Impeachment hearings

[_Jersey Girl]

Joe's quid wasn't going to benefit him personally whereas Trump's quid had no value at all except for helping him beat Biden in the polls.

Yeah but...according to Markk Trump wanted to make sure the American tax payers weren't getting ripped off.

[_Jersey Girl]

It is simply stunning that after dozens of pages on this thread you can still be this stupid. It has been spelled out for you several times, and then you disappear and then repeat the same refuted talking point after a few pages have passed.

Yes. There's almost 30 pages now dedicated to the above behavior you described.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Maybe a cartoon will help Markk get it.



- Doc

[_Markk]

If what Trump did was in the interest of the US, Congress and our allies would have known, the Ukraine would have known and the departments responsible for distributing the aid would have known.

That's just stupid, Markk. Trump was hiding the quid because it devalued the quo to have the announcement of an investigation into Joe Biden come from him to the Ukraine.

Think about what you wrote...

There were maybe a few dozen people that were with the president or monitored the call from what I have read. And what your saying only makes the point there was not a quid pro quo Honor. If the folks that distributed the money didn't know, how was it delayed, and when did Z announce this ( you can't have it both ways)? The Ukraine is on record of saying they never knew it was delayed ( I assume by the people from the US distributing the aid, you claim that did not know), becausee in the end the moneys came within the dead line of it being distributing.

For the umpteenth time, it boils down to whether or not there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation, and yet the folks here time after time duck the evidence that is provided, and obviously refuse to do any "investigation" of the evidences on their own. Trump had/has every right to be concerned over the evidences that the Biden were dirty. I have posted on just the tip of the ice berg on the evidences.

He has executive privilege to do exactly what he did, he did not break any laws, and he was acquitted of any wrong doing (twice)...The DoJ is looking into it.

[_Markk]

Are you denying it was not a Quid Pro Quo? It is on video, and he was bragging about it. Why are you calling it "so called?" It can't be any clearer it was a choice Joe made on the spot. Our country is ran of quid pro quos in many ways, I just find it so interesting that it is okay when it suits you, but not okay when Trump is accused of it. Trump in the Phone call asked to do "US" a favor...not just himself, so your straw-man that it was for the USA interest falls in that so was Trumps.

Biden's on camera openly addressing it. Multiple times.

Trump hid it.

1. Why did Trump hide his actions?

2. Why did he want Ukraine to announce their impending investigation of the Bidens?

LOL..Jersey Girl...he was bragging about it after the fact at a obscure meeting some pundit dug up much later.

Trump did not hide his actions, it took place in the situation room with many folks present. The document was marked secrete and was classified and he unclassified it. Are you that ignorant to believe that discussion like these with foreign leaders are some how open to everyone, and if not publicly announce there are as you wrote...hiding their actions?

It was leaked out, he unclassified the document becasue of leaks...it was investigated, he was acquitted of any wrong doing, there was no quid pro quo, there was not announcement by Z. and the aid was given within the time lines.

You have to go back and read up thread about the allegation of Trump wanting Ukraine to announced a investigation...it was a he said she said and the Ukraine deny it.

But I give you credit, and you actually thought on your own and admit Joe is the one guilty of a quid pro quo...LOL your leaders are probably going to be upset you flew off your perch here, but good job.

[_canpakes]

Keep dancing, Markk. You still can’t answer why Trump didn’t ask the DoJ to investigate (even while saying that “we should investigate”, because of no data), and you still can’t produce any fact or data regarding Burisma profiting from the US aid package.

You have nothing here. You should try to find something.

[_honorentheos]

Markk, how much evidence are YOU ignoring that showed why Shokin was removed and the US making it a condition for receiving the loan guarantees? We've been over it and over it, yet all you do is reset to assumptions that are clearly wrong based on evidence that keeps being provided to you. If you wish to be seen as behaving in good faith, you have to be able to acknowledge the evidence provided in your responses.

