Opinion: Adam Schiff’s Impeachment Report Exonerates President Trump

Discussion in 'General Politics' started by iceberg, Dec 6, 2019.

  1. iceberg

    iceberg Well-Known Member

    3,910 Messages
    2,457 Likes Received
    we really need different threads for all these topics. :)

    Adam Schiff’s Impeachment Report Exonerates President Trump.

    this paragraph stuck out:
    Every fact in the Democrats’ case has been contested—starting with whether or not Trump demanded a quid pro quo from Ukraine. But the most obvious example of Democrats presuming, not proving, the necessary facts is their complete failure to demonstrate Trump had “corrupt” intent. Democrats assert—without evidence—that President Trump’s motivation in seeking investigations of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election and Burisma was his own personal political interests.
    and it's 100% true. the left dove on this like a duck on a junebug and *assumed* it was because it was for trumps own political gain. yet none of that has been proven.

    just "assumed".

    if he is truly looking into corruption and the activities of the left 2 things would happen:
    1. he would make that phone call
    2. the left, if corrupt, would go ape**** to discredit anything he was doing.

    looks like both happened.

    as the left loves to tell trump, if you've nothing to hide, let it all out for us to see. yet, where are they when it comes to looking into what THEY have done over the last decade? throwing up FAKE NEWS, just ignoring you, accusing the right of what they are being looked into doing and so forth.

    if the left has done nothing wrong, what's wrong with trump having the complaints from the ukraine looked into? i mean, they didn't do it so nothing would be found, right? a lot like the mueller reports...

    yet, here we are. no laws have been broken and there is zero proof trump did it for political gain vs. following up and doing his job.

    it's also funny to me that somehow during all this IMPEACH 45 activity for the phone call, obstruction in 2016 is coming up as a top reason for said impeachment. like a streaker at halftime this came out of nowhere to take center stage.
    JoeKing likes this.
  2. tabascocat

    tabascocat Well-Known Member

    1,258 Messages
    1,332 Likes Received
    What is funny is that these clowns are setting themselves up for impeachment in 2020 should a Democrat(Biden) win. There is enough evidence for the repubs to do the exact same thing in a much stronger case.
    JoeKing likes this.
  3. iceberg

    iceberg Well-Known Member

    3,910 Messages
    2,457 Likes Received
    and all we are really doing in the end is saying "you won the election, this is how we get rid of you".

    trump has, in my mind, done nothing impeachable. the entire "look into it" is about bidens corruption. if that were a foul then all of the democrats should be gone for investigating RUSSIA for 2+ years.

    we live in very strange times.
    JoeKing and tabascocat like this.
  4. Nova

    Nova Well-Known Member

    600 Messages
    273 Likes Received
    What case would that be?
  5. tabascocat

    tabascocat Well-Known Member

    1,258 Messages
    1,332 Likes Received
    Hunter and Joe, it is more clear in their shenanigans than Trumps.
    iceberg likes this.
  6. iceberg

    iceberg Well-Known Member

    3,910 Messages
    2,457 Likes Received
    Joe Biden's 2020 Ukrainian nightmare: A closed probe is revived
    But Ukrainian officials tell me there was one crucial piece of information that Biden must have known but didn’t mention to his audience: The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden’s younger son, Hunter, as a board member.

    U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.
    you can't get me going in that trump did something wrong when at the crux he said "look into this". that's it. getting dirt on biden? please. the DNC/Hillary made up everything they could to go after trump, accepting help FROM the Ukraine along the way.

    esp if they didn't know trump was even witholding assistance.


    we have story after story about the Ukraine saying it was the DNC digging up dirt yet no one on the left, or in support of the left, wishes to pony up to the fact that this was wrong.

    Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
    Forgotten Collusion Story: DNC, Clinton Campaign Sought Ukraine’s Help to Sink Trump
    Ukrainian Officials Having Trouble Getting the DOJ's Attention on Ukrainian-Democrat 2016 Collusion Efforts
    Proof! DNC Colluded with Ukraine in 2016 – League of Power

    there at a MINIMUM seems to say there's some smoke here to look into. so trump says "look into it" and that's how all this started.

    if what trump did was wrong (debatable and even the DoJ/AG has said "no nothing wrong" it's debatable as you can see his intent WAS to gather dirt vs. what he says he was doing, getting to the bottom of all the stories above OF WHICH - is his job.
    JoeKing and tabascocat like this.
  7. Nova

    Nova Well-Known Member

    600 Messages
    273 Likes Received
    1. The prosecutor (Shokin) was extorting the owner of Burisma with threats of investigations, not investigating Burisma.

    2. Shokin also would not cooperate with the Britts in investigating the owner of Burisma, which ultimately caused them to drop their case against said owner.

    3. Joe Biden was carrying out bipartisan US foreign policy to rid Ukraine of such corrupt prosecutors as Shokin. This policy was also echoed by the IMF and other Western nations.

    4. Not a lynchpin, but it’s worth noting that alleged wrongdoing on Burisma’s part occurred before Hunter’s appointment to the board.

    5. Strange how all of this was known for years, but it’s just now, when Joe Biden became a potential candidate for the Presidency that it mattered to Republicans and Donald Trump. Also it’s strange how Republicans supported removing Shokin but now it’s somehow an abuse of power by Joe Biden.

    This is the last time I’ll write these facts out if you guys are just going to ignore them.

    Not sure if you understand the context that surrounds “do me a favor” and “look into this”, but I agree on its face it’s not the worst thing in the world.

    The charge is not "getting dirt on Biden". It's extorting a foreign country to announce farcical investigations into a political opponent. This both undermines national interest and is an attempt to subvert an election. Is the kind of things authoritarians do to their political rivals in ass backwards countries.

    First, I have to stipulate that accepting help from Ukraine is separate from the Trump Crowdstrike claim/request. So it exists outside of what we’re speaking of specifically, though it is somewhat adjacent. Because of this, it’s kind of a whatabout-ism

    Because if you want Alexandra Chalupa, the DNC and Hillary investigated, then fine. I think that sort of makes sense. There hasn’t been a lot to publicly link Hillary and Chalupa, but it’s a feasible connection.

    However, you have to remember that the DNC was hacked and a ton of Hillary's emails were stolen and leaked to damage her campaign. I would think that this connection would have undoubtedly been exposed already.

    There’s testimony and conflicting reports stating that they did.

    Addressed before, but this is not what Trump was asking to look into. This is a line of defense that has been attributed to his actions by congressional republicans after this whole story blew up. To my knowledge, Trump still hasn’t publicly expressed these concerns publicly. See his Fox and Friends interview where he’s quite clear he was talking about a bogus Crowdstrike conspiracy theory when speaking to Zelenskiy. There’s no mention of DNC-Ukraine help other than this.

    But again, I wouldn’t mind that being looked into because it’s possibly criminal.

    I’ve said this before too, but I’ll repeat it at least once more. DOJ said the President did not violate campaign finance law. It did not absolve him of wrongdoing, but frankly that’s something outside of DOJ’s scope. DOJ’s authority is over legal matters and the President has a vast amount of legal power. Whether he’s abused that power is a determination for Congress.

    I don’t know if I agree that it’s Donald Trump’s job to get to the bottom of these instances; honestly that seems like something that would be the FBI’s focus. But it’s certainly something within his scope of authority.

    But again, the question isn’t whether or not he’s able to do these things. It’s whether or not it’s an abuse of power.
  8. Kevinicus

    Kevinicus Well-Known Member

    665 Messages
    651 Likes Received
    You are lost. Completely and utterly.

    You probably think the investigations into Burisma were 'dormant' cause that's what your BS media overlords told you.
    JoeKing likes this.
  9. Nova

    Nova Well-Known Member

    600 Messages
    273 Likes Received

    Explain that one to me. Tell me exactly what was happening with the Burisma investigations.
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2019
  10. speedkilz88

    speedkilz88 Well-Known Member

    1,657 Messages
    1,964 Likes Received
  11. speedkilz88

    speedkilz88 Well-Known Member

    1,657 Messages
    1,964 Likes Received
  12. iceberg

    iceberg Well-Known Member

    3,910 Messages
    2,457 Likes Received
    not agreeing is not the same as ignoring them. all of this has been known for years, however, no one was investigating. why would obama and co investigate their own "issues"? trump goes to look into it and asks the Ukraine to do so and the left uses that as a reason to impeach him. we'll know more as reports start coming out who did what, why and what was legal and illegal. maybe. the *maybe* is the concerning part cause both sides feel they're 100% correct and the other side is 100% incorrect. that is just mathematically impossible isn't it?

