TripleSec said:

---

I commend the board for continuing to engage with this troll...but really though...why bother? Just tell him sorry your girl lost and tell him to go away.

---

I'm reminded of a time where someone claimed that if your gun is stolen from you and used to commit a murder then you should be charged with murder too. Another sound and logical argument.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

1872walker said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

1872walker said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Option 3: Joe Biden or his son has not been charged with anything. Trump's accusations of him, if false, have a great impact on the 2020 election.

---

You have to have an investigation before you can make determine guilt or innocence. (Congressional Democrats should take note of this).

Your claim that a President should not investigate possible criminality and especially actions that are in direct conflict with the interests of the United States because it could possibly have a negative effect on the suspect is ludicrous.

---

I'VE NEVER SAID BIDEN SHOULD NOT BE INVESTIGATED

---

But you make assumptions that Trump interferes with the 2020 election absent any evidence, while at the same time refusing to leave open the possibility that this entire thing was based upon an investigation to root out corruption both foreign and abroad. Past, current, and attempting to eliminate it in the future.

If you are going to claim to be impartisan, some semblance of objectivity would be beneficial in believing you.

---

I disagree with your claim that I am assuming Trump interfered with the 2020 election absent any evidence. I think there is a lot of evidence that he acted improperly. Even Prof. Turley, the Republican's witness this week, acknowledged his behavior was not ok.

I also can see that Biden had a clear conflict of interest in 2016 that I think the FBI should investigate.

I don't know how much more impartial I could be.

---

Sorry your girl lost. Go away.

Now you're definitely trolling or are being intentionally obtuse.

Turley said that while possibly improper, it was absolutely neither criminal nor rising to the level of impeachment. I don't care if you think he acted improperly. Put up evidence of a criminal or impeachable act or be done with this nonsense.

Quote:

---

an offense does not have to be indictable.

---

This will be the first time in american history where there wasn't a real underlying crime committed. The left is really going to go there because of political differences and that's not OK.


(You left that part out BTW)

Quote:

---

Option 2: I"VE NEVER SAID JOE BIDEN SHOULDN'T BE INVESTIGATED

---

If that is the case, then everything else is moot. That is where most people following this fail to make a connection.

If there is a chance that Biden should be investigated, then the POTUS trying to help Biden get investigated is good for the nation. If it is good for the nation, then Trump could not have been acting on his sole self interest in any of this. If he is trying to help weed out corruption for the good of the American people, then any misstep he had is one of procedure, not one of corruption. Maybe he did screw up, and did things through the wrong channels. That is not corruption. That is not a high crime or misdemeanor.

Whether or not Trump used the proper TPS cover page when he submitted his memo to the AG to coordinate with the Ukraine is a silly technicality.

BusterAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Option 2: I"VE NEVER SAID JOE BIDEN SHOULDN'T BE INVESTIGATED

---

If that is the case, then everything else is moot. That is where most people following this fail to make a connection.

If there is a chance that Biden should be investigated, then the POTUS trying to help Biden get investigated is good for the nation. If it is good for the nation, then Trump could not have been acting on his sole self interest in any of this. If he is trying to help weed out corruption for the good of the American people, then any misstep he had is one of procedure, not one of corruption. Maybe he did screw up, and did things through the wrong channels. That is not corruption. That is not a high crime or misdemeanor.

Whether or not Trump used the proper TPS cover page when he submitted his memo to the AG to coordinate with the Ukraine is a silly technicality.

---

...And, Biden bragged about his bribe in front of a live audience. How is that on Trump?

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Quote:

---

This will be the first time in american history where there wasn't a real underlying crime committed.

---

A lot of people disagree with this.

---

People that are wrong might disagree with it. This is a pretty hard fact.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Then write a law limiting the power of the president on criminal investigations in other countries. Rewrite the law on the military aid making it fund immediately after DOD approval, don't give a arbitrary deadline.

Impeachment is hardly the only tool available.


Edit: Also I also think it would be crazy to make you immune from investigation by running for president. But that is what your standard suggests.

---

The fact that President Trump and most Republicans won't even acknowledge that anything wrong occurred rules this out for me.

Even Prof. Turley said in his testimony that his call was far from perfect.

---

Nothing wrong did occur

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Quote:

---

This will be the first time in american history where there wasn't a real underlying crime committed.

---

A lot of people disagree with this.

---

A lot of people disagree that there are only 2 genders. Still doesn't make it so.

Because Trump had the nerve of winning the 2016 election and completely severely impacted the financials of the Clinton Foundation in a negative way. Bigly.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

1872walker said:

---

Now you're definitely trolling or are being intentionally obtuse.

Turley said that while possibly improperly, it was absolutely neither criminal or rising to the level of impeachment. I don't care if you think he acted improperly. Put up evidence of a criminal or impeachable act or be done with this nonsense.

---

"While there's a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable. Serious misconduct or a violation of public trust is enough. Madison saw impeachment as "defending the community against the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief magistrate." And the founders emphasized that impeachments were about what happened in the political arena: involving "political crimes and misdemeanors" and resulting in "political punishments." - Prof. Jonathan Turley

---

This is not an American government that I want. In general, I think that the American people vote out any party that starts to use impeachment as a vote of no confidence in the president.

Impeachment is not the proper way to get rid of a president that has policies that you don't like, or does diplomacy in a way that you don't like. Elections are the way to handle that. I don't see anywhere in "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" to make room for "violation of public trust".

I disagree with Turley here.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Then write a law limiting the power of the president on criminal investigations in other countries. Rewrite the law on the military aid making it fund immediately after DOD approval, don't give a arbitrary deadline.

Impeachment is hardly the only tool available.


Edit: Also I also think it would be crazy to make you immune from investigation by running for president. But that is what your standard suggests.

---

The fact that President Trump and most Republicans won't even acknowledge that anything wrong occurred rules this out for me.

Even Prof. Turley said in his testimony that his call was far from perfect.

---

The only thing that I bristled at was (if this happened) the request for an announcement that the investigation is being started.

On the one hand, I can see where you want the Ukraine to commit to fighting corruption publicly. On the other hand, this is a bridge too far. Unethical in my opinion. But, not anywhere near an impeachable offense, either.

But, that request did not happen on that call. Nor is it clear that the request came from Trump.

Everything else is Trump just doing his job. Rooting out corruption is what he was elected to do.

---

If this were being handled in a court of law, I would agree with you that the evidence does not meet the standard of being criminal, however I view the amount of evidence (the call, the testimony, Trump's tweets, everything) and I think he did what he is being accused of. It's like an OJ Simpson situation to me. Yeah, the glove doesn't fit, but he did that *****

---

You've only heard witnesses for the prosecution and no defense witnesses. You're the sort of voter Schiff staged this clown show for.

BusterAg said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

1872walker said:

---

Now you're definitely trolling or are being intentionally obtuse.

Turley said that while possibly improperly, it was absolutely neither criminal or rising to the level of impeachment. I don't care if you think he acted improperly. Put up evidence of a criminal or impeachable act or be done with this nonsense.

---

"While there's a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable. Serious misconduct or a violation of public trust is enough. Madison saw impeachment as "defending the community against the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief magistrate." And the founders emphasized that impeachments were about what happened in the political arena: involving "political crimes and misdemeanors" and resulting in "political punishments." - Prof. Jonathan Turley

---

This is not an American government that I want. In general, I think that the American people vote out any party that starts to use impeachment as a vote of no confidence in the president.

Impeachment is not the proper way to get rid of a president that has policies that you don't like, or does diplomacy in a way that you don't like. Elections are the way to handle that. I don't see anywhere in "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" to make room for "violation of public trust".

I disagree with Turley here.

---

Seems like Turley may have disagreed with himself too. His testimony this week was very different.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Option 2: I"VE NEVER SAID JOE BIDEN SHOULDN'T BE INVESTIGATED

---

If that is the case, then everything else is moot. That is where most people following this fail to make a connection.

If there is a chance that Biden should be investigated, then the POTUS trying to help Biden get investigated is good for the nation. If it is good for the nation, then Trump could not have been acting on his sole self interest in any of this. If he is trying to help weed out corruption for the good of the American people, then any misstep he had is one of procedure, not one of corruption. Maybe he did screw up, and did things through the wrong channels. That is not corruption. That is not a high crime or misdemeanor.

Whether or not Trump used the proper TPS cover page when he submitted his memo to the AG to coordinate with the Ukraine is a silly technicality.

---

...And, Biden bragged about his bribe in front of a live audience. How is that on Trump?

---

There is evidence available that shows Shokin was fired for NOT investigating corruption. If that is true, it brings all of Trump's actions into question.

---

So what? Biden said something on tape and bragged about bribing Ukraine. Does this really not make sense to you?

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

According to the FEC that politician should immediately contact the FBI.

---

How about the Attorney General? Wouldn't he know the proper way to route the information?

---

Yes, and just like how AG Sessions and AG Lynch recused themselves from very sensitive investigations, I would expect Barr to do the same in an investigation of Joe Biden.

---

What did AG lynch recuse herself from?

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Then write a law limiting the power of the president on criminal investigations in other countries. Rewrite the law on the military aid making it fund immediately after DOD approval, don't give a arbitrary deadline.

Impeachment is hardly the only tool available.


Edit: Also I also think it would be crazy to make you immune from investigation by running for president. But that is what your standard suggests.

---

The fact that President Trump and most Republicans won't even acknowledge that anything wrong occurred rules this out for me.

Even Prof. Turley said in his testimony that his call was far from perfect.

---

The only thing that I bristled at was (if this happened) the request for an announcement that the investigation is being started.

On the one hand, I can see where you want the Ukraine to commit to fighting corruption publicly. On the other hand, this is a bridge too far. Unethical in my opinion. But, not anywhere near an impeachable offense, either.

But, that request did not happen on that call. Nor is it clear that the request came from Trump.

Everything else is Trump just doing his job. Rooting out corruption is what he was elected to do.

---

If this were being handled in a court of law, I would agree with you that the evidence does not meet the standard of being criminal, however I view the amount of evidence (the call, the testimony, Trump's tweets, everything) and I think he did what he is being accused of. It's like an OJ Simpson situation to me. Yeah, the glove doesn't fit, but he did that *****

---

You've only heard witnesses for the prosecution and no defense witnesses. You're the sort of voter Schiff staged this clown show for.

---

Maybe you're the type of voter Trump's lies are for.

---

What lies, specifically, are you referring to?

FriscoKid said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Option 2: I"VE NEVER SAID JOE BIDEN SHOULDN'T BE INVESTIGATED

---

If that is the case, then everything else is moot. That is where most people following this fail to make a connection.

If there is a chance that Biden should be investigated, then the POTUS trying to help Biden get investigated is good for the nation. If it is good for the nation, then Trump could not have been acting on his sole self interest in any of this. If he is trying to help weed out corruption for the good of the American people, then any misstep he had is one of procedure, not one of corruption. Maybe he did screw up, and did things through the wrong channels. That is not corruption. That is not a high crime or misdemeanor.

Whether or not Trump used the proper TPS cover page when he submitted his memo to the AG to coordinate with the Ukraine is a silly technicality.

---

...And, Biden bragged about his bribe in front of a live audience. How is that on Trump?

---

There is evidence available that shows Shokin was fired for NOT investigating corruption. If that is true, it brings all of Trump's actions into question.

---

So what? Biden said something on tape and bragged about bribing Ukraine. Does this really not make sense to you?

---

It makes sense to me. If Shokin was fired for NOT investigating corruption, and the owner of Burisma is corrupt, his actions could have hurt Burisma, and subsequently his son.

aggiehawg said:

---

captkirk said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

No, a President cannot abuse their power to force a foreign government to fabricate charges against a political opponent. That is not what happened here.

---

---

But it did happen in 2016 under Obama and in Ukraine.

ETA: The so-called "black ledger" against Manafort was likely forged pursuant to the DNC's and State Department's request.

---

link, please.

---

Find reference to it in Manafort's trial. You won't, because Mueller and the FBI knew it was a phony document

---

It's not even an allegation in the Mueller Report. It is mentioned once as part of a narrative.

Manafort was being tried for tax evasion covering the years contained in the ledger. Those payments were cash, not easily traceable wires. If that ledger were credible and Mueller was able to verify it, it would have become Exhibit A in Manafort's trial instead of Manafort's lavish wardrobe.

There has to be a reason they never produced it nor referred to it.

---

No doubt there were good reasons it wasn't used by the prosecution.

Quote:

---

Direct, relevant and material evidence of the offense charged is not easily discarded, unless its provenance is unreliable. Such as it coming from the DNC.

---

From the DNC? Uh-huh. I seeeeee. Just to be clear, we're talking about the Debbie-Wasserman-led 2016 DNC. The one that couldn't pour water out of a cowboy boot even if the instructions were printed on the bottom.

In what is perhaps your most well-thought-out conspiracy theory yet, you're saying you believe that DNC was a criminal mastermind who thought up and successfully executed a brilliant, complex plot in a foreign country.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Then write a law limiting the power of the president on criminal investigations in other countries. Rewrite the law on the military aid making it fund immediately after DOD approval, don't give a arbitrary deadline.

Impeachment is hardly the only tool available.


Edit: Also I also think it would be crazy to make you immune from investigation by running for president. But that is what your standard suggests.

---

The fact that President Trump and most Republicans won't even acknowledge that anything wrong occurred rules this out for me.

Even Prof. Turley said in his testimony that his call was far from perfect.

---

The only thing that I bristled at was (if this happened) the request for an announcement that the investigation is being started.

On the one hand, I can see where you want the Ukraine to commit to fighting corruption publicly. On the other hand, this is a bridge too far. Unethical in my opinion. But, not anywhere near an impeachable offense, either.

But, that request did not happen on that call. Nor is it clear that the request came from Trump.

Everything else is Trump just doing his job. Rooting out corruption is what he was elected to do.

---

If this were being handled in a court of law, I would agree with you that the evidence does not meet the standard of being criminal, however I view the amount of evidence (the call, the testimony, Trump's tweets, everything) and I think he did what he is being accused of. It's like an OJ Simpson situation to me. Yeah, the glove doesn't fit, but he did that *****

---

You've only heard witnesses for the prosecution and no defense witnesses. You're the sort of voter Schiff staged this clown show for.

---

Maybe you're the type of voter Trump's lies are for.

---

What lies, specifically, are you referring to?

---

Do you want me to list all of them?

Wait are you one of those people that contend Trump doesn't lie?

---

No, just the ones you think are for me, as you stated

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Then write a law limiting the power of the president on criminal investigations in other countries. Rewrite the law on the military aid making it fund immediately after DOD approval, don't give a arbitrary deadline.

Impeachment is hardly the only tool available.


Edit: Also I also think it would be crazy to make you immune from investigation by running for president. But that is what your standard suggests.

---

The fact that President Trump and most Republicans won't even acknowledge that anything wrong occurred rules this out for me.

Even Prof. Turley said in his testimony that his call was far from perfect.

---

The only thing that I bristled at was (if this happened) the request for an announcement that the investigation is being started.

On the one hand, I can see where you want the Ukraine to commit to fighting corruption publicly. On the other hand, this is a bridge too far. Unethical in my opinion. But, not anywhere near an impeachable offense, either.

But, that request did not happen on that call. Nor is it clear that the request came from Trump.

Everything else is Trump just doing his job. Rooting out corruption is what he was elected to do.

---

If this were being handled in a court of law, I would agree with you that the evidence does not meet the standard of being criminal, however I view the amount of evidence (the call, the testimony, Trump's tweets, everything) and I think he did what he is being accused of. It's like an OJ Simpson situation to me. Yeah, the glove doesn't fit, but he did that *****

---

You've only heard witnesses for the prosecution and no defense witnesses. You're the sort of voter Schiff staged this clown show for.

---

Maybe you're the type of voter Trump's lies are for.

---

Which Trump's lies are for me? I am also curious.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Option 2: I"VE NEVER SAID JOE BIDEN SHOULDN'T BE INVESTIGATED

---

If that is the case, then everything else is moot. That is where most people following this fail to make a connection.

If there is a chance that Biden should be investigated, then the POTUS trying to help Biden get investigated is good for the nation. If it is good for the nation, then Trump could not have been acting on his sole self interest in any of this. If he is trying to help weed out corruption for the good of the American people, then any misstep he had is one of procedure, not one of corruption. Maybe he did screw up, and did things through the wrong channels. That is not corruption. That is not a high crime or misdemeanor.

Whether or not Trump used the proper TPS cover page when he submitted his memo to the AG to coordinate with the Ukraine is a silly technicality.

---

I understand your position. I don't think it was appropriate for Trump to involve himself in an investigation of his political opponent.

---

Ok, well, that's silly, and the underlying foundation of our disagreement.

First, whether or not it was appropriate, it is definitely not an impeachable offense.

Second, it is naive. If political opponents aren't pointing out corruption, no one will.

What I would really, really love is that if the truce between the Democrats and Republicans would fail, and each side began to rat out the other side for any corruption at all. I would like nothing better than for there to be a real purge of the pestilence of corruption infecting both parties. We would have a better government if the entire legislative branch was worried that their political opponents would out them to the press for every dealing that smelled of self-interest.

Our government is currently in the 1980's Southwest Conference level of cheating; everyone is ignoring it. I am yearning for a late 1990's Big XII environment, where everyone is ratting everyone else out to try and survive. I am still waiting for the DC version of Aggiegrant to show up, but Trump has not delivered those goods as of yet.

But, you don't get there by letting the bureaucracy sit on their own hands and do nothing.

Third, your position is MASSIVELY hypocritical. You are holding Trump to a different standard than the House Democrats, who reported the alleged bad acts through the bureaucracy, didn't get the result that they wanted, and put the petal to the medal on their own. If Trump shouldn't be involved with investigating Biden corruption, then Pelosi and Schiff shouldn't be involved in investigating Trump.

The American people are tired of politicians ignoring the corruption in DC. That is why Trump is president. That is why he will likely get re-elected. You suggesting that Trump ignore the Biden situation is a vote for more of the same.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Option 2: I"VE NEVER SAID JOE BIDEN SHOULDN'T BE INVESTIGATED

---

If that is the case, then everything else is moot. That is where most people following this fail to make a connection.

If there is a chance that Biden should be investigated, then the POTUS trying to help Biden get investigated is good for the nation. If it is good for the nation, then Trump could not have been acting on his sole self interest in any of this. If he is trying to help weed out corruption for the good of the American people, then any misstep he had is one of procedure, not one of corruption. Maybe he did screw up, and did things through the wrong channels. That is not corruption. That is not a high crime or misdemeanor.

Whether or not Trump used the proper TPS cover page when he submitted his memo to the AG to coordinate with the Ukraine is a silly technicality.

---

...And, Biden bragged about his bribe in front of a live audience. How is that on Trump?

---

There is evidence available that shows Shokin was fired for NOT investigating corruption. If that is true, it brings all of Trump's actions into question.

---

So what? Biden said something on tape and bragged about bribing Ukraine. Does this really not make sense to you?

---

It makes sense to me. If Shokin was fired for NOT investigating corruption, and the owner of Burisma is corrupt, his actions could have hurt Burisma, and subsequently his son.

---

If this is true, and Biden was withholding money so that there would be MORE investigation of corruption in Ukraine, then:

1) Biden was acting on behalf of the American people, and acted appropriately.
2) Biden's actions are almost perfectly identical to the actions of Trump.

If Trump and company KNEW that this was the case, and that Biden was actually trying to invite more investigations into the company that Hunter sat on the board of, and Hunter's relationship with Burisma was on the up and up, yet Trump asked the Ukraine to dig up fake dirt, then Trump should be removed from office.

That is a lot of ifs. It also doesn't pass the smell test. There has also been zero evidence provided to demonstrate that this is the correct fact pattern.

In fact, the House Democrats completely skipped whether or not Trump was reacting to real corruption. There is an underlying assumption in the entire Democrat case that Trump was acting only out of his own self interest. There has been zero time spent, zero effort given, zero evidence provided, and zero consideration discussed, about whether this is really the case. If the Democrats can prove that there was no Biden corruption, and that the President knew or should have known this, and asked for dirt anyways, then it is a slam dunk, case closed, welcome President Pence moment.

But, the current process hasn't even addressed that. You can't wait until after the hearings are over and say, "well, there are rumors that Shokin was fired for not trying to put Joe's son in jail," and expect that to create any political cover at all. The current process has purposefully avoided that topic, but it is the most important topic in this entire circus.

So did we ever find out what the impeachable offense is?

Withholding aide that was not actually withheld (Delivered well before the deadline) in exchange for things that were never actually done.

Quid Pro 'Doh!

aginlakeway said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Then write a law limiting the power of the president on criminal investigations in other countries. Rewrite the law on the military aid making it fund immediately after DOD approval, don't give a arbitrary deadline.

Impeachment is hardly the only tool available.


Edit: Also I also think it would be crazy to make you immune from investigation by running for president. But that is what your standard suggests.

---

The fact that President Trump and most Republicans won't even acknowledge that anything wrong occurred rules this out for me.

Even Prof. Turley said in his testimony that his call was far from perfect.

---

The only thing that I bristled at was (if this happened) the request for an announcement that the investigation is being started.

On the one hand, I can see where you want the Ukraine to commit to fighting corruption publicly. On the other hand, this is a bridge too far. Unethical in my opinion. But, not anywhere near an impeachable offense, either.

But, that request did not happen on that call. Nor is it clear that the request came from Trump.

Everything else is Trump just doing his job. Rooting out corruption is what he was elected to do.

---

If this were being handled in a court of law, I would agree with you that the evidence does not meet the standard of being criminal, however I view the amount of evidence (the call, the testimony, Trump's tweets, everything) and I think he did what he is being accused of. It's like an OJ Simpson situation to me. Yeah, the glove doesn't fit, but he did that *****

---

You've only heard witnesses for the prosecution and no defense witnesses. You're the sort of voter Schiff staged this clown show for.

---

Maybe you're the type of voter Trump's lies are for.

---

Which Trump's lies are for me? I am also curious.

---

Same here. What lies are you referring to?