Was Hunter Biden qualified to serve on the Board of a Ukraine gas Company?

you sir, are an idiot

which is below an imbecile and an imbecile is below a moron

it used to be that an idiot under certain penal codes was unable to commit a crime, but that's been changed, maybe due to your irritating everyone

you remind me so much of inspector clouseau, bumbling about here exasperating one and all, while being totally oblivious, Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Don't go all winn Dixie on me never....we had to cut his MadDog allotment after he turned on his alter ego....reyrey.

You're getting close to that emotional straitjacket

Don't go all winn Dixie on me never....we had to cut his MadDog allotment after he turned on his alter ego....reyrey.

You're getting close to that emotional straitjacket Originally Posted by WTF

you are good for one thing

sport

but you'd be easier to take if , when the weakness of your argument is shown, you just admit it

and you wouldn't have to grovel, you could just say something like yeah that does seem wrong or whatever applies

an old joke from a joke book my dad bought me for my 11th birthday which would now be totally banned under pc:

why did the little moron take a cigarette out of the cigarette case?

because he wanted to make it a cigarette lighter

ba da dum! (or however you might spell the sound of a a rim shot)

ba da dum! (or however you might spell the sound of a a rim shot) Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Only you and bambino are proud of the sounds of rimshots!

One of the things every single witness agreed to is that Hunter Biden sitting on the board and being paid as a consultant, something I'm told couldn't happen in an American company, is that he presented "the appearance of impropriety" and what is one of the things to consider when thinking about opening an investigation into wrong doing? Why the appearance of impropriety the same thing used against Trump to start an investigation.


Discussing his "qualifications" is interesting banter but the fact that he sat on the board of a corrupt company in a foreign country that his father had purview over, screams for an investigation. Amb. Yovanovitch testified that in her briefing from the Obama State Department, she was told to be prepared to answer questions about Hunter Biden because everybody knew the "optics" were bad and could be a problem. They were right.


I can't help but wonder if Pelosi and Schiff have ever given a thought to the fact that when the Senate gets a hold of this, it's going to be a whole different show with Hunter Biden being called, probably the whistle blower who "could" sink Schiff and even get him a criminal referral and Schiff himself since he is now a fact witness.

HF - good points
i think Pelosi and Schiff, et al, planned on never bringing Impeachment to a vote - thus no Senate trial.

They may well find themselves on the short end- Trump has called for a Senate trial "if Impeached" - he and a lot of folks are tired of the Schiff shit show partian BS - let's see the charges and bring it to open, nonpartisan rules of procedure in the Senate.

The consequences are terrifying for the DPST's - who have been McCarthyizing this whole process.

You're getting close to that emotional straitjacket Originally Posted by WTF

Which one of yinz has been banned multiple times? That should settle who wears a straitjacket.

They may well find themselves on the short end- Trump has called for a Senate trial "if Impeached" - Originally Posted by oeb11

That might white of Trump seeing that has already been established and he has no say via the Constitution.

Which one of yinz has been banned multiple times? That should settle who wears a straitjacket. Originally Posted by lustylad

If you haven't been banned you're a pussy in sheep clothing

winn dixie and neverhadabrain are just petulant little boys who hate being told they're wrong.

If you haven't been banned you're a pussy in sheep clothing

winn dixie and neverhadabrain are just petulant little boys who hate being told they're wrong. Originally Posted by WTF

yawn....

looked in a mirror lately?

Amen - NGIT - unfortunately - none so blind as DPST's who will not see!
O/W - let's save a mirror and retract that question of wtf.

Democrats response to who Republicans will call as witnesses is "OH YEAH! We'll call Mulvaney and Bolton and Pompeo". And what will the say, what's the worst they could say? That Yes, Trump wanted an investigation into possible corruption of Hunter and Joe Biden. After all if we dismiss the ridiculous holding up funds for 55 days something legally permissible, that's what is left, that the President asked a foreign country to investigate an American citizen that he may run against in the upcoming election and what Republicans are telling us is OK, even if that is true, it is not bribery and does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. That is all that we could get out of all the people mentioned because that's what happened. I'm perfectly willing to admit that is what happened. I also know that Democrats were not willing to address the fact that Hillary did the very same thing by hiring Christopher Steele, a foreign national to go to a foreign country, Russia of all places and get something of value, information on Hillary's political opponent, Donald Trump. That is a fact. A fact that didn't bother the Democrats one bit.


Trump concerned about a new guy elected in Ukraine, one of the most corrupt countries on earth and wondering if this new guy will be any different than the old guy. How could we possibly know until he does something other than mouth the words? Well, he does something by putting together what looks to be a less corrupt Parliament that passes a new law that says Parliamentarians may be held legally accountable for corrupt acts, a law that did not exist in the old government. So after 55 days of the current aid being held up so Trump could be convinced that this new President is indeed different than the old President, he release the funds. And that's an impeachable act? It would be a dereliction of duty under the treaty we had with Ukraine that says we must be convinced that their corruption problem has been solved before we give them any funds. Was the possible corruption of Hunter and Joe Biden investigated and proven one way or the other? No. To not do so would be to say "this possible corruption, we won't bother to look at because Joe is running against Trump". Really? If you are running for President you are immune from investigation? Sure Trump could have gone about it in a more diplomatic way by asking our FBI and CIA to look into the matter but would that have made a bit of difference to Democrats? It's still Trump asking for an investigation of the Bidens because who ever Trump asked to investigate, they would in turn ask questions of Ukrainians, would they not? So Trump took the less judicious route.


My go to scholar on Constitutional matters is Johnathon Turley. Here's what he had to say.


https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...mp-impeachment

Democrats response to who Republicans will call as witnesses is "OH YEAH! We'll call Mulvaney and Bolton and Pompeo". And what will the say, what's the worst they could say? That Yes, Trump wanted an investigation into possible corruption of Hunter and Joe Biden. After all if we dismiss the ridiculous holding up funds for 55 days something legally permissible, that's what is left, that the President asked a foreign country to investigate an American citizen that he may run against in the upcoming election and what Republicans are telling us is OK, even if that is true, it is not bribery and does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. That is all that we could get out of all the people mentioned because that's what happened. I'm perfectly willing to admit that is what happened. I also know that Democrats were not willing to address the fact that Hillary did the very same thing by hiring Christopher Steele, a foreign national to go to a foreign country, Russia of all places and get something of value, information on Hillary's political opponent, Donald Trump. That is a fact. A fact that didn't bother the Democrats one bit.

Trump concerned about a new guy elected in Ukraine, one of the most corrupt countries on earth and wondering if this new guy will be any different than the old guy. How could we possibly know until he does something other than mouth the words? Well, he does something by putting together what looks to be a less corrupt Parliament that passes a new law that says Parliamentarians may be held legally accountable for corrupt acts, a law that did not exist in the old government. So after 55 days of the current aid being held up so Trump could be convinced that this new President is indeed different than the old President, he release the funds. And that's an impeachable act? It would be a dereliction of duty under the treaty we had with Ukraine that says we must be convinced that their corruption problem has been solved before we give them any funds. Was the possible corruption of Hunter and Joe Biden investigated and proven one way or the other? No. To not do so would be to say "this possible corruption, we won't bother to look at because Joe is running against Trump". Really? If you are running for President you are immune from investigation? Sure Trump could have gone about it in a more diplomatic way by asking our FBI and CIA to look into the matter but would that have made a bit of difference to Democrats? It's still Trump asking for an investigation of the Bidens because who ever Trump asked to investigate, they would in turn ask questions of Ukrainians, would they not? So Trump took the less judicious route.

My go to scholar on Constitutional matters is Johnathon Turley. Here's what he had to say.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...mp-impeachment Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Hillary Clinton was a private citizen when she hired Steele to dig up possibly damaging information on Trump. And she did not hold up Congress approved funding from Russia as a quid pro quo. I have no problem with her doing what she did. That is politics today.

If Trump held up funds from the Ukraine unless they agreed to investigate the Bidens that is WRONG, no matter how you look at it. Why didn't he do it as soon as he took office? Maybe because the next presidential election was, at the time, a little more than a year away and Biden was the leading candidate to oppose him. No, Biden is not immune from investigation. If he did something wrong he should be held accountable. The timing was rather suspect though.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...under-scrutiny.

I agree with you that Trump holding up funds to the Ukraine for 55 days is something that is legally permissible. I also agree that there is no problem with Trump asking the Ukraine to investigate an American citizen, no matter who that person is.

But when you combine the 2 actions that is where an impeachable offense may come into play. As I said, it is most certainly wrong to do it in my opinion and the opinion of many others. I don't think Trump has ever said it was right to do. Instead he said he didn't do it.

Hillary Clinton was a private citizen when she hired Steele to dig up possibly damaging information on Trump. And she did not hold up Congress approved funding from Russia as a quid pro quo. I have no problem with her doing what she did. That is politics today.

If Trump held up funds from the Ukraine unless they agreed to investigate the Bidens that is WRONG, no matter how you look at it. Why didn't he do it as soon as he took office? Maybe because the next presidential election was, at the time, a little more than a year away and Biden was the leading candidate to oppose him. No, Biden is not immune from investigation. If he did something wrong he should be held accountable. The timing was rather suspect though.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...under-scrutiny.

I agree with you that Trump holding up funds to the Ukraine for 55 days is something that is legally permissible. I also agree that there is no problem with Trump asking the Ukraine to investigate an American citizen, no matter who that person is.

But when you combine the 2 actions that is where an impeachable offense may come into play. As I said, it is most certainly wrong to do it in my opinion and the opinion of many others. I don't think Trump has ever said it was right to do. Instead he said he didn't do it. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

so by your logic two rights make an impeachable offense? interesting take.


oh and let's not forget that it was Clinton using Russian disinformation like the Steele Dossier that was the reason for Trump's response. unless you think Clinton doing that wasn't a big deal?

Hillary Clinton was a private citizen when she hired Steele to dig up possibly damaging information on Trump. And she did not hold up Congress approved funding from Russia as a quid pro quo. I have no problem with her doing what she did. That is politics today.

If Trump held up funds from the Ukraine unless they agreed to investigate the Bidens that is WRONG, no matter how you look at it. Why didn't he do it as soon as he took office? Maybe because the next presidential election was, at the time, a little more than a year away and Biden was the leading candidate to oppose him. No, Biden is not immune from investigation. If he did something wrong he should be held accountable. The timing was rather suspect though.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...under-scrutiny.

I agree with you that Trump holding up funds to the Ukraine for 55 days is something that is legally permissible. I also agree that there is no problem with Trump asking the Ukraine to investigate an American citizen, no matter who that person is.

But when you combine the 2 actions that is where an impeachable offense may come into play. As I said, it is most certainly wrong to do it in my opinion and the opinion of many others. I don't think Trump has ever said it was right to do. Instead he said he didn't do it. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I would disagree with your statement that it was wrong "no matter how you look at it". How you look at it, as it has been mentioned by myself and others has "Mens rae" attached which requires not just looking at face value but digging into the matter. When you start doing a deep dive on a Presidents power and his obligations on giving money to possibly corrupt governments and consider treaty obligations that demand a President be convinced that the corruption no longer exists before he releases that money, it becomes a different story.


I'm glad you agree that he had the legal authority to hold up the funds so that takes that issue of what is legal and illegal off the table IMHO. So we are left with "is it illegal for anybody, President or private citizen to enlist the help of a foreign national to solicit information to be used against a political opponent". A strict reading of the law says yes it is and yet neither Hillary or Don Jr. who both broke that law was charged because as Muller pointed out "the law ain't all that clear" and could that case be made beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Considering all the things I mentioned about the obligations of a President to insure that corruption has ended in the country we are giving money to and the fact that everybody and I mean everybody knows that on the face of it, Hunter Biden showed a conflict of interest, the appearance of impropriety and begged for a proper investigation before that money was turned over to Ukraine.


Whether it was wrong or not, IMHO it did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense especially 11 months from the next election when the American people can decide this matter and not 535 people in Congress.

Hillary Clinton was a private citizen when she hired Steele to dig up possibly damaging information on Trump. And she did not hold up Congress approved funding from Russia as a quid pro quo. I have no problem with her doing what she did. That is politics today.

If Trump held up funds from the Ukraine unless they agreed to investigate the Bidens that is WRONG, no matter how you look at it. Why didn't he do it as soon as he took office? Maybe because the next presidential election was, at the time, a little more than a year away and Biden was the leading candidate to oppose him. No, Biden is not immune from investigation. If he did something wrong he should be held accountable. The timing was rather suspect though.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...under-scrutiny.

I agree with you that Trump holding up funds to the Ukraine for 55 days is something that is legally permissible. I also agree that there is no problem with Trump asking the Ukraine to investigate an American citizen, no matter who that person is.

But when you combine the 2 actions that is where an impeachable offense may come into play. As I said, it is most certainly wrong to do it in my opinion and the opinion of many others. I don't think Trump has ever said it was right to do. Instead he said he didn't do it. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

are you and Adam Schitt related that garbage sounds like something right from his play book