    Joe Biden promises restrictions on Hunter, family if elected

    from here you can see that biden is going to restrict hunter. his own son. however, according to biden his son has done nothing wrong yet he doesn't even know what his son is doing and won't look into it cause it's his son. that doesn't strike you as odd? if not, would it if it were trump refusing to look into his families activities? if your answer changes, both answers are bull**** to me.

    it's a "whataboutism" cause the left pulled some crap and then screamed RUSSIA for eons to get trump investigated over the crap THEY were doing. to totally dismiss it and go "stop the whataboutisms" is pure bullcrap to me. sorry. it is. if the DNC went to the Ukraine to get dirt on trump and Trump said "look into that" - you will never be able to sell to me that the left acted properly and trump did not. if what they did was not wrong or illegal, then looking into won't take long and they will come out clear.

    instead we have:
    hunter getting a job and bursima themselves said this was go get a direct line to joe biden. so, give my son a job and you can call me with problems. how is that NOT quid pro quo at the core?

    hunter getting hundreds of thousands of dollars put into his accounts for doing what again? just what was hunter doing "of value" for bursima? well other than a direct line to joe biden as stated above? no company i know shells out that kinda $ w/o getting *at least* the same value back. called doing business.

    Breaking: Ukrainian Government Ready to Cooperate with FBI on Laundering Hundreds of Millions of IMF Aid Money and Attempts by DNC to Cover It Up

    certainly at the very least there is "smoke" here. the presidents job is to look into these matters so please tell me how him doing his job can ONLY be taken as quid pro quo. you are bypassing a lot of suspecious activity on the left and yes, does raise flags to me about your objectivity. sorry, it does. you can't tell me nothing is wrong here when biden won't even look into what his son is/was doing yet will put restrictions on him for doing things he doesn't even know about.

    yet we never got to see the DNC server. only a "copy" of it. then we hear it was a virtual server farm. we hear a lot of things. we also hear that the meta data on the files didn't show a remote connection but a local one pulling the info.

    again, if the RNC server was hacked and they would not allow authorities to look at it, i'd question it to the high heavens and hold people accountable. it's what you do when something suspicious is done. refusal to do so only increases said suspicion to me.

    under a "get that biden out of here cause he's my political opponant" i would agree with you. that would be an abuse of power. however, given all the shady activity going on it DOES need to be looked into. you now have to prove trumps intent was to simply get rid of biden vs. have biden and the lefts activities looked into. it's not just biden we're looking into here. schiff, kerry, and a LOT of prominent names have come up as getting a share of this laundered money pie. epstein had a list of these names and he "killed himself".

    we've seen this "hidden group" (with the exception of a horny prince) work hard to stay that way. why would them coming after money so hard and illegally be something they would work LESS to hide?

    so prove trump had this looked into ONLY for political gain and not to get to the bottom of all this activity. the entire impeachment premise is that he did it to get rid of biden, not to find out the truth.

    and i've yet to see his intent proven.
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
    cml750 likes this.
  13. Nova

    Nova Well-Known Member

    600 Messages
    273 Likes Received
    If you'd link the rest of the video I'd appreciate it. Seems like a small portion of a larger narrative Beck is building, so I'll give him a fair shake.

    There's a lot to address here, but I'm not going to go through everything.

    One of the central claims seems to be inaccurate though.

