The impeachment inquiry

[brian ross]

Republicans storm Donald Trump impeachment inquiry hearing, putting testimony on hold

[The4thEstate]

Investigated by whom? Ever notice that when it comes to Trump, left-wing media like the New York Times throw everything they've got into looking for something, anything to nail him on ... but when it comes to Biden, they simply shrug and say, "There's no evidence that Biden did anything wrong."

Well now, I am working from memory here, but I am guessing by the media themselves. Joe Biden himself has no connection personally to Burisma Group. I have to admit though, I ignored the China part of the comment. Since nothing of evidence was provided from anybody about these matters, I have not worried about finding out.

However, The Burisma Group with the evidence provided actually showed that Biden Jr was the ONLY Biden who had a connection to Burisma and the payment was not made to Biden at all but a third party who was connected to Biden Jr meaning the evidence was simple innuendo. Again a Trump tactic, that I don’t think worked for him and will not for anybody else. Since that was the opening I simply discarded the rest of the paragraph. For which I requested evidence of such.

Here, I'll cite a report by Reuters, which isn't exactly known for being a Trump fan club:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hunt ... SKBN1WX1P7

According to payment records reviewed by Reuters that two former Ukrainian law enforcement officials say are Burisma’s, the company paid about $3.4 million to a company that was controlled by Archer called Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC between April 2014 and November 2015.

Specifically, the records show 18 months in which two payments of $83,333 per month were paid to Rosemont Seneca Bohai for “consulting services.” The two sources said that one of those monthly payments was intended for Biden and one for Archer ...

Oleksandr Onyshchenko, a businessman and former member of the Ukrainian parliament who knows the Burisma founder, said it had been [founder] Zlochevsky’s idea to appoint Biden as a director. “It was to protect (the company)” at a time when it was facing investigations, said Onyshchenko, who left the country in 2016.

So it's pretty clear that Hunter Biden wasn't hired for his expertise. Even he has admitted that "It is impossible for me to be on any of the boards that I just mentioned without saying that I’m the son of the vice president of the United States.”

Did he or his Vice President dad do anything illegal? I don't know -- that's what investigations are for.

But it's striking to me how many resources the New York Times and fellow mainstream media threw at covering the Russian collusion investigation against Trump, which we're now learning was a set-up, and how little curiosity they have about the Bidens' conduct, which at best was unethical for a sitting Vice President.

As for the Media Bias, I agree completely. BUT I would have thought that US media has the same onus of proof that anybody else has. That they cannot simply say something happened without supplying some sort of evidence.

Well, I wish that were true, but the fact is that U.S. media outlets have been making unfounded accusations against Trump since he was sworn in as president. Consider the Time magazine cover with the caption "Red-Handed," a reference to Trump's son's meeting with a Russian attorney in Trump Tower.

In actuality, the meeting amounted to nothing, aside from the fact that a relative of the president happened to hold a single short meeting with an attorney who happened to be from Russia.

But hey, who needs proof of collusion when you can sell magazines with innuendo?

So thus it is important to sift through the reporting an extract the fact from fiction. We then come on here and debate what is fact and fiction which is helpful for you being American to help by providing support for such.

However, we should never just discard something because you don’t like the messenger or the message. You should only discard for the truth of the issue or action.

Sure, and the truth is that after a 2-year investigation that cost the American taxpayers $35 million, we wound up with no evidence of any Russian collusion by Trump and his campaign ... because there was never any evidence of it from the start.

And that's what Attorney General Barr and lead investigator Durham are unraveling right now -- an apparent attempt by the Hillary campaign and Obama administration officials to destroy Trump's candidacy and then his presidency. It just went from an administrative review to a criminal investigation.

A fair media would be interested in such a development and at least consider the possibility of its legitimacy, but then, we're talking about the American media, which is essentially a branch of the Democratic Party. Here's a typical example of the coverage you can expect to see (granted, Reuters is not headquartered in the U.S.):
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1X420J

Of course there's no evidence ... that's what investigations are for! But there's plenty to be suspicious about when a Vice President flies his ne'er'-do-well son to China and Junior winds up with a billion-dollar investment from the Chinese government.

I think I already (in previous post) stated I know nothing of this point and cannot refute it. But (from this one point, I suspect is worded poorly) simply getting investment from a foreign nation is not criminal or even suspicious is it??? Maybe I have it wrong to what you saying here, but China has invested almost 22% into US economy (2 years ago figures) I am sure it was not considered illegal.

