Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary'

[humbolt]

My irony meter is pegged. Mr. Kent testified yesterday that the narrative of corruption that Trump and Giuliani made against the Bidens was baseless but you think the people who lack principles are Schiff and Nadler.

This has become boring. Even if everything the left claims about Biden were true, and it's not, I reserve the right to make up as much BS as you guys do. You guys dragged the entire nation through two and a half years of Mueller.

 

[MTAtech]

In fact I've replied to you several times with a completely DIFFERENT position, and you know this. What I've said repeatedly is if there is a legitimate concern about Biden, CALL THE ****ING DOJ. We have an entire agency headed by Barr dedicated to looking into wrongdoing by Americans. If we need Ukrainian assistance in a legitimate investigation by DoJ, we can request it through normal channels. THAT. DID. NOT. HAPPEN. Instead we had the "investigation" headed up by Trump's personal attorney who also, by the way, was also representing, and paid at least $500,000 by, a bunch of now indicted thugs with business in Ukraine.

It's pretty stunning how unwilling you are to have an honest debate.

Moreover, the idea that the President's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, is the legitimate avenue to address allegations of corruptions of American private citizens, is as absurd as it sounds.

 

[MTAtech]

This has become boring. Even if everything the left claims about Biden were true, and it's not, I reserve the right to make up as much BS as you guys do. You guys dragged the entire nation through two and a half years of Mueller.

News flash: Biden had nothing to do with the Mueller investigation, as he was a God Damn private citizen!

I am sorry a discussion about truth, fiction and the rule of law bores you. You do have the right to do something else besides post here if you are bored.

 

[MTAtech]

My irony meter is pegged. Mr. Kent testified yesterday that the narrative of corruption that Trump and Giuliani made against the Bidens was baseless but you think the people who lack principles are Schiff and Nadler.

What Biden requested, Kent said, was the removal of “a corrupt prosecutor general . . . who had undermined a system of criminal investigation that we built with American money to build corruption cases.” Shokin, Kent said, had “destroyed the entire ecosystem that we were trying to create,” and he credited Biden for leading a U.S. effort to combat corruption in Ukraine.
source

Former Amb. Yovanavitch, 5 minutes ago, further underscored that the allegation that Trump and others made against the Bidens was false.

 

[humbolt]

In fact I've replied to you several times with a completely DIFFERENT position, and you know this. What I've said repeatedly is if there is a legitimate concern about Biden, CALL THE ****ING DOJ. We have an entire agency headed by Barr dedicated to looking into wrongdoing by Americans. If we need Ukrainian assistance in a legitimate investigation by DoJ, we can request it through normal channels. THAT. DID. NOT. HAPPEN. Instead we had the "investigation" headed up by Trump's personal attorney who also, by the way, was also representing, and paid at least $500,000 by, a bunch of now indicted thugs with business in Ukraine.

It's pretty stunning how unwilling you are to have an honest debate.

The president can and does direct foreign policy. The provision of aid to any country is contigent upon certain behavior, and assurances from such countries that they will investigate corruption within, their borders, and provide assistance to the US should our citizens be involved in any corrupt activities is a normal function. So don't complain to me about debate and honesty until you have a better grasp of the conduct of foreign policy.

 

[humbolt]

News flash: Biden had nothing to do with the Mueller investigation, as he was a God Damn private citizen!

I am sorry a discussion about truth, fiction and the rule of law bores you. You do have the right to do something else besides post here if you are bored.

I don't really care what Biden had to do with anything much with the exception of any corrupt and criminal activity.

The entire point, which I'm sure you're anxious to ignore for obvious reasons, is that the left running around here claiming others are making crap up about Biden is a joke. You guys are making crap up daily on a monumental scale, involving federal organs of government. You don't have the right to accuse others of a thimble of malfeasance when your tossing it out by the tanker load daily.

At this point, whatever your malignant party endures is more than earned.

 

[bubbabgone]

Former Amb. Yovanavitch, 5 minutes ago, further underscored that the allegation that Trump and others made against the Bidens was false.

Two days ago Kent said Burisma/Hunter constituted a problem.
Perhaps the question from the donkey attorney should have been phrased differently to get a response you wouldn't have commented about.

 

[JasperL]

The president can and does direct foreign policy. The provision of aid to any country is contigent upon certain behavior, and assurances from such countries that they will investigate corruption within, their borders, and provide assistance to the US should our citizens be involved in any corrupt activities is a normal function. So don't complain to me about debate and honesty until you have a better grasp of the conduct of foreign policy.

