The impeachment inquiry

[Fred]

It doesn't appear to be in jest and he would never get my vote. His inappropriate acts towards women and children are just plain creepy as well as his really oddball gaffes.

Yeah, I am with you there. BUT, it could be construed that difference in nationality gives the difference in perception. But generally I agree with you on this part of the matter,

Having said that, no-one should be immune from a corruption enquiry even, or especially, Trump but the Dems have been going at this for 3 years and so far nothing has stuck. They are so obsessed and focused solely on impeachment that IF they could find something to level at him that would stick they would have by now.

That is my point about this entire issue, for 3yrs they have been slinging this mud and only now has there been something that might make some of that mud stick. Will it work??? Again, I don't think so. Trump uses it because he thinks it works, but the truth is far from reality. I believe the American people didn't want more of the same so they chose the alternative. The next election will show if they thought they made a mistake or not. NOTHING to do with the mudslinging they are all doing, I suggest.

I just think they need to get on with trying to legitimately win 2020 and focus on the American people rather than continuing to be very sore losers. Impeach or don't impeach but just move the hell forward.

I think Biden is not the threat Trump thought he was going to be. Maybe he had some polling that made suggestion on that, but even before the accusations Biden was behind two others. I know little about the candidates, but to me, Biden would be back of the field. I am not sure there is anybody on the other side who can bring decent choice. SO if Trump is not re-elected I would suggest it was not for the candidates but the actions of their president.

[brian ross]

Washington: Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney told reporters on Thursday that President Donald Trump blocked nearly $US400 million ($586 million) in military aid to Ukraine in part to force the government in Kiev to investigate his political rivals, a startling acknowledgment after the president's repeated denials of a quid pro quo.

He later sought to reverse his comments.ed nearly $US400 million ($586 million) in military aid to Ukraine in part to force the government in Kiev to investigate his political rivals, a startling acknowledgment after the president's repeated denials of a quid pro quo.

He later sought to reverse his comments.

[Source]
[Emphasis added]

"He later sought to reverse his comments."

Washington (CNN)White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney made a stunning admission Thursday by confirming that President Donald Trump froze nearly $400 million in US security aid to Ukraine in part to pressure that country into investigating Democrats.
Hours later, Mulvaney then denied ever saying those words.
The dramatic admission came during an afternoon news conference where Mulvaney insisted that he knew only of a US request to investigate the handling of a Democratic National Committee server hacked in the 2016 election, but text messages between US diplomats show efforts to get Ukraine to commit to an investigation into Burisma, the company on whose board former Vice President Joe Biden's son sat. There is no evidence of wrongdoing in Ukraine by either Biden.

"That's why we held up the money," Mulvaney said after listing the 2016-related investigation and Trump's broader concerns about corruption in Ukraine.

After weeks during which Trump denied the existence of any political quid pro quo in his withholding of security aid to Ukraine, Mulvaney confirmed the existence of a quid pro quo and offered this retort: "Get over it."

"We do that all the time with foreign policy," Mulvaney said of the influence of politics in the Trump administration.

Then on Thursday evening, Mulvaney attempted to claim that he did not admit to the quid pro quo despite clearly being asked if the Trump administration withheld funding for Ukraine for an investigation into the DNC server and answering affirmatively.

"The only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption," Mulvaney said in a written statement, adding, "There never was any condition on the flow of the aid related to the matter of the DNC server."
In an unusual statement expressing public distance from the White House, a senior Justice Department official responded: "If the White House was withholding aid in regards to the cooperation of any investigation at the Department of Justice, that is news to us."

Trump's attorney Jay Sekulow told CNN's Jim Acosta: "The legal team was not involved in the acting chief of staff's press briefing."

[Source]
[Emphasis added]

"We do that all the time with foreign policy,"

[Black Orchid]

You chose to name your link "White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney admits there was quid pro quo". Stop being disingenuous, Brian, it is extremely unbecoming.

No soup for you!

[The4thEstate]

Oh, please ... is this a serious post, or did I stumble onto the Comedy Central web page?

The Russia collusion investigation was a hoax from day one, hatched by the Hillary campaign and the Obama administration. Investigator Mueller and his team of angry Democrats still couldn't manage to find a shred of evidence of any collusion, whose origins are now under investigation by the current Attorney General's office.

Think I'm full of it? Word has it that the Inspector General's report, which is supposedly as thick as a phone book, is going to be released on Friday ... and that it will document all the funny business that took place in the FISA court thanks in part to then FBI director James Comey. I'm sure other Obama bigwigs will be mentioned prominently in the text.

Could be indictments coming, and this time it'll be the Democrats playing defense.

