Ukrainegate - Page 48 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Atlantis
#15047376
Here is what senior diplomat George Kent had to say in the parliamentary hearing:

“[Ambassador] Gordon [Sondland], had talked to the President, POTUS in sort of shorthand,
and POTUS wanted nothing less than President Zelensky to go to microphone and say
investigations, Biden, and Clinton.”

“I do not believe the U.S. should ask other countries to engage in politically associated
investigations and prosecutions. … As a general principle, I don’t think that as a matter of policy
the U.S. should do that period, because I have spent much of my career trying to improve the
rule of law. And in countries like Ukraine and Georgia, both of which want to join NATO, both
of which have enjoyed billions of dollars of assistance from Congress, there is an outstanding
issue about people in office in those countries using selectively politically motivated prosecutions
to go after their opponents. And that’s wrong for the rule of law regardless of what country that
happens.


Trump is trying to turn the US into the Ukraine of the Americas. That is, into one of the most corrupt countries on the planet.

It's amazing how the Trumpets on Pofo fall into this trap. Investigating your political opponent for corruption is the hallmark of every corrupt politician on this planet. It has nothing to do with the "fight against corruption." It is corruption.
User avatar
By Beren
#15047377
The Guardian wrote:Donald Trump wanted to hear three words out of the Ukrainian president’s mouth, according to newly released testimony in the US impeachment inquiry: “investigations”, “Biden” and “Clinton”.

The Ukrainians had been told that the resumption of $400m in military aid “would likely not occur” until President Volodymyr Zelenskiy made a televised statement, according to previous testimony.

The essential elements of the statement were dictated to diplomats by Trump himself, testified George P Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state who was in charge of Ukraine policy – until he abruptly was not.

Greatest week of the winning, must be tired so much! :lol:
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15047453
Atlantis wrote: Investigating your political opponent for corruption is the hallmark of every corrupt politician on this planet. It has nothing to do with the "fight against corruption." It is corruption.

That is the most passionate defense of corruption I've ever heard. By your standards, corruption can never be investigated as investigating corruption is itself evidence of corruption; unless, of course, corrupt people are left to investigate themselves. That doesn't seem to be a very compelling strategy.

Beren wrote:Greatest week of the winning, must be tired so much! :lol:

Sondland changing his testimony doesn't exactly ring true, especially since he's contradicting Zelenksy's own comments. These theories are groundless at any rate, because the President requesting an official investigation is something done via criminal investigation treaties all the time and it goes through the proper legal channels (the AG and whoever he designates), and there is no allegation that Trump or his family received any benefit (financial or otherwise) from the action, other than the assertion that it may benefit Trump politically assuming Biden could win the nomination in the first place. However, investigations are usually done without public fanfare, and there was no public mention of this by the president at all. It was mentioned by the Democrats, who seem to be trying to protect Joe Biden. More than likely, John Bolton is the reason for the story, because Biden more or less does whatever the neocons tell him to do whereas Trump does not.

It's another double nothing burger with cheese.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15047490
It's time for the House to legally compel Bolton and other obstructors of justice to testify.

Enough 'executive poppycock' privilege from the scofflaw in the White House.

Make Bolton testify about high crimes, misdemeanors and Trump and Giuliani's little Ukrainian 'drug deal'.

The USA is not a monarchy.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15047519
jimjam wrote:It's time for the House to legally compel Bolton and other obstructors of justice to testify.

You mean John Bolton? Isn't this whole thing his idea in the first place?

jimjam wrote:Enough 'executive poppycock' privilege from the scofflaw in the White House.

Executive privilege is real.

jimjam wrote:The USA is not a monarchy.

It's not a parliamentary democracy either.

Facebook Scrubs All References To Alleged Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella
It's hilarious that everybody knows that Eric Ciaramella worked with Zaid and Schiff to create this appearance of a whistleblowing action, and the media is silent on Ciaramella's identity. Even FoxNews won't mention his name. The whistleblower statute only protects against losing a job; it doesn't grant immunity.
By Hindsite
#15047520
jimjam wrote:It's time for the House to legally compel Bolton and other obstructors of justice to testify.

Enough 'executive poppycock' privilege from the scofflaw in the White House.

Make Bolton testify about high crimes, misdemeanors and Trump and Giuliani's little Ukrainian 'drug deal'.

The USA is not a monarchy.

The Left don't really want Bolton to testify. They just want to claim more reasons why President Trump should be impeached. What they don't say is that obstruction of Congress is not a crime.
HalleluYah
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15047529
The curious timeline for taking down Trump
@Hindsite, Sharyl Attkisson wrote an interesting timeline. It's looking like the pieces are coming together to blow this whole thing out of the water. Now with Durham on the case, and substantive public timelines and all the text from Strzok and Page, and the threat from Senator Schumer--there is a real and definitive pattern here now. Trump is flushing all these people out, and they don't seem to have realized it.
By late
#15047531
Hindsite wrote:
What they don't say is that obstruction of Congress is not a crime.



That's because it is.
By late
#15047533
blackjack21 wrote:
Sharyl Attkisson wrote an interesting timeline. It's looking like the pieces are coming together to blow this whole thing out of the water. Now with Durham on the case, and substantive public timelines and all the text from Strzok and Page, and the threat from Senator Schumer--there is a real and definitive pattern here now. Trump is flushing all these people out, and they don't seem to have realized it.



Fascinating ( while I raise a single eyebrow).

Republicans have nothing substantive with which to defend Trump. They look like idiots when they try, like yesterday when Fiona Hill ripped a Republican lawyer a new one, when he tried to insinuate the cyberattack was by Ukraine, and not Russia.

What was obvious, from the start, was that a lot of people in government were going to have to deal with Trump doing things he shouldn't be doing. That hadn't happened, to that degree, since Nixon.

That is hardly an academic point, a lot of people that worked with Nixon went to jail. Just as people that worked for Trump are being sent to jail now.

IOW, you have been reduced to scraping the bottom of the barrel, using pillow talk between lovers and pretending it was some grand conspiracy. The problem with that is that you need an actual conspiracy, and there isn't a shred of evidence that one existed.

While you have extensive evidence where Trump is concerned. "Russia, if you're listening.." That is a blatant request for foreign interference in our election. Which is against the law.

You could write a book, and people have, about all the improper and illegal things Trump has done.

What you can't do is put meat on the bones of your ridiculous conspiracy theory.
By Hindsite
#15047536
late wrote:That's because it is.

I bet you can't name a criminal statute that states that, because there is none.
By late
#15047539
Hindsite wrote:
I bet you can't name a criminal statute that states that, because there is none.



"Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal criminal laws that prohibit obstructions of justice. The six most general outlaw obstruction of judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation (18 U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505), conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature of statute, rule and common law). All but Section 1503 cover congressional activities."
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL34304.html

"In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[1] The historical interpretation that bribery of a senator or representative was considered contempt of Congress has long since been abandoned in favor of criminal statutes. In 1857, Congress enacted a law that made "contempt of Congress" a criminal offense against the United States."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
User avatar
By Beren
#15047543
blackjack21 wrote:It's another double nothing burger with cheese.

However, this double nothing burger seems to sit on the president's stomach, it must be the cheese. :lol:

This week he suffered painful election defeats while turning out to be corrupt, dirty and dumb simultaneously. :D

Although Trump being corrupt, dirty and dumb shouldn't surprise anyone.
By Istanbuller
#15047548
Beren wrote:However, this double nothing burger seems to sit on the president's stomach, it must be the cheese. :lol:

This week he suffered painful election defeats while turning out to be corrupt, dirty and dumb simultaneously. :D

Although Trump being corrupt, dirty and dumb shouldn't surprise anyone.

What is dumb here is you guys still think these fake charges will go into some direction. Aren't you tired of fake news coverage of fake Russiagate scandal?

