Do you think Trump was justified in asking Ukraine to look into potential corruption involving the B

No it is not...an Executive order is an Executive order and "Pretty Much" is not anything worthy of discussion.

 

He said hold it and it got held. How does one of those Executive things do it?

 

Consider yourself enlightened:

https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text

The White House, November 10, 1999.

To the Senate of the United States:

With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the
Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Treaty Between
the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal
Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex, signed at Kiev on
July 22, 1998. I transmit also, for the information of the
Senate, an exchange of notes which was signed on September 30,
1999, which provides for its provisional application, as well
as the report of the Department of State with respect to the
Treaty.
The Treaty is one of a series of modern mutual legal
assistance treaties being negotiated by the United States in
order to counter criminal activities more effectively. The
Treaty should be an effective tool to assist in the prosecution
of a wide variety of crimes, including drug trafficking
offenses. The Treaty is self-executing. It provides for a broad
range of cooperation in criminal matters. Mutual assistance
available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or
statements of persons; providing documents, records, and
articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or
identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for
testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches
and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restraint,
confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection
of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by
the laws of the requested state.
I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable
consideration to the Treaty and give its advice and consent to
ratification.

William J. Clinton.

 

I think that if the shoe was on the other foot, the Democrats would defend that phone call to the bitter end. Sanctimoniously, they would claim that any criticism of that phone call was an unadulterated attempt at cover-up. I can just hear them now ....

So yes, if Biden is going to run for President, we the People deserve to know everything that happened in Ukraine that involves the Bidens. And I can guarantee that if Trump hadn't made that phone call, we wouldn't have heard so much as a peep about it from Joe or the Democrats. Not a peep.

 

You produce a document that indicates your intention, then sign it making it an official action. In this way there is a record and legal footing. What Trump did was make a freakin' phone call.

 

Thank you.

 

I'm sure he would have taken those steps if he had intended for the stop to be permanent but of course he didn't. It was more of a pause.

 

There are not two sides to this story.

It is a fact that every country and organisation providing aid to Ukraine makes it contingent on anti-corruption efforts by the Ukrainian government.

It is a fact that Prosecutor Shokin was obstructed those efforts - he FAILED to actively investigate (let alone convict) anyone for corruption.

It is a fact that Shokin's obstruction to anti-corruption efforts threatened to make Ukraine' ineligible for aid from the EU, IMF, EBRD, etc. etc. as well as the US. The IMF, for instance, threatened to withhold some $40 billion of assistance. Hence he was fired.

These facts may be new to some, but are very well-known to anyone with more than a recent interest in Ukraine.

And, to show the "other side" you'd need to show that the EU, IMF, EBRD, etc. as well as the US, were wrong to pressure Ukraine to fire Shokin, because he was, in fact, a good anti-corruption prosecutor.

That can't be done, because he wasn't. As a matter of fact. Nor would it make sense for Ukraine to fire a good prosecutor - it would show support for corruption and thus make Ukraine ineligible for aid.

Yes, Ukraine is a risky place to throw money at. That's why the DOD together with the Secretary of State certify that aid can safely be given to Ukraine - which happened most recently in May 2019.

 

Those are statements but not proven facts. What is factual is that Hunter Biden was on the board of an energy company with no expertise in the field. He was paid almost as well as Chelsea Clinton when she graduated and Hunter's daddy got a prosecutor fired to protect him. Nobody wants to talk about the Bidens in the mix, much less investigate and find out which side of the story is true and yes,
there are two competing stories here.

Why won't Obama support Joe for President?

 

They are proven facts.

It is a fact that all countries make aid contingent on anti-corruption - just like the US. It is a fact that Shokin FAILED to actively investigate or prosecute anyone, resulting in ZERO convictions for corruption. It is fact that as a result, Ukraine was pressured by all donors to fire him.

All easily verifiable by a little research.

Sure, it's a fact that Hunter Biden landed himself a lucrative position on the board of Burisma. It is NOT a fact that that means that he was involved in any corruption. In addition, former investigations related to the time before this, when its owner, Zlochevsky, was Minister of Ecology - 2010 to 2012.

Shokin and his predecessors sabotaged and shelved these investigations.

Removing Shokin made any investigation into Zlochevsky MORE likely.

 

How in the hell can you state flat out there was no corruption involved with Hunter Biden's hiring? You saw daddy Joe's ego at work in the video. Anyone like that is a prime target to be bent and it sounds like there was no shortage of sharks in that pool to take advantage of the opportunity. Joe has always been an errand boy, the Lindsey Graham of the DNC. Stomp his feet and bang the table and spew a lot of meaningless indignation and anger to refocus the voters away from their troubling questions. Democrats have an aversion to mirrors.

