Trump

Quote:

---

I heard the prosecutor(Shokin) was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything.

---

Neither here nor there just an insight in to Trump's conspiracy thinking.

Absurd, Shokin was dirty and had to go

Quote:

---

Among other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma to the extent that Obama officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the company for possible money laundering.

His dismissal had been sought not just by Mr. Biden, but also by others in the Obama administration, as well other Western governments and international lenders. Mr. Shokin had been repeatedly accused of turning a blind eye to corruption in his office and among the Ukrainian political elite, and criticized for failing to bring corruption cases.

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/us/politics/biden-ukraine-trump.html

agsfan said:

---

Depends on his intent.
If Giuliani/Trump were doing all this to get after Biden = bad.
If Giuliani/Trump were doing all this to get after Ukrainian corruption = good.

Because he was intent on using his personal lawyer, my immediate assumption is that his motives were for personal gain. And Giuliani has said as much when he said he was in Ukraine to work for his client, his client being Donald Trump, not POTUS.

My assumption might be wrong, but I'm glad they're investigating it.

---

Giuliani/Trump could be doing this for Giulani wanted free trips to Ukraine. They used legal methods to pursue a criminal investigation. End of story.

Democratic leaders walk back Thursday impeachment vote

Quote:

---

House Democratic leaders are walking back a planned vote Thursday that would officially endorse impeachment proceedings and say that the resolution would merely address the process of holding public hearings on the matter.

"This is not an impeachment resolution," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters Tuesday morning. "I don't know what an impeachment resolution is."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Monday that the planned vote was "not an impeachment resolution."

...

But Democrats are suddenly wary of calling it an official vote to open an impeachment hearing and aren't even promising a vote on Thursday.

Hoyer said the resolution "addresses moving from the investigatory phase to the hearing phase," of the impeachment proceedings, entering the public phase.

Hoyer, who controls the floor schedule, would not fully commit to holding the vote on Thursday.
"We are going to have to consider whether or not it is ready to go on Thursday," Hoyer said.

---

Quote:

---

His dismissal had been sought not just by Mr. Biden, but also by others in the Obama administration, as well other Western governments and international lenders. Mr. Shokin had been repeatedly accused of turning a blind eye to corruption in his office and among the Ukrainian political elite, and criticized for failing to bring corruption cases.

---

Oh, the irony here. Shokin was fired because he ignored corruption, except for the corruption at Burisma, that is.

will25u said:

---

Democratic leaders walk back Thursday impeachment vote

Quote:

---

House Democratic leaders are walking back a planned vote Thursday that would officially endorse impeachment proceedings and say that the resolution would merely address the process of holding public hearings on the matter.

"This is not an impeachment resolution," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters Tuesday morning. "I don't know what an impeachment resolution is."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Monday that the planned vote was "not an impeachment resolution."

...

But Democrats are suddenly wary of calling it an official vote to open an impeachment hearing and aren't even promising a vote on Thursday.

Hoyer said the resolution "addresses moving from the investigatory phase to the hearing phase," of the impeachment proceedings, entering the public phase.

Hoyer, who controls the floor schedule, would not fully commit to holding the vote on Thursday.
"We are going to have to consider whether or not it is ready to go on Thursday," Hoyer said.

---

---

So damn predictable...

agsfan said:

---

Depends on his intent.
If Giuliani/Trump were doing all this to get after Biden = bad.
If Giuliani/Trump were doing all this to get after Ukrainian corruption = good.

Because he was intent on using his personal lawyer, my immediate assumption is that his motives were for personal gain. And Giuliani has said as much when he said he was in Ukraine to work for his client, his client being Donald Trump, not POTUS.

My assumption might be wrong, but I'm glad they're investigating it.

---

Assumption is the mother of all **** ups...

Basically, you've referenced an opinion piece from a leftwing radical and you really don't actually know **** about anyone's intent...

Thank you for falling so easily into what I thought was a fairly well-marked trap...

Giuliani was constantly on TV describing why he was working over there, he never mentioned corruption, he always mentioned that he was working for his client. That would make it a personal matter for the President.

will25u said:

---

Democratic leaders walk back Thursday impeachment vote

Quote:

---

House Democratic leaders are walking back a planned vote Thursday that would officially endorse impeachment proceedings and say that the resolution would merely address the process of holding public hearings on the matter.

"This is not an impeachment resolution," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters Tuesday morning. "I don't know what an impeachment resolution is."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Monday that the planned vote was "not an impeachment resolution."

...

But Democrats are suddenly wary of calling it an official vote to open an impeachment hearing and aren't even promising a vote on Thursday.

Hoyer said the resolution "addresses moving from the investigatory phase to the hearing phase," of the impeachment proceedings, entering the public phase.

Hoyer, who controls the floor schedule, would not fully commit to holding the vote on Thursday.
"We are going to have to consider whether or not it is ready to go on Thursday," Hoyer said.

---

---

Dems must not have been happy with what they've been hearing the past 24 hours from their "witnesses".