    Yes, the Ukraine 'lost' 1.8 billion dollars of aid, but it was from the IMF (not the US, for what it's worth). Privat Bank is owned by Ihor Kolomoisky as pointed out in the video, and Privat Bank approved a bunch of bad loans to offshore companies in a money laundering scheme totaling the 1.8 billion dollars. This ultimately led to Ukraine nationalizing Privat Bank, but that's not super important here.

    Kolomoisky does not own Burisma as the video suggests, though.

    I've seen people quoting Peter Schweizer suggest that Kolomoisky really owns Brociti Investments, who owns Burisma. But all indications seem to show Brociti investments is owned by Burisma Founder Zlochevsky, and in 2011 Brociti acquired Burisma so that Zlochevsky could have total control over Burisma.

    One interesting point from this video is that Beck just glosses over the fact that the British "...couldn't get the Ukrainian prosecutors to even cooperate..." when talking about how the British froze 23 million of Zloechevsky's assets while investigating him. The prosecutor he's talking about is Victor Shokin, who is the guy Biden got fired for being detrimental to corruption reform efforts.
  14. cml750

    cml750 Well-Known Member

    1,318 Messages
    1,319 Likes Received
    Great post. For your last comments I will add why in the world would Trump want to get rid of Biden in the first place? The man has clearly started having dementia. He is a walking and talking gaffe machine. If Trump was doing anything for political reasons then he would do everything in his power to ensure Biden wins the nomination. What the left is claiming not only lacks any evidence, it makes absolutely no sense,
    iceberg and JoeKing like this.
  15. speedkilz88

    speedkilz88 Well-Known Member

    1,657 Messages
    1,964 Likes Received
    Got the time?

    Kevinicus, cml750 and JoeKing like this.
  16. Kevinicus

    Kevinicus Well-Known Member

    665 Messages
    651 Likes Received
    Don't forget the extra videos debunking the media efforts.

    cml750, Nova and JoeKing like this.
  17. iceberg

    iceberg Well-Known Member

    3,910 Messages
    2,457 Likes Received
    They give Trump a lot of crap because he loves to fight his opponents. Biden is hardly one to scare Trump as he's a walking joke machine Trump would love to bat around.
    cml750 and JoeKing like this.
  18. Nova

    Nova Well-Known Member

    600 Messages
    273 Likes Received
    Some of these are basic facts and easily verifiable facts. Not sure where you disagree. But like I said, I'll move on.
    Donald Trump and the Republicans had two years of full control in the legislative and executive branch; you’re saying the timing of this, when it seemed likely that Biden would run of President, isn’t strange?

    Also, it’s worth noting that people within Trump’s administration are blowing the whistle on him. Theoretically, people in the Obama administration could have done the same with Biden if there was wrongdoing, no?

    This is a more nuanced question than I initially thought.

    It could be odd that Joe says Hunter did nothing wrong while claiming to not know anything about his dealings. Or it could just be an empty/unsubstantiated assertion. It’s not uncommon for a parent to take their children’s word at face value. I’m honestly not sure which applies here. It kind of depends on which allegation Joe is refuting and in which manner he’s doing so. And I’d say the same thing for Donald Trump.

    Do I buy that Joe knew nothing about Hunter’s dealings? No. But I don’t think he knew of everything. And Joe’s line of defense of purposefully keeping himself in the dark on Hunter’s dealings is questionable even if he truly did.

    That said, restricting his son going forward isn’t an indictment of wrongdoing. Clearly, he’s suffering politically from the optics here. Even if the Bidens are only guilty of crony capitalism, that’s an unsavory position to be in today’s Democratic primary.

    Whataboutisms are often obfuscation. And other times, they can be used to form a permission structure for bad behavior. “This is bad, but what about x?” Essentially it’s a way to say “you didn’t care about x, so why should I care about y?” In doing so, whataboutisms usually ignore undoubtedly different circumstances between contrasting situations.

    The biggest problem I personally have with whataboutism is the assumption it projects on your interlocutor.

    Seems like you’re assuming I wouldn’t be in favor of looking into the DNC’s relationship with Chalupa and her efforts, which is not the case.

    If there is one cause most dear to me it’s free and fair elections, and that endeavor is questionable and should be explored/investigated.

    However, Chalupa’s endeavors are often raised as a permission structure to look the other way with Donald Trump’s alleged wrongdoings. And congressional republicans have indicated her efforts are a reason why Donald Trump wanted investigations in Ukraine. But inconvenient to that argument is the fact that Donald Trump was talking about the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory with his call with Zelensky. This is by Donald Trump’s own admission in public statements. While a valid concern (at least in my opinion), it’s not really the issue at hand.

    If proven dubious, neither is okay. But both can, and should, be assessed separately.

    Chalupa’s case should be appropriately referred to the FBI.
  19. Nova

    Nova Well-Known Member

    600 Messages
    273 Likes Received
    Getting a job based on your last name =/= a father leveraging access to get you a job.

    As I’ve mentioned before, that’s a greasy arrangement for Hunter to take, but it’s not inherently illegal or even inherently wrong. The claim you’re putting forth here is unsubstantiated.

    The Bidens deserve the scrutiny they’re receiving. And I would be completely fine if the proper investigative bodies had have taken action at that time, or even later once something came to light.

    I’d also be fine with Donald Trump highlighting it on the campaign trail.

    What isn’t fine is the President sending his personal lawyer on a personal political quest that ultimately bled into foreign policy decisions.

    I’ve answered this before. It wasn’t to your satisfaction, but that’s alright. I accept that we’re sort of not going to agree.

    I moved a section closer to another since they were kind of similar points to address at once.

    At least for a White House meeting, there absolutely was a Quid Pro Quo, and it’s been expressed at various times including comments from Mick Mulvaney in a presser, Gordon Sondland in testimony, and in text messages between Volker and Sondland.

    With that said a quid pro quo isn’t inherently nefarious. Quid pro quos are done all the time, and the White House/President will often leverage their position to accomplish goals to advance national interest. But leveraging that same power to accomplish personal political goals is a betrayal of the oath of office.

    That’s where the disagreement actually is. There’s legitimacy to both sides line of thought and I’ll address them in another post if you’d like. It’s just lengthy for an already lengthy post.

    You’re in IT right? I’m not. I’m not going to be as knowledgeable as you on some of these things. I believe the virtual server farm, or cloud based server that’s actually 140 servers, is confirmed in the Mueller report which also states that the DNC provided the system images and traffic logs to the FBI.

    How different is than providing all the physical equipment involved?

    For the record this is Crowdstrike’s statement
    The Crowdstrike conspiracy theory also just gets a lot of basic facts wrong. Like for instance, Crowdstrike isn’t Ukrainian owned and has never been based in Ukraine either.

    Furthermore, the Crowdstrike conspiracy was also confirmed by the Mueller report to originate from Guccifer 2.0
    1. Do you think Donald Trump went about his investigation request the correct way?

    2. What do you believe to be the reason for Donald Trump being the first to take action for this investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden? (Instead of congress or the FBI?)

    3. Do you think it’s appropriate for a President to be the first to initiate an investigation into his potential opponent?

    4. Do you think it was appropriate for the administration to condition a White House meeting on the announcement of these investigations from a foreign power?

    5. Do you believe requesting such an announcement benefits the United States or Donald Trump?

    Not sure what that has to do with anything. So I’m just going to skip it.

    This somewhat echoes Turley’s conclusion. Prove it and, yes, its impeachable. Oddly though, Turley ignored the next leap in logic…

    How do you ‘prove it’ when the White House is obstructing the investigation? I’ve found it consistently a bad faith argument to say “there’s no evidence” when the White House is denying the release of documents (including possible exculpatory evidence, too, by the way).

    Regardless of where you stand on the justification of Donald Trump’s initials action or how you feel about the Democratic lead house, Congress has the right to oversight. Denying congress that right is obstruction of Congress.

    You don’t get to avoid impeachment by committing another impeachable offense.
  20. Nova

    Nova Well-Known Member

    600 Messages
    273 Likes Received
    thanks I’m a little over half of the way through the first video.

    Learned some things so far, but also have spotted quite a few inaccuracies.

Share This Page