Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Which means the forces of Satan will unwittingly go after him just as viciously. You act as though Pence and his stance on abortion and marriage will suddenly be okay with the devil.
 
drcube said:
Pam Bondi, the attorney general of Florida that gave Trump University a legal pass after he donated $12.5K to his re-election fund. Oh, yes, there are going to be many, many investigations after Trump is going to be out of office since this impeachment hearing is making it okay to pursue corruption at all costs. Pam better have some lawyers ready…
Click to expand...
At all costs? No, its based on more than enough prima facie evidence. You don’t need proof of corruption. You need a reasonable appearance of corruption. Of which the Biden’s provided in spades. It’s pretty funny to sit here and pretend that Burisma was some “angel” organization or that the Obama Administration didn’t investigate their political rival, cough cough (DOJ/FBI lying and fabricating evidence even). The left wing media even knew it reeeked of pay to play as well as some in the Obama administration, who raised their concerns as well. We have the son of the American VP with no O&G experience receiving unusually large sums of money followed by the American VP successfully exerting political influence on behalf of his son’s benefactor.

Zlochevsky became a billionaire by granting his company exclusive rights to Ukrainian O&G fields while he was serving in the Ukrainian government overseeing those assets. He was dirty from the get-go. I liken the situation more towards the son of a sitting VP being on the board and paid lavishly by a company owned by John Gotti.

It reeks or pay to play. Biden even bragged about it. But maybe it’s not corruption, but it’s more than enough to imply that someone should take a look to make sure. And thats all that is needed: enough evidence of potential wrongdoing for it to be reasonable to take a look.

Chris Heinz was smart enough to get the heck out of that company when the conflict became crystal clear.

The question of how did he learn of/apply for a position at Burisma, and his Chicom fund, does matter. As do matters as to how/what/when he did work for Burisma, or had any interaction about corruption in Ukraine.

I personally would like to see a comprehensive review of all politicians’ relatives serving on public boards worldwide, and compare their backgrounds and compensation to similarly-situated board members.

Don’t care about party. Lets see which companies are likely abusing our political system, and which politicians are likely abusing their positions.
 
Last edited:
drcube said:
The Democrats want witnesses with first hand knowledge to bolster their case. Of course, they also could exonerate Trump. I wonder why Trump doesn’t want them to testify then?
Click to expand...
Because America doesn’t negotiate with Democrats these days.

😃
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
Can’t blame somebody for doing something worse than what they claimed was an outrageous witch hunt?
Click to expand...
So spending two years on an investigation into Trump based upon on a known false pretext (Steele Dossier) and fabricated FISA warrants nd then morphing that into an impeachment is not so “outrageous” as merely suggesting that an investigation into potential corruption and nepotism by Biden is warranted because there exists actual evidence and Biden’s own words demanding a quid pro quo?

I would suggest your “outrage” meter requires a bit of recalibration.
 
Last edited:
You must have read more than the Impeachment article heading. Something the GOP hasn’t done.or mentioned
 
mrad25 said:
It reeks or pay to play. Biden even bragged about it.
Click to expand...
Zlochevsky was corrupt. There was legal action against him in the UK. The prosecutor in Ukraine refused to assist that action, and refused to take action against Zlochevsky in Ukraine. The world and the US wanted that corrupt prosecutor out. Biden was tasked with making it happen. He was successful in that misson.
 
dvdjs said:
Zlochevsky was corrupt. There was legal action against him in the UK. The prosecutor in Ukraine refused to assist that action, and refused to take action against Zlochevsky in Ukraine. The world and the US wanted that corrupt prosecutor out. Biden was tasked with making it happen. He was successful in that misson.
Click to expand...
Biden wasn’t tasked with making it happen, because it would have happened a long time before if true. He was fired a month after Burisma owner’s house was raided, after numerous calls by the VP to the President of Ukraine, and a day after Biden threatened to withhold billions in loan guarantees. Biden’s “Son of Bitch” video clip is telling., he was unequivocally proud of it. Ukraine didn’t think he was corrupt. Is it up to foreign countries to interfere here anyways?
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
When you assert that Biden the task of seeking the ouster the corrupt prosecutor was not proper to his role in the Obama administration.
Click to expand...
That’s your believe, mine is different. That’s what it amounts to.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
We are talking matters of fact, not belief.
Click to expand...
Matters of fact yea like the prosecutor was fired the day after Biden THREATENED to withhold a billion in loan guarantees,and about a month after there was an up-kick in contact between Biden and the Ukraine President since Burisma’s owners house was raided, and the prosecutor was looking to question Hunter Biden. And Joe Biden is on tape bragging about the firing and the threat he made, that’s what you call undeniable quid pro quo (this for that).
 
Last edited:
mrad25 said:
At all costs? No, its based on more than enough prima facie evidence
Click to expand...
If you think that there is enough evidence to investigate the Bidens, then there are no standards.
Even without that, I guarantee you there is more than enough to investigate Trump/Bondi.
 
mrad25 said:
Matters of fact
Click to expand...
Those are facts. Presumalby however, you under the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallcy.
It is also a fact that the corrupt prosecutor effectively scuttled the UK action against Burisma.
It is also a fact that the IMF, US allies, and the US wanted this prosecutor to go.
 
Last edited:
mrad25 said:
Ukraine didn’t think he was corrupt.
Click to expand...
Yes, Ukrainians thought he was corrupt.

From What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor

"Shokin would not have been fired, said Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder and executive director of the Anti Corruption Action Centre in Kiev.

“Civil society organizations in Ukraine were pressing for his resignation,” Kaleniuk said, “but no one would have cared if there had not been voices from outside this country calling on him to go.”"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top