not running the country, because he did not eliminate the carried interest provision in the tax law that further enriches private equity companies, and because he repeatedly lies about almost everything.   You get the gist here and I could go on with a lot of other examples.

Finally, lest you or others on this thread accuse me of socialistic tendencies be advised that AOC is not my Congresswoman.  I also do not support Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren who are all either too old or too misguided in terms of policy issues.  I have made a contribution to a Democratic campaign and it's obvious that it is not the aforementioned three.  I am not a big fan of Impeachment but I am a huge supporter of knowing the truth which I think is something every American should want.

[Alan Klein]

Then you should be just as anxious to know what Biden and his son were up to as well.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Then you should be just as anxious to know what Biden and his son were up to as well.

One point: if it is true what Bided said that he learned about son's involvement only from the media, something is seriously wrong with our intelligence services.

On a less serious note, if only he asked the Russians about his son's whereabouts, he would have been much better informed

[Alan Goldhammer]

Then you should be just as anxious to know what Biden and his son were up to as well.

They are irrelevant to the present situation.  We already know.

[JoeKitchen]

One point: if it is true what Bided said that he learned about son's involvement only form the media, something is seriously wrong with our intelligence services.

On a less serious note, if only he asked the Russians about his son's whereabouts, he would have been much better informed

Not to mention, he is one seriously apathetic father. 

[Alan Klein]

They are irrelevant to the present situation.  We already know.

But if Biden's son got a $600,000 no show job so some Ukrainian corporation could buy access and protection through the Vice President, then that would be illegal and requiring an investigation, something that Trump called for.  You do agree that the Vice President is not above the law, don't you?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Quid pro so 

[James Clark]

But if Biden's son got a $600,000 no show job so some Ukrainian corporation could buy access and protection through the Vice President, then that would be illegal and requiring an investigation, something that Trump called for.  You do agree that the Vice President is not above the law, don't you?

Wait.. what? 

So now the allegation is that the Joe Biden and this Ukrainian company cooked up a deal where they hired Hunter Biden as a consultant in exchange for Joe Biden engineering the removal of a Ukrainian domestic official in order to protect the Ukrainian company?   And this conclusion is based wholly on the facts that a) Hunter Biden was a well-paid consultant for the company; and b) the international community wanted the official in question removed due to a widespread perception that he was *ineffective* in combatting corruption? 

Have I got that right? And the further tie in is that it was actually Ukraine that hacked DNC servers? And they still have a missing server that includes Hillary's emails, and this was all a set up to make Trump look bad from the get-go, and frame Russia and Trump for colluding during the last election?

This is (almost literally) insane.

[James Clark]

Quid pro so 

That's kinda clever.

But it's right in line with how this stuff typically goes with Trump.

1) Never happened.. Fake news.
2) Ok, so it happened, but you've got the whole story wrong.   
3) OK, you're right, but when the president does it, it's not illegal, or at least, we don't care of it is..  What are ya gonna do about it?

(It's this last part that drives most ethical people nuts.)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... and b) the international community wanted the official in question removed due to a widespread perception that he was *ineffective* in combatting corruption? ...

Again, can you provide a single source for that claim?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... (It's this last part that drives most ethical people nuts.)

Who cares about ethical people? They don’t go into politics anyway.

[Alan Klein]

Wait.. what? 

So now the allegation is that the Joe Biden and this Ukrainian company cooked up a deal where they hired Hunter Biden as a consultant in exchange for Joe Biden engineering the removal of a Ukrainian domestic official in order to protect the Ukrainian company?   And this conclusion is based wholly on the facts that a) Hunter Biden was a well-paid consultant for the company; and b) the international community wanted the official in question removed due to a widespread perception that he was *ineffective* in combatting corruption? 

Have I got that right? And the further tie in is that it was actually Ukraine that hacked DNC servers? And they still have a missing server that includes Hillary's emails, and this was all a set up to make Trump look bad from the get-go, and frame Russia and Trump for colluding during the last election?

This is (almost literally) insane.

So why did VP Biden's son get a $600,000 no show job in a Ukrainian oil company never having worked a day in his life in the oil industry?

You're right.   It is insane.

[James Clark]

Again, can you provide a single source for that claim?

Here's a contemporary piece of reporting from Ireland from before Trump was even elected.   Is this satisfactory?   

While we're providing certifications, you asked last week for any evidence that Republicans were any part  of the closed House hearings.  Some of those transcripts were release over the last day or two, showing questioning from the appropriate Republicans (i.e. the ones that are part of the relevant committees).  Can we dispense with that doubt as well, now?

[James Clark]

So why did VP Biden's son get a $600,000 no show job in a Ukrainian oil company never having worked a day in his life in the oil industry?

Because he's connected.  Do you think that's unusual or illegal?  And are you under the impression that a 600K contract is unusual for serious lobbying efforts?

[BernardLanguillier]

As written millions of times already, whatever Biden may have done or not done is completely irrelevant to the on-going discussion about Trump’s impreachment.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Here's a contemporary piece of reporting from Ireland[/url] from before Trump was even elected.   Is this satisfactory?

Thanks for the link, James. It is somewhat satisfactory. It is after the fact, what I wanted to see are requests before he was fired by the US.

Here is what bothers me. The prosecutor claimed he was sacked for investigating Burisma. The Biden team says it  is nonsense, as Burisma wasn’t under investigation at the time and that the prosecutor is fired precisely because he wasn’t active enough in investigating major players, among which is surely Burisma. In other words, Biden wanted Burisma investigated, in spite of the fact it would hurt his son’s cushy position. Quite commendable. If true, of course. So, here is what bothers me: if the Biden’s version is true, why was the investigation into Burisma dropped and never reopened under the new prosecutor? Isn’t that what all is supposed to be about? More active, not less active, investigation into corruption?

My interpretation is that no sane new prosecutor would dare to go against a company where a US Vice President’s son is sitting on the board. Especially not after witnessing the power the father just demonstrated in getting rid of the previous prosecutor.

Biden had two options before firing the prosecutor: 1) ask his son to step down 2) recuse himself. He did neither.

So what was the ultimate results of the whole Biden’s anti-corruption crusade? Prosecutor fired, but the main actor in the corruption game, Burisma, walked out scot-free. Much a do about nothing. Were there any other dramatic anti-corruption consequences after the firing? Or it was business as usual in the good old Ukraine?