Graham refuses to read impeachment transcripts.

[Sparagmos]

It's been said the other international support came only after they learned the US was upset about it so let's not get the cart before the horse. 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.

Out of all people in positions of power how can it be anyway reasonable to have him the Vice President taking up the charge on this request? Biden claims he didn't know his son was on the board of this gas company?

Considering the law of probability how probable is that? I can say at least in my life and in the lives of probably all my readers you always generally know what's going on in your offspring lives....as in how are things going financially and what type of career are they in? (that is unless you've had a rift with an offspring and haven't seen them for years which doesn't apply to the Biden family) Can anyone with any sincerity deny this is the case? I'd think not. So why consider it strange that the Biden story shouldn't warrant a serious investigation?

I sit on 2 boards that my parents know nothing about, and we talk regularly.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Graham says he won't read the Trump impeachment transcripts



Heaven forbid he might learn something and make an informed decision at Donald's impeachment...


Thoughts?

Maybe someone on Trump's campaign staff should go rogue and send Senator Graham the tee shirt they dress the supporters in for his rallies.

Or........the shirt on the right instead.

 

[timothyu]

Graham seems to be implying that Donald is just plain stupid.

Well that could explain the word incoherent, but consider that the man (not Graham) has dealt with a specific kind of people through his life, more of a street or mob mentality. Obviously he is not polished around the edges, but he knows how to deal with his own kind (and there are a lot of leaders like him). It's the rest from the old status quo that are scratching their heads. Had he run up against an old school politician in the Ukraine instead of a comedian turned leader, things might have been different.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well that could explain the word incoherent, but consider that the man (not Graham) has dealt with a specific kind of people through his life, more of a street or mob mentality. Obviously he is not polished around the edges, but he knows how to deal with his own kind (and there are a lot of leaders like him). It's the rest from the old status quo that are scratching their heads.

Sounds like the hip streetwise kid is too much for the ol' stuffed shirts to handle? That's a bad movie plot, not real life.

It seems more likely that Graham is painting Donald as a bumbling incompetent because literally no other defense for his actions is available... or, possibly, that he genuinely is a bumbling incompetent.

Had he run up against an old school politician in the Ukraine instead of a comedian turned leader, things might have been different.

(Insert your own "takes one to know one" joke here)

 

[TLK Valentine]

Interview the very people Trump doesn’t want interviewed. Such as Bolton. It’s been reported Bolton knew this narrative to be a Giuliani inspired conspiracy theory, and consequently, could take them down, calling him a “grenade.” Well, so, in one ear did Giuliani whisper this theory to Trump, and in the other ear Bolton told Trump Giuliani’s theory was baseless and why?

Who else in the room thought this narrative was false? Did they speak to Trump?

The problem is that anyone Donald doesn't want interviewed he's going to order to ignore the subpoenas... and what happens then?

 

[Bobber]

I’m skeptical his narrative is sincere, and I want the Dems to present evidence showing the narrative is false, or evidence Trump knew or should have known there was no reasonable basis to believe Biden acted improperly.

Now I've got to stop you right here.....what do you mean should have known there was no reasonable basis to believe Biden acted improperly? You need to understand one must stay away from even the appearance of a conflict of interests and what can be more of an appearance of that than a son of a VP on a board raking in 50K a month and a father threatening to withhold aid to that nation of tax dollars if an investigation into that company isn't stopped?

Dems should attempt to make the very best case they can, and that includes evidence refuting Trump’s anticipated defenses, not merely to obtain a conviction in the Senate, but to establish publicly for the rest of America to see and know Trump abused his power; and sell to the electorate it is their job to do what Senate Republicans didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to do, get him out of office!

And it's the job of Dems to stand up and have some intestinal fortitude and stand up to their leadership and demand it step down from it's unsubstantiated witch hunt and actually two of them did making it bipartisan support against impeachment.

 

[Speedwell]

Now I've got to stop you right here.....what do you mean should have known there was no reasonable basis to believe Biden acted improperly? You need to understand one must stay away from even the appearance of a conflict of interests and what can be more of an appearance of that than a son of a VP on a board raking in 50K a month and a father threatening to withhold aid to that nation of tax dollars if an investigation into that company isn't stopped?

