|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 30, 2019 12:22:08 GMT -5
The difference being that there does not seem to be any actual evidence that Biden did anything. If something gets pulled up, put him on trial and if guilty, hang him. There seems to be actual evidence that Trump did exactly what he’s accused of. Put him on trial, and if guilty hang him. Nobody's actually investigated Biden seriously. There's no there there because the media and Administrative State have declared it so. Despite Trump's beautiful and perfect call, the Ukrainians didn't investigate. Our media and Deep State hold sway over them, too? It's an outrage, I yells ya, an outrage!
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 30, 2019 12:25:13 GMT -5
I Googled "biden ukraine evidence" to see what might have been unearthed. I started with fact-check/backgrounder sites and posts (Bloomberg, CNN, LA Times, Politifact) looking for digests of reportage, and found pretty much the same kinds of accounts: that there is not at the moment any publicly-available evidence that Trump's accusations have any basis. Hunter Biden did indeed take a gig with a Ukrainian company. It was indeed the kind of thing that family and associates of Important People often do (the old term for this is "sinecure.") It is indeed a dicey choice, as Politifact's summary points out. But none of the timelines or relationships support the Trump line of outright corruption. So--from Bloomberg's fact-check post: 3. Where did all these allegations come from?
The notion that Hunter Biden and his father could be complicit in Ukrainian corruption was first aired in a 2018 book, “Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends.” Its author, Peter Schweizer, is an editor at Breitbart News and president of the Government Accountability Institute, a nonprofit group founded by former Trump political adviser Steve Bannon. The group’s board chairwoman is Rebekah Mercer, a prominent Trump supporter. Trump has cited Schweizer by name in some of his Twitter attacks on the Bidens. But even Schweizer’s book doesn’t allege that any laws were broken. www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-09/on-bidens-and-ukraine-wild-claims-with-little-basis-quicktakeOf course, one standard riposte is, "Yeah, sure. GIN." But I would point out that the White House is currently a thoroughly gated institution.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 30, 2019 12:27:44 GMT -5
I'm quiet now because being a messenger can be dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 30, 2019 12:46:52 GMT -5
The notion that Hunter Biden and his father could be complicit in Ukrainian corruption was first aired in a 2018 book, “Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends.” Again, this is simply not true either.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 30, 2019 12:53:11 GMT -5
The notion that Hunter Biden and his father could be complicit in Ukrainian corruption was first aired in a 2018 book, “Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends.” Again, this is simply not true either. But, but,... Russell says it is...
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 30, 2019 12:54:33 GMT -5
Oops--it's point #8 in the Bloomberg account.
But how is its assertion "simply not true"? Is there an earlier/different source? If so, it would be nice to have a citation. (That's a serious request, not just snark. I never joke about research protocols or results.)
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Oct 30, 2019 12:59:50 GMT -5
But there is ample evidence that henchmen of the former POTUS (with or without his knowledge is TBD) ginned up a phony investigation of his likely successor. Just letting that lay there, imo, is not an option. Put this under the microscope. Have public hearings trials. Trust the people to watch and make up their minds. Nobody thought Trump was going to win, including Trump. But Obama and his henchmen ginned up a phony investigation, then had Comey (one of the henchmen, I assume) drop Hillary's emails back into the news cycle a week before the election, but then didn't do anything with the results of their phony investigation, thus leading to Trump's surprise victory? Where is this ample evidence of which you speak? There are reporters who have written extensively on this.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Oct 30, 2019 13:02:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 30, 2019 13:03:48 GMT -5
Nobody's actually investigated Biden seriously. There's no there there because the media and Administrative State have declared it so. Despite Trump's beautiful and perfect call, the Ukrainians didn't investigate. Our media and Deep State hold sway over them, too? It's an outrage, I yells ya, an outrage! Apparently.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 30, 2019 13:15:25 GMT -5
Clearly I am on Team Deep State with allegiance only to George Soros and the Clinton Foundation.
But can somebody from the enlightened camp help a dude out?
Where is also this ample evidence being hidden?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 30, 2019 13:19:39 GMT -5
Clearly I am on Team Deep State with allegiance only to George Soros and the Clinton Foundation. But can somebody from the enlightened camp help a dude out? Where is also this ample evidence being hidden? Apparently in a different place than the non-existent Russian Collusion stuff was hidden.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 30, 2019 13:21:34 GMT -5
Breakfast of Champions- warm beer and cold pizza.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 30, 2019 14:02:54 GMT -5
Clearly I am on Team Deep State with allegiance only to George Soros and the Clinton Foundation. But can somebody from the enlightened camp help a dude out? Where is also this ample evidence being hidden? Apparently in a different place than the non-existent Russian Collusion stuff was hidden. Do you have anything more specific? Like, say, this? “So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?” Nadler asked.