It's not illegal to invest with the help of an American firm. But Biden's firm was a small-potatoes operation that, according to financial pundits I've heard, would never have attracted a billion-dollar Chinese investment if one of its principals hadn't been related to the Vice President.

It has all the appearance of political influence buying, and deserves at least as much attention as the Russia collusion hoax.

I am pointing out that US takes foreign interference extremely seriously and the Probe itself is example of that fact. I don’t think anybody denies that there was foreign interference.

Well, there's always been foreign interference by the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, etc. -- it's just that nobody before now has attempted to connect it to an American presidential candidate/president in hopes of gaining a political advantage.

I mean, when you think about it, what's the essential difference between the Russia collusion hoax and Watergate? In both cases, you have a sitting president who instructs his underlings to use illegal means to undermine a presidential candidate from a rival party.

I am interested in what further will be released but only due to the validity of the matter. I believe ANYHING more will be ambiguous deliberately. There are too many careers involved in it to provide anything substantive. We will see, won’t we?

We're already beginning to see. Here's a surprisingly balanced opinion piece from the Washington Post that covers the nuts and bolts of the Barr probe and the fact that it's now described as a criminal investigation:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... s-nervous/

I agree, but if the Russia collusion was such a serious matter, and then he has committed Of course there is no evidence of anything. Due to Trump’s image, A polarising character, if something evidence that could be tested came forward I can guarantee he would have face court by now.

BUT he did request an investigation be started by a foreign government and honestly the more I discuss this with people the more I believe he is being played like a fiddle. BUT that is my opinion and nothing more.

It's not illegal for an American president to request that a foreign government investigate what he perceives as corruption. In fact, that's what a president should do -- try to stamp out corruption that affects the U.S., especially when it comes to presidential elections.

But here's the interesting part: Ukraine actually tried to help the Democrats win the 2016 election, according to Politico, an anything-but-right-wing website. Read it for yourself: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ ... ire-233446

So Trump had ample reason to ask Ukraine's president to look into election influence and other corruption involving America.

But the bottom line is, if you read the transcript of Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president, there's nothing in it that implies Ukraine won't get military aid unless it investigates the Bidens. In fact, Ukrainian officials have stated that they felt no pressure to investigate Biden -- and weren't even aware that military aid had been withheld (Trump says that was because he didn't want to hand over U.S. aid to a corrupt country).

I think your discarding this issue out of hand is little short sighted, As I have stated before, I believe this is simply about tossing mud till the next election and trying to convince the American people there must be some truth to the matter. I give Americans more intelligence than that, but again Trump is also using the same tactic.

But your opinion has been shaped by reports from left-wing media who are bent on disparaging Trump. Try getting a more balanced view -- especially when it comes to the Barr investigation into the original of the Russia collusion investigation.

And consider the possibility of what I'm telling you: That "Russian collusion" was a hoax from day one, a political dirty trick carried out by the upper echelon of the Obama administration, with help from foreign intelligence services including Australia's.

If that proves to be true, it's as bad or worse than Watergate.

[Bogan]

z1020.png

[Black Orchid]

A new report from RealClearInvestigations reveals that the anti-Trump “whistleblower” who prompted the current impeachment proceedings against President Trump is a registered Democrat who worked with a Democratic National Committee opposition researcher who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.

Federal documents reveal that the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, previously worked in the Obama administration with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan. RealClear reports that Ciaramella remained there into the Trump administration, and headed the Ukraine desk at the National Security Council, eventually transitioning into the West Wing, until June 2017.

He then “left his National Security Council posting in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media. He has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia,” RealClearInvestigations reported. Ciaramella is a Yale graduate who reportedly speaks Russian, Ukrainian, and Arabic.

Officials told RealClear that Ciaramella strongly opposed Trump’s foreign policy.

“He didn’t exactly hide his passion with respect to what he thought was the right thing to do with Ukraine and Russia, and his views were at odds with the president’s policies,” a former senior White House official said.

Politico reported on a Ukrainian-American woman who consulted for the Democratic National Committee, and “met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia.” The woman, Alexandra Chalupa, was paid $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016 by the DNC.

