Victoria Toensing - Fox News legal expert

[Fletch]

First off, 50K a month is only 600K/year.

Second is there is no law whatsoever against it.

I would bet the CEO of Walmart or Exon Mobil makes 50K a day.

This has already been investigated and laid to rest.

What do you folks purport to get out of an investigation? The only thing you can get is to smear Biden. Twump has already done that.

Thats a deflection. Try answering the questions.

 

[Fletch]

The Bidens are irrelevant to Trump's guilt or innocence other than being the target of an attempt to solicit a bribe. If Trump suspected Hunter of crimes, why wasn't an FBI investigation done? Why try to strong arm a foreign leader into "saying" he'd begin an investigation? Why not just just the US DOJ and State Department to work with Burisma and the Ukrainians to find the truth?

You know how you stump a liberal? Ask them a direct question. Now, stop deflecting and see if you can actually come up with an intelligent reply.

 

[Fletch]

Fletch, you are miles behind being informed about the current situation going on with the impeachment trial. And there has never been a legitimate trial in the US Senate that could have been conducted legally without evidence or witnesses.

The House called all kinds of witnesses and subpoenaed volumes of documents. Trump systematically blockaded congressional subpoenas and instructed current and former aides not to provide documents and testimony, that was the basis for the House to impeach Trump based on obstruction of Congress. Indeed, Democrats used their chance to call witnesses. Those that appeared to give testimony did it against the orders of Trump. That's right. People like Marie Yovanovitch, Fiona Hill, Gordon Sondland, Alex Vindman, Kurt Volkner, Jennifer Williams and Ambassador Bill Taylor were all instructed by Trump's administration not to appear. But they were patriots and appeared out of a sense of duty.

Four others that defied Congress and obeyed Trump's orders not to testify or to provide more than 85 documents subpoenaed by Congress were; The four who defied the subpoenas are John Eisenberg, legal adviser to the National Security Council, his deputy, Michael Ellis, as well as Robert Blair, a top aide to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and Brian McCormack, an aide at the White House Office of Management and Budget who previously worked for Energy Secretary Rick Perry. Additionally, Steve Mnuchin defied Congress by refusing to turn over documents that were subpoenaed.

Nice try. But you said you wanted to hear from Toensing, others are saying Parnas and Rudy. You had your chance to hear from them and your side blew. Time to get your head out of CNN's rear and and start using your own brain. Thats what its there for.

 

[HumblePi]

Nice try. But you said you wanted to hear from Toensing, others are saying Parnas and Rudy. You had your chance to hear from them and your side blew. Time to get your head out of CNN's rear and and start using your own brain. Thats what its there for.

There's just too many crooked mucky-mucks that need to be heard from before her. But if it was a real trial she would most certainly become a fact witness. Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Rick Perry and Mike Pence would definitely be more interesting to get in the hot seat.

 

[Divine_Wind]

You know how you stump a liberal? Ask them a direct question. Now, stop deflecting and see if you can actually come up with an intelligent reply.

Translation: I don't know why Trump didn't have the DOJ investigate so I'll just name-calling you a "liberal" and run from the question.


Sad, but thanks for the insights into the limits of your knowledge and abilities to comprehend the larger problems here.

 

[Fletch]

There's just too many crooked mucky-mucks that need to be heard from before her. But if it was a real trial she would most certainly become a fact witness. Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Rick Perry and Mike Pence would definitely be more interesting to get in the hot seat.

Then the House should have subpoenaed them and waited for the courts to rule, but they didnt. The truth is, though, that if you want to get to what happened, you have to talk to Rudy. Arguing as you are that there are many people yet to be heard from is you, unknowingly, indicting the process that took place in the House. You just cant bring yourself to admit that because that would force you to speak critically of your own tribe.

 

[Fletch]

Translation: I don't know why Trump didn't have the DOJ investigate so I'll just name-calling you a "liberal" and run from the question.


Sad, but thanks for the insights into the limits of your knowledge and abilities to comprehend the larger problems here.