First of all, for the record, you fabricated my position that I've expressed clearly to you directly, and to others many times. It's tiring and a refusal to engage in good faith.

And then you repeat the falsehood that what we asked for is "assistance" with an investigation based in the U.S. The DoJ has NEVER opened an investigation into either Biden related to what they did related to Ukraine or Burisma. So that's just a lie.

Finally, what I know about our "conduct of foreign policy" is you cannot name a single example in modern history at least of a President asking a foreign government to put a U.S. citizen under investigation. It's unprecedented, extraordinary in every possible way, and it's because POTUS has DoJ filled with competent people to do that on our behalf.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

This has become boring. Even if everything the left claims about Biden were true, and it's not, I reserve the right to make up as much BS as you guys do. You guys dragged the entire nation through two and a half years of Mueller.

Thank you for admitting that you are simply making stuff up (because you are in a snit?).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

News flash: Biden had nothing to do with the Mueller investigation, as he was a God Damn private citizen!

I am sorry a discussion about truth, fiction and the rule of law bores you. You do have the right to do something else besides post here if you are bored.

Did you miss the NEWS FLASH in The Current Response And Position Bulletin?

News Flash -:- Biden had nothing to do with -the Mueller investigation- American foreign policy, as he was a God Damn private citizen!​

and this one too

News Flash -:- No one of the staff of the President of the United States of America had anything to do with Russia, as Mr. Trump was a God Damn private citizen at the time!​

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Former Amb. Yovanavitch, 5 minutes ago, further underscored that the allegation that Trump and others made against the Bidens was false.

Did you miss the NEWS FLASH from The Current Response And Position Bulletin?

News Flash -:- Yovanavich is NOT an American (she is a Ukranian/Canadian) [both of those countries are SOCIALIST and one of them is still a Monarchy that is ruled by the England that the United States of America broke free of in order to establish a free country] and is telling lies because she lost a highly lucrative job that she was abusing for her own personal financial gain. She is using this situation in order to write and sell a lying so-called "tell all" book.​

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The president can and does direct foreign policy. The provision of aid to any country is contigent upon certain behavior, and assurances from such countries that they will investigate corruption within, their borders, and provide assistance to the US should our citizens be involved in any corrupt activities is a normal function.

You have to be kidding!

Do the names "Vietnam", "Cuba", "Iraq", "Saudi Arabia", "Columbia", "Brazil", "The Philippines", "The Republic of Korea", and "Taiwan (formerly 'China')" - to name just a few - have any meaning to you?

So don't complain to me about debate and honesty until you have a better grasp of the conduct of foreign policy.

I see that there are no mirrors in your house.

 

[humbolt]

First of all, for the record, you fabricated my position that I've expressed clearly to you directly, and to others many times. It's tiring and a refusal to engage in good faith.

And then you repeat the falsehood that what we asked for is "assistance" with an investigation based in the U.S. The DoJ has NEVER opened an investigation into either Biden related to what they did related to Ukraine or Burisma. So that's just a lie.

Finally, what I know about our "conduct of foreign policy" is you cannot name a single example in modern history at least of a President asking a foreign government to put a U.S. citizen under investigation. It's unprecedented, extraordinary in every possible way, and it's because POTUS has DoJ filled with competent people to do that on our behalf.

Well, you're full of crap, as usual. I never said there was an investigation here. There could be, and perhaps there should be, but if Ukraine finds wrong doing and corrupt activities by US citizens in Ukraine, we'd like to be informed. Ask Manafort how that works.

The president absolutely has the constitutional right to act as he has in this matter. Maybe you should review his constitutional powers so that you know what you're talking about for a change. Furthermore, as I've already pointed out several times, Ukraine began actively investigating this matter last February, without prompting from Trump.

 

[TomFitz]

Did you miss the NEWS FLASH from The Current Response And Position Bulletin?

News Flash -:- Yovanavich is NOT an American (she is a Ukranian/Canadian) [both of those countries are SOCIALIST and one of them is still a Monarchy that is ruled by the England that the United States of America broke free of in order to establish a free country] and is telling lies because she lost a highly lucrative job that she was abusing for her own personal financial gain. She is using this situation in order to write and sell a lying so-called "tell all" book.​

Did you really post that?

