• 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!

Eric Stalwell Nails it at Impeachment Inquiry Hearings

Marco Montana said:
Please point to the law President Trump has broken I'll wait?
Click to expand...

I'll assume you haven't been paying attention to what "high crimes and misdemeanors" actually means, despite the repeated explanations from noted constitutional law experts.


I realize such broad ignorance creates a convenient argument for defensive partisans to feed to the uneducated within their tribes, but it just doesn't work when addressing those not of their tribe.
 
Marco Montana said:
Click to expand...


Yeah that is disgraceful and will no doubt result in both changes and disciplinary action, as it should.

Not that it has a thing to do with the impeachment, and certainly doesn't change any of the results of the Meuller report, but its a failure of a process that needs to be as bulletproof as possible since it concerns surveilling specific citizens in foreign counter intelligence investigations.

do you have any suggestions for improvements that law enforcement adopt to ensure that the interests of both the national security and the civil rights of its citizens are protected?
 
Jonsa said:
I'll assume you haven't been paying attention to what "high crimes and misdemeanors" actually means, despite the repeated explanations from noted constitutional law experts.


I realize such broad ignorance creates a convenient argument for defensive partisans to feed to the uneducated within their tribes, but it just doesn't work when addressing those not of their tribe.
Click to expand...

Ad Hominem doesn't strengthen your argument? I know what they are and they require a law to have been broken!
 
cabse5 said:
Wasn't the Ukrainian administration that investigated and debunked Trump's accusations a corrupt administration?
Click to expand...

yes and some of those very same people are the ones that Rudi is over there playing kissie on tv to "get them corrupt goods on Biden" from the corrupt dudes that wouldn't investigate in the first place.

Its a reality tv sleazefest with all the players trying to push their own domestic agendas thru foreign influence.
 
Jonsa said:
yes and some of those very same people are the ones that Rudi is over there playing kissie on tv to "get them corrupt goods on Biden" from the corrupt dudes that wouldn't investigate in the first place.

Its a reality tv sleazefest with all the players trying to push their own domestic agendas thru foreign influence.
Click to expand...

I am no Rudy fan, however if indeed there is proof of Biden Corruption should it not be investigated? We had an entire 2 years of Mueller investigating Trump over a fake dossier but Biden saying he made the President of Ukraine fire the Prosecutor is overlooked?

 
Marco Montana said:
Ad Hominem doesn't strengthen your argument? I know what they are and they require a law to have been broken!
Click to expand...

excuse me, but it is a constitutional fact that the high crimes and misdemeanors as interpreted by the founders is not limited to simply breaking a criminal statue. It includes what the military would call "conduct unbecoming". You know all that malarkey about integrity, ethics, abusing power over subordinates, and the like.

as for a real crime, obstruction of congress is obstruction of justice. It will be interesting to see how that is adjudicated since Trump's kingly claim of absolute immunity and his ordered zero cooperation with the impeachment hearings is a gross breach of his oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution.
 
Jonsa said:
i see you haven't been paying attention. I agree you can't impeach a president because of feelings, heresay and speculation.

OTOH you can base it on evidence, facts and reality. And the reality is that Dear Furhrer has done it all to himself. It's his behaviors, words and attitudes that have resulted in him being impeached.

At least this process is exposing how well trumpian republicans are replicating the the whiny little bitch defense of the 46th best president in history.
Click to expand...

I didn't see an answer to his question "what Laws he has broken?"
 
Jonsa said:
excuse me, but it is a constitutional fact that the high crimes and misdemeanors as interpreted by the founders is not limited to simply breaking a criminal statue. .
Click to expand...


Sooooo the answer to the question what law was broken, that you've responded to repeatedly without answering is that no laws were broken.
 
Jonsa said:
excuse me, but it is a constitutional fact that the high crimes and misdemeanors as interpreted by the founders is not limited to simply breaking a criminal statue. It includes what the military would call "conduct unbecoming". You know all that malarkey about integrity, ethics, abusing power over subordinates, and the like.

as for a real crime, obstruction of congress is obstruction of justice. It will be interesting to see how that is adjudicated since Trump's kingly claim of absolute immunity and his ordered zero cooperation with the impeachment hearings is a gross breach of his oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution.
Click to expand...

Obama did the same thing with Eric holder! It wasn't Obstruction of Congress which doesn't exist to the Executive Branch!
 
dixon01767 said:
Sooooo the answer to the question what law was broken, that you've responded to repeatedly without answering is that no laws were broken.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Because a bunch of Democrats crazed over Trump winning throw out any and every accusation possible hoping anything will stick is not Impeachable...
 
Marco Montana said:
I am no Rudy fan, however if indeed there is proof of Biden Corruption should it not be investigated? We had an entire 2 years of Mueller investigating Trump over a fake dossier but Biden saying he made the President of Ukraine fire the Prosecutor is overlooked?

