Graham refuses to read impeachment transcripts.

[NotreDame]

There's also the issue of Giuliani's -- the president's personal attorney who holds no official government position -- involvement. Seems like a real investigation could be handled by the DoJ... why bring Rudy into it?

Grounds for impeachment? You say "not yet," but it certainly raises a few questions that deserve to be answered... and POTUS is ording his employees to defy subpoenas in order not to answer.


ETA... but of course this is all irrelevant insofar as Graham is concerned... his mind, by his own admission, is already made up, and he refuses to read any transcripts or examine any testimony. I got jury duty coming up in a few months; I'll be sure to say something similar during voir dire.

Well, credibility plus the fact that he was trading government aid not for an actual investigation, but for the public announcement of an investigation, seems suspicious.

That’s the allegation against him. Repeating the allegation isn’t evidence Trump’s narrative is false or he knew or should’ve have known Biden did nothing improper.

You say "not yet," but it certainly raises a few questions that deserve to be answered... and POTUS is ording his employees to defy subpoenas in order not to answer

I concur. I suspect, very strongly, Trump’s narrative is false. But for impeachment and conviction, plus removal, there needs to be evidence of the narrative’s falsity or Trump knew or reasonably should’ve known Biden did not act improperly.

 

[NotreDame]

We don’t need evidence that Biden threatened US aid if they didn’t fire the corrupt prosecutor. This was done quite openly and no-one is denying it.

So why illuminate what’s not denied? I didn’t deny this happened. Trump hasn’t contested that account. It is not the issue.

It was done to further US policy (with the support of the EU and other major international organizations) to reduce corruption in Ukraine.

Trump has said the appearance of impropriety, and the possibility of improper conduct, should be investigated by Ukraine. Ostensibly, Dems are glossing over Trump’s narrative despite the fact he, and some witnesses, have publicly said that was the reason for what Trump did. Factually, this narrative needs to be refuted, not presumed to be baseless.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That’s the allegation against him. Repeating the allegation isn’t evidence Trump’s narrative is false or he knew or should’ve have known Biden did nothing improper.

Right -- to determine whether or not the allegation is true is going to require evidence and testimony from witnesses -- Which Senator Graham has already publicly stated he will not read.

Kind of makes the truth moot, doesn't it?

Fortunately Graham is only one Senator, but who can say how many others are similarly in step?

I concur. I suspect, very strongly, Trump’s narrative is false. But for impeachment and conviction, plus removal, there needs to be evidence of the narrative’s falsity or Trump knew or reasonably should’ve known Biden did not act improperly.

This is only partially true -- remember, impeachment is at least as much a political process as it is a legal one. The evidence against Donald might turn out to be only circumstantial -- no proverbial "smoking gun," but if the GOP determines that he has become a liability, they may vote to remove him anyway.

On the flip side, Donald might be caught dead to rights, but the GOP, motivated by party loyalty, threats from Donald's base, the generous campaign contributions he's been giving them, or any combination of the above, might let it slide.

Remember what Graham himself once said (which I never get tired of quoting): You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.

Of course, he was saying all that in reference to Clinton's impeachment; Golly gee whiz... I wonder what could have persuaded him to change his tune since then?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Democrats would not be doing this if they were glossing over Trump's narrative. They know he is a liar so whatever he says should be investigated.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So why illuminate what’s not denied? I didn’t deny this happened. Trump hasn’t contested that account. It is not the issue.

The issue is that rather than deny the facts, Donald is banking on the GOP's loyalty to let him slide... remember, this is the man who could shoot people on Fifth Avenue without losing support...


... and the sad part is, it's probably a safe bet.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Democrats would not be doing this if they were glossing over Trump's narrative. They know he is a liar so whatever he says should be investigated.

Indeed -- You're absolutely correct, @NotreDame in that Donald's relationship with the truth ("estranged" being the most CF-friendly term I can think of) is not, in and of itself, grounds for an impeachment, let alone removal...

...but it is sufficient grounds for at least an inquiry, at least in the minds of the Democrats (who, seeing as they control the House of Representatives, get to make that decision) -- which is where we're at now.

Now, if that inquiry should bear fruit...

 

[NotreDame]

Democrats would not be doing this if they were glossing over Trump's narrative. They know he is a liar so whatever he says should be investigated.

You know this how? My goodness, are you a mole? Are you an inside man? Have you been physically present for the Dems strategizing?

You do not know whether Dems are glossing over the narrative.

 

[NotreDame]

Indeed -- You're absolutely correct, @NotreDame in that Donald's relationship with the truth ("estranged" being the most CF-friendly term I can think of) is not, in and of itself, grounds for an impeachment, let alone removal...

...but it is sufficient grounds for at least an inquiry, at least in the minds of the Democrats (who, seeing as they control the House of Representatives, get to make that decision) -- which is where we're at now.

Now, if that inquiry should bear fruit...

It should be thoroughly investigated.

 

[NotreDame]

The issue is that rather than deny the facts, Donald is banking on the GOP's loyalty to let him slide... remember, this is the man who could shoot people on Fifth Avenue without losing support...


... and the sad part is, it's probably a safe bet.