I didnt ask about Trump or the DOJ. I asked about Hunter. Rather than continuing to deflect, answer my questions first then I will answer yours.

 

[HumblePi]

Then the House should have subpoenaed them and waited for the courts to rule, but they didnt. The truth is, though, that if you want to get to what happened, you have to talk to Rudy. Arguing as you are that there are many people yet to be heard from is you, unknowingly, indicting the process that took place in the House. You just cant bring yourself to admit that because that would force you to speak critically of your own tribe.

It would quite possibly have taken all the way right up to the Nov. 2020 election to get court rulings.

 

[Fletch]

It would quite possibly have taken all the way right up to the Nov. 2020 election to get court rulings.

Maybe. But that is what it would have taken to do this right. And if Trump claims executive privilege in the senate trial, what then? I dont think there is any way Roberts could make a ruling on that. It may turn out you still wont get to hear from them.

 

[Divine_Wind]

I didnt ask about Trump or the DOJ. I asked about Hunter. Rather than continuing to deflect, answer my questions first then I will answer yours.

Of course because doing so would prove you wrong.

The answer to Hunter is to investigate him, and if applicable, his daddy through the usual channels, the DOJ, not some half-assed bribery scheme.

 

[Fletch]

Of course because doing so would prove you wrong.

Prove me wrong how? I asked a question.

The answer to Hunter is to investigate him, and if applicable, his daddy through the usual channels, the DOJ, not some half-assed bribery scheme.

Maybe it is being investigated. BUt in the mean time, are you incapable of venturing a guess? Apparently you are. Here are the questions once again, not that I expect you to address them:

How do you think Hunter got the job at Burisma? And what sort of work did he do to earn him million dollar annual salary?

 

[Divine_Wind]

Prove me wrong how? I asked a question.

Maybe it is being investigated. BUt in the mean time, are you incapable of venturing a guess? Apparently you are. Here are the questions once again, not that I expect you to address them:

How do you think Hunter got the job at Burisma? And what sort of work did he do to earn him million dollar annual salary?

Trump isn't interested in justice or using the DOJ to investigate a suspected crime. Trump was interested in fabricating dirt on a political opponent by soliciting a bribe; in short - by withholding Congressionally authorized funds for personal gain.

If it was being investigated, why would Trump risk a bribery charge by soliciting a bribe?

BTW, you keep saying "million dollar" salary. Wasn't it $50K/month? That's $600K, not $1M.

As for Hunter, I think the Burisma was crooked enough to seek to buy Biden by hiring his son. Just because a corrupt agency hires an adult child of yours doesn't mean you are dirty, corrupt or involved in corruption.

 

[HumblePi]

Maybe. But that is what it would have taken to do this right. And if Trump claims executive privilege in the senate trial, what then? I dont think there is any way Roberts could make a ruling on that. It may turn out you still wont get to hear from them.

What is Trump hiding? That's all anyone wants to know.

 

[Fletch]

Trump isn't interested in justice or using the DOJ to investigate a suspected crime. Trump was interested in fabricating dirt on a political opponent by soliciting a bribe; in short - by withholding Congressionally authorized funds for personal gain.

If it was being investigated, why would Trump risk a bribery charge by soliciting a bribe?

BTW, you keep saying "million dollar" salary. Wasn't it $50K/month? That's $600K, not $1M.

As for Hunter, I think the Burisma was crooked enough to seek to buy Biden by hiring his son. Just because a corrupt agency hires an adult child of yours doesn't mean you are dirty, corrupt or involved in corruption.

I heard it was $83,333.33 per month. Either way its a ton of money that Burisma was willing to spend to 'buy Biden by hiring his son.' That is by definition corruption. Bribery, in fact. And it raises even more questions: what was the genesis of this job offer? There is no way Joe didnt know about this, what was his role? As to why it isnt being investigated, I think the answer is simple: this is how Washington works. Ill bet there are hundreds of Hunters out there collecting checks simply because mommy or daddy is connected to power.

 

[Fletch]

What is Trump hiding? That's all anyone wants to know.

