Schiff is a prophet

[Crazyhole]

See and that's where we disagree. You see a scenario where Biden is corrupt thus giving credibility to the idea that Trumps' motives were reasonable (tell me if I'm wrong).

I see that as irrelevant. Why? It's like arguing that the validity of a search warrant is based on whether or not you found something incriminating. Either the process you followed was reasonable on it's face, or it wasn't. Either it's OK for POTUS to leverage official acts in support of his personal attorney's oppo research efforts, or it isn't. The results of that research is irrelevant to the underlying question of abuse of power.

Again, this is POTUS singling out and putting a US citizen (Hunter Biden) in the cross hairs of a foreign prosecutor, without any due process or protections in US law. It's a huge deal and reeks of the precise kind of corruption we are fighting in Ukraine, where whoever is in power gets to target their enemies.

I think there was enough smoke that it's not unreasonable to see if there was a fire. If hunter Biden is guilty of what is suggested, then it's the presidents job to use what resources he has to find out and that includes asking a foreign government to help look into it if the whole thing was based in their country. Every investigation begins with suspicion of a crime, this is no different.

 

[Cubs79]

So it was legit to negotiate the purchase when it was clearly outside the bounds of presidential authority? Seems like an abuse of power, doesnt it?

Why was negotiating it outside the bounds of presidential authority? The House still had to sign off on it.

 

[Cubs79]

I think there was enough smoke that it's not unreasonable to see if there was a fire. If hunter Biden is guilty of what is suggested, then it's the presidents job to use what resources he has to find out and that includes asking a foreign government to help look into it if the whole thing was based in their country. Every investigation begins with suspicion of a crime, this is no different.

What is Hunter Biden even accused of other than having a cushy job? And if a cushy job is this big of an issue, then there are a lot of politicians kids who need to be investigated.

 

[sk8knight]

What is Hunter Biden even accused of other than having a cushy job? And if a cushy job is this big of an issue, then there are a lot of politicians kids who need to be investigated.

Joe Biden is accused of using his position as VP and a billion dollars in aid as leverage to protect Hunter’s position at Burisma. At the very least. Kids can trade off their parents’ name. There is a Burisma employee that admitted that Hunter was hired expressly to protect Burisma from the anti-corruption investigation. That his dad was “running”. That goes far beyond trading off of a famous name.

 

[Cubs79]

Joe Biden is accused of using his position as VP and a billion dollars in aid as leverage to protect Hunter’s position at Burisma. At the very least. Kids can trade off their parents’ name. There is a Burisma employee that admitted that Hunter was hired expressly to protect Burisma from the anti-corruption investigation. That his dad was “running”. That goes far beyond trading off of a famous name.

THen you would need to investigate Joe, not Hunter. There is also not evidence of any of that BTW.

 

[Boosted87]

I think there was enough smoke that it's not unreasonable to see if there was a fire. If hunter Biden is guilty of what is suggested, then it's the presidents job to use what resources he has to find out and that includes asking a foreign government to help look into it if the whole thing was based in their country. Every investigation begins with suspicion of a crime, this is no different.

That's a really dangerous precedent. Under that philosophy, Obama would have been justified in offering Putin sanctions relief for a public announcement of investigations into Trump's dealings in Russia. The standard has to be higher than politically motivated oppo research.

 

[Cubs79]

That's a really dangerous precedent. Under that philosophy, Obama would have been justified in offering Putin sanctions relief for a public announcement of investigations into Trump's dealings in Russia. The standard has to be higher than politically motivated oppo research.

What is funny is the FBI didn't even announce they were investigating Trump in 2016 because they didn't want to be seen as interfering in the election, but we are apparently ok with Ukraine not only investigating our politicians, but making a major news story out of it during an election year. Seems pretty backwards to say the least.

I do wonder if the people who are ok with all of this realize they are setting the precedent for future Dem presidents as well? No way Republicans would have been ok with Obama doing what you just suggested, but at this point, they have made it clear it is ok for the next Democrat to do something similar.