Ciaramella invited Chalupa to meetings and events at the White House, RealClear reported, documents confirming one occasion in November 2015. She also visited the White House with Ukrainian lobbyists seeking aid from Obama.

Chalupa said she shared her findings with both the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Politico reports that “Chalupa told a senior DNC official that, when it came to Trump’s campaign, ‘I felt there was a Russia connection.'” Chalupa also said that the Ukrainian embassy worked directly with reporters digging for Trump-Russia ties.

Before Ciaramella filed his “whistleblower complaint,” he sought “guidance” from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s staff and other Obama-era NSC staff recently employed by Schiff’s office. Before this “guidance” was public knowledge, the Chairman was adamant on hearing the “whistleblower” testimony.

“We need to speak with the whistleblower,” Schiff and other Democrats proclaimed. As soon as Ciaramella’s partisanship and collaboration was discovered, Schiff and the Democrats flipped to preventing the testimony from happening and moving their hearings behind closed doors.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/30/an ... officials/

Oh dear!

[brian ross]

Why does it matter if his evidence is valid? One's political alignment does not normally get questioned in matters of law, Black Orchid. He may be a registered Republican or a Democrat, what matters is his evidence...

[Black Orchid]

Why does it matter if his evidence is valid?

Goodnight Brian.

[brian ross]

Why does it matter if his evidence is valid?

Goodnight Brian.

'cause without valid evidence the investigation cannot continue, Black Orchid. I know you don't believe I think el Presidente Trump is innocent but I personally would prefer valid evidence to damn him with. I don't attack politicians merely on the basis of my likes or dislikes, despite what you may believe, Black Orchid. I don't attack people simply because they have a dark skin or red hair or are women or are gay or anything like that. They need to have done something wrong. An investigation will discover that. Trump's followers seem afraid of any investigation for some unfathomable reason.

[The4thEstate]

Trump's followers seem afraid of any investigation for some unfathomable reason.

Actually, there's a very fathomable reason: Trump supporters know B.S. when they see it.

We've already lived through more than 2 years of a sham "Russia collusion" investigation that amounted to zilch. Now, no sooner does that witch hunt finally end than here comes another supposed scandal that Democrats are clutching their pearls over.

Fact is, if you control one of the Houses of Congress, you can investigate anyone for anything, regardless of whether you have any legitimate evidence suggesting the person's guilt. That's what's known in legal terms as a fishing expedition.

And in politics, one of the oldest ways of trying to dirty up an opposing politician is to invent a supposed scandal and then spend months (if not years) investigating it. The publicity alone can damage the politician's popularity.

So ... if you're the politician in question, your smartest move is to stop pretending there's any validity to the dog-and-pony show. Don't cooperate in any way. Publicly mock their investigation. Call the principals out by name.

The good news is that Attorney General Barr is currently investigating the murky origins of the Russia collusion probe, which is now a criminal investigation. And the Inspector General is about to release a report summarizing his own related investigation. That may explain why the Democrats are acting shocked -- SHOCKED! -- at the president's mundane call with the Ukrainian president.

Trump's enemies, the Democrats, have already taken best their shot at him, and soon it will be their turn to play defense. The impeachment inquiry is just a Democrat distraction, since there's no chance the Republican-controlled Senate will throw out their own president.

[brian ross]

Trump's followers seem afraid of any investigation for some unfathomable reason.

Actually, there's a very fathomable reason: Trump supporters know B.S. when they see it.

Maybe so, maybe not. You appear 100% converted to support el Presidente' Trump, right or wrong. What happens if it discovers he is in the wrong? Will your allegiance change?

Tell me, did you support Nixon before he was (nearly) impeached? How about Clinton? Oops, of course not, such a silly question, right, 4E?

[BigP]

Trump's followers seem afraid of any investigation for some unfathomable reason.

Actually, there's a very fathomable reason: Trump supporters know B.S. when they see it.

Maybe so, maybe not. You appear 100% converted to support el Presidente' Trump, right or wrong. What happens if it discovers he is in the wrong? Will your allegiance change?

Tell me, did you support Nixon before he was (nearly) impeached? How about Clinton? Oops, of course not, such a silly question, right, 4E?

Whats you point Brian, Impeachment at best is a TUT TUT , It has no rear legal standing , If the Dems get it through the house , it wont go any further they would be better putting their time and efforts into finding a good candidate to challenge Trump