Click to expand...


but there isn't any evidence of Biden's corruption. There is no equivalency in what Joe did to get the corrupt prosecutor fired, and btw it wasn't even US money, it was an IMF loan guarantee.

the kid's hiring smells, but its hardly relevant to Trump's impeachment.

And remember, in the Dear Furhrer's perfect phone call he LED with the crazy Crowdstrike conspiracy "favor" that the Ukrainians KNEW was Russian fake news and knew that POTUS had the best resources on the planet to know. You think Zalensky was so stupid as to think he wasn't being asked to create a phony investigation?




The Meuller investigation was not an exoneration of trump by any means. He just couldnt' prove a criminal conspiracy. although he did say



Here’s what Mueller said:

➡️ Russia interfered in our election to help Trump.

➡️ Russians made numerous contacts with the campaign.

➡️ Campaign welcomed their help.

➡️ No one reported these contacts or interference to FBI.

➡️ They lied to cover it up.


And that's the facts.
 
Jonsa said:
but there isn't any evidence of Biden's corruption. There is no equivalency in what Joe did to get the corrupt prosecutor fired, and btw it wasn't even US money, it was an IMF loan guarantee.

the kid's hiring smells, but its hardly relevant to Trump's impeachment.

And remember, in the Dear Furhrer's perfect phone call he LED with the crazy Crowdstrike conspiracy "favor" that the Ukrainians KNEW was Russian fake news and knew that POTUS had the best resources on the planet to know. You think Zalensky was so stupid as to think he wasn't being asked to create a phony investigation?




The Meuller investigation was not an exoneration of trump by any means. He just couldnt' prove a criminal conspiracy. although he did say



Here’s what Mueller said:

➡️ Russia interfered in our election to help Trump.

➡️ Russians made numerous contacts with the campaign.

➡️ Campaign welcomed their help.

➡️ No one reported these contacts or interference to FBI.

➡️ They lied to cover it up.

And that's the facts.
Click to expand...


Couple items

1) IMF Loan Guarantees that USED the US as a co-signer that if Ukraine did not pay we would. WE are the essential collateral and backer. IF we pulled out, They could NOT get the Loan's. Meaning no money Meaning Pressure.

2) Corrupt Prosecutor or NOT, The fact that, Biden intervene to have a person fired USING US leverage is THAT ok? We always ask, is it ok for Trump to ask Zelensky for the Favor? Well IS IT OK for Biden to use US leverage to fire a Prosecutor? If the Prosecutor was corrupt he WOULD have no reason to use US leverage right? Why use the US leverage in the form of $1billion in loan guarantees If the Prosecutor could have been easily pressured out by diplomacy due to corruptions?
3) Biden's Hiring stinks? WELL NO, it does NOT, His HIRING is absolutely fine and NOTHING illegal about it. The USE of Biden and his inherent connections is the problem.

3a) WHY was there lobbying during the time VP Biden in charge of Ukraine, from Burisma Lawyers/Burisma and Hunter Biden's & Associates through Blue Star Strategies? Bluestar Novelli Contacts
"Karen Tramontano of BSS requested a meeting to discuss with U/S Novelli USG remarks alleging Bursima (Ukraine Energy company) Of corruption. She noted 2 high profile U.S. Citizens are affilitated with the company (including Hunter Biden as a board member)". (email date 02/24/2016), (Shokin's fired 03/29/2016- after this emails correspondences) (Biden's speech and push on Porashenko happened in December 2015 to March of 2016 exactly the same time frame)

4) Was there a potential Conflict of interest, Was there pay for play access to the state department (Burisma Hiring Hunter Biden, for access to the DS and VP office. PER the Time Trail above, Biden's said Fire the Prosecutor from December 2015 and up to 8 days prior to March 29, when Shokin was actually fired.


The emails that are SLOWLY being found and released through FOIA request as starting to paint a negative picture that IN FACT, Burisma representatives where in fact LOBBYING to the State Department and using Hunter as a conduit of leverage. Indicating a potential Pay for play scheme....


IF ITS NOT true where there seems to be a predicate, why not shove it in Trumps face, investigated FIND ZERO cause and then Trump could be easily shown as a bad guy, BUT instead there is a MASSIVE cover up on both Bidens and then the quick PUSH for impeachment so we steam roll right over this..... ODD.....
 
Last edited:
dixon01767 said:
Revealing corrupt politicians is to everyone's gain. Because Biden is a Presidential candidate doesn't change that fact. Hell, Obama used the State department, FBI and CIA to investigate Trump when he was a candidate. Solicited the help of Ukraine and Russia. SOP when its a Republican candidate doesn't become an impeachable offense because its a Democratic candidate.
Click to expand...

I agree that revealing corrupt politicians is to everyone’s gain. A President that benefits from the power of his office for personal gain is the definition of corruption.
 