Donald Trump is a billionaire. He made a fortune from almost nothing. A man like this cannot be dumb.
By late
#15047554
Istanbuller wrote:
Donald Trump is a billionaire. He made a fortune from almost nothing. A man like this cannot be dumb.



Trump's dad gave him over $600 million bucks, which he pissed away.

Dad also surrounded him with people like Roy Cohn, because he's a bit slow.

So when Putin paid Cambridge Analytica with rubles...
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15047555
late wrote:Republicans have nothing substantive with which to defend Trump.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. The prosecution cannot even name a section of the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations Trump supposedly violated.

late wrote:What was obvious, from the start, was that a lot of people in government were going to have to deal with Trump doing things he shouldn't be doing.

Shouldn't is a normative statement outside the context of the law.

late wrote:IOW, you have been reduced to scraping the bottom of the barrel, using pillow talk between lovers and pretending it was some grand conspiracy. The problem with that is that you need an actual conspiracy, and there isn't a shred of evidence that one existed.

There must be in order to convene a grand jury.

late wrote:"Russia, if you're listening.." That is a blatant request for foreign interference in our election. Which is against the law.

No. That's humor. Humor is not against the law. Russian interference itself isn't strictly against the law. Tampering with voting machines, making financial contributions, and other specific acts may be illegal. It's a stretch to say everything is illegal. It's not.

late wrote:"Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities.

It's the obstruction of criminal investigations.


So are you guys going to cry if Trump wins again?
By late
#15047558
blackjack21 wrote:
1) The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense.

2) The prosecution cannot even name a section of the United States Code or the Code of Federal Regulations Trump supposedly violated.

3) There must be in order to convene a grand jury.


4) No. That's humor. Humor is not against the law.

5) It's the obstruction of criminal investigations.






1) Problem is, they need a defense, and no defense is possible. The "transcript" showed extortion (both sides have to want to deal in a quid pro quo, and Ukraine didn't want to get involved American domestic politics because it could really hurt them down the road). There are several witnesses. It's a slam dunk.

2) This is about the Constitution.

3) If there was evidence, Barr would be all over this like a rash.

4) That would be a possibility if you didn't have everything else pointing in that direction.

5) "Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal criminal laws that prohibit obstructions of justice. The six most general outlaw obstruction of judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation (18 U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505), conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature of statute, rule and common law). All but Section 1503 cover congressional activities."
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL34304.html

First Rule of Holes: when you're in one, stop digging.
By Rugoz
#15047564
blackjack21 wrote:In campaign finance, "thing of value" means something with tangible financial value so that you can't evade the law by giving a campaign gold bars instead of dollars.


Nope, not according to what I read.

blackjack21 wrote:That is the most passionate defense of corruption I've ever heard. By your standards, corruption can never be investigated as investigating corruption is itself evidence of corruption; unless, of course, corrupt people are left to investigate themselves. That doesn't seem to be a very compelling strategy.


Since corruption investigations are such a popular tool to get rid of political opponents around the world, one certainly has to treat them with a certain suspicion.

In this case neither the US nor the Ukraine had ever any investigation into Biden or Hunter going on. Instead it was motivated by Trump, who was willing to force a foreign government into opening and announcing such an investigation. Who gets to benefit? Trump obviously, since Biden was foreseen to be his opponent in the presidential elections. It's freaking obvious.

If that wasn't enough, Trump is the exact opposite of a principled anti-corruption crusader.
Last edited by Rugoz on 09 Nov 2019 18:51, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Beren
#15047569
Istanbuller wrote:What is dumb here is you guys still think these fake charges will go into some direction. Aren't you tired of fake news coverage of fake Russiagate scandal?

Aren't you tired of Trump winning so much recently, smart guy? It's just the beginning of a shitload of winning, I guess.

Istanbuller wrote:Donald Trump is a billionaire. He made a fortune from almost nothing. A man like this cannot be dumb.

So you admit he's corrupt and dirty. It's so obvious, isn't it? :lol: Although what you say is complete bullshit.

What if I replace "dumb" with "incompetent"? Maybe that goes too then, it's just his first term as president anyway. :lol:
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15047577
late wrote:1) Problem is, they need a defense, and no defense is possible. The "transcript" showed extortion (both sides have to want to deal in a quid pro quo, and Ukraine didn't want to get involved American domestic politics because it could really hurt them down the road). There are several witnesses. It's a slam dunk.

Well, in such a theory, Ukraine would have to act as a Plaintiff. The United States Code defines extortion as:

(C) the term “extortion” means an offense that has as its elements the extraction of anything of value from another person by threatening or placing that person in fear of injury to any person or kidnapping of any person;

I think based on the transcript and the testimony, Schiff and his coup plotters are going to have a pretty hard time proving extortion as defined in the United States Code.

late wrote:2) This is about the Constitution.

There is no such "about the Constitution" crime defined in the United States Code. You have to specify the nature and cause of the charge.

late wrote:3) If there was evidence, Barr would be all over this like a rash.

Durham is the one leading the investigation.

late wrote:4) That would be a possibility if you didn't have everything else pointing in that direction.

The original theory was that Trump's quip was a solicitation by Russia to hack the DNC server, which had already been hacked. There was $40M spent on that investigation and not a shred of evidence to support that charge.

late wrote:5) "Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal criminal laws that prohibit obstructions of justice. The six most general outlaw obstruction of judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation (18 U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505), conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature of statute, rule and common law). All but Section 1503 cover congressional activities."
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL34304.html

First Rule of Holes: when you're in one, stop digging.

Name a single violation of the United States Code you think Trump committed. Identify the action and the law. So far, nobody has done that. There are multitudinous sections in Title 18 alone. Yet, we cannot get a single definitive act.

1) There is no judicial proceeding. Scratch that.
2) There is no witness tampering or witness retaliation as nobody has been physically threatened in any way.
3) There is no obstruction of proceedings. Nobody has prevented any hearing from taking place.
4) Conspiracy to defraud the United States isn't obstruction of justice, and it takes two or more persons to establish a conspiracy.
5) Nobody has been found in contempt and upheld by the DoJ or the courts.

I think you defined this sort of blanket charge as firehosing. You can cite the entire United States code if you like. What matters is establishing a foundation for a charge against the president, and nobody has even established probable or even reasonable cause to believe a crime was committed.
By Hindsite
#15047596
late wrote:"Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal criminal laws that prohibit obstructions of justice. The six most general outlaw obstruction of judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation (18 U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505), conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature of statute, rule and common law). All but Section 1503 cover congressional activities."
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL34304.html

"In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[1] The historical interpretation that bribery of a senator or representative was considered contempt of Congress has long since been abandoned in favor of criminal statutes. In 1857, Congress enacted a law that made "contempt of Congress" a criminal offense against the United States."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

None of that applies in Bolton's case, since he is not acting corruptly. If it did they would take it to court instead of withdrawing their subpoena. Bolton was baiting them to take him to court. There is no way they can say legally that he is obstructing justice or Congress and lying "shifty" Adam Schiff knows it.

Rugoz wrote:Nope, not according to what I read.

You must be reading fake news.

Rugoz wrote:In this case neither the US nor the Ukraine had ever any investigation into Biden or Hunter going on.

False, a Ukraine prosecutor was investigating corruption into Hunter Biden and the energy company that had hired him to be on their board, so they could receive political favors and lobbying from the Obama administration. That is why Joe Biden told Ukraine to fire that prosecutor or they were not getting the billion dollars that they were promised. Then Joe Biden said "Son of a bitch he got fired."

Biden made Ukraine fire top prosecutor investigating son’s firm
  • 1
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 56

My socialist friends want socialism. I am very s[…]

Capitalism is failing to solve climate change. I[…]

Ukrainegate

"The intent makes the crime." You can […]

Another school shooting

I'm heading out on the boat for some sea trials af[…]