 

[UCFKnight85]

That's a really dangerous precedent. Under that philosophy, Obama would have been justified in offering Putin sanctions relief for a public announcement of investigations into Trump's dealings in Russia. The standard has to be higher than politically motivated oppo research.

Trump's dealings (whatever little those may actually be) have never been under legal scrutiny from here, Europe, or Russia itself.

Hunter Biden and his company in Ukraine were under investigation and remain under legal scrutiny for corruption.

 

[UCFKnight85]

What is funny is the FBI didn't even announce they were investigating Trump in 2016 because they didn't want to be seen as interfering in the election, but we are apparently ok with Ukraine not only investigating our politicians, but making a major news story out of it during an election year. Seems pretty backwards to say the least.

Or maybe we didn't hear about it because the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign largely in part because the HRC campaign hand delivered a Russian procured disinformation dossier that was entered in as key evidence to obtain FISA warrants?

 

[Cubs79]

Or maybe we didn't hear about it because the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign largely in part because the HRC campaign hand delivered a Russian procured disinformation dossier that was entered in as key evidence to obtain FISA warrants?

None of that contradicts what I just said about not making the investigation publicly known.

 

[UCFWayne]

Joe Biden is accused of using his position as VP and a billion dollars in aid as leverage to protect Hunter’s position at Burisma. At the very least. Kids can trade off their parents’ name. There is a Burisma employee that admitted that Hunter was hired expressly to protect Burisma from the anti-corruption investigation. That his dad was “running”. That goes far beyond trading off of a famous name.

i jsut hope this investigation is open ended with no scope to limit it. i hope they go after anyone and everyone that is even remotely close to biden. maybe they could get one of hunters friend's friend's 3rd aunt on tax evasion.

 

[sk8knight]

THen you would need to investigate Joe, not Hunter. There is also not evidence of any of that BTW.

Let's see. Joe was VP. He got himself assigned to Ukraine. Hunter was hired by Burisma and paid an unusual amount for a person of his experience and background. There was a Ukrainian investigation into Burisma. Joe is on tape saying he used a billion dollars in aid to leverage a prosecutor to be fired. Prosecutor was fired. Hunter was never investigated. It's really quite clear and all in the public record.

Now, you can say there's ambiguity into when the investigation was started/ended with Burisma. You can say that the prosecutor was dirty (and that is the media's stance), but then again there are people that dispute that as well. You can say that Joe didn't know anything, but then there are pictures of Joe, Hunter, and Burisma executives playing golf together.

IOW, the first paragraph is more than enough reasonable suspicion (damn near almost probable cause) to begin an investigation and clear up the second paragraph. The evidence is there waiting to be collected (which, ironically, is the Schiff rationale to why he wanted the Senate to subpoena certain people that he failed to subpoena/didn't take the next step to force the subpoena).

 

[Cubs79]

i jsut hope this investigation is open ended with no scope to limit it. i hope they go after anyone and everyone that is even remotely close to biden. maybe they could get one of hunters friend's friend's 3rd aunt on tax evasion.

Yeah, this doesn't sound fascist at all.

 

[sk8knight]

i jsut hope this investigation is open ended with no scope to limit it. i hope they go after anyone and everyone that is even remotely close to biden. maybe they could get one of hunters friend's friend's 3rd aunt on tax evasion.

Meh, we had 8 years of the Obama administration vowing to "get to the bottom and find out who's responsible" for everything from Fast and Furious to Benghazi to Russia followed by Trump's administration not investigation anything at all. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Cubs79]

Let's see. Joe was VP. He got himself assigned to Ukraine. Hunter was hired by Burisma and paid an unusual amount for a person of his experience and background. There was a Ukrainian investigation into Burisma. Joe is on tape saying he used a billion dollars in aid to leverage a prosecutor to be fired. Prosecutor was fired. Hunter was never investigated. It's really quite clear and all in the public record.