MauiMan said:
I agree that revealing corrupt politicians is to everyone’s gain. A President that benefits from the power of his office for personal gain is the definition of corruption.
Click to expand...

Can I ask a question of Predicate?

So in the prior IG reports, the Predicate was legit to initiate Corssfire Hurricane?

The predicate being, "Russian interfered with or 2016 elections"

This then predicate Allowed A FULL BLOWN investigation from Intelligence to Criminal. Then a Full Special Council. Justified or NOT it happened.


So now I ask the questions. Does being a presidential candidate absolve you or provide immunity?


Biden's has a potential predicate of crimes, His ACTUAL speech of fire the prosecutor, (this can be debated but the predicate exist)

Hunter Biden's Hiring is not an issue, BUT Burisma's actions and USE of Hunter Biden as leverage for State Department access as well as access to the office of the VP WHOM was in charged of Ukraine AT the time (timing is everything)

Does THIS NOT warrant an investigation NOT implying GUILT or a crime, But a predicate to investigate?


Are you say that the predication does NOT exist? Simple question?
 
cabse5 said:
Wasn't the Ukrainian administration that investigated and debunked Trump's accusations a corrupt administration?
Click to expand...

The Ukrainian administration conducted an investigation of Burisma before Hunter Biden got there. The investigation didn't involve Hunter, and was not being actively pursued when he got there.

Hunter Biden’s role with Burisma raised conflict-of-interest concerns at the time. The State Department claimed in 2014 that there was no conflict, noting Hunter was a “private citizen.”

There's absolutely no evidence Joe Biden committed "corruption" of any sort in Ukraine, as Trump alleges. If you have the evidence, then let’s hear it!
 
MauiMan said:
The Ukrainian administration conducted an investigation of Burisma before Hunter Biden got there. The investigation didn't involve Hunter, and was not being actively pursued when he got there.

Hunter Biden’s role with Burisma raised conflict-of-interest concerns at the time. The State Department claimed in 2014 that there was no conflict, noting Hunter was a “private citizen.”

There's absolutely no evidence Joe Biden committed "corruption" of any sort in Ukraine, as Trump alleges. If you have the evidence, then let’s hear it!
Click to expand...


Actually, They were NOT investigating "Burisma" at the time (2012), they were investigating the RUSSIA Oligarch that OWNED Burisma. Which they raided and found significant charges.

In 2015 Burisma was again accused of corruption in which then Shokin "slow walked" an already on going investigation into Burisma. Hunter Biden was Already on the Board by 2014.

Biden Pressured Poroshenko in late 2015

Email shows lobbying February of 2016

Shokin was fired March 2016


The accusation is that, Burisma (under investigation since 2012 after the raid on Oligarch Zlochvesky) Accused of corruption, Hired Hunter Biden in 2014 (when Joe Biden took the lead in Ukraine) To used Hunter Biden's leverage and connections then VP Biden for access and lobbying with the State Department. The lobbying Worked as in 2015 Joe Biden Threatened Poroshenko, in regards to loan guarantees. Shokin was fired and the Burisma investigation stopped.


The TIME LINE FITS... and LOOKS REALLY BAD
 
HumblePi said:
Quite ironic isn't it, considering the fact that their brains are filled with Fox brain farts.
Click to expand...

My parents, who are 93 years old, watch Fox News 24 X 7. They are completely convinced Trump has done nothing wrong, and they are outraged that the Democrats are doing this. They never see his Tweets, and don’t even know what Twitter is. They rely on Fox to be "fair and balanced,” which it clearly is not. Trump is their man, and they will never cast a light of serious scrutiny upon him.

So, we have 39% of the population with their heels dug in to support Trump. Interestingly, on the day Nixon resigned, 20% of Americans still gave him their unwavering support.

I have a suspicion that some of our conservative friends here on the debate forum may be of the same mind set. That’s ok. It’s called freedom. I hope we can keep it that way...
 
Exactice said:
Can I ask a question of Predicate?

So in the prior IG reports, the Predicate was legit to initiate Corssfire Hurricane?

The predicate being, "Russian interfered with or 2016 elections"

This then predicate Allowed A FULL BLOWN investigation from Intelligence to Criminal. Then a Full Special Council. Justified or NOT it happened.


So now I ask the questions. Does being a presidential candidate absolve you or provide immunity?


Biden's has a potential predicate of crimes, His ACTUAL speech of fire the prosecutor, (this can be debated but the predicate exist)

Hunter Biden's Hiring is not an issue, BUT Burisma's actions and USE of Hunter Biden as leverage for State Department access as well as access to the office of the VP WHOM was in charged of Ukraine AT the time (timing is everything)

Does THIS NOT warrant an investigation NOT implying GUILT or a crime, But a predicate to investigate?


Are you say that the predication does NOT exist? Simple question?
Click to expand...