Hunter is corrupt, Joe probably is too and Epstein didn't kill himself.

 

How? Because there's no reason to believe there was any corruption involved.

This may be news to you, but Ukrainian companies commonly hire high-profile figures to encourage investor trust and confidence, and are happy to pay richly for the privilege.

Sure Joe Biden bragged. That makes him guilty of any inflated ego. There is no reason to suspect him of corruption. Quite the reverse - he was bragging about his role in the firing of a CORRUPT prosecutor - an event which made investigations MORE likely, and which would have happened anyway. Unless, of course, you think Ukraine was willing to lose the $40 billion which the IMF threatened to withhold unless Shokin was fired.

 

There was nothing wrong with the call as it is...

The Dems have been trying to cook something up since before he was elected. They're dishonest, corrupt, and couldn't care less about the country or the rule of law.

To the left, the only thing that matters is power. Grow the government at every turn, and wield that power for their own benefit.

Nothing new under the sun.

 

More to this whole thing than just the call. You must not be paying attention.

 

Enlighten me... cite a specific instance.

 

Hundreds of pages of testimony are available. If you’ve ignored all that, me wasting the time to post/explain them will do you no good.
If you really want to know the extent of the matter do some research. I suspect you won’t though.

 

I listened to a good amount of the hearings... there's nothing there.

"Orange Man Bad" is not an impeachable offense.

As Pelosi said, they've been working on impeachment for years. They know Trump is likely to win next November; they know their base, of which you appear to be one, will follow like lemmings; so, why not impeach him on nothing??

The left has never cared about the country or about the problems and lives of average folk; so, putting the country thru this nonsense isn't even a consideration for them.

If you can cite a specific impeachable offense, I'm all ears.

 

Sure, holding up 100s of millions in appropriated funds as leverage for investigations into a political rival.

 

1) there's exactly zero evidence for that.

2) it was written into the aid package that Ukraine had to demonstrate corruption reforms as a condition of receiving the aid.

3) Biden bragging about strongarming the Ukrainians, i.e. withholding aid unless they fired the prosecutor investigating the corrupt company on whose board his useless son was raking in 50-80k per month... that was just beyond stupid.

Biden is such a schmuck and macho braggart though, he can't help himself. I don't care that it was in front of the sympathetic and treasonous CFR or not, it was still stupid.

P.S. The former President of Barisma has since been indicted.

4) Trump has stated his opposition to foriegn aid in principle. He had held up aid to other countries as well - should he be impeached for those as well??

As a libertarian I would think you would be opposed to foreign aid as well??

Unless of course you are not a libertarian?? You seem much more aligned with the radical left??

 

1. There is plenty of evidence the aid was held up and not released till whistle leaked blower complaints started gaining traction.
2. Several US agencies had already determined that the Ukraine had met the anti-corruption requirements prior to the aid hold up.
3. An oft repeated lie. Biden was acting on the policy of the majority of the western world. He got a prosecutor fired that WASN’T investigating corruption.
4. You’d have to cite other instances. Those likely didn’t involve military aid to allied countries directly opposing a US adversary.

 

Where are you getting your news?? Rachael Maddow??

You certainly don't sound like a libertarian, and you're certainly misinformed on these issues.

Trump had every right to delay aid, just as he had every reason to distrust the Ukrainians and our own State Department.

Giuliani stated that he forced the left-wing Ambassador Yovonavitch out b/c she was part of the corruption - especially as it related to Biden and other Democrats.

She was actively blocking visas for Ukrainian officials who were set to be deposed in ongoing corruption investigations involving the $5.3 Billion in previous aid that has gone "missing".

Did Rachael fill ya in on all that?? Nah, didn't think so

 

Goodness! What on earth would make you think I’m a libertarian?

The facts I’ve presented are well documented by the House investigation. From where do you draw the facts you’ve presented?

 

Thought you said you were a libertarian, lol...

You bought into that steaming pile of nothing the Dems threw up on the carpet??

Bet you still think the Russia collusion hoax is on the up-and-up??

I want a divorce

 

Well my apologies for anything might of said to lead you to believe I was.

 

I don't know and neither does Trump, quote where he asked him to lie and find some dirt on Biden. Why do you believe a person whose parent is running for office is immune from investigation? Where is that in the law?