Quote:

---

"This is not an impeachment resolution," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters Tuesday morning. "I don't know what an impeachment resolution is."

---

Hoyer's only been a Congresscritter since 1981. Guess he slept through Clinton's impeachment.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

His dismissal had been sought not just by Mr. Biden, but also by others in the Obama administration, as well other Western governments and international lenders. Mr. Shokin had been repeatedly accused of turning a blind eye to corruption in his office and among the Ukrainian political elite, and criticized for failing to bring corruption cases.

---

Oh, the irony here. Shokin was fired because he ignored corruption, except for the corruption at Burisma, that is.

---

I don't think the facts bear this out. He wasn't prosecuting anyone including Zlochevsky and was soliciting bribes then covering up bribe scandals. What a mess.

Here's a Reuters article from 2015 that predates his firing and before it became politicized here.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/12/30/corruption-in-ukraine-is-so-bad-a-nigerian-prince-would-be-embarrassed-2/

"Assumption is the mother of all **** ups"

While you go on to assume that everyone that writes something that isn't kissing the President's ass is either a deep state operative or left wing radical.

Give me a good reason why Giuliani was running Ukraine operation for POTUS at the same time he was on TV saying he was working in Ukraine as a personal attorney to Trump.

agsfan said:

---

Giuliani was constantly on TV describing why he was working over there, he never mentioned corruption, he always mentioned that he was working for his client. That would make it a personal matter for the President.

---

Yes, the President can take a personal interest in criminal investigations, especially high profile ones, that is part of his job. See his work for A$AP Rocky, Andrew Brunson, and Otto Warmbier.

agsfan said:

---

"Assumption is the mother of all **** ups"

While you go on to assume that everyone that writes something that isn't kissing the President's ass is either a deep state operative or left wing radical.

Give me a good reason why Giuliani was running Ukraine operation for POTUS at the same time he was on TV saying he was working in Ukraine as a personal attorney to Trump.

---

Show me PROOF of a crime...

That's how things work here in 'Murica...you have to prove someone is guilty...

Assumptions and innuendo are not PROOF...

agsfan said:

---

"Assumption is the mother of all **** ups"

While you go on to assume that everyone that writes something that isn't kissing the President's ass is either a deep state operative or left wing radical.

Give me a good reason why Giuliani was running Ukraine operation for POTUS at the same time he was on TV saying he was working in Ukraine as a personal attorney to Trump.

---

They are just a bunch of butt-hurt bureaucrats who no longer get to run the show (after the past 16 years of weak foreign policy from the top)

Trump sets foreign policy. He could mail every NATO ally a box of his turds. That is legal. (I'd probably support impeachment for that, but still legal). He could send Boso the Sad Clown to Turkey as a diplomat for Turkish Kurds. HE CAN ALMOST DO ANYTHING HE WANTS IN FOREIGN POLICY.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

"This is not an impeachment resolution," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters Tuesday morning. "I don't know what an impeachment resolution is."

---

Hoyer's only been a Congresscritter since 1981. Guess he slept through Clinton's impeachment.

---

They don't want to call it an impeachment vote. They want to call it a rules vote.

I didn't say to impeach him on my assumption.
Said they are glad they are doing an investigation.

agsfan said:

---

I didn't say to impeach him on my assumption.
Said they are glad they are doing an investigation.

---

I'm sure you wish they had spent more time investigating Obama after he told the Russians, on camera, that he could do more to "help them" after he got re-elected...

will25u said:

---

---

Two more smug looking liberal schmuck lawyers.

Ok, me too.
Didn't vote for him either time.

And republicans had the house at that time and were investigating everything under the sun. Spent years and years on emails, I'm sure if there was something to it, they would've investigated it.
Same thing with Biden, the house was investigating the **** out of Hillary, you don't think if they thought he did something bad with Ukraine they would've investigated? Maybe they saw that most of Europe wanted the prosecutor out too and didn't think he did anything wrong.

agsfan said:

---

Ok, me too.
Didn't vote for him either time.

---

And yet you didn't spew your nonsense on here then...why now?

Of course, it would be fair for me to assume that you are just lying about whether or not you ever voted for Obama, right?

I mean...it's okay to just assume stuff based on how a person posts, right?

See edit.

FireAg said:

---

agsfan said:

---

I didn't say to impeach him on my assumption.
Said they are glad they are doing an investigation.

---

I'm sure you wish they had spent more time investigating Obama after he told the Russians, on camera, that he could do more to "help them" after he got re-elected...

---

Nah its a good political point to throw to your base, but doesn't require much investigation unless you thing the actions being discussed are criminal. I think impeachment over those comments would be stupid.

Dems have a great ~political~ point, "its a sign of weakness for Trump to drumming up investigations in foreign countries". Idk spin it. But its complete political overreach to impeach over this nonsense.

agsfan said:

---

Ok, me too.
Didn't vote for him either time.