Except that is not exactly what happened. Shokin was supposed to be investigating Bursima's activities during a period before Hunter Biden joined the board, but he wasn't doing it actively because he was corrupt, and it was because he was corrupt that the US and other Western powers wanted him removed. Your narrative, that Shokin was investigating Hunter Biden and Joe Biden got him canned for it, might make you feel good but it won't stand the light of day when it comes up in the Senate trial.

 

[NotreDame]

Now I've got to stop you right here.....what do you mean should have known there was no reasonable basis to believe Biden acted improperly? You need to understand one must stay away from even the appearance of a conflict of interests and what can be more of an appearance of that than a son of a VP on a board raking in 50K a month and a father threatening to withhold aid to that nation of tax dollars if an investigation into that company isn't stopped?

An appearance of impropriety may justify scrutiny to ensure no impropriety occurred, unless of course one has knowledge of facts that only an appearance of impropriety exists but no impropriety occurred.

And it's the job of Dems to stand up and have some intestinal fortitude and stand up to their leadership and demand it step down from it's unsubstantiated witch hunt and actually two of them did making it bipartisan support against impeachment

A witchunt is persecution with the purpose of weakening opposition. Such a word is inapplicable where there is evidence reasonably supporting obstruction of justice, the possibility of impropriety on behalf of Trump in dealing with Ukraine and testimony supporting, to some degree, he acted improperly.

Yes, Dems may have an ulterior political motive for these investigations but the investigations do not exist without the actions and conduct of Trump. Trump’s conduct provides a sufficient factual basis to justify these investigations. Anyone thinking otherwise is plagued with the ostrich syndrome.

 

[timothyu]

An overlying result of this process will once again be even less getting done in the Capital as full terms will be spent concentrating on impeachment of whoever is in power rather than getting any work done. It seems like an extension of seeking out dirt on a candidate before an election and never stops until the next leader steps in. Somehow the whole process from start to possible finish has gotten completely off track.

 

[GodLovesCats]

The problem is that anyone Donald doesn't want interviewed he's going to order to ignore the subpoenas... and what happens then?

Which by itself should get him impeached. Trump is LEGALLY BOUND to comply with subpoenas.

 

[GodLovesCats]

An appearance of impropriety may justify scrutiny to ensure no impropriety occurred, unless of course one has knowledge of facts that only an appearance of impropriety exists but no impropriety occurred.

We get knowledge of the facts through scrutiny, which is warranted by the appearance of impropriety. As it stands now, we know what Trump did was improper, but have to sort out a big mess to know the facts.

 

[timothyu]

but have to sort out a big mess to know the facts.

PerogyGate shouldn't be harder than WaterGate.

 

[GodLovesCats]

What is perogy?

It is harder than Watergate because Donald Trump is running for re-election, so there is no chance he will resign to avoid further embarrassment.

 

[NotreDame]

I did not say that.


Quit the mockery. It's unbecoming.


Of course not.


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.

Quit the mockery. It's unbecoming.

Then spare me the waste of time reading your conjecture and speculation.

The thing is, no one has accused Biden of making any such "improper remarks."

I wish you’d think through your argument. So what no one has made such an allegation. Trump is asking for an investigation to see if any “improper remark” occurred. It’s possible an improper remark or remarks were made, and maybe discoverable by an investigation. This dispenses with this porous logic of “no accusation” was made.

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.

No, it’s potentially for both! Why? Because comments made can reflect the motive, thereby making what he said, and an investigation into what he said, germane to discovering Biden’s motives. Yes, although it is inconceivable to you, comments made by people can, do, and have been known to illuminate their motives. Here’s another thought your view is remiss in taking into account, the statements themselves, depending on content, may also be improper.

However, it's far more likely that he said something to someone in the US

Thank you for another dose of your conjectural probabilities.

How do you know that? How? Because it is easy to erode your baseless conjecture. Biden, seeking to obscure improperly pressuring Ukraine, says nothing to anyone in the U.S. about. Then it’s his word versuses Ukraine official(s) with no corroboration by someone he spoke to about it in the U.S. There being no one in U.S. to corroborate the narrative he said/acted improperly while in Ukraine, gives him plausible deniability, and chalk it up as conspiracy theories by a corrupt government and corrupt country. That shrinks your conjectural probability to a laughing measurable amount,and it’s not too hard, given your probablity rooted in conjecture, highly skeptical kids on the high school debate team could eat away at your probability.

