Trump Impeachment (Public Hearing)

[StCapps]

Biden had the power to do so. Obama was cool with it, Joe even said, if you think you can go running to Barack about it, and he'll cave, it ain't happening. Biden wasn't going rogue, he was doing his job, it benefiting him and his family as well does not change the calculus either. Without proof that he went rogue purely to help save his son and himself, you got nothing, just as the Democrats have nothing on Trump.

You're very close to the point, but not quite there. Remember Dan's episode on "Quo Bene"? Biden was carrying out explicit administration policy, which may or may not have benefited his son. Who besides Trump would benefit from investigating Biden?

"Democrats have nothing on Trump." It's pretty clear by now that Trump did everything he is accused of, trying to fabricate a conspiracy of this breadth is ludicrous. So it's just a matter of whether the evidence is substantial enough to go the distance. I'm no legal scholar, I have no idea.

America benefits, because an ally is getting more serious about corruption. It's not just about Biden either, it's about whether the aid is more likely to be used on shit that matters or on hookers and blow, the Ukranian's are not very trustworthy, Trump is 100% right to have questions and test them by asking to run on what they campaigned on.

You being completely unable to figure out how Ukraine being less corrupt is a good thing for Ukraine, and it's allies, including America, does not constitute proof of a crime, it constitutes proof of your half baked thinking on the matter.

[brewster]

You being completely unable to figure out how Ukraine being less corrupt is a good thing for Ukraine, and it's allies, including America, does not constitute proof of a crime, it constitutes proof of your half baked thinking on the matter.

Now you're full circle, since Biden was requesting the dismissal of a prosecutor acknowledged to be corrupt and ineffective.

[StCapps]

You being completely unable to figure out how Ukraine being less corrupt is a good thing for Ukraine, and it's allies, including America, does not constitute proof of a crime, it constitutes proof of your half baked thinking on the matter.

Now you're full circle, since Biden was requesting the dismissal of a prosecutor acknowledged to be corrupt and ineffective.

Indeed. I am not employing a double standard. I don't think Biden wanting that prosecutor being fired is proof of a crime, just because he benefits from it too, same goes for Trump.

If you want to employ a double standard to say their is proof against Trump and not Biden, or against Biden and not Trump, that's on you. There is no proof either is guilty of a crime, I hold them to the same standard, not a different one because I like one more than the other.

[Montegriffo]

If Biden's son has done anything improper who do you think is most likely to expose him? A corrupt prosecutor or an honest one?
If Biden felt he had something to hide then a bribable official is the most useful to him.
I mean, talk about obvious.

[StCapps]

If Biden's son has done anything improper who do you think is most likely to expose him? A corrupt prosecutor or an honest one?
If Biden felt he had something to hide then a bribable official is the most useful to him.
I mean, talk about obvious.

They got nothing on Biden or Trump. It's all just confirmation bias on both the Democrats and Republicans side. The whole Ukraine thing is a nothing burger, on both sides, hypocrisy abounds, trying to make mountains out of molehills ad nauseam, fake news.

Boring.

[brewster]

You being completely unable to figure out how Ukraine being less corrupt is a good thing for Ukraine, and it's allies, including America, does not constitute proof of a crime, it constitutes proof of your half baked thinking on the matter.

Now you're full circle, since Biden was requesting the dismissal of a prosecutor acknowledged to be corrupt and ineffective.

Indeed. I am not employing a double standard. I don't think Biden wanting that prosecutor being fired is proof of a crime, just because he benefits from it too, same goes for Trump.

If you want to employ a double standard to say their is proof against Trump and not Biden, or against Biden and not Trump, that's on you. There is no proof either is guilty of a crime, I hold them to the same standard, not a different one because I like one more than the other.

Well, many people educated and informed on this topic think the Trump quid pro quo and the many people confirming it's existence is a real problem, and that the Biden accusation of self dealing is bunk.

[StCapps]

Now you're full circle, since Biden was requesting the dismissal of a prosecutor acknowledged to be corrupt and ineffective.

Indeed. I am not employing a double standard. I don't think Biden wanting that prosecutor being fired is proof of a crime, just because he benefits from it too, same goes for Trump.

If you want to employ a double standard to say their is proof against Trump and not Biden, or against Biden and not Trump, that's on you. There is no proof either is guilty of a crime, I hold them to the same standard, not a different one because I like one more than the other.

Well, many people educated and informed on this topic think the Trump quid pro quo and the many people confirming it's existence is a real problem, and that the Biden accusation of self dealing is bunk.

Quid Pro Quo is irrelevant, as long as he had good reason to ask for a quid pro quo, it's not a crime, that goes for Biden and Trump. Quid Pro Quo's are how negotiations with foreign nations go, especially if the nation in question isn't particularly trustworthy and assurances of good faith are required. Every single POTUS and VP has engaged in them, nothing nefarious about that.

[Montegriffo]

Don't you see? It's the reason that's being challenged.

[The Conservative]

If Biden's son has done anything improper who do you think is most likely to expose him? A corrupt prosecutor or an honest one?
If Biden felt he had something to hide then a bribable official is the most useful to him.
I mean, talk about obvious.

They got nothing on Biden or Trump. It's all just confirmation bias on both the Democrats and Republicans side. The whole Ukraine thing is a nothing burger, on both sides, hypocrisy abounds, trying to make mountains out of molehills ad nauseam, fake news.

Boring.

If It read like this:

"Did you know that Donald Trump Jr. was named a director to Ukraine’s largest private gas producer following a Ukrainian visit by President Trump? Trump later threatened to withhold $1 BILLION in U.S. aid to Ukraine if they didn’t fire a prosecutor looking into Don Jr.’s company."

Do you think the Democrats would have had private anything? They would have had everything public because they had evidence of Trump boasting he got a prosecutor fired that was investigating a company his son was working on.

[StCapps]

Don't you see? It's the reason that's being challenged.

See what?