Here’s the point—Trump should not use the power of the Office of the President of the United States for personal gain. It’s against the constitution. You can read the articles here:

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/d...v/files/documents/Articles of Impeachment.pdf
 
Exactice said:
Actually, They were NOT investigating "Burisma" at the time (2012), they were investigating the RUSSIA Oligarch that OWNED Burisma. Which they raided and found significant charges.

In 2015 Burisma was again accused of corruption in which then Shokin "slow walked" an already on going investigation into Burisma. Hunter Biden was Already on the Board by 2014.

Biden Pressured Poroshenko in late 2015

Email shows lobbying February of 2016

Shokin was fired March 2016


The accusation is that, Burisma (under investigation since 2012 after the raid on Oligarch Zlochvesky) Accused of corruption, Hired Hunter Biden in 2014 (when Joe Biden took the lead in Ukraine) To used Hunter Biden's leverage and connections then VP Biden for access and lobbying with the State Department. The lobbying Worked as in 2015 Joe Biden Threatened Poroshenko, in regards to loan guarantees. Shokin was fired and the Burisma investigation stopped.


The TIME LINE FITS... and LOOKS REALLY BAD
Click to expand...

The President of the United States has the entire Executive Branch at his disposal. He doesn’t have to shake down the leader of a sovereign nation to investigate the Bidens. All he had to do was have the FBI, CIA, NSA—you name it—to conduct an investigation. I guess he didn’t know how? Come on!
 
MauiMan said:
My parents, who are 93 years old, watch Fox News 24 X 7. They are completely convinced Trump has done nothing wrong, and they are outraged that the Democrats are doing this. They never see his Tweets, and don’t even know what Twitter is. They rely on Fox to be "fair and balanced,” which it clearly is not. Trump is their man, and they will never cast a light of serious scrutiny upon him.

So, we have 39% of the population with their heels dug in to support Trump. Interestingly, on the day Nixon resigned, 20% of Americans still gave him their unwavering support.

I have a suspicion that some of our conservative friends here on the debate forum may be of the same mind set. That’s ok. It’s called freedom. I hope we can keep it that way...
Click to expand...

A few hours ago, I went to have my hair cut at my usual shop. I have gone to the same woman for my haircuts for years. She asked "so, what have you been up to?" Of course I told her that I've pretty much been glued to my television watching all the impeachment proceedings. She said, "oh, I don't know anything about that, I don't follow what's going on in politics". I know that people don't follow as I do, but I assume that the majority of people at least have a little interest in the possible impeachment of a sitting president. But this lack of interest strikes to the heart of an saying about apathy. "Indifference and neglect often do much more damage than outright dislike."
 
TomFitz said:
The military aid was released after TRump got caught.
Click to expand...



The problem is no one gives a shot about Ukraine or understands why we're giving them money in the first place. And if Democrats really cared about Ukraine, like they're pretending now, they wouldn't have been such spineless c***s when Putin was taking Crimea as they sat on their little sensitive asses afraid to do anything but send hope and prayers Ukraine's way.
 
MauiMan said:
Here’s the point—Trump should not use the power of the Office of the President of the United States for personal gain. It’s against the constitution. You can read the articles here:

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/d...v/files/documents/Articles of Impeachment.pdf
Click to expand...

You apply the personal Gain, But if a predicate of a crime is committed and asking to look into it? Can you apply the Personal gain?


I just dont agree on the justifications that is laid out.


Here is a good example. Kamala Harris was accused of impropriety during her campaign, IF Trump mentioned it in a tweet or on TV, would he be accused of Using his Power for Personal gain? When it was factually in the public arena.

Biden's Actions were already IN the public arena, Its not something he made up. It was NOT even adjudicated on yet.


Asking to investigate does NOT implicate. fault or guilt.

Nixon orderd the DNC break in, and had audio recordings of how to obstruct congress
Clinton Lied to Congress and was FOUND guilty of Perjury

Trump is accused of using his office for political gain to ask to look into potential corruption. THATS NOT even a crime. They have applied a crime to an action that is not criminal. IF Biden was not even found to have committed an action say he was NOT caught on TV saying what he said, Say his SON was NOT hired By Burisma, This would be an abuse of power.

BUT IT DID happen.

Going back to our very first interaction in this thread. GOP WILL DO THIS TO the next Democratic President. ITS GOING TO HAPPEN. Is this what the Democrats want? Is this what the Nation really wants.....
 
Oborosen said:
So let me get this straight. He's saying all of this, with no evidence to actually show for it, and we're still supposed to take this seriously?

We've been hearing these same claims for over a year now, and it's all measured up to nothing at this point.

He'll we have more evidence for Schiff abusing the power of his station, than Trump at this point.
Click to expand...

When the facts cannot be refuted, the response always seems to be an attack on the character or intelligence of the orator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom