Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary'

[JasperL]

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.

Strange isn't it? Rudy has been traveling the TV circuit saying he has all this evidence, but he hasn't turned it over to Nunes or Jordan, and won't come present it under oath where he cannot lie and just change his story the next night.

There's nothing there. We all know what Trump wanted was footage with which to smear Joe Biden. He's already running the commercials featuring Joe Biden. Zelenshyy would have just been another part of that campaign ad, and something to talk about in every rally.

 

[humbolt]

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?

You're absolutely right, Vern. Give yourself a pickle.

 

[humbolt]

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.

Hair rollers? Gingrich? GOP? And yoy're complaining about conspiracy theories? That's rich.

Let me clue you in, since it's clear you haven't one.

No evidence has been presented in the Schiff show that Trump violated anything. None. He did step on the toes of some bureaucrats who believe they are entitled to direct and conduct foreign policy themselves.

There is, however, some circumstantial evidence the Biden may have been operating outside the lines, but heaven forfend that we should look at that. And that's where you seem to be, so spare me your indignation. The argument that Shokin was fired because he was corrupt doesm't hold any water at all. He was simply replaced by another corrupt prosecutor. That guy was worth a billion dollars because he understood he wasn't to look into certain things.

Are you really that bereft of any understanding that corruption is endemic in places like Ukraine? You likely still wonder how anyone like Putin could come to power.

 

[humbolt]

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).

And, as I pointed out to another, replacing one corrupt prosecutor with another does not satisfy the claim that firing Shokin was an effort to combat corruption. And if you were in Ukraine, you know that.

 

[humbolt]

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?"



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.

That's a nice story. You have no idea what has transpired, but you're absolutely certain that the version you've read is correct. Just like you were certain Trump was guilty of collusion with Russia.

And just to cover your ass, you'll claim you have never been absolutely certain, but if things transpire the way you wish, you'll retain the ability to smugly claim you were right all along. That's not even fence straddling, Jasper. That's standing in a deep hole on one side of the fence and briefly daring a sniff to see what might be happening on the other side.

I really don't care whether the House impeaches Trump, or not. Presidents come and go with a somewhat predictable frequency.

 

[bubbabgone]

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).

So Poroshenko took Biden's bribe and Biden knew he was bribing a corrupt official to act on his corrupt request.

 

[bubbabgone]

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

Former Amb. Yovanavitch was covering for anti-Trump folks all day yesterday.
It amounted to defending her favored group of corrupt Ukrainians against another group of corrupt Ukrainians.

 

[MTAtech]

Former Amb. Yovanavitch was covering for anti-Trump folks all day yesterday.
It amounted to defending her favored group of corrupt Ukrainians against another group of corrupt Ukrainians.

I can't believe how in two short sentences you can mangle the truth into an unrecognizable mass so expertly.

Yovanovitch, was a widely respected anti-corruption advocate who has served six US administrations including four Republican presidents. She was asked by the State Department to extend her three-year ambassadorship to Kiev for an additional year before Trump recalled her because she wouldn't do his dirty work with Giuliani.

The current government in the Ukraine are anti-corruption zealots. They won overwhelmingly to defeat the previous completely corrupt government. Marie Yovanavitch testified that Trump personally verbally attacked her, and that she was “amazed” corrupt elements in Ukraine had found willing American partners to take her down. She explained how her removal as ambassador was the top priority of a former Ukrainian prosecutor general known for corrupt practices, Yuri Lutsenko, who happened to be in position to do a political favor for Trump.

Trump wasn't interested in ridding the Ukraine of corruption, as Trump cult drones parrot on these pages. He was interested in corrupting the Ukraine in his own image. We read separately how Rick Perry was trying to takeover the management of energy companies and installing Republican donors. This was Trump's dual motive, get the Ukraine to help him get re-elected so that he can rob the Ukraine blind of its energy wealth.

 

[bubbabgone]

I can't believe how in two short sentences you can mangle the truth into an unrecognizable mass so expertly.

Yovanovitch, was a widely respected anti-corruption advocate who has served six US administrations including four Republican presidents. She was asked by the State Department to extend her three-year ambassadorship to Kiev for an additional year before Trump recalled her because she wouldn't do his dirty work with Giuliani.

