Graham refuses to read impeachment transcripts.

[TLK Valentine]

May I present exhibit A.

A statement such as the above is traditionally followed by something commonly referred to as "evidence." It seems to be lacking in this instance.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm sure at least a few of Donald's are sincere in their loyalty and beliefs, but due to his muddying the waters with his pattern of intimidation and payoffs, we now have no way of knowing who is or isn't on the fiddle.

 

[Bobber]

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

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?

 

[Speedwell]

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?

Highly imaginative and entirely fact-free. Shokin was supposed to be investigation earlier Bursima activities dating from before Biden joined the board, but he wasn't doing an active job of it because he was corrupt.

 

[Kentonio]

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.

Who has it 'been said' by please? Could you provide some evidence to support this claim?

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.

This is incorrect. The alleged wrongdoing by Burisma was from a period years before Hunter Biden even joined the company.

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?

Biden as a representative of the US wanted corruption allegations to be investigated. This is where the right wing theories don't even make any sense. Biden wasn't pushing to silence the investigators, the investigations were already being blocked, he was pushing for them to be properly investigated. So basically your theory is 'Biden is bad because he wanted the company his son worked for investigated'.

 

[Bobber]

Don't get me wrong -- I'm sure at least a few of Donald's are sincere in their loyalty and beliefs,

And I"m sure we can give you that there's a few Dems who are honest and sincere too albeit misinformed.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You’re speculating “there would be far more evidence here in the US.” I do not know that, you do not know that, but I’ll tell what is known.

VP Biden was physically in Ukraine. While rhere VP Biden spoke to someone, maybe more than one person, about firing the prosecutor. There may have been witnesses to the conversation(s). VP Biden also told someone in Ukraine no U.S. dollars unless the prosecutor was given a pink slip, and there may be witnesses to this exchange. So, there is at least one person, maybe more, and perhaps some witnesses, in Ukraine. What VP Biden said specifically is relevant. Hence, it makes sense to ask Ukraine to look into it.

What's more important is whether or not he was pursuing his own agenda in demanding that Shokin be fired (an event that no one denies occurred). The evidence for that would be in the US - in Biden's communications and notes, in his conversations with his son and his aides and other government officials, etc. It's already well-documented that aid being contingent on Shokin's firing was the official position of the US government (see Biden's uncontested statements to that regard and letters from Republican legislators) as well as the EU and greater international community. So there's no reason why Biden would have to say anything more when talking to the Ukrainians.

It is, of course, possible that he slipped up and disclosed his real reasons for wanting Shokin fired to the Ukrainians - in that case, what he said would be relevant. However, I see that as a pretty unlikely possibility. That's not to say that it shouldn't be explored - just that it's not the logical place to start an investigation, and DEFINITELY not the only place the investigation should look.

 

[Bobber]

Who has it 'been said' by please? Could you provide some evidence to support this claim?

Diplomat Testified Obama Admin Orchestrated Ukraine Prosecutor's Ouster

 

[TLK Valentine]

And I"m sure we can give you that there's a few Dems who are honest and sincere too albeit misinformed.

But how many have been intimidated and/or bought off?

That's the question that, thanks to Donald, we have to seriously ask about the GOP.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Diplomat Testified Obama Admin Orchestrated Ukraine Prosecutor's Ouster

Interesting, and certainly worth looking into. Ultimately though, that looks like something that should be investigated in the US (with inquiries to the IMF and UN), not Ukraine. So if this is what Trump was concerned about, why not talk to the Attorney General about investigating it?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Diplomat Testified Obama Admin Orchestrated Ukraine Prosecutor's Ouster

A pity Graham won't read that testimony, either.

 

[Kentonio]

Diplomat Testified Obama Admin Orchestrated Ukraine Prosecutor's Ouster

Sounds believable. Unless of course you do some basic research and learn about how the UK had been pushing anti-corruption measure for years and had been stymied by the very prosecutors office that the US later targeted for replacement.

This stuff is public record, it doesn’t require you to believe one person or another. It was widely reported across the media long before Ukraine suddenly became a big US domestic political issue.

The only way you can believe it was all some Obama-Biden plot is if you also believe the media spent the last decade planting extensive stories about other nations involvement in Ukrainian anti-corruption efforts as some kind of pre-emotive cover. Which would be very silly of course.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Well...again they are facts collected from a B.S. secret kangaroo court in which only Democrats can subpoena witnesses, Trump is provided no representation, Republicans are not allowed to cross examine the witnesses or even ask any questions without approval from Schiff. Furthermore, Schiff is coaching the witnesses and telling them they don't need to answer any questions from Republicans. This has never happened any time in American history. House and Senate Republicans, and many people in the country, find the whole process to be complete B.S. It is not about the information that was collected. Rather, the issue is about the manner at which it was collected.

I love it when Republicans feed me a bunch of falsehoods and half-truths like this. It really does wonders for the credibility of your party and your position.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sounds believable. Unless of course you do some basic research and learn about how the UK had been pushing anti-corruption measure for years and had been stymied by the very prosecutors office that the US later targeted for replacement.

This stuff is public record, it doesn’t require you to believe one person or another. It was widely reported across the media long before Ukraine suddenly became a big US domestic political issue.

The only way you can believe it was all some Obama-Biden plot is if you also believe the media spent the last decade planting extensive stories about other nations involvement in Ukrainian anti-corruption efforts as some kind of pre-emotive cover. Which would be very silly of course.

Irrelevant. Graham won't read that testimony either -- he will do as Donald wishes, if he knows what's good for him.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I love it when Republicans feed me a bunch of falsehoods and half-truths like this. It really does wonders for the credibility of your party and your position.

You don't need credibility when you have loyalty.

Donald speaks; followers echo... if they know what's good for them.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well...again they are facts collected from a B.S. secret kangaroo court in which only Democrats can subpoena witnesses, Trump is provided no representation, Republicans are not allowed to cross examine the witnesses or even ask any questions without approval from Schiff. Furthermore, Schiff is coaching the witnesses and telling them they don't need to answer any questions from Republicans. This has never happened any time in American history. House and Senate Republicans, and many people in the country, find the whole process to be complete B.S. It is not about the information that was collected. Rather, the issue is about the manner at which it was collected.

Since it was easier, I just highlighted the parts of this post which aren't far-right conspiracy theories.

 

[timothyu]

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

As long as they don't tamper with the food and home brew.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Graham + McCain formed a third personality. Graham, now alone, re-calibrated for maximum survival.

I remember John McCain voted for Lindsey Graham as a President candidate write-in. His reason was that they were close friends. Of course, there were no reports Graham was running for President.

So are you saying McCain's death affected Graham's actions favoring Donald Trump?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Voting might be useful as well.

Um, I don't live in South Carolina . . .

 

[GodLovesCats]

No, his reasons do not “hinge on his credibility.” For purposes of impeachment, something more substantial, palpable, is needed to show he has a false narrative other than “credibility.” And the argument he lied in the past he is therefore lying now is not a good argument, and it is not sufficient for impeachment.

What he is lying about is sufficient cause for impeachment.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

So are you saying McCain's death affected Graham's actions favoring Donald Trump?

I responded to Basil the Great's "Something seemed to change in Sen. Graham after his good friend Sen. McCain passed away."

I agreed, and do believe it favored Trump. I was puzzled, perhaps for different reasons.