And that doesn't even include what William Barr and his hand-picked "investigator of the investigators," John Durham, will turn up while interviewing intelligence officials in places like the Ukraine, Italy and yes, Australia.

You missed the point about the Russian interference. It doesn’t matter if you think it is real or not.

Sure it does -- just as much as whether or not YOU think it's real.

That fact is you feel it is criminal enough to be defended.

I have no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean. How is it that I "feel it is criminal enough to be defended"?

I don't think it's criminal at all. I believe the entire Mueller investigation was a sham, as evidenced by his nothingburger conclusion after 2 years of pretending to chase a hoax.

As ALL consider, collusion with ANY government to influence elections especially by those in the election is a very, very serious matter. THAT is what the point of Russia is.

Um, yeah ... selling babies on the black market is a very, very serious matter too, but that didn't happen either in this case. What's your point?

NOBODY is denying Trump requested a foreign government to launch an investigation into a candidate in a presidential election. Trump claims he is a criminal and so on but clearly there is no evidence of such...

What media do you follow? In no way has Trump demanded that anybody launch an investigation into a political rival. (Read the transcript of his conversation.) The issue at hand is foreign interference in the 2016 election, which Democrats used to pretend they cared about.

As president, he has the right to ask other nations to help in investigations into corruption involving U.S. presidential elections. The fact that Joe Biden might get caught up in the dragnet is irrelevant; running for president doesn't make a person immune to prosecution.

Here's something I'll bet you haven't heard about: Politico's story about Ukrainians trying, and failing, to help Hillary Clinton win the presidency in 2016. Gee, doesn't that sound like foreign interference in a presidential election to you? But don't worry, you'll never read about it because the vast majority of U.S. media is so far in the tank for the Democrats, they've got goldfish swimming around their heads.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ ... ire-233446

Point #2: At no time has Trump "claimed he is a criminal." Have you been reading The Onion again?

So If you think Russia interfering in US elections is bad enough, I would suggest you would find a US candidate colluding WITH Russia would be worse. You can defend Russia all you want, that is something else.

Huh? I've never defended Russia.

Stay tuned for further details of the attempted coup on Trump ... I'm keeping my cupboard stocked with popcorn!

What is funny, is all the bleating over this is keeping the image of Trump in the forefront as a person who will do anything to win an election, including trying to force other nations to corrupt US elections for his benefit. Will play to the next elections, giving them the time to create the image of fact from innuendo. People like you, who jump on the band wagon to defend him in this manner, just help that cause.

And people like you, who naively swallow up every accusation that the pouting, power-hungry Democrats and their media allies spoon-feed you, are just helping the cause of lefties who've been engaged in trying to overthrow a fair election since their side didn't win.

[The4thEstate]

Joe Biden himself received $900,000 from The Burisma Group for lobbying activities when he was Vice President. While he was VP he took his son on Air Force 2 to China and Hunter came back with $1.4 billion in hedge fund money. I would think it was the duty of a sitting President to investigate this no matter who it is. Biden even boasted to the world on camera that he had the Ukrainian Prosecutor sacked. If Biden, Warren and Sanders are the best they have got the Dems deserve to lose.

Care to provide some evidence of this accusation of receiving for the lobbying, that has already been debunked around the world??? As for his son, again an accusation that has thus far fallen way short of any evidence after two investigations. the matters WERE investigated and nothing could be established.

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."

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.

As for the Russian collusion, the Mueller Report found no evidence of conspiracy on Trump's part.

Irrelevant, the only point I make about the Russian collusion is that it is example of how serious everyday Americans consider this issue.

Actually, Americans DON'T consider Russian collusion a major issue -- especially after the entire 2-year Democrat hoax was confirmed by Mueller's finding of zero.

If you actually care about the truth, keep an eye out for the soon-to-be-released Inspector General's report, which should reveal a lot more of the truth behind the origins of the Russian collusion fantasy. (An even bigger potential blockbuster is the ongoing Barr investigation, which has already extended into several foreign countries, including Australia.)

Frankly, I thought the entire Russian collusion accusation sounded like a hokey Cold War novel by a first-time author. Trump is more "America first" than any Democrat, so why would any thinking person believe he colluded with the Russians?

I agree, but if the Russia collusion was such a serious matter, and then he has committed a crime, impeach him and get on with it. Impeachment doesn’t mean he will lose his presidency…

There's no evidence that Trump committed a crime.

But of course, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives could still impeach him, even if they simply don't like the color of his suit. It won't mean much of anything to the average American voter, since the Dems have been talking about impeachment since the day Trump won the election. That's what losers do when they fear they can't beat a political opponent a second time.