 

[Cordelier]

Ukraine resumed active investigation last February. One can reasonably conclude that there's some reason for that action. Just a look at the composition of the Burisma board should give you pause. Zlochevsky's daughter? Hunter, and a buddy? $50,000 a month to Hunter, and $166,000 a month to his firm. That's a lot of clams to people who have no experience in energy markets. And naturally, it didn't have a thing to do with Joe. Joe never knew anything about any of it. Not even a smidgen of corruption there. Joe's just trying to save Ukraine from fatal corruption. Have I ever told you that I'm the Duke of Franklin County?

That's all a bowl of mush, though. It's a conspiracy theory. Anybody can make up "alternative facts" about anyone. What makes a legitimate legal investigation legitimate is that it relies on provable facts - not the bowl of mush. It has to be grounded on factual evidence. That's what I keep saying over and over and over again in here, and I'll keep coming back to it - if the Attorney General has factual evidence that the former Vice President took official actions for the personal benefit of anyone - himself, his son, or anyone else - then he should come forward and present that evidence - or, if presenting it would do harm to any ongoing legal matters, at least go on the record that such evidence exists. If he's willing to take ownership of this matter, that's good enough for me.

Similarly, if the President was in possession of the same or similar evidence and was using it at the basis for his actions, then I would urge him to refer that evidence to the Department of Justice and the Attorney General if he hasn't already.

If the President wasn't operating from a sound, legal basis, though, then I don't see any valid excuse. I'm with Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) on this one - he framed the issue very clearly and concisely in his interview on Face the Nation last Sunday - about as clearly as anyone I've seen thus far:

Transcript: Senator John Kennedy on "Face the Nation," November 10, 2019 - CBS News

SEN. KENNEDY: The quid pro quo, in my judgment, is a red herring. Here- here are the two possible scenarios. Number one, the president asked for an investigation of a political rival. Number two, the president asked for an investigation of possible corruption by someone who happens to be a political rival. The latter would be in the national interest. The former would be in the president's parochial interests and would be over the line. I think this case is going to come down to the president's intent- his motive. Did he have a culpable state of mind? For me, Margaret, there are only two relevant questions that need to be answered. Why did the president ask for an investigation? And number two, and this is inextricably linked to the first question, what did Mr. Hunter Biden do for the money?

Though I agree with Senator Kennedy on the question involved, I disagree that the question of Hunter Biden is "inextricably linked" .... not at this point anyway. I think it very well could be if evidence were to come forward supporting improper actions on the part of Vice President Biden on behalf of his son. If there's evidence of that and it rises to the standard of "reasonable suspicion", then absolutely, issue him a subpoena and bring him in for questioning. Investigate the hell out of it. But I don't think the President coming up with some bizarre conspiracy theory is reason enough to do that. That's all I'm saying... if the President wants us to see things his way, then he has to show us some of what he saw. Isn't that fair?

 

[humbolt]

That's all a bowl of mush, though. It's a conspiracy theory. Anybody can make up "alternative facts" about anyone. What makes a legitimate legal investigation legitimate is that it relies on provable facts - not the bowl of mush. It has to be grounded on factual evidence. That's what I keep saying over and over and over again in here, and I'll keep coming back to it - if the Attorney General has factual evidence that the former Vice President took official actions for the personal benefit of anyone - himself, his son, or anyone else - then he should come forward and present that evidence - or, if presenting it would do harm to any ongoing legal matters, at least go on the record that such evidence exists. If he's willing to take ownership of this matter, that's good enough for me.

Similarly, if the President was in possession of the same or similar evidence and was using it at the basis for his actions, then I would urge him to refer that evidence to the Department of Justice and the Attorney General if he hasn't already.

If the President wasn't operating from a sound, legal basis, though, then I don't see any valid excuse. I'm with Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) on this one - he framed the issue very clearly and concisely in his interview on Face the Nation last Sunday - about as clearly as anyone I've seen thus far:

Transcript: Senator John Kennedy on "Face the Nation," November 10, 2019 - CBS News



Though I agree with Senator Kennedy on the question involved, I disagree that the question of Hunter Biden is "inextricably linked" .... not at this point anyway. I think it very well could be if evidence were to come forward supporting improper actions on the part of Vice President Biden on behalf of his son. If there's evidence of that and it rises to the standard of "reasonable suspicion", then absolutely, issue him a subpoena and bring him in for questioning. Investigate the hell out of it. But I don't think the President coming up with some bizarre conspiracy theory is reason enough to do that. That's all I'm saying... if the President wants us to see things his way, then he has to show us some of what he saw. Isn't that fair?

Mush? People have been investigated for far less. Consider Schiff's current sham. Look at the Mueller investigation, the origins of which I ecpect we're going to hear much about in the coming weeks.