“That is correct,” Mueller replied.
“And what about total exoneration? Did you totally exonerate the president?” Nadler continued.
“No,” Mueller said.
“Does your report state there is sufficient factual and legal basis for further investigation of potential obstruction of justice by the president?” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) later asked.
“Yes,” Mueller replied.
“Did your investigation find that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning?” Lofgren asked.
It did, Mueller replied. Lofgren followed up: Which one?
“Well,” Mueller said, “it would be Trump.”
This kind of detail would be so much more helpful for understanding what you are talking about. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 30, 2019 15:05:20 GMT -5
Apparently in a different place than the non-existent Russian Collusion stuff was hidden. Do you have anything more specific? Like, say, this? “So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?” Nadler asked.
“That is correct,” Mueller replied.
“And what about total exoneration? Did you totally exonerate the president?” Nadler continued.
“No,” Mueller said.
“Does your report state there is sufficient factual and legal basis for further investigation of potential obstruction of justice by the president?” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) later asked.
“Yes,” Mueller replied.
“Did your investigation find that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning?” Lofgren asked.
It did, Mueller replied. Lofgren followed up: Which one?
“Well,” Mueller said, “it would be Trump.”
This kind of detail would be so much more helpful for understanding what you are talking about. Thanks. So why didn't they prosecute on that. I mean if it's such a slam dunk that even you can see it, drop the hammer. They're either cowards or liars. My money's on both. Hell, Schiff has been bragging that he's got mystery proof for 3 years. Put it down and let's get on with it. I won't hold my breath.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 30, 2019 15:06:49 GMT -5
I wonder what a post-impeachment world will look like? Who will they take down next?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 30, 2019 15:17:35 GMT -5
I wonder what a post-impeachment world will look like? Who will they take down next? The next person that challenges the Administrative State. (Said in dead seriousness.)
|
|
|
Post by lar on Oct 30, 2019 15:27:38 GMT -5
I believe I have a solution that is fair and equitable. One that most in this country would happily sign off on. Biden and Trump would both be found culpable. Each would be fined $50,000 and both would immediately be barred from holding public office for as long the sun shines yellow and the Dakota hills are green in springtime. I think you're on to something. Hell, I'd even forgo the $50,000 fine.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 30, 2019 15:35:50 GMT -5
It's air-tight. Unless the source of information comes from the very people involved in trying to un-seat the president, the source is not credible.
Nixon should never have resigned. He set in motion the collapse of our government -- not by the crime he supposedly committed, but by short-circuiting the constitutional way things should have played out. Every Republican president will face the same scrutiny and every scandal will have the power of the press pushing it. And every defender will lack the credibility because only the press is credible.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 30, 2019 15:41:25 GMT -5
Do you have anything more specific? Like, say, this? “So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?” Nadler asked.
“That is correct,” Mueller replied.
“And what about total exoneration? Did you totally exonerate the president?” Nadler continued.
“No,” Mueller said.
“Does your report state there is sufficient factual and legal basis for further investigation of potential obstruction of justice by the president?” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) later asked.
“Yes,” Mueller replied.
“Did your investigation find that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning?” Lofgren asked.
It did, Mueller replied. Lofgren followed up: Which one?
“Well,” Mueller said, “it would be Trump.”
This kind of detail would be so much more helpful for understanding what you are talking about. Thanks. So why didn't they prosecute on that. I mean if it's such a slam dunk that even you can see it, drop the hammer. They're either cowards or liars. My money's on both. Hell, Schiff has been bragging that he's got mystery proof for 3 years. Put it down and let's get on with it. I won't hold my breath. Happy to answer your question, even though you continue to ignore mine. Not every prosecutor attempts to indict on every crime committed. Pelosi was cautious and repeatedly said she would not move on articles of impeachment unless they would pass the Senate. With the Ukraine shenanigans and Trump admitting he asked for foreign governments to investigate his political opponents, she decided the time was right.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 30, 2019 15:45:39 GMT -5
It's air-tight. Unless the source of information comes from the very people involved in trying to un-seat the president, the source is not credible. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Please advise on how you know he is "trying to unseat the President." Or Ambassador Taylor. Or Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. Or Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper.
|
|