Joe isn't guilty of a quid pro quo in the sense the leverage being used was in the interest of the US. What Trump did was not, and he was hiding it from everyone including Congress, the Ukrainian, and our allies in the region. He was clearly only doing what he felt would benefit him, personally. That's the issue here. He abused the office of the President.

[Guest]

I am not ignoring any evidences, there are two sides to Shokin's account...which I touched on up thread, and please watch the video below.

Again to my point, was and is there enough evidence to warrant an investigation.

Shokin claims he was let go because he wanted to look into the Biden's, and that he was told to stand down on his investigating them, again, the other side of the story that you are not dealing with. I Understand you side of the story, which is basically that people said he was not investigating corruption, yet the fact that they seized Zlochevsky's property contradicts that, and it is fact that as GP, Shoklin was behind seizing his assets. So again, two sides of the coin that warrant an investigation.

All this ties to Hunter, Archer, Heinz, (and even Kerry as SoS, if we go back further) and Joe. Was Joe connected with their getting hired, it appears he was, their is evidence that compliments this possibility? Was he just trying to protect his son by getting Shokin fired (not to mention approving the new CP), maybe?

Again it boils down to whether or not there is enough evidence of impropriety at the least, or flat out corruption at the worse. This is what you are ducking.

There is also a pattern with Joe and Hunter in other countries, which we have not even touched on, and if I get the time I will start a thread on Joe, Hunter, and China, and show you a clear pattern, that again adds for warranting an investigation. It is not only the Ukraine that begs an investigation of Hunter and his dealing while his father was VP. There is 100% no doubt of a clear and damaging conflict of interest between Joe, Hunter, and by default Rosemont LLC and other LLC's.

Back to Shokin...

Biden approved hiring Shokin in the first place, and Shokin's claim is that after he seized the assets of Mykola Zlochevsky in 2016 (remember Hunter/Archer were hired by Zlochevsky in 2014) then President Poroshenko called Shokin in and told him “Don’t you understand what Biden wants from you? Why are you getting into this Burisma stuff again?”

It is interesting to note that Shoklin also said of Biden “[Biden]believed that Ukraine was his private property, his fiefdom and that he could do whatever he wanted here.” , which compliments his cocky-ness in bragging about his Quid pro quo, which you now admit happened.

Listen to Shoklin's side of the story here

https://www.rt.com/news/481791-biden-uk ... -pressure/

Also, note that once Zlochevsky's assets were seized, Hunter, Zlochevsky's employee, used his connections to help Burisma hire John Buretta, a former Obama DOJ lawyer. {to help in Burisma/Zlochevsky's defense...edit added}

Also...

Just is the past few days, the Ukrainian Government have opened up the Shokin/Biden "affair"...so this is not over at all. The DOJ is receiving information on this, and two senators, Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Ron Johnson (Wis.), are looking into improprieties with Hunter and his father also.

Why do you believe there is not enough evidence here (and this is just a small part of it), to warrant an investigation and raise concern?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Again to my point, was and is there enough evidence to warrant an investigation.

...

Why do you believe there is not enough evidence here (and this is just a small part of it), to warrant an investigation and raise concern?

Why didn't Trump order the DoJ to investigate the Bidens? Or the State department?

- Doc

[_Markk]

LOL ...Whats telling is that I posted my link at 9:22, and you responded at 9:29, which is within 7 minutes of my posting. Yet I included a 9 minute video and a lot of information to digest and cross check. And you are always the first to claim no one reads anything. My guess is you did not read anything I wrote past the first few lines.

Doc, you used to have a bit of objectivity and were able to think on your own, at least in my opinion, but you seem to have lost that. But maybe I was just naïve in thinking you could think and reason on your own, and entertain critical thought.

Keep asking the question that has been answered over and over, it only helps me see how TDS effects the weak. It is the only response you have and a " I know you are but what am I " ideology that is apparently a symptom of TDS.

If you are up to it read my last post and offer your opinion, otherwise keep asking the question that has been answered over and over.