As Democrat Congressman Al Green admitted, "I'm concerned that if we don't impeach the president, he will get re-elected."

[The4thEstate]

You chose to name your link "White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney admits there was quid pro quo". Stop being disingenuous, Brian, it is extremely unbecoming.

No soup for you!

Oh, dear ... this wasn't supposed to happen in the Democrats' dog-and-pony show:
https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrisse ... nce-biden/

Impeachment, as it turns out, cuts any number of ways. In their attempt to prove that Donald Trump tried to strongarm Ukraine into digging up dirt on Joe Biden, House Democrats dug some up on their own. The Washington Post reports that a career State Department officer tried to warn officials in the Obama administration about the conflict of interest that Hunter Biden’s work created in Ukraine and with efforts to target corruption. When those warnings reached the Vice President’s office in early 2015, Biden’s team shut them down:

A career State Department official overseeing Ukraine policy told congressional investigators this week that he had raised concerns in early 2015 about then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son serving on the board of a Ukrainian energy company but was turned away by a Biden staffer, according to three people familiar with the testimony.

George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state, testified Tuesday that he worried that Hunter Biden’s position at the firm Burisma Holdings would complicate efforts by U.S. diplomats to convey to Ukrainian officials the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality rules surrounding the deposition.

Kent said he had concerns that Ukrainian officials would view Hunter Biden as a conduit for currying influence with his father, said the people. But when Kent raised the issue with Biden’s office, he was told the then-vice president didn’t have the “bandwidth” to deal with the issue involving his son as his other son, Beau, was battling cancer, said the people familiar with his testimony.

[brian ross]

You chose to name your link "White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney admits there was quid pro quo". Stop being disingenuous, Brian, it is extremely unbecoming.

No soup for you!

He admitted it, Black Orchid.

[Fred]

You missed the point about the Russian interference. It doesn’t matter if you think it is real or not.

Sure it does -- just as much as whether or not YOU think it's real.

No, the issue of Russian investigation is that it exists. That simple fact shows that such an issue is taken extremely seriously in the US. Nothing more.

That fact is you feel it is criminal enough to be defended.

I have no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean. How is it that I "feel it is criminal enough to be defended"?

Ok, it means that Russian collusion is a serious enough crime to investigate for criminal behaviour. That people are willing to ridicule the investigation itself…

I don't think it's criminal at all. I believe the entire Mueller investigation was a sham, as evidenced by his nothingburger conclusion after 2 years of pretending to chase a hoax.

Oh I think your being little selective here. I might suggest the intended outcome was a sham but there are several people who face charges from the investigation over other issues.

As ALL consider, collusion with ANY government to influence elections especially by those in the election is a very, very serious matter. THAT is what the point of Russia is.

Um, yeah ... selling babies on the black market is a very, very serious matter too, but that didn't happen either in this case. What's your point?

That colluding with another nation to influence elections is considered serious enough offence to impeach a President… Again it matters not what the outcome of the investigation. The investigation itself is the point of example as to how serious such a matter is.

NOBODY is denying Trump requested a foreign government to launch an investigation into a candidate in a presidential election. Trump claims he is a criminal and so on but clearly there is no evidence of such...

What media do you follow? In no way has Trump demanded that anybody launch an investigation into a political rival. (Read the transcript of his conversation.) The issue at hand is foreign interference in the 2016 election, which Democrats used to pretend they cared about.

Oh yes, my wording here is the problem, he is requesting investigation into Biden's son and Biden for interference in a phone call, the question of pressure seems to be huge issue not the request.

Umm no the issue is the request of Trump on Ukraine to investigate Biden. Russian interference is simple demonstration on how serious these matters are to Americans. Not that is any different in other nations.

As president, he has the right to ask other nations to help in investigations into corruption involving U.S. presidential elections. The fact that Joe Biden might get caught up in the dragnet is irrelevant; running for president doesn't make a person immune to prosecution.

Except he wasn’t asking for help to investigate, he was asking them to investigate US citizens by a foreign power into proclaimed corruption that has already been investigated by 2 separate attorney generals and found no evidence of said corruption.

Here's something I'll bet you haven't heard about: Politico's story about Ukrainians trying, and failing, to help Hillary Clinton win the presidency in 2016. Gee, doesn't that sound like foreign interference in a presidential election to you? But don't worry, you'll never read about it because the vast majority of U.S. media is so far in the tank for the Democrats, they've got goldfish swimming around their heads.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ ... ire-233446

Yes it does, and I would have thought a Government would have that investigated as well. Oh and no I have not heard it. As the Russia probe showed that is a very serious matter indeed.