I don't know if Biden and/or his son engaged in anything untoward, but it certainly looks like some influence peddling was going on, at the least. If Ukraine finds something, we should know, whether it's Biden, Trump, or any other citizen here. I'm not at all a fan of those holding high office getting a pass on such stuff. That's why I was pissed at Comey for giving Hillary a pass. You or I would never have gotten away with what she did.

 

[Cordelier]

Mush? People have been investigated for far less. Consider Schiff's current sham. Look at the Mueller investigation, the origins of which I ecpect we're going to hear much about in the coming weeks.

I don't know if Biden and/or his son engaged in anything untoward, but it certainly looks like some influence peddling was going on, at the least. If Ukraine finds something, we should know, whether it's Biden, Trump, or any other citizen here. I'm not at all a fan of those holding high office getting a pass on such stuff. That's why I was pissed at Comey for giving Hillary a pass. You or I would never have gotten away with what she did.

Far less than what? Nothing? All I've seen so far are conspiracy theories and hunches.... Sorry, but that just doesn't fly. I'm not giving anyone a pass - nobody is above the law - but that doesn't mean anyone is below it either. If the President was pushing for an investigation of the Bidens, then he needs to present the evidence that he was operating from.... and it needs to be more than some conspiracy theory he or Rudy Giuliani came up with. It needs to be factual.

There are a lot of Democrats who don't have any faith in Attorney General Barr - I'm not one of them. I don't agree with everything he has done, and I think some of his decision-making has been questionable... but I think fundamentally he's a a good, solid conservative champion of law-and-order. If there was corruption in this case - especially on the part of any current or former US officials - then his Department should have been taking a leading role in investigating it. It hasn't. In fact, despite his mention in the phone call with President Zelensky, I haven't seen any involvement on the part of the Attorney General.

Don't you read anything into that?

 

[Cordelier]

Something else I'll point out here.... if President Trump has nothing to hide, then why isn't he letting White House officials testify?? I would have thought that if he felt he had a solid case of corruption to make against the Bidens, that he'd be jumping all over himself to have his people come out and make it.

I'll point out the night-and-day difference between this investigation and the Iran-Contra hearings back in the 80's.... back then you had numerous White House officials subpoenaed - Oliver North, Bob McFarlane & John Poindexter - Former National Security Advisors, you had cabinet Members - Attorney General Ed Meese, Secretary of State George Schultz, SecDef Cap Weinberger - they all testified before Congress upon request. Hell, I think President Reagan even opened up portions of his personal diary for investigators! President Reagan could have claimed executive privilege and kept every damned one of them from testifying.... but he didn't - because even though he knew the results might be embarrassing for him personally and for his Administration... he knew the precedent it would set if justice wasn't done would have been worse for the country. He was ready and willing to accept that responsibility.

Love him or hate him, disagree with him or not, President Reagan was a real leader. I wish President Trump could find it within himself to follow President Reagan's example.

 

[TomFitz]

Far less than what? Nothing? All I've seen so far are conspiracy theories and hunches.... Sorry, but that just doesn't fly. I'm not giving anyone a pass - nobody is above the law - but that doesn't mean anyone is below it either. If the President was pushing for an investigation of the Bidens, then he needs to present the evidence that he was operating from.... and it needs to be more than some conspiracy theory he or Rudy Giuliani came up with. It needs to be factual.

There are a lot of Democrats who don't have any faith in Attorney General Barr - I'm not one of them. I don't agree with everything he has done, and I think some of his decision-making has been questionable... but I think fundamentally he's a a good, solid conservative champion of law-and-order. If there was corruption in this case - especially on the part of any current or former US officials - then his Department should have been taking a leading role in investigating it. It hasn't. In fact, despite his mention in the phone call with President Zelensky, I haven't seen any involvement on the part of the Attorney General.

Don't you read anything into that?

FRankly, I think Barr has just as many ethical issues as the rest of the gang.

He has lied to Congress. He undermined an entire investigation by circulating a misleading summary and then sitting on the actual report for weeks. He refuse to investigate any of the long list of dodgy characters in his boss’ administration.

He is not doing the job of Atturney General. He is acting as Trump’s lawyer.

You aren’t going to get factual from any of these people. Guliani didn’t see any evidence. He and these two Russian gangster he has been hanging with cooked up this scheme, and they’ve spent over a year trying to push Ukraine into making some sort of public statement about an investigation.

Nobody cares about corruption, except “the three amigos”, who were there to examine it as a business opportunity.