Therefore, it does not make sense to begin the investigation at that point.

Because they say so? Oh wait, you advanced as a premise in support of that claim your conjectural probability. Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your weak conjectural premise.

Second, since there are potential eyewitnesses in Ukraine, it makes sense to ask for an investigation in Ukraine. My goodness man, Ukraine potentially has eyewitnesses to the possible improper conduct/statements. It makes perfect sense to begin the investigation there since there are potential eyewitnesses in Ukraine. Not just eyewitnesses to possible impropriety but potentially exculpatory witnesses. Ergo, that’s an excellent place to start.

It is a mystery how exactly you conclude it “does not make sense” to begin an investigation in the jurisdiction where improper conduct/statements were potentially made and where potential eyewitnesses to it are also located! Nothing you’ve said detracts from the notion the factsake it rational to begin an investigation in Ukraine.

it makes sense to ALSO open an investigation on the US side of things.

It does? Based on what, your porous, conjectural probability?

pretty weak effort.

Oh the irony of this remark. Coming from someone whose rebuttal is replete with conjecture.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Then spare me the waste of time reading your conjecture and speculation.

Right back atcha buddy! Your whole argument is based on the conjecture that Biden might have said something inappropriate in Ukraine.

Again, ultimately, if you want to argue that Trump was worried about Biden's corruption, why not make use of the investigative resources available to the Executive Branch? We can argue back and forth over whether or not there was any merit to starting an investigation in Ukraine, but ultimately we're talking about violations of US law, so a US law enforcement organization should have been involved.

 

[NotreDame]

Right back atcha buddy! Your whole argument is based on the conjecture that Biden might have said something inappropriate in Ukraine.

Again, ultimately, if you want to argue that Trump was worried about Biden's corruption, why not make use of the investigative resources available to the Executive Branch? We can argue back and forth over whether or not there was any merit to starting an investigation in Ukraine, but ultimately we're talking about violations of US law, so a US law enforcement organization should have been involved.

Right back atcha buddy! Your whole argument is based on the conjecture that Biden might have said something inappropriate in Ukraine.

Right back at nothing...I said it is possible, and that is not conjecture. I didn’t commit your error of saying Biden most likely did anything proper or improper, very likely did so, etcetera. Had I said it was probable, that would’ve been conjecture given the lack of supporting evidence. But I didn’t say probable, or resort to probability language like you did, illustrating I know the difference between conjecture, and the difference between probability and possibility, and how conjecture relates both. You clearly do not, hence, your conjectural probabilities littering your posts.

but ultimately we're talking about violations of US law, so a US law enforcement organization should have been involved

Nope...not necessarily...Trump thought something improper may have occurred, but improper isn’t necessarily illegal. So no, “ultimately” violations of U.S. law may not be the goal or pursuit, but improper conduct, which isn’t illegal, can suffice.

And Trump rationally may have desired Ukraine gather the facts for the U.S. to then assess for any potential criminality and then, if those facts suggested a crime, referring them to a U.S. law enforcement agency. So, it doesn’t necessarily follow a U.S. law enforcement agency “should” have been involved.

Again, your woulda, coulda shoulda, which are paper thin rationally, doesn’t show Trump acted improperly or his narrative is false.

 

[DaisyDay]

I don't understand the point of investigating what a Ukrainian company did before a certain person joined it. Also, Trump had to know several other Democrats are running against JOE Biden.

It's the anti-Russian interference narrative- in this rendition, it wasn't Russia that interfered in the 2016 election, it was Ukraine. If it wasn't Russia, then Donald did not get any illegitimate help, Hillary did.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with it this time, so I see no connection between the two.

 

[DaisyDay]

Rudy Giuliani is a close friend and huge financial supporter. He endorsed Donald Trump on television with commercials during the 2016 campaign.

Nevertheless, Rudy is going under the bus.

 

[GodLovesCats]

And so is Trump.