There’s some evidence his defense in the Senate trial will be he was acting to investigate the appearance of impropriety.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It should be thoroughly investigated.

Which may or may not (but, let's be honest, probably will) lead to an impeachment.

 

[TLK Valentine]

There’s some evidence his defense in the Senate trial will be he was acting to investigate the appearance of impropriety.

Right -- of course, even if Biden did commit some sort of improper act, that wouldn't let Donald off the hook; the ends do not justify the means.

And if Donald wants to make the claim that his actions were solely to investigate impropriety, and had nothing to do with sabotaging his political rival in the upcoming election, then his credibility will be called into question...

... which he should probably avoid at all costs, seeing as how his credibility is extremely questionable.

 

[Speedwell]

There’s some evidence his defense in the Senate trial will be he was acting to investigate the appearance of impropriety.

It will be interesting to see what it will be. The Republican talking point (That Shokin was investigating Hunter Biden and Joe Biden got him canned for it) will not stand up in an open hearing.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Which may or may not (but, let's be honest, probably will) lead to an impeachment.

Can you name ONE person who honestly expects less than 218 representatives to asy nay?

The chances Trump will NOT be impeached are been slim and none.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Can you name ONE person who honestly expects less than 218 representatives to asy nay?

The chances Trump will NOT be impeached are been slim and none.

Well, with the Dems holding 235 seats, and at least a few of them facing re-election in Donald territory...

... you're right, of course, but stranger things have happened.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Seems like he should excuse himself from the voting process (if it gets to that point) since he's openly acknowledged that he's not going to review the material, right?

We wouldn't think highly if a judge said "I'm going to put my ear buds in during the trial and not listen to any of it, because I already know which side I'm on before it even starts".

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Right, because it isn’t possible any evidence of that is in Ukraine, where he spoke directly to at least one person about firing the prosecutor or not pot of gold for the Ukrainians.

I did not say that.

Thank you, dear Pythia in the Greek temple, for your mind reading of Biden. Forgive me if I’m incredulous at your at your undaunted efforts to treat your speculation above as a fact.

I do not know whether there was or wasn’t a reason for Biden. I had the misfortune of being born handicapped by an inclination for logical, sound reasoning, and tragically the gypsy mind and palm reading gene skipped me.

Quit the mockery. It's unbecoming.

Assuming, aruendo, no reasons existed for him to say something reflecting his hidden agenda, that doesn’t mean it cannot or did not happen.

Of course not.

Of course, beginning an investigation in the very jurisdiction in which the possible improper remarks were uttered to a person or persons, some or all of who are still located in that jurisdiction, is a logical starting point. After all, essential witnesses to the alleged improper remarks are in that jurisdiction. Speaking to them to ascertain what was said is a rational starting point.

The thing is, no one has accused Biden of making any such "improper remarks." His motivations for pushing for Shokin's firing are being questioned, not the words that he used to do so when talking to the Ukranians. As I said, it's certainly possible that he said something to someone in Ukraine. However, it's far more likely that he said something to someone in the US, while he was orchestrating the push to make Shokin's firing a US policy position and pressuring our allies in the IMF and EU to go along with it.

Because it was an official foreign policy position, he had no NEED to say anything incriminating to the Ukrainians (though he could have). Therefore, it does not make sense to begin the investigation at that point. And even if you DO decide to start the investigation there, it makes sense to ALSO open an investigation on the US side of things. That was not done at any point - not when Trump first started talking about investigating Biden for corruption back in 2018 (through Giuliani), and not even after the call with Zelensky in which he said he would have the AG call him.

In short, my evidence that Trump was not actually interested in investigating Biden for corruption is that he didn't investigate Biden for corruption. All he ever did was ask Ukraine to announce that they were doing so. Nothing more. For someone with the power of the entire US Executive Branch backing him, that's a pretty weak effort.

 

[Hank77]

Something seemed to change in Sen. Graham after his good friend Sen. McCain passed away.

Maybe John McCain was Lindsey Graham's backbone.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Well, with the Dems holding 235 seats, and at least a few of them facing re-election in Donald territory...

... you're right, of course, but stranger things have happened.

Obviously the impeachment is going to happen long before any of those 235 Democrats lose their seats. I don't think the fact some of them live in red states (meaning the governor is Republican) will affect which way they vote. The "stranger things" could be on the Senate side (hopefully).

 

[Hank77]

So here's what we know. Biden's son was on the board of this company bringing in a rather substantial amount of money each month. This company comes under investigation by the Ukraine government and his son potentially could find himself in trouble.

The company was being investigated for tax evasion.

Hunter Biden joined the board of directors of Burisma in April of 2014.
In February 2016, Joseph Cofer Black, former director of the Counterterrorism Center of the Central Intelligence Agency (1999–2002) in the George W. Bush administration and former Ambassador-at-Large for counter-terrorism (2002–2004), was appointed to the board.[35]

Maybe we should be investigating Joseph Black, too. If Biden could be in trouble why not this man, too?
But I highly doubt that either of these men had anything to do with the companies accounting or tax preparations.

Burisma Holdings - Wikipedia

 

[GodLovesCats]

I wouldn't give people that much credit.

I know it is wishful thinking, but the media is likely to look back on that year.