• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary'

Hamish Howl said:
Except that it isn't a court case.

And even in court, you only get to cross examine witnesses against you. And the prosecution decides who they will choose as witnesses.
Click to expand...

Ummm...no, that isn't true. The defense gets to call their own witnesses. As far as whether the hearings are court cases, yes they are. To remove a president there has to be crimes committed. This is a courtroom. So, we now see how you Democrats are far from the Constitution as your own have stated they are doing a coup. The whistle blower's attorney stated this immediately after the elections and swearing in of the President.
 
Cougarbear said:
So, what you are saying it is improper to go on fishing expeditions to find a crime.
Click to expand...
That is an ignorant bull crap talking point. There was ample reason to investigate.

That's exactly what Trump is saying happened with the Russia hoax and now the Ukrainian phone call hoax.
Click to expand...
Really? Did you expect the lying son of a bitch to come out and say he is guilty?

The Transcript of the call clearly spells out Trump questioning on whether Joe Biden withheld money from the Ukraine's because The Ukraine prosecutor was going after the company Joe's son, Hunter, was on the board of.
Click to expand...
Really? Quote the part.

This is fact based on the TV video show where Joe Biden was bragging about how he strong armed the Ukraine President to fire the prosecutor and how Obama approved of this strong arming of the Ukraine President at the time.
Click to expand...
Why not educate yourself instead of regurgitating talking points fed to you and moronicly claiming them to be facts.

There was no mention about withholding money from the Ukraine in context with what Trump wanted investigated.
Click to expand...
Why did he hold up the money? It was clearly approved by Cngress.

Even the President of the Ukraine agreed on TV at a press conference that he was not strong armed and forced to investigate the Biden's.
Click to expand...
More crap you beliee because it was fed to you.
 
Vern said:
Bullseye, Jasper clearly documented that the "editorial" you posted was lying. so lets see if you have the courage of your convictions (I don't think you do). Please state clearly that the Bidens's name was never mentioned in the phone call as your "editorial" states.
Click to expand...

Biden was mentioned in the phone call as an after thought after Trump asked if there would be an investigation into the corruption and interference in our 2016 elections by the Ukraine and Joe Biden to benefit Joe's son and hurt Hillary and Trump himself. As the Ukraine President stated at the press conference, there was no quid pro quo, bribery or and force used by threat or otherwise to investigate Biden interfering in our election by getting the prosecutor fired who was investigating Hunter's company, Burisma. That is fact. No quid pro quo. Just ask the Ukraine President.
 
Cougarbear said:
Biden was mentioned in the phone call as an after thought after Trump asked if there would be an investigation into the corruption and interference in our 2016 elections by the Ukraine and Joe Biden to benefit Joe's son and hurt Hillary and Trump himself. As the Ukraine President stated at the press conference, there was no quid pro quo, bribery or and force used by threat or otherwise to investigate Biden interfering in our election by getting the prosecutor fired who was investigating Hunter's company, Burisma. That is fact. No quid pro quo. Just ask the Ukraine President.
Click to expand...

"We want to buy more javelin missiles."

"First we'd like you to do us a favor."

Boom. Right there.
 
Cougarbear said:
Biden was mentioned in the phone call as an after thought after Trump asked if there would be an investigation into the corruption and interference in our 2016 elections by the Ukraine and Joe Biden to benefit Joe's son and hurt Hillary and Trump himself. .
Click to expand...

CB, I'll type this slow for you since you seem to be having a hard time following simple facts. Bullseye posted an "editorial" that claimed trump never mentioned Biden. Trump clearly mentioned Biden. You even admit trump mentioned Biden. Oh sure, you try to obediently down play it as an "after thought" but again trump mentioned Biden. That means the "editorial" bullseye posted was lying. Surely even you can follow that simple concept.

Bullseye said:
JasperL couldn't document the sun rises in the East. :lamo
Click to expand...

I said you wouldn't have the courage of your convictions and you proved me right. thanks for that BE
 
eohrnberger said:
After 2 1/2+ years, $40M, unlimited FBI investigatory resources. If it were there, they would have found it. They did not find it, otherwise they would have stated they had found it.
Click to expand...

You think that because Mueller could not prove conspiracy then that means Trump did nothing wrong at all, did nothing to warrant investigation in the first place, did not obstruct justice, and that it was all one big set up.

That is false. It is true that Mueller could not prove the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, but that is the only thing you wrote that was true. The fact Mueller could not prove the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean the investigation was unwarranted and that it was some big set up as you falsely claim, and that doesn't mean Trump didn't try to conspire with the Russians. Also, Mueller did find instances of obstruction.