My guess is that it is pretty close to what is being alleged by democrats. But the problem is, Trump never made any linkage on the phone call with Z and no one has yet been able to claim they ever heard him make any linkage whatsoever. So long as that remains true, you got nothing. My personal guess is that this is a 100% Rudy operation. Trump may not even know all the details. If you remember, several witnesses stated that when they would discuss this issue with Trump he would dismiss them and say "talk to Rudy." Unless get not only get Rudy to testify, but to also point the finger at Trump, this will go nowhere.

 

[Jetboogieman]

My guess is that it is pretty close to what is being alleged by democrats. But the problem is, Trump never made any linkage on the phone call with Z and no one has yet been able to claim they ever heard him make any linkage whatsoever. So long as that remains true, you got nothing. My personal guess is that this is a 100% Rudy operation. Trump may not even know all the details. If you remember, several witnesses stated that when they would discuss this issue with Trump he would dismiss them and say "talk to Rudy." Unless get not only get Rudy to testify, but to also point the finger at Trump, this will go nowhere.

100% Rudy operation?

Holy dog **** that may be the dumbest defense you’ve come up with yet.

 

[Fletch]

100% Rudy operation?

Holy dog **** that may be the dumbest defense you’ve come up with yet.

Its not a defense of Trump. Your brain is so Trump-addled that you cant think straight.

 

[Divine_Wind]

I heard it was $83,333.33 per month. Either way its a ton of money that Burisma was willing to spend to 'buy Biden by hiring his son.' That is by definition corruption. Bribery, in fact. And it raises even more questions: what was the genesis of this job offer? There is no way Joe didnt know about this, what was his role? As to why it isnt being investigated, I think the answer is simple: this is how Washington works. Ill bet there are hundreds of Hunters out there collecting checks simply because mommy or daddy is connected to power.

Well, since Trump or Barr never ordered an investigation, there was no one to ask those questions. Instead, Trump sought to solicit a bribe from a Ukrainian President to claim he was investigating Biden. Who is the f***ing moron in this situation?

 

[HumblePi]

My guess is that it is pretty close to what is being alleged by democrats. But the problem is, Trump never made any linkage on the phone call with Z and no one has yet been able to claim they ever heard him make any linkage whatsoever. So long as that remains true, you got nothing. My personal guess is that this is a 100% Rudy operation. Trump may not even know all the details. If you remember, several witnesses stated that when they would discuss this issue with Trump he would dismiss them and say "talk to Rudy." Unless get not only get Rudy to testify, but to also point the finger at Trump, this will go nowhere.

I don't know if you listened to any testimonies, but there were some pretty damaging testimonies to Trump's case. One thing in particular struck me about the testimony of George Kent.

Because it's important to know who these witnesses are and why their testimony is pertinent, a little background on George Kent is necessary. George Kent is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. He previously served as the deputy chief of mission in Kyiv, Ukraine, and the senior anti-corruption coordinator for Europe -- roles that have made him battle-hardened in the fights against corruption and disinformation.

Key players in the Trump impeachment probe and what they testified to Congress - ABC News
In his prepared statement, George Kent stated that he “fully” shared Yovanovitch’s “incredulity” over her removal from her post “based, as best she could tell, on unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives at an especially challenging time in bilateral relations with a newly elected Ukrainian President.”

He testified that Rudy Giuliani carried out a “campaign of lies” to smear Yovanovitch and that Giuliani pushed Ukraine on Trump’s behalf to investigate Biden based on an unfounded theory about the country’s interference in the 2016 election.

During his public hearing, Democratic Rep. Jim Himes asked Kent if he witnessed Trump engaging in policy focused on countering corruption in Ukraine, to which Kent responded, “I do not.”


Donald Trump's claim of wanting to rid Ukraine of corruption is false.


Read the transcript;

George Kent’s deposition transcript | Deposition (Law) | Social Institutions

 

[Nickyjo]

Why does everyone act like trying to root out corruption is a bad thing?

You’re saying that Trump was trying to root out corruption? Seriously? The fan of dictators, he of Trump U, Trump Foundation, the emoluments clause? Trump does not “root” other than for himself.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't know if you listened to any testimonies, but there were some pretty damaging testimonies to Trump's case. One thing in particular struck me about the testimony of George Kent.

Because it's important to know who these witnesses are and why their testimony is pertinent, a little background on George Kent is necessary. George Kent is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. He previously served as the deputy chief of mission in Kyiv, Ukraine, and the senior anti-corruption coordinator for Europe -- roles that have made him battle-hardened in the fights against corruption and disinformation.

Key players in the Trump impeachment probe and what they testified to Congress - ABC News
In his prepared statement, George Kent stated that he “fully” shared Yovanovitch’s “incredulity” over her removal from her post “based, as best she could tell, on unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives at an especially challenging time in bilateral relations with a newly elected Ukrainian President.”

He testified that Rudy Giuliani carried out a “campaign of lies” to smear Yovanovitch and that Giuliani pushed Ukraine on Trump’s behalf to investigate Biden based on an unfounded theory about the country’s interference in the 2016 election.

During his public hearing, Democratic Rep. Jim Himes asked Kent if he witnessed Trump engaging in policy focused on countering corruption in Ukraine, to which Kent responded, “I do not.”


Donald Trump's claim of wanting to rid Ukraine of corruption is false.


Read the transcript;

George Kent’s deposition transcript | Deposition (Law) | Social Institutions

I don't get the impression that Kent had much contact of any kind with Trump. Kent just wasn't high enough on the totem pole. So the question of whether he had witnessed anything about Trump is pretty ridiculous...and useless.

But hey...it makes for a good sound bite, doesn't it?

 

[bullseyelqcs]

I heard it was $83,333.33 per month. Either way its a ton of money that Burisma was willing to spend to 'buy Biden by hiring his son.' That is by definition corruption. Bribery, in fact. And it raises even more questions: what was the genesis of this job offer? There is no way Joe didnt know about this, what was his role? As to why it isnt being investigated, I think the answer is simple: this is how Washington works. Ill bet there are hundreds of Hunters out there collecting checks simply because mommy or daddy is connected to power.

Couple of things here....

In order for what you claim to be accurate, you would have to be able to prove exactly what access Ukraine got to Joe for hiring Hunter. All signs point to exactly none. If that is the case, then how Burisma chose to spend 83K a month is really just a matter of internal accounting, isn't it? That isn't inherently corruption.

As to the genesis of the job offer.....again, they very well could have been trying to buy influence. People do it all the time. The real question then becomes did the receive any? If they didn't, then again, why the job was offered becomes moot, as the other party didn't play ball. Case in point.....just because someone wants me to sell them government secrets (which is a corrupt act and ask) doesn't mean I am corrupt if I don't accommodate them. Bottom line is that if Hunter collected checks in a hope that they would get something out of it, and they didn't get anything out of it, then all Hunter did was collect checks from idiots who tried to be corrupt and failed.

Rather than have Hunter testify, you guys would be better off trying to get a Burisma board member or exec to come say that Hunter offered them a pay to play kind of situation. At least then, you would have something. As of this moment, however, nobody has made anything even close to that claim.

 

[Incredulous]

The only scheme Trump has had involving corruption is in getting rid of it...and yes, she got in the way of that and was removed.

Did you type that with a straight face? :lamo

 

[HumblePi]

I don't get the impression that Kent had much contact of any kind with Trump. Kent just wasn't high enough on the totem pole. So the question of whether he had witnessed anything about Trump is pretty ridiculous...and useless.

But hey...it makes for a good sound bite, doesn't it?

Seriously, he's the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. He's pretty high up on the totem pole. George Kent has been in the State Department's foreign service since 1992 so I'm pretty sure his expertise, experience and knowledge has fully prepared him to make an educated, professional observation.

 

[Mycroft]

Seriously, he's the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. He's pretty high up on the totem pole. George Kent has been in the State Department's foreign service since 1992 so I'm pretty sure his expertise, experience and knowledge has fully prepared him to make an educated, professional observation.

Sounds to me like he's a typical swamp dweller.