And republicans had the house at that time and were investigating everything under the sun. Spent years and years on emails, I'm sure if there was something to it, they would've investigated it.
Same thing with Biden, the house was investigating the **** out of Hillary, you don't think if they thought he did something bad with Ukraine they would've investigated? Maybe they saw that most of Europe wanted the prosecutor out too and didn't think he did anything wrong.

---

He didn't run in 2016 because Clinton was going to use Ukraine against Biden. Interesting, Clinton got her dirt on Trump and Biden from the same place....

Quote:

---

House Democratic leaders are walking back a planned vote Thursday that would officially endorse impeachment proceedings and say that the resolution would merely address the process of holding public hearings on the matter.

---

They are the crazy girlfriend threatening to leave and never following through.

hbtheduce said:

---

agsfan said:

---

"Assumption is the mother of all **** ups"

While you go on to assume that everyone that writes something that isn't kissing the President's ass is either a deep state operative or left wing radical.

Give me a good reason why Giuliani was running Ukraine operation for POTUS at the same time he was on TV saying he was working in Ukraine as a personal attorney to Trump.

---

They are just a bunch of butt-hurt bureaucrats who no longer get to run the show (after the past 16 years of weak foreign policy from the top)

Trump sets foreign policy. He could mail every NATO ally a box of his turds. That is legal. (I'd probably support impeachment for that, but still legal). He could send Boso the Sad Clown to Turkey as a diplomat for Turkish Kurds. HE CAN ALMOST DO ANYTHING HE WANTS IN FOREIGN POLICY.

---

What can't he do? He is the duly elected President of the USA. He can ask any country to investigate any US politician he wants. There is no law applicable to a sitting president that says he can't. He could ask China to instigate the McConnells if he wants.

Good forum discussion covering this topic: Can the President Legally Break the Law? Yes, he can.

not being against a federal statute does not mean the president cannot be impeached and removed from office for it.

BMX Bandit said:

---

not being against a federal statute does not mean the president cannot be impeached and removed from office for it.

---

Very true...it also doesn't mean that it won't create an actual, armed civil war if done...

Sounds to me like resentful career state department and intel experts are angry that their personal views and years of work they have put in to mold US policies to those views are being disrupted and cast aside by this administration and they are bitter that the president is sometimes working around them and not through them where they can have a part in the process and manipulate it. These lifer bureaucrats can be very jealous over turf and their place in the established hierarchy.

When Trump comes in with different ideas and goals and methods of operation, and downplays or ignores them, some of them really take it personally.

BMX Bandit said:

---

not being against a federal statute does not mean the president cannot be impeached and removed from office for it.

---

But that is Congress arbitrarily applying a federal statue to Trump as an excuse to impeach or remove him from office. Presidents break federal statues all the time. It's not illegal.

chimmy said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

agsfan said:

---

"Assumption is the mother of all **** ups"

While you go on to assume that everyone that writes something that isn't kissing the President's ass is either a deep state operative or left wing radical.

Give me a good reason why Giuliani was running Ukraine operation for POTUS at the same time he was on TV saying he was working in Ukraine as a personal attorney to Trump.

---

They are just a bunch of butt-hurt bureaucrats who no longer get to run the show (after the past 16 years of weak foreign policy from the top)

Trump sets foreign policy. He could mail every NATO ally a box of his turds. That is legal. (I'd probably support impeachment for that, but still legal). He could send Boso the Sad Clown to Turkey as a diplomat for Turkish Kurds. HE CAN ALMOST DO ANYTHING HE WANTS IN FOREIGN POLICY.

---

What can't he do? He is the duly elected President of the USA. He can ask any country to investigate any US politician he wants. There is no law applicable to a sitting president that says he can't. He could ask China to instigate the McConnells if he wants.

Good forum discussion covering this topic: Can the President Legally Break the Law? Yes, he can.

---

He can't ask china for $1,000,000 for his campaign, or to hire workers to run his campaign.
He can't ask China to violate the law in America. (I think he could ask them to violate their own laws)
He can't "provide aid and comfort" to China if congress was to declare war.
He can't fully legalize treaties with China.
He can't annex China.

But lets be frank, any president has massive foreign power.

Just because he can't be prosecuted doesn't mean he can break the law. It just means it's up to congress to investigate and impeach if necessary.

chimmy said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

not being against a federal statute does not mean the president cannot be impeached and removed from office for it.

---

But that is Congress arbitrarily applying a federal statue to Trump as an excuse to impeach or remove him from office. Presidents break federal statues all the time. It's not illegal.

---

It depends on the statute.


If the president runs a telemarketing scam out of the white house, thats illegal.

agsfan said:

---

Just because he can't be prosecuted doesn't mean he can break the law. It just means it's up to congress to investigate and impeach if necessary.

---

Yes, a president can break the law. Trump hasn't broken the law. No one is hiding behind the constitution in this argument.

If you want to argue Trump conduct in Ukraine is legal but impeachable, have at it. But you are just wrong if you say he is guilty of a crime.

We haven't seen the results of the investigation yet.