Point #2: At no time has Trump "claimed he is a criminal." Have you been reading The Onion again?

Err, I have heard media grabs of him stating just that sentence as well as stating Hunter Biden is a criminal and BOTH are criminals. Australian ABC played the short 15second grab over and over all day week or so ago… If it happened in Australia the PM would be sanctioned and could well face slander charges. Other nations make it criminal. If you need evidence of such I will search and deliver, but this is the most irrelevant of the defence, I would suggest.

You might correct me on the varsity and I will know for the future.

So If you think Russia interfering in US elections is bad enough, I would suggest you would find a US candidate colluding WITH Russia would be worse. You can defend Russia all you want, that is something else.

Huh? I've never defended Russia.

Not saying you did, or are trying to subvert anything, again the existence is example.

Stay tuned for further details of the attempted coup on Trump ... I'm keeping my cupboard stocked with popcorn!

What is funny, is all the bleating over this is keeping the image of Trump in the forefront as a person who will do anything to win an election, including trying to force other nations to corrupt US elections for his benefit. Will play to the next elections, giving them the time to create the image of fact from innuendo. People like you, who jump on the band wagon to defend him in this manner, just help that cause.

And people like you, who naively swallow up every accusation that the pouting, power-hungry Democrats and their media allies spoon-feed you, are just helping the cause of lefties who've been engaged in trying to overthrow a fair election since their side didn't win.

Yes it is spoon fed to me, I don’t live in the US so what I get comes from the slant of the media of the nation I do live in. BUT the fact remains, Trump requested Ukraine Initiate an investigation into the Hunter Biden sage and have also publically stated the China should also investigate Biden over corruption without any evidence of such. Ukraine has had 2 investigations and China, well I don’t know what the caper is there.

The ONLY fact I have that is NOT refuted is that Trump did request from Ukraine to investigate Biden. Since it has already occurred and nothing has come from them there is only one reason Trump would want that for. As with the Russian interference, the statement of an investigation was far more detrimental to Clinton, not the facts of the matter (if you believe that was the cause of the results of the election).

Many now point to the loss of support for Biden and blame this act to that. I think it is hard to show anything of the sort because he was never the front runner. BUT what is sure as a bear shitting in the woods, this saga will, if not bitten in the arse, carry to the next election and some mud is going to stick. IF Trump isn’t facing Biden, it was all for nothing.

[Fred]

Joe Biden himself received $900,000 from The Burisma Group for lobbying activities when he was Vice President. While he was VP he took his son on Air Force 2 to China and Hunter came back with $1.4 billion in hedge fund money. I would think it was the duty of a sitting President to investigate this no matter who it is. Biden even boasted to the world on camera that he had the Ukrainian Prosecutor sacked. If Biden, Warren and Sanders are the best they have got the Dems deserve to lose.

Care to provide some evidence of this accusation of receiving for the lobbying, that has already been debunked around the world??? As for his son, again an accusation that has thus far fallen way short of any evidence after two investigations. the matters WERE investigated and nothing could be established.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Correct me If I am wrong, please.

As for the Russian collusion, the Mueller Report found no evidence of conspiracy on Trump's part.

Irrelevant, the only point I make about the Russian collusion is that it is example of how serious everyday Americans consider this issue.

Actually, Americans DON'T consider Russian collusion a major issue -- especially after the entire 2-year Democrat hoax was confirmed by Mueller's finding of zero.

If you actually care about the truth, keep an eye out for the soon-to-be-released Inspector General's report, which should reveal a lot more of the truth behind the origins of the Russian collusion fantasy. (An even bigger potential blockbuster is the ongoing Barr investigation, which has already extended into several foreign countries, including Australia.)

Frankly, I thought the entire Russian collusion accusation sounded like a hokey Cold War novel by a first-time author. Trump is more "America first" than any Democrat, so why would any thinking person believe he colluded with the Russians?

again the point is that it exists. 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.
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?

I agree, but if the Russia collusion was such a serious matter, and then he has committed a crime, impeach him and get on with it. Impeachment doesn’t mean he will lose his presidency…

There's no evidence that Trump committed a crime.

But of course, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives could still impeach him, even if they simply don't like the color of his suit. It won't mean much of anything to the average American voter, since the Dems have been talking about impeachment since the day Trump won the election. That's what losers do when they fear they can't beat a political opponent a second time.

As Democrat Congressman Al Green admitted, "I'm concerned that if we don't impeach the president, he will get re-elected."

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.

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.

[sprintcyclist]

Anyone else sense this charade has already foundered ?