Trump certainly doesn’t.

All the Trump people wanted was some Ukranian saying there is an ivestigation. They’ll they run that B roll on Fox every fifteen minutes for a year and a half. Which is their primary and principal objective. It doesn’t have to be true, either. Trump never cared about that.

 

[Cordelier]

FRankly, I think Barr has just as many ethical issues as the rest of the gang.

He has lied to Congress. He undermined an entire investigation by circulating a misleading summary and then sitting on the actual report for weeks. He refuse to investigate any of the long list of dodgy characters in his boss’ administration.

He is not doing the job of Atturney General. He is acting as Trump’s lawyer.

You aren’t going to get factual from any of these people. Guliani didn’t see any evidence. He and these two Russian gangster he has been hanging with cooked up this scheme, and they’ve spent over a year trying to push Ukraine into making some sort of public statement about an investigation.

Nobody cares about corruption, except “the three amigos”, who were there to examine it as a business opportunity.

Trump certainly doesn’t.

All the Trump people wanted was some Ukranian saying there is an ivestigation. They’ll they run that B roll on Fox every fifteen minutes for a year and a half. Which is their primary and principal objective. It doesn’t have to be true, either. Trump never cared about that.

Tom - Like I said to Humbolt, I've got differences of opinion with some of the decision-making of Attorney General Barr - if I were President, obviously, he probably wouldn't be whom I would have picked for the job. But I'm not going to accuse the man of wrong-doing unless I've got solid evidence to base it on. Though you and I on the one side, and he on the other may see things differently and approach matters from different sides of the spectrum.... at the end of the day, I think we're all devoted to due process and the rule of law.

There's two ways we can get through this crisis the country is undergoing now.... we can draw partisan battlelines and just fight it out tooth-and-nail, with all that that entails... or we can put our faith in better angels of nature and seek out individuals who, whatever their political stripe, can put their patriotism over their partisanship, and see themselves through to doing what is right, however it turns out. I think the Attorney General can be that person... not because he isn't loyal to the President - because I think he is.... but I think he's more loyal to the country and the rule of law. If we've reached a point where we can't trust in that anymore, then we truly are lost.

 

[humbolt]

Far less than what? Nothing? All I've seen so far are con7spiracy theories and hunches.... Sorry, but that just doesn't fly. I'm not giving anyone a pass - nobody is above the law - but that doesn't mean anyone is below it either. If the President was pushing for an investigation of the Bidens, then he needs to present the evidence that he was operating from.... and it needs to be more than some conspiracy theory he or Rudy Giuliani came up with. It needs to be factual.

There are a lot of Democrats who don't have any faith in Attorney General Barr - I'm not one of them. I don't agree with everything he has done, and I think some of his decision-making has been questionable... but I think fundamentally he's a a good, solid conservative champion of law-and-order. If there was corruption in this case - especially on the part of any current or former US officials - then his Department should have been taking a leading role in investigating it. It hasn't. In fact, despite his mention in the phone call with President Zelensky, I haven't seen any involvement on the part of the Attorney General.

Don't you read anything into that?

Nah. The president wanted Ukraine to look into it. The Ukraine is not the US. Huge diffetence. Huge.

If Ukraine has evidence of wrong doing, then any US citizens involved might be investigated by the DOJ. The alternative is to go mucking about in the internal affairs of Ukraine, which always generates warm and fuzzy feelings from other countries. You may have seen signs at the borders of other countries inviting us to get involved in their government affairs. Maybe not.

The point is that at this time there isn't any overt reason other than the appearance of impropriety that would justify US DOJ involvement. What's odd is that knowing that such things take significant time, it's unlikely anything definitive would be uncovered, whether the US DOJ became involved or not, anytime soon. But just the mere mention that a democrat may have parlayed his high position into something untoward has caused the left to go into hysterics, like it's never happened before.

I am seeing some conspiracies, but they aten't coming from the political right here.

Sssst! Gues what a friend of mine heard about Schiff...

 

[Vern]

You're right, Vern. Biden bragged about a definite quid pro quo. He gave the Ukrainian attoeney general 6 hours to drop an investigation into a company in which his son was a board member, or he'd pull the $1 billion in aid (tax dollars) the country had promised. Trump did nothing of the sort. Objectivity, Vern.

oh humbolt, you know that's a lie and its a lie by your own source, the BBC. you assured us that the BBC was reliable and non-partisan. Sure, you didn't post a link because you're humbolt but I did. And the BBC told you that was a lie. mmmm, what does that say about you when you pretend not to know it?

 

[Rogue Valley]

Nah. The president wanted Ukraine to look into it. The Ukraine is not the US. Huge diffetence. Huge.

If Ukraine has evidenced of wrong doing, then any US citizens involved might be investigated by the DOJ. The alternative is to go mucking about in the internal affairs of Ukraine, which always generates warm and fuzzy feelings from other countries. You may have seen signs at the borders of other countries inviting us to get involved in their business. Maybe not.

The point is that at this time there isn't any overt reason other than the appearance of impropriety that would justify US DOJ involvement. What's odd is that knowing that such things take significant time, it's unlikely anything definitive would be uncovered, whether the US DOJ became involved, or not. But just the mere mention that a democrat may have parlayed his high position has caused the left to go into hysterics, lke it's never happened before.

I am seeing some conspiracies, but they aten't coming from the political right here.

Sssst! Gues what a friend of mine heard about Schiff...

I was in Ukraine at the time Viktor Shokin was finally and reluctantly fired by President Petro Poroshenko.

Quite simply, due to Shokin's uber-corruption, US anti-corruption policy demanded that Shokin be removed, ditto with the EU. The IMF bluntly told Poroshenko that he'll get no more IMF loans as long as Shokin is the PG. There were regular large protests by the Ukrainian people due to Skokin's blatant corruption, and his refusal to investigate/charge anyone with the 100 civilian murders on the Maidan. Poroshenko fired Shokin and appointed an MP from the Petro Poroshenko Bloc (BPP) named Yuriy Lutsenko. Lutsenko would prove to be every bit as corrupt as Shokin (which is what Poroshenko desired). Bottom line, everyone wanted Shokin fired except Shokin (and Poroshenko).

 

[Cordelier]

Nah. The president wanted Ukraine to look into it. The Ukraine is not the US. Huge diffetence. Huge.

If Ukraine has evidence of wrong doing, then any US citizens involved might be investigated by the DOJ. The alternative is to go mucking about in the internal affairs of Ukraine, which always generates warm and fuzzy feelings from other countries. You may have seen signs at the borders of other countries inviting us to get involved in their government affairs. Maybe not.

The point is that at this time there isn't any overt reason other than the appearance of impropriety that would justify US DOJ involvement. What's odd is that knowing that such things take significant time, it's unlikely anything definitive would be uncovered, whether the US DOJ became involved or not, anytime soon. But just the mere mention that a democrat may have parlayed his high position into something untoward has caused the left to go into hysterics, like it's never happened before.

I am seeing some conspiracies, but they aten't coming from the political right here.

Sssst! Gues what a friend of mine heard about Schiff...

Uh-huh... How about you take out your hair rollers?

I swear - ever since Newt Gingrich took over as Republican leader after Bob Michel, it's like the GOP has become a bunch of cackling hens gossiping over the backyard fence.
Ever damn thing is some conspiracy theory or piece of salacious gossip with you people.
Get real, grow up, get a life.... go back to being the sensible political party you used to be.

 

[JasperL]

Well, you're full of crap, as usual. I never said there was an investigation here. There could be, and perhaps there should be, but if Ukraine finds wrong doing and corrupt activities by US citizens in Ukraine, we'd like to be informed. Ask Manafort how that works.

No, you just said we asked for "assistance" in something that didn't ever happen. How does that work, exactly. "Hey, can you help me out with this thing I'm not doing?"

The president absolutely has the constitutional right to act as he has in this matter. Maybe you should review his constitutional powers so that you know what you're talking about for a change. Furthermore, as I've already pointed out several times, Ukraine began actively investigating this matter last February, without prompting from Trump.

That wasn't my point - whether he has some "constitutional right" to ask a foreign government to investigate the former VP. The point was you cannot name another example of it in history. As expected, you didn't name anyone . We have a DoJ for that.

Second, the Congress has the constitutional right to impeach him for abuse of power if he insists on doing it, and conditioning foreign policy concessions in exchange for that country serving the President's PERSONAL interests, hijacking the country's best interest for his own, is clearly impeachable conduct if anything can be. It's a breach of trust, breach of duty. If the founders laid out a case of what is impeachable, that would be at or near the very top.

Finally, they "investigated" Burisma and/or the owners, completed it, and have said nothing was outstanding with regard to the Bidens. So why was Trump demanding that Ukraine investigate the Bidens, by name. He didn't do the "let's refer to the Bidens obliquely by referring to Burisma." Of course not - he named the Bidens clear as a bell. Crowdstrike too, by name.