If the media wanted to regain and restore their credibility, they might want to start holding Democrats as accountable as they are hold Republicans. As it is they've given up reporting on politics and have turned into political activists.
Click to expand...

I don't blame the media for criticizing Trump. Trump deserves to be criticizing. Trump and his uneducated, ignorant, and fascist supporters believe idiotic conspiracy theories and have been engaged in a full-on assault on the Rule of Law, Objective Reality, and the Constitution. Trump is not above the law. Trump did suspicious things and deserved to be investigated.

No. Politically driven decisions as to what to investigate and what not to investigate.
Click to expand...

Be specific. What actions did Mueller take that you think were "politically driven"? Also, are you aware that Mueller is a Republica and was appointed by Rosenstein, a Trump appointee?

No, that would be the left, leftists and Democrats (although I needlessly repeat myself) and their incessant inability to accept the results of the 2016 election.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't the Democrats or the Leftists. The problem with respect to Trump being investigated is that Trump is incapable of doing the right thing. Trump is a bad person who does bad things.

The great irony is:
Click to expand...

Hey, I hate to break it to you, but not accepting the results of an election is a threat to Democracy. I also think Trump's utter contempt for the Rule of Law is a threat to our form of government because our form of government is based on the Rule of Law.

You and Trump supporters and Trump himself think he should be immune from investigation. This kind of thinking is crazy and has no place within our system.

The left and the Democrats haven't accepted the results of the 2016 election yet.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is true. The problem is Trump and his supporters CANNOT accept criticism. Also, Trump and Trump's fascist supporters haven't accepted the fact that Democrats are equal citizens who have a right to participate in the system. They think that Trump should be allowed to break the law and violate the Constitution. That Trump's actions are okay so long as that means that Trump supporters get to "win" and that the Democrats "lose."

If you want to look at Ukrainian collusion to influence US elections, you could start here, for example.
Click to expand...

I am not concerned about this all. Why are you bringing this up? What does this have to do with Biden? What does this have to do with Clinton?

So eliciting foreign influence in US elections is only bad if it's not Democrats doing it?
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that Clinton or the DNC acting on any of this information. This is a false equivalence.

In this case of Trump he personally tried to initiate an investigation into the Bidens based on bullcrap conspiracy theories that only idiots believe.
 
Bullseye said:
Nope, haven't missed much, except I read it with my logic engaged; you guys read it with your TDS flaring up. Also, reread the actual phone call transcript this morning. You guys are still off the rails.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know Trump is telling his cult followers that the phone call was perfect, read the transcript. It was even on some shirts at that rally! So it's nice that you're following Dear Leader's instructions. Pat on the head for you.

The rest of us know that when it happened, the WH panicked and locked it down so virtually no one could read it. The Ukraine diplomats couldn't read it. Practically no one could. Several people ran to their internal counsel at that time to voice their concerns. So it's gaslighting to now say the phone call was perfect.

Besides, telling anyone who's paid attention to politics for more than about a week to just look at the phone call and not what happened in the weeks and months before and after is to treat them like naive idiots. We KNOW and can see in the record in this case that the phone call or the meeting between principles is just a small part of the picture.
 
Bullseye said:
JasperL couldn't document the sun rises in the East.
Click to expand...

I quoted from the article and from the call memo. You know this.

I didn't think you'd be this dishonest. It's actually disappointing to find this out.
 
nota bene said:
coup d'état[ koo dey-tah; French koo dey-ta ]

noun, plural coups d'é·tat

a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force. Coup d'etat | Definition of Coup d'etat at Dictionary.com
Click to expand...

Interesting.

corruption noun

cor·​rup·​tion | \ kə-ˈrəp-shən \

Definition of corruption
1a: dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers) : DEPRAVITY
b: inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (such as bribery)
the corruption of government officials
Click to expand...
 
eohrnberger said:
Well, that's the question isn't it? Justifiably so or not? Sufficient predicate to open a counter intel spying operation against a political opposition presidential campaign or not. This is what Barr testified to congress and what Durham is investigating. Given that Durham's investigation has been elevated into a criminal investigation certainly brings legitimate question and doubt whether there was sufficient predicate to open the counter intel spying operation.
Click to expand...

Well, we will see what happens, and until there is a shred of evidence indicating anything untoward your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.

If the Trump campaign would have been found to be 'colluding with the Russians', the 2 1/2+ year, $40M Mueller investigation backed by unlimited FBI investigative resources would have surely found it. They did not, as their report documents.
Click to expand...