Now, you can say there's ambiguity into when the investigation was started/ended with Burisma. You can say that the prosecutor was dirty (and that is the media's stance), but then again there are people that dispute that as well. You can say that Joe didn't know anything, but then there are pictures of Joe, Hunter, and Burisma executives playing golf together.

IOW, the first paragraph is more than enough reasonable suspicion (damn near almost probable cause) to begin an investigation and clear up the second paragraph. The evidence is there waiting to be collected (which, ironically, is the Schiff rationale to why he wanted the Senate to subpoena certain people that he failed to subpoena/didn't take the next step to force the subpoena).

Wait what? Who says Joe didn't know his son was working for Burisma?

Then do an investigation, but do it properly and not with Rudy and Lev Parnas manning the wheel of it.

 

[sk8knight]

Yeah, this doesn't sound fascist at all.

You do realize this is what Mueller did, right?

 

[UCFWayne]

Yeah, this doesn't sound fascist at all.

but i thought you were a fan of the mueller report and the various arrests?

 

[Cubs79]

Meh, we had 8 years of the Obama administration vowing to "get to the bottom and find out who's responsible" for everything from Fast and Furious to Benghazi to Russia followed by Trump's administration not investigation anything at all. I'm not holding my breath.

There were more Republican lead hearings into Benghazi than there were into 9/11. What more could you have possibly wanted to be looked into with Benghazi?

 

[Cubs79]

but i thought you were a fan of the mueller report and the various arrests?

What does that have to do with what you just said?

 

[sk8knight]

Wait what? Who says Joe didn't know his son was working for Burisma?

Then do an investigation, but do it properly and not with Rudy and Lev Parnas manning the wheel of it.

Joe said that he didn't know. And yeah, I don't want Rudy and Lev (Sweatnick) Parnas as any part of the investigation other than maybe as fact witnesses.

 

[Cubs79]

You do realize this is what Mueller did, right?

No he didn't. He investigated Trump's campaign, and people who were associated with his campaign that did illegal things were held accountable.

 

[sk8knight]

There were more Republican lead hearings into Benghazi than there were into 9/11. What more could you have possibly wanted to be looked into with Benghazi?

Those were political investigations into the actions of the administration during the Benghazi attacks. I want to know who attacked the embassy, who funded and aided them, and how we brought them to justice. Lay it out clear as a bell in a Presidential speech that interrupts Survivor and American Idol.

 

[Crazyhole]

What is funny is the FBI didn't even announce they were investigating Trump in 2016 because they didn't want to be seen as interfering in the election, but we are apparently ok with Ukraine not only investigating our politicians, but making a major news story out of it during an election year. Seems pretty backwards to say the least.

I do wonder if the people who are ok with all of this realize they are setting the precedent for future Dem presidents as well? No way Republicans would have been ok with Obama doing what you just suggested, but at this point, they have made it clear it is ok for the next Democrat to do something similar.

I dont remember the details exactly, but wasn't there an FBI agent who was accused of giving Buzzfeed credibility on the Steele dossier before they reported on it?

 

[UCFWayne]

What does that have to do with what you just said?

lol

 

[Crazyhole]

Let's see. Joe was VP. He got himself assigned to Ukraine. Hunter was hired by Burisma and paid an unusual amount for a person of his experience and background. There was a Ukrainian investigation into Burisma. Joe is on tape saying he used a billion dollars in aid to leverage a prosecutor to be fired. Prosecutor was fired. Hunter was never investigated. It's really quite clear and all in the public record.

Now, you can say there's ambiguity into when the investigation was started/ended with Burisma. You can say that the prosecutor was dirty (and that is the media's stance), but then again there are people that dispute that as well. You can say that Joe didn't know anything, but then there are pictures of Joe, Hunter, and Burisma executives playing golf together.

IOW, the first paragraph is more than enough reasonable suspicion (damn near almost probable cause) to begin an investigation and clear up the second paragraph. The evidence is there waiting to be collected (which, ironically, is the Schiff rationale to why he wanted the Senate to subpoena certain people that he failed to subpoena/didn't take the next step to force the subpoena).

You barely scratched the surface there. Hunter Bidens business partner who was also a board member of Burisma was convicted of the same things that he is suspected of doing. Joe Biden lifted the travel ban on the oligarch who owns Burisma shortly after Hunter was named to the board. The billion dollars worth of aid that joe threatened to withhold was deposited into the bank that this same oligarch owns, which was under investigation by Great Britain until the Ukranians refused to comply with their requests. Amazingly, the counter narrative is that Shokin was fired because he wasn't investigating Zhokoshevsky but we turn around and deposit our aid money into his bank? Seriously?

 

[Cubs79]

I dont remember the details exactly, but wasn't there an FBI agent who was accused of giving Buzzfeed credibility on the Steele dossier before they reported on it?

The Buzzfeed article about the Steele Dossier came out after Trump was elected, so it wouldn't have impacted the election. I don't know if an FBI agent talked with them or not, but because this wasn't public knowledge until after the election it doesn't change my point.

 

[Crazyhole]

That's a really dangerous precedent. Under that philosophy, Obama would have been justified in offering Putin sanctions relief for a public announcement of investigations into Trump's dealings in Russia. The standard has to be higher than politically motivated oppo research.

There is literally no evidence that trump asked for a public announcement by Ukraine at this point. It wouldn't surprise me if it's true but i still think it sounds odd. Even if they did announce an investigation, the vast majority of the american media wouldn't have reported on it so it would have been meaningless.

 

[Crazyhole]

The Buzzfeed article about the Steele Dossier came out after Trump was elected, so it wouldn't have impacted the election. I don't know if an FBI agent talked with them or not, but because this wasn't public knowledge until after the election it doesn't change my point.

I thought buzzfeed reported on it in september on 2016. It had to be before the election.

 

[Cubs79]

I thought buzzfeed reported on it in september on 2016. It had to be before the election.

No, it was January 10, 2017.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia

 

[Crazyhole]

No, it was January 10, 2017.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia

What was it that came out before the election? Wasn't there some kind of scandalous deal that the MSM didnt report because they didnt think it was credible but one of the internet media sites released?

 

[Cubs79]

What was it that came out before the election? Wasn't there some kind of scandalous deal that the MSM didnt report because they didnt think it was credible but one of the internet media sites released?

This link I provided is what you are talking about, it was after the election.

Before the election Comey came out about re-opening the investigation into Hillary's emails, but they never said anything about Trump.

 

[Crazyhole]

This link I provided is what you are talking about, it was after the election.

Before the election Comey came out about re-opening the investigation into Hillary's emails, but they never said anything about Trump.

Must have been the Russia collusion thing then. I swear there was some kind of scandal that was brought up a month or 2 before the election

 

[Cubs79]

There is literally no evidence that trump asked for a public announcement by Ukraine at this point. It wouldn't surprise me if it's true but i still think it sounds odd. Even if they did announce an investigation, the vast majority of the american media wouldn't have reported on it so it would have been meaningless.

People who would know testified he did, but you can't lean on this "no evidence" when they didnt cooperate with the hearings.

 

[sk8knight]

Must have been the Russia collusion thing then. I swear there was some kind of scandal that was brought up a month or 2 before the election

You had all of the sexual assault and infidelity stuff before the election as well as Trump University.

 

[Boosted87]

Trump's dealings (whatever little those may actually be) have never been under legal scrutiny from here, Europe, or Russia itself.

Hunter Biden and his company in Ukraine were under investigation and remain under legal scrutiny for corruption.

He sat on the board of a company who was in various states of investigation prior that began prior to his arrival. Claims of corruption aimed specifically at the Bidens are based on oppo research hand delivered to Trump. That puts it at the same level of credibility as what Steele delivered. I'd have zero complains if that was handed to the FBI who found proper predication for an investigation.

Under your justification, it would have been acceptable for Obama to go directly to Putin, ask for a public announcement of investigations related to the Steele Dossier, in exchange for sanctions relief or the US reducing Ukraine aid levels. That is the precedent we have set.

 

[Boosted87]

There is literally no evidence that trump asked for a public announcement by Ukraine at this point. It wouldn't surprise me if it's true but i still think it sounds odd. Even if they did announce an investigation, the vast majority of the american media wouldn't have reported on it so it would have been meaningless.

Are you just trolling me now? I mean, you can try to argue it's circumstantial that POTUS wanted this, and that Rudy was rogue, but evidence certainly exists.

It's literally in text messages between Yermak / Sondland / Volker and Rudy and backed up by Volker and Sondland's testimony. Volker says he needs to talk to Rudy about the verbiage of the statement. Rudy says to call. A few days later Volker is texting back and forth with Yermak on what the statement needs to include. So you're arguing that Rudy was rogue?.

 

[sk8knight]

He sat on the board of a company who was in various states of investigation prior that began prior to his arrival. Claims of corruption aimed specifically at the Bidens are based on oppo research hand delivered to Trump. That puts it at the same level of credibility as what Steele delivered. I'd have zero complains if that was handed to the FBI who found proper predication for an investigation.

Under your justification, it would have been acceptable for Obama to go directly to Putin, ask for a public announcement of investigations related to the Steele Dossier, in exchange for sanctions relief or the US reducing Ukraine aid levels. That is the precedent we have set.

Well, Obama did have a lot more flexibility to work with the Russians in his second term. So, yeah. The thing is, Obama was the chief executive of the US at that time. If he wanted to go to Putin and ask them to make a statement, yeah he could’ve done it. Especially since None of you all thought Russia was a problem back then. Would it have been inappropriate, yeah. Impeachable, no. Censure is what should have been done with Trump.

 

[Boosted87]

What was it that came out before the election? Wasn't there some kind of scandalous deal that the MSM didnt report because they didnt think it was credible but one of the internet media sites released?

There were two media reports where Steele was a source prior to the election (per the Wikipedia entry on the Dossier).

1. Micheal Isikoff story on Carter Page
2. David Corn story on the basic premise of Steele's findings

The thing that bugs me the most about the whole thing is that the FBI did their job to investigate and keep it under the radar. It never became a national headline until Buzzfeed dropped the dossier well after the election. Comey's hand was forced on the Wiener laptop issue, but if the FBI did anything to influence the 2016 election it was to Trump's benefit.

I think it's petty of Democrats to blame Comey for that, and I think it's absurd for Republicans to argue that the FBI was out to get Trump, when they literally could have blown his campaign out of the water by credibly leaking the dossier a week before the election.

 

[Boosted87]

Well, Obama did have a lot fire flexibility to work with the Russians in his second term. So, yeah. The thing is, Obama was the chief executive of the US at that time. If he wanted to go to Putin and ask them to make a statement, yeah he could’ve done it. Especially since None of you all thought Russia was a problem back then. Would it have been inappropriate, yeah. Impeachable, no. Censure is what should have been done with Trump.

I'm 100% on board with censure.

The problem is Trump will never admit he's done anything wrong. That gives zero room to reasonable republicans to support a censure. The end result is a purely partisan House censure vote that Mitch never even entertains in the senate.

 

[sk8knight]

I'm 100% on board with censure.

The problem is Trump will never admit he's done anything wrong. That gives zero room to reasonable republicans to support a censure. The end result is a purely partisan House censure vote that Mitch never even entertains in the senate.

I honestly think you’d have pulled more Republicans into censure. There are enough squishies up there that don’t like Trump.