The current government in the Ukraine are anti-corruption zealots. They won overwhelmingly to defeat the previous completely corrupt government. Marie Yovanavitch testified that Trump personally verbally attacked her, and that she was “amazed” corrupt elements in Ukraine had found willing American partners to take her down. She explained how her removal as ambassador was the top priority of a former Ukrainian prosecutor general known for corrupt practices, Yuri Lutsenko, who happened to be in position to do a political favor for Trump.

Trump wasn't interested in ridding the Ukraine of corruption, as Trump cult drones parrot on these pages. He was interested in corrupting the Ukraine in his own image. We read separately how Rick Perry was trying to takeover the management of energy companies and installing Republican donors. This was Trump's dual motive, get the Ukraine to help him get re-elected so that he can rob the Ukraine blind of its energy wealth.

Yeah. The current Ukraine Admin does appear to be sincerely anti corruption.
Zelensky told Trump that on the phone when he mentioned draining the swamp. That's what they were discussing - anti-corruption - with examples even.
And you know what else Zelensky said?
"Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough."
Guess who he was talking about.
It's also the part of the tweet Schiff didn't mention to her yesterday.
Explain that.
And you know what

 

[MTAtech]

Yeah. The current Ukraine Admin does appear to be sincerely anti corruption.
Zelensky told Trump that on the phone when he mentioned draining the swamp. That's what they were discussing - anti-corruption - with examples even.
And you know what else Zelensky said?
"Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough."
Guess who he was talking about.
It's also the part of the tweet Schiff didn't mention to her yesterday.
Explain that.
And you know what

From the Star Tribune's factcheck:

TRUMP: "Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President's absolute right to appoint ambassadors."

THE FACTS: His description of appointment powers is problematic — ambassadors must be confirmed by the Senate. But he's correct that Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy criticized the former U.S. ambassador in his July 25 phone call with Trump.

He did so after Trump called Yovanovitch "bad news."

"It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%," Zelenskiy said, according to the rough White House transcript. "Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous president and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new president well enough."

Anyone with the 5th grade ability to read-between-the-lines can see that Zelenskiy was stroking Trump's ego by "agreeing" with him -- the way other leaders have learned, because he needed his support. It's the way an employee strokes a boss's ego saying, "your daughter is so pretty," about the boss's homely daughter.

 

[Vern]

So Poroshenko took Biden's bribe and Biden knew he was bribing a corrupt official to act on his corrupt request.

oh Bubba, even your good friend and "like" mate humbolt says that's a lie. And in his own special way he admitted he was a liar

You're absolutely right, Vern. Give yourself a pickle.

 

[bubbabgone]

From the Star Tribune's factcheck:


Anyone with the 5th grade ability to read-between-the-lines can see that Zelenskiy was stroking Trump's ego by "agreeing" with him -- the way other leaders have learned, because he needed his support. It's the way an employee strokes a boss's ego saying, "your daughter is so pretty," about the boss's homely daughter.

that reading between the lines skill can really come in handy when you have to build a case on words that were never spoken.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Did you really post that?

You mean you don't trust what is in The Current Response And Position Bulletin?

What are you? Some kind of weirdo, loony, whacko, left-wing, liberal, socialist, pinko, commie, nut-case?

PS - Pay attention to the bold face and acronym.

PPS - You do realize that the parts of "She is only a fired disgruntled employee with an ax to grind is NOT EVEN an American (she is a 'Ukraiian/Canadian') who comes from TWO **S*O*C*I*A*L*I*S*T** countries (one of which isn't even a 'Republic' and which is still ruled by a hereditary monarch with absolute control over its government because of 'The Divine Right of Kings' doctrine) and that she has 'divided loyalties' - to say nothing about her 'sleeping her way to the top'." which have not already appeared on "Claque Trump" websites WILL - either in whole or in parts - be appearing on just about all "Claque Trump" websites in short order, don't you?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Former Amb. Yovanavitch was covering for anti-Trump folks all day yesterday.
It amounted to defending her favored group of corrupt Ukrainians against another group of corrupt Ukrainians.

Please remember to use the approved form of description when referring to "that person".

You can find it in the latest edition of The Current Response And Position Bulletin and it has also been used in this thread.

Failure to comply with this modest suggestion will mean that your Income Tax Refund will be delayed until such time as you do comply with this modest request.

Please note that the above is neither a "threat", an "extortion", or a "quid pro quo" since none of those words are included in the above.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

From the Star Tribune's factcheck:


Anyone with the 5th grade ability to read-between-the-lines can see that Zelenskiy was stroking Trump's ego by "agreeing" with him -- the way other leaders have learned, because he needed his support. It's the way an employee strokes a boss's ego saying, "your daughter is so pretty," about the boss's homely daughter.

Given the differences between the FIRST "official version" of the FIRST telephone call and the SECOND "official version" of the FIRST telephone call, I have my doubts about the accuracy of any of the FIRST "official version" of the FIRST telephone call, the SECOND "official version" of the FIRST telephone call, and the FIRST "official version" of the SECOND telephone call.

 

[Threegoofs]

that reading between the lines skill can really come in handy when you have to build a case on words that were never spoken.

The mental gymnastics you’ve been demonstrating lately must be just exhausting.

 

[Cordelier]

Hair rollers? Gingrich? GOP? And yoy're complaining about conspiracy theories? That's rich.

Let me clue you in, since it's clear you haven't one.

No evidence has been presented in the Schiff show that Trump violated anything. None. He did step on the toes of some bureaucrats who believe they are entitled to direct and conduct foreign policy themselves.

There is, however, some circumstantial evidence the Biden may have been operating outside the lines, but heaven forfend that we should look at that. And that's where you seem to be, so spare me your indignation. The argument that Shokin was fired because he was corrupt doesm't hold any water at all. He was simply replaced by another corrupt prosecutor. That guy was worth a billion dollars because he understood he wasn't to look into certain things.

Are you really that bereft of any understanding that corruption is endemic in places like Ukraine? You likely still wonder how anyone like Putin could come to power.

Everything the Republicans come up with has been gossip, innuendo and guilt by association.

The Clinton Administration.... it was Whitewater, Rose Law Firm, Vince Foster, the WH Travel Office, FBI Files, etc., etc.... all of it just so much gossip and innuendo. And then you ended up impeaching the President of the United States for what was essentially the plot of a soap opera.

Then it was do whatever it takes to take Hillary down.... Benghazi, e-mail server, etc. etc... go to the ends of the Earth to track down some e-mail booking a pedicure that she might have deleted. Give me a freaking break.... investigation after investigation, each going over the same ground with ever-finer toothed combs - full of sound and fury and in the end signifying nothing.

And now we have the President of the United States, in his own words, leveraging US foreign policy on an ally dependent on our aid to manufacture a fake investigation of a political rival... and how do you defend that? How else? By manufacturing and perpetuating the same malicious gossip all over again... same old playbook.

I'm sick to hell of it... so far as I'm concerned, GOP stands for Gossip over Policy. I don't give a flying fig about your gossip - so far as I'm concerned, it's for cackling hens in their hair rollers out in the backyard. If you or the President or anyone else can somehow see fit to actually come up with a piece of hard evidence, I'll be all ears.... but until then, I'm done with your malicious crap and I'm sick of your conspiracy theories. You may buy that crap President Trump dishes out hook, line, and sinker... but I don't. Put up or shut up.

 

[Cordelier]

Strange isn't it? Rudy has been traveling the TV circuit saying he has all this evidence, but he hasn't turned it over to Nunes or Jordan, and won't come present it under oath where he cannot lie and just change his story the next night.

There's nothing there. We all know what Trump wanted was footage with which to smear Joe Biden. He's already running the commercials featuring Joe Biden. Zelenshyy would have just been another part of that campaign ad, and something to talk about in every rally.

Absolutely... same old steaming bowl of crap that he served up in 2016. Only this time it's a double helping. And the morons keep on licking it up. Can't get enough of it.

"Throw Her in Jail".... Jesus - they really bought that?

And what get me most is that they keep talking about "fake collusion"... but none of them ever ask themselves why every single goddamned foreign policy decision the US has made in the last 2 1/2 years has been to Russia's benefit. Every single one. Weaken NATO. Undercut Ukraine. Abandon the Kurds. Betray South Korea. I don't know if Putin "has the goods" on Trump or not.... but even if he did, I honestly can't think what else President Trump could have done to be more accommodating to Russia's desires. Well, I suppose he could open up the intelligence vaults and let them have free reign there - who knows? Maybe that's what overriding the WH security clearance denials was about?

 

[humbolt]

Everything the Republicans come up with has been gossip, innuendo and guilt by association.

The Clinton Administration.... it was Whitewater, Rose Law Firm, Vince Foster, the WH Travel Office, FBI Files, etc., etc.... all of it just so much gossip and innuendo. And then you ended up impeaching the President of the United States for what was essentially the plot of a soap opera.

Then it was do whatever it takes to take Hillary down.... Benghazi, e-mail server, etc. etc... go to the ends of the Earth to track down some e-mail booking a pedicure that she might have deleted. Give me a freaking break.... investigation after investigation, each going over the same ground with ever-finer toothed combs - full of sound and fury and in the end signifying nothing.

And now we have the President of the United States, in his own words, leveraging US foreign policy on an ally dependent on our aid to manufacture a fake investigation of a political rival... and how do you defend that? How else? By manufacturing and perpetuating the same malicious gossip all over again... same old playbook.

I'm sick to hell of it... so far as I'm concerned, GOP stands for Gossip over Policy. I don't give a flying fig about your gossip - so far as I'm concerned, it's for cackling hens in their hair rollers out in the backyard. If you or the President or anyone else can somehow see fit to actually come up with a piece of hard evidence, I'll be all ears.... but until then, I'm done with your malicious crap and I'm sick of your conspiracy theories. You may buy that crap President Trump dishes out hook, line, and sinker... but I don't. Put up or shut up.

Right. :roll: I prefer a full glass - one that is neither half empty, nor half full.

I've already put up. You just keep on railing on and on about republicans. You can continue if you like. I'm not a republican. What Gingrich did 30 or 40 years ago doesn't concern me. I don't care that Hillary skated, and I'm not overly concerned about Trump. You are. You must be a very unhappy guy. That's not my problem.

 

[Somerville]

Right. :roll: I prefer a full glass - one that is neither half empty, nor half full.

I've already put up. You just keep on railing on and on about republicans. You can continue if you like. I'm not a republican. What Gingrich did 30 or 40 years ago doesn't concern me. I don't care that Hillary skated, and I'm not overly concerned about Trump. You are. You must be a very unhappy guy. That's not my problem.

All I can say is -- if you are "not overly concerned about Trump", you are either not paying attention to what he has done or you just don't give a flying ****. That concerns me, that so many Americans seem to have the same attitude about the man's actions.

 

[humbolt]

All I can say is -- if you are "not overly concerned about Trump", you are either not paying attention to what he has done or you just don't give a flying ****. That concerns me, that so many Americans seem to have the same attitude about the man's actions.

Well, that was just cruel. Now I may need years of therapy, and at my age, years of anything are questionable.

All presidents serve for a limited time intentionally. I suggest you spend less time concerned with Trump, and focus on the damage your political allies are doing to the executive position - all in a short-sighted attempt to gain political power. Try offering some positive policy proposals that are realistic for a change, and not the pie in the sky BS most of your candidates are spewing now. The election's coming in under a year. It'd be refreshing if you took a more constructive approach.

 

[Cordelier]

Right. :roll: I prefer a full glass - one that is neither half empty, nor half full.

I've already put up. You just keep on railing on and on about republicans. You can continue if you like. I'm not a republican. What Gingrich did 30 or 40 years ago doesn't concern me. I don't care that Hillary skated, and I'm not overly concerned about Trump. You are. You must be a very unhappy guy. That's not my problem.

I'll be the first to admit that I haven't read through every post in this thread... but if you've put up actual evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the Bidens or anyone else, then I sure haven't seen it.

And if you're not overly concerned about Trump, then you just haven't been paying attention. I don't know what to say about your comment about my happiness.... I'm pissed off - I don't know how anyone could have watched those hearings this week and not be. Not unless they're so far up the rear end of Trumpland or so blissfully ignorant that they just don't care (not that the two are mutually exclusive).

 

[humbolt]

I'll be the first to admit that I haven't read through every post in this thread... but if you've put up actual evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the Bidens or anyone else, then I sure haven't seen it.

And if you're not overly concerned about Trump, then you just haven't been paying attention. I don't know what to say about your comment about my happiness.... I'm pissed off - I don't know how anyone could have watched those hearings this week and not be. Not unless they're so far up the rear end of Trumpland or so blissfully ignorant that they just don't care (not that the two are mutually exclusive).

I haven't read all the posts here either. If it's a requirement, then we're both ****ed.

I'm not claiming Biden is guilty. I think the situation deserves a look because it appears to be fishy. Now, apply the same approach to Trump, and you'll be getting somewhere reasonable.

And Trump was not my guy. I just preferred him to Hillary. I have been pleased with some of his policies. Not all. The thing around here is that you are required to either love Trump, or hate him.

I'm far more concerned about the damage being done to our politics and our country in the fervor to get Trump.

You can be pissed if it suits you, but I'd suggest there are better things to do that are more rewarding. Politics may be particularly nasty now, but looking back, they have been before, too. We'll survive.

 

[Cordelier]

I haven't read all the posts here either. If it's a requirement, then we're both ****ed.

I'm not claiming Biden is guilty. I think the situation deserves a look because it appears to be fishy. Now, apply the same approach to Trump, and you'll be getting somewhere reasonable.

And Trump was not my guy. I just preferred him to Hillary. I have been pleased with some of his policies. Not all. The thing around here is that you are required to either love Trump, or hate him.

I'm far more concerned about the damage being done to our politics and our country in the fervor to get Trump.

You can be pissed if it suits you, but I'd suggest there are better things to do that are more rewarding. Politics may be particularly nasty now, but looking back, they have been before, too. We'll survive.

Here's the problem... this whole thing with Biden and Crowdstrike and Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election is a story the President made up. That's all it is. There isn't anything "fishy" there other than the fact that the President of the United States is possibly operating from a delusional fantasy. "Looking into" something like that just gives it a an air of legitimacy it doesn't deserve. That's why we have a rule of law in this country.... because people are due a presumption of innocence. That's not to say law enforcement can't start an investigation of someone - of course they can.... but they just can't decide to do it out of the blue. There's a legal standard at play here - it's called reasonable suspicion. If you have a valid reason to suspect someone may have committed a crime - something more than just a "hunch" - then they can be investigated. Until that point, they cannot - not without violating their legal rights anyway.

The whistleblower's complaint gave Congress reasonable suspicion that the President abused his power. The release of the memorandum of the conversation by the White House added more reasonable suspicion. The fact that other individuals with more direct knowledge also voiced concerns, but those concerns were quashed by the NSC Counsel opens up the possibility of obstruction charges.

In short, there exists ample evidence to investigate the President... even before these latest Ukrainian revelations, there were numerous instances of possible obstruction and campaign finance violations from the Mueller Investigation and Cohen prosecution.
There is no similar evidence rising to standard of reasonable suspicion on which to base an investigation of the Bidens. If there were, I'd be the first to recommend that Attorney General Barr appoint a Special Counsel to investigate.

 

[Somerville]

Here's the problem... this whole thing with Biden and Crowdstrike and Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election is a story the President made up. That's all it is. There isn't anything "fishy" there other than the fact that the President of the United States is possibly operating from a delusional fantasy. "Looking into" something like that just gives it a an air of legitimacy it doesn't deserve. That's why we have a rule of law in this country.... because people are due a presumption of innocence. That's not to say law enforcement can't start an investigation of someone - of course they can.... but they just can't decide to do it out of the blue. There's a legal standard at play here - it's called reasonable suspicion. If you have a valid reason to suspect someone may have committed a crime - something more than just a "hunch" - then they can be investigated. Until that point, they cannot - not without violating their legal rights anyway.

The whistleblower's complaint gave Congress reasonable suspicion that the President abused his power. The release of the memorandum of the conversation by the White House added more reasonable suspicion. The fact that other individuals with more direct knowledge also voiced concerns, but those concerns were quashed by the NSC Counsel opens up the possibility of obstruction charges.

In short, there exists ample evidence to investigate the President... even before these latest Ukrainian revelations, there were numerous instances of possible obstruction and campaign finance violations from the Mueller Investigation and Cohen prosecution.
There is no similar evidence rising to standard of reasonable suspicion on which to base an investigation of the Bidens. If there were, I'd be the first to recommend that Attorney General Barr appoint a Special Counsel to investigate.

One disagreement with your comment: "this whole thing with Biden and Crowdstrike and Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election is a story the President made up".

I don't think the president has the intellect to make up a story as complex as the Biden/Burisma thing. Seems to me the story came from some shady characters in Ukraine, with interests linked to Russia and personal bank accounts. Shokin and Lutsenko were both fired from their failure to prosecute oligarchs ripping off the Ukrainian people. Then there are Lev and Igor and their relations with Trump and Giuliani