No, you need to read the Mueller report. It is true Mueller could not prove the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not true that Trump did not try to conspire with the Russian because he did try. It is not true that Trump did not try to obstruct justice, because Mueller found he did on at least 4 separate occasions.

The FBI has never forensically examined the hacked DNC servers. Quite likely they would have been able to determine from where the security breech would have come, and who would have perpetrated it. But no. The DNC engaged CrowdStrike for this forensic examination
Click to expand...

They didn't need to examine the physical servers. The FBI had access to a digital image of the servers. This is another stupid, idiotic conspiracy theory that has already been debunked.

Now why is that CrowdStrike was hired to perform this forensic examination and not the FBI?
Click to expand...

It's common to hire third-party investigators like Crowdstrike, and the FBI did gain access to the same digital image Crowdstrike had. And a company like Crowdstrike wouldn't take possession of the physical servers anyway. All they need is a digital image of the server. There may be some information in the routers, but that's about it.

Coming to their conclusion after only a single day, how would you trust a conclusion arrived at so readily after such a sort time, without any validation, no second opinion?
Click to expand...

Well, the FBI did examine the digital image of the server, so they did examine everything Crowdstrike examined so there was in fact a second opinion. What is it about coming to a conclusion quickly that makes you suspicious? What specific thing can you point to that would make the rapidity of their determination strange to you? The mere fact you are asking the question isn't evidence in and of itself, it's just a question.

Seems almost pre-ordained that it was the Russians.
Click to expand...

This is a dumb thing to say. You say this based on the false assumption that the FBI didn't examine the digital image as Crowdstrike did. This is WRONG. You say this based on the fact that a conclusion was arrived at quickly. Well, so what? How does that necessarily mean the conclusion was pre-ordained. That doesn't make any sense. You need more evidence than just your own suspicions. Facts. NOT assumptions.

All the more reason she was criminal in her handling of classified materials on that server.
Click to expand...

Oh geesh, man these attacks were aimed at her campaign server, and her personal server, which were separate and distinct from the server she used when she was SOS.

No indication that Glenn Simpson has any sort of expertise in, or experience with, Russia.
Click to expand...

No, you see unlike the vast majority of people that opine about this stuff I actually read Simpson's testimony:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180118/106796/HMTG-115-IG00-20180118-SD002.pdf

Go to page 22. Simpson developed expertise concerning Russia when he worked at the WSJ. He combined this knowledge with an astute ability to investigate people and businesses using public sources. This was why he was hired. As a former journalist he was good at investigating people using public sources,

Case in point, your own reference:

As to Russia collusion, pretty apparent that Glenn Simpson wrote the script for this back in 2007.

How Lobbyists Help Ex-Soviets Woo Washington
By Glenn R. Simpson and Mary Jacoby, Updated April 17, 2007 12:01 am ET
Click to expand...

--

Tried the same thing on the McCain presidential campaign as well. Yes, the 'Russian Collusion' political narrative has been tried on previous Republican presidential campaigns.
Click to expand...

There is a reason for this. The RUSSIANS keep trying to muck things up.
 
Last edited:
Cougarbear said:
So, what you are saying it is improper to go on fishing expeditions to find a crime. That's exactly what Trump is saying happened with the Russia hoax and now the Ukrainian phone call hoax. So, if it's good for the Democrats, it's also good for Trump to go fishing as well. The Transcript of the call clearly spells out Trump questioning on whether Joe Biden withheld money from the Ukraine's because The Ukraine prosecutor was going after the company Joe's son, Hunter, was on the board of. This is fact based on the TV video show where Joe Biden was bragging about how he strong armed the Ukraine President to fire the prosecutor and how Obama approved of this strong arming of the Ukraine President at the time. There was no mention about withholding money from the Ukraine in context with what Trump wanted investigated. Even the President of the Ukraine agreed on TV at a press conference that he was not strong armed and forced to investigate the Biden's. I'd like to see the committee call the President of Ukraine to testify of this. Maybe the Senate will do just that.
Click to expand...

The Committee has already called several individuals to testify to this... including Deputy Asst. Secretary of State George Kent (Kent Deposition, Pg. 336-7):

Q. (Daniel Goldman, Democratic Staffer, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence). And did you think it was appropriate for Vice President Biden to condition the release of the loan guarantees on the firing of Prosecutor General Shokin?

Deputy Asst. Secretary Kent: Prosecutor General Shokin was an impediment to the reform of the prosecutorial system, and he had directly undermined in repeated fashion U.S. efforts and U.S.
assistance programs.

And so, because we had a strategic interest in seeing the Ukrainian prosecutor system reformed, and because we have a fiduciary responsibility for U.S. taxpayer dollars, it was the consensus view that Shokin needed to be removed so that the stated goal of reform of the prosecutor general system could move forward.

Q. And so when you mentioned that that connection was a quid pro quo, you're not saying that that was an improper quid pro quo?

Deputy Asst. Secretary Kent: I didn't say that it was a quid pro quo, but it is the case that both the IMF and the U. S. Government do use conditionality for assistance, whether it is macroeconomic assistance provided by the INF or, in the case of our sovereign loan guarantees, we put conditionality that related to management of the gas system, meeting macroeconomic stability goals proposed by the IMF, social safety nets, and issues related to anticorruption. And that involved the National Anticorruption Prevention Council, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, as well as the prosecutor general's office.

Q. Okay. Mr. Malinowski has a few questions.

Rep. Malinowski (D-NJ): Thank you.

Mr. Goldman: One thing.

And just to be clear, what Vice President Biden was doing was very fundamentally different than any advocacy for a politically oriented investigation. Is that your assessment?

Deputy Asst. Secretary Kent: The request for the dismissal of Shokin was related directly to him, to his actions in the diamond prosecutors case, in his undermining of our assistance to Ukraine.

Mr. Goldman: And that's distinct from your concerns that you've raised today about advocacy for an investigation into Biden or the 2016 election?

Deputy Asst. Secretary Kent: That's how I would look at the two issues, as distinct, yes.

Rep. Malinowski (D-NJ): The distinction is between conditionality to advance the national interest and conditionality to advance a personal interest.

Deputy Asst. Secretary Kent: One might say national interest versus partisan interest, yes.
Click to expand...

If you want to know more about Viktor Shokin, upon whom you all seem to be hanging your hopes, and the "diamond prosecutors" case referenced in the testimony above, I'll refer you to the following article:

Ukraine Ousts Viktor Shokin, Top Prosecutor, and Political Stability Hangs in the Balance - The New York Times
 
RetiredUSN said:
Why aren't the democrats allowing witnesses for the republicans.

Boomerangs hurt...........don't play with them unless you know what you are doing.
Click to expand...

Why aren't you guys demanding Trump and White House officials testify before Congress?

Boomerangs hurt...........don't play with them unless you know what you are doing.
 
1. Cougarbear: So, what you are saying it is improper to go on fishing expeditions to find a crime.
Prometeus: That is an ignorant bull crap talking point. There was ample reason to investigate.

Answer: The whistle blower heard information 3rd or 4th hand. Therefore, it's hearsay and not fact nor reason to begin an investigation unless the whistle blower's attorney wanted to set up a coup against Trump. In which we now have that tweet. There was no reason for the investigation except to begin the coup.

2. Cougarbear: That's exactly what Trump is saying happened with the Russia hoax and now the Ukrainian phone call hoax.
Prometeus: Really? Did you expect the lying son of a bitch to come out and say he is guilty?

Answer: You have no proof of a lie. You have the transcript and the tweet from the whistle blower's attorney as fact that this is another hoax.

3. Cougarbear: he Transcript of the call clearly spells out Trump questioning on whether Joe Biden withheld money from the Ukraine's because The Ukraine prosecutor was going after
the company Joe's son, Hunter, was on the board of.
Prometeus: Really? Quote the part.

Answer: Here is the call, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
Trump simply stated that there was corruption by the past Ukraine President, their ambassador and ours. He mentioned Biden and the corruption to be looked into. "The
other thing, There's a lot talk about Biden's son,. that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney
General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you ·can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me."

Put this with the video of the TV show where Biden brags about denying aid to the Ukraine for their war against Russia unless the prosecutor of Biden's son's company is
fired, you have corruption of the Obama administration with Biden the fall guy. FLASHBACK, 2018: Joe Biden Brags At CFR Meeting About Withholding Aid To Ukraine To Force Firing Of Prosecutor | Video | RealClearPolitics
You also see no mention about Trump threatening to withhold any funds from the Ukraine. In fact, he never did. The Ukraine has gotten every dime form the U.S. from
Trump. Thus, Trump did not force anyone to dig up dirt on Biden for political purposes.

4. Cougarbear: This is fact based on the TV video show where Joe Biden was bragging about how he strong armed the Ukraine President to fire the prosecutor and how Obama approved
of this strong arming of the Ukraine President at the time.
Promteus: Why not educate yourself instead of regurgitating talking points fed to you and moronicly claiming them to be facts.

Answer: FLASHBACK, 2018: Joe Biden Brags At CFR Meeting About Withholding Aid To Ukraine To Force Firing Of Prosecutor | Video | RealClearPolitics
How many times do you want to watch this? He threw Obama under the bus as well strong arming the Ukraine to fire the prosecutor or lose the money. Not Trump. It was
Obama and Biden. I'm sure John Kerry was in on it as his son was also on the board with Burisma.
 
5. Cougarbear: There was no mention about withholding money from the Ukraine in context with what Trump wanted investigated.
Prometeus: Why did he hold up the money? It was clearly approved by Congress.

Answer: The words “investigation, Biden and Clinton” were to be required elements in a public announcement by Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the new Ukrainian president, to get the aid, State Department official George Kent testified in the Democratic-led impeachment probe. Ukraine ultimately didn’t make the announcement, and Trump says there was never a quid pro quo. - Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Ukraine didn't make the announcement because there was never a quid-pro-quo. And, the President of Ukraine stated in the video that there was never any pressure about Biden or Clinton to receive the aid. The decision to hold back on the aid was simple. Trump wanted to see that the corruption had stopped first. Exactly what you would hope any of our Presidents would do and not promote corruption in other countries by sending corrupt governments money. Like what Obama, Biden and Kerry did with Iran. Sorry, no quid pro quo, no coup.

6. Cougarbear: Even the President of the Ukraine agreed on TV at a press conference that he was not strong armed and forced to investigate the Biden's.
Prometeus: More crap you beliee because it was fed to you.

Answer: Trump and president of Ukraine say there was no pressure to investigate Biden
Listen and learn. No pressure from NBC.

So, I debunked every one of your statements with actual facts from the transcripts, articles and videos. I suppose your next move is to make more slanderous statements with no facts to back your assertions up.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Why aren't the democrats allowing witnesses for the republicans.

Boomerangs hurt...........don't play with them unless you know what you are doing.
Click to expand...

LOL! They are allowing witnesses for the republicans.

What a silly thing to be dishonest about.
 
Cougarbear said:
Answer: Here is the call, Access Denied
Trump simply stated that there was corruption by the past Ukraine President, their ambassador and ours. He mentioned Biden and the corruption to be looked into. "The
other thing, There's a lot talk about Biden's son,. that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney
General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you ·can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me."
Click to expand...

It's really sad that conservatives such as yourself are so focused on this video, considering the fact that it does nothing to advance your conspiracy and in fact is against what you're saying. You already know the truth that you're attempting to obfuscate, which is that Biden and the Obama administration took an official national policy position, in line with other western European allies and anti-corruption activists on the ground in the Ukraine, to condition the release of aid to Ukraine on them getting rid of a prosecutor who was known for opposing the pursuit of anti-corruption investigations. We already know the truth is the exact opposite of what you're saying, because it wasn't a secret. It was all over the news then. The Obama administration was open about this position, which is why, in fact, Biden is blatantly saying it in front of a TV camera.

What makes this really sad, though, is that the video doesn't even do anything to support your theory that Biden advocated for the firing of the prosecutor to prevent an anti-corruption investigation into Hunter and Burisma. Why? Because, despite what the video shows, and despite how many times you attempt to allude to it as a smocking gun, the fact of the matter is that it, like you and every other conspiracy theorist, offers absolutely zero proof (or even suggestion) that the withholding of aid had anything to do with protecting the Bidens from an anti-corruption investigation. That's a leap you're making, and you're making that completely unsubstantiated leap by pointing to a video which doesn't show anything of the sort.

Nobody denies that Biden bragged about denying aid to Ukraine conditioned on the firing of the prosecutor. No matter how many times you link the video and refer to it, it's not going to show anything beyond that simple fact that nobody is denying.

Here are facts that are simply true that you can't get around:

1. Shokin was against investigating corruption
2. Hunter joined the board after the investigation was opened, which was widely reported in the press at the time and no secret
3. The investigation into Burisma under Shokin went dormant and Shokin's office was completely uncooperative with British fraud investigators investigatng Burisma and its oligarch
4. The official US policy position (and by that I mean the position of the entire US government as a whole, not just Obama...), as well as several western European governments and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists, was that Shokin was not dealing with corruption, and was in fact actually protecting corrupt parties by refusing to investigate them, and that he needed to go
5. Joe Biden stood in front of the Ukrainian parliament and international news cameras delivering an anti-corruption speech in December 2015
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom