Was Hunter Biden qualified to serve on the Board of a Ukraine gas Company?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by oeb11

HF and SR - thank you for a reasoned debate - well written.

a thought - SR- "Yes, Joe Biden did a quid pro quo with the Ukraine but his quid pro quo had no impact on a future election in this country."
i agree Biden committed a quid pro quo in Ukraine - and admitted it on tape. The same "bribery" the DPST's are desperate to tar Trump with - but terrified of forwarding to the Senate for open, bi-partisan testimony and rules of evidence. They know it is a failure from the get go.

If "no effect" is the standard for exoneration of criminal action by the DPST's - and Republicans - we have a non-viable criminal code - everyone gets off by pleading "no effect" on an outcome.

Disagree strongly with that argument, SR. It is being an apologist for the DPST side, and hypocritical toward what the DPST House is doing to Trump in Schiff's faux impeachment show. It is a slanted partisan effort, and it stinks.

I think you are smarter and better than that - SR - You have shown it many times in cogent arguments.

That rationale does not fly, IMHO.

Respectfully, SR.

As I said, Trump recently did a quid pro quo with Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Either slow down/stop the flow of people leaving those countries to emigrate to the U.S. or lose financial aid from the U.S. I have no problem with that quid pro quo. None at all.

And again, there is, in my opinion, no "criminal action" in what Trump is alleged to have done. To be impeached does not require that a law be broken.

Here are Rep. Will Hurd's. Republican from Texas, comments on the impeachment hearings. Comments with which I agree:

"An impeachable offense should be compelling, overwhelming, clear and unambiguous,” Hurd said. “And it's not something to be rushed or taken lightly. I've not heard evidence proving the president committed bribery or extortion."

But during his five minutes of questioning, Hurd said Trump’s statements during his July 25 phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky were “inappropriate,” “misguided foreign policy” and “not how the executive should handle such things.” No other Republican on the committee has criticized the president’s handling of the phone call, during which Trump asked that Zelensky investigate the business dealings of former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, after arranging to withhold $391 million in foreign aid to Ukraine.

“I disagree with this sort of bungling foreign policy,” Hurd said.

I asked some questions within the last week and you did not respond:

Should the allegations made by the whistle blower been investigated or ignored? If you say they should have been investigated, how would you have changed the process that the House went through? I realize what you believe the end result should be.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I asked some questions within the last week and you did not respond:

Should the allegations made by the whistle blower been investigated or ignored? If you say they should have been investigated, how would you have changed the process that the House went through? I realize what you believe the end result should be.

Speed, these people are incapable of responding to your reasonable questions. they have literally run from every question of its kind, if they are not re-directing and insulting, they don't feel alive and useful. the Right on this Board has major emotional problems. they can't even respond to a simple question, like "why do you post on a Hooker Board, when YOUR side opposes prostitution, and ushered in FOSTA-SESTA"? not withstanding the fact that almost none of them sees girls.. they certainly never write about it. but they are obsessed with Homosexuality, judging from the common terms they call up for their insults.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

#1: You're not qualified to "see ... in there"!

#2: If you are, you might want to inform Rep. ShitFace!

might want to call this guy queerface.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

As I said, Trump recently did a quid pro quo with Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Either slow down/stop the flow of people leaving those countries to emigrate to the U.S. or lose financial aid from the U.S. I have no problem with that quid pro quo. None at all.

And again, there is, in my opinion, no "criminal action" in what Trump is alleged to have done. To be impeached does not require that a law be broken.

Here are Rep. Will Hurd's. Republican from Texas, comments on the impeachment hearings. Comments with which I agree:

"An impeachable offense should be compelling, overwhelming, clear and unambiguous,” Hurd said. “And it's not something to be rushed or taken lightly. I've not heard evidence proving the president committed bribery or extortion."

But during his five minutes of questioning, Hurd said Trump’s statements during his July 25 phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky were “inappropriate,” “misguided foreign policy” and “not how the executive should handle such things.” No other Republican on the committee has criticized the president’s handling of the phone call, during which Trump asked that Zelensky investigate the business dealings of former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, after arranging to withhold $391 million in foreign aid to Ukraine.

“I disagree with this sort of bungling foreign policy,” Hurd said.

I asked some questions within the last week and you did not respond:

Should the allegations made by the whistle blower been investigated or ignored? If you say they should have been investigated, how would you have changed the process that the House went through? I realize what you believe the end result should be.

Your last question wasn't asked of me directly but I'd like to answer and also respond to CT who also didn't address me directly but seemed to lump me in with anybody offering a counter argument to what he believes as "people afraid to answer questions". That sure as hell isn't me, I thrive on answering questions. I consider it an intellectual challenge, a mind game challenge to see who can offer the best debate. All this calling people names, challenging others "manhood", I have absolutely zero interest in. On the other board I was on for 15 years, we could choose to ignore certain posters and never see what they write. I had an ignore list as long as your arm. I didn't want to see comments from anybody not worthy of a spirited civil debate. If I had the ignore button on here CT would certainly be on it. I have no use for comments like he just made not addressing the subject but commenting on people and personalities.


Having gotten that off my chest. Yes, I think the IG of the Intelligence community had a duty to "investigate" the whistle blower complaint. He also had a duty to tell us he thought the whistle blower just might have a bias in his complaint which he did which then leads me to believe that the whistle blower needs to be further investigated and absolutely needed to be questioned under oath in closed hearings at first but if this goes to trial in the Senate, he will have to testify in open hearings where Trumps attorney can challenge him under 6th amendment rules that say the accused may confront his accuser in open court.


https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...till-credible/


Intel IG Found Whistleblower Has ‘Arguable Political Bias’ against Trump, But Complaint Is Still ‘Credible’




But guess what, the complaint was investigated by the legal council of the DOJ and they dismissed it. Of course the left will respond with "OH, we can't trust Bill Barr". Well, it wasn't Bill Barr that made that decision it was the Office of Legal Council that made that decision.


https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/o...lease-congress


The OLC argues that the conduct described in the complaint does not involve an “urgent concern” as the intelligence community inspector general described it. The OLC said it made that determination because it “does not relate to ‘the funding administration, or operation of an intelligence activity’ under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence.”
“As a result, the statute does not require the Director to transmit the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees,” the opinion reads.







I don't have a problem with having an investigation but I have a big problem with the way it was done. This investigation belonged in the Judiciary and yes I know that Pelosi can do this any way she wants but the precedent was not followed and you know how Democrats love their precedents like Roe v Wade. This should have started in the Judiciary with the Presidents attorney there and Republicans ( the minority ) being able to call their own witnesses. That would have been a fair process, the Schitt show was not. Again, no way in hell should the whistle blower have been exempt from cross examination. Imagine the precedent that sets that a person can make a complaint knowing that he can't be challenged under oath and penalty of law.



To be impeached does not require that a law be broken.



But it should and if one of the articles of impeachment says that Trump broke the law of bribery, then that has to be debated as to whether it meest the criteria for considering it illegal which will be done in the Senate. Why wait for the Senate to debate the legal merits of the case? That should be done from the get go and perhaps avoid a trial in the Senate if a compelling legal argument can't be made in the House. This of course is just an opinion of mind.


I notice you didn't comment on my argument that Hilary violated federal election law and no comment on the article showing that Bernie Sanders was fined for hiring foreign nationals to work on his campaign. No opinion?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

If I had the ignore button on here CT would certainly be on it. I have no use for comments like he just made not addressing the subject but commenting on people and personalities.

There is an ignore button. Click on User CP in upper left-hand column ("Main Menu"), then Edit Ignore List under Settings and Options.

And don't fret about CT. He's always setting up straw men to slay, whining about "your side did this..." when nobody did anything, and generally being a miserable fuck.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

There is an ignore button. Click on User CP in upper left-hand column ("Main Menu"), then Edit Ignore List under Settings and Options.

And don't fret about CT. He's always setting up straw men to slay, whining about "your side did this..." when nobody did anything, and generally being a miserable fuck.

You should put yourself on ignore. Maybe you'd then quit taking yourself so seriously.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by lustylad

There is an ignore button. Click on User CP in upper left-hand column ("Main Menu"), then Edit Ignore List under Settings and Options.

And don't fret about CT. He's always setting up straw men to slay, whining about "your side did this..." when nobody did anything, and generally being a miserable fuck.

Thanks for helping out the new kid on the block

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

You should put yourself on ignore. Maybe you'd then quit taking yourself so seriously.

Awww, don't be such a meanie!

That's no way to talk to someone who has labored selflessly and without pay for years trying without success to help you extract your head from your ass!

[HoeHummer]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Thanks for helping out the new kid on the block

LOLLING @ Yessup!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by HoeHummer

LOLLING @ Yessup!

Yeah, right...

You can only wish you were as articulate or had 1/10 the vocabulary as the new guy, yssup.

"SNICK" is your favorite word...

[HoeHummer]

LOLLING @ Lustinolover Lad!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Awww, don't be such a meanie!

That's no way to talk to someone who has labored selflessly and without pay for years trying without success to help you extract your head from your ass!

You gonna turn bambino on with that picture!

[oeb11]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

As I said, Trump recently did a quid pro quo with Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Either slow down/stop the flow of people leaving those countries to emigrate to the U.S. or lose financial aid from the U.S. I have no problem with that quid pro quo. None at all.

And again, there is, in my opinion, no "criminal action" in what Trump is alleged to have done. To be impeached does not require that a law be broken.

Here are Rep. Will Hurd's. Republican from Texas, comments on the impeachment hearings. Comments with which I agree:

"An impeachable offense should be compelling, overwhelming, clear and unambiguous,” Hurd said. “And it's not something to be rushed or taken lightly. I've not heard evidence proving the president committed bribery or extortion."

But during his five minutes of questioning, Hurd said Trump’s statements during his July 25 phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky were “inappropriate,” “misguided foreign policy” and “not how the executive should handle such things.” No other Republican on the committee has criticized the president’s handling of the phone call, during which Trump asked that Zelensky investigate the business dealings of former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, after arranging to withhold $391 million in foreign aid to Ukraine.

“I disagree with this sort of bungling foreign policy,” Hurd said.

I asked some questions within the last week and you did not respond:

Should the allegations made by the whistle blower been investigated or ignored? If you say they should have been investigated, how would you have changed the process that the House went through? I realize what you believe the end result should be.

SR - if you were addressing me - I agree with Rep Hurd's comments regarding the criteria for impeachment. i disagree on the comments regarding the phone call with the Presidentof the Ukraine. There is lots of evidence that no "quid pro quo " happened, and even if it did - it is trump's right to request and use the stick to address corruption involving americans. That the Corruption involved A former American VP and son, and current political candidate - is not a free pass for committing , or immunity from, investigation of corruption.



Whistleblower - . As i understand - and don't have details at my fingertips - but discussed in this Forum elsewhere - the criteria for first hand experience to file a "whistleblower" complaint was changed ( under questionable circumstances) to not require first hand experience - and the protection statutes protect a "whistleblower from being fired, or retaliation, but do not protect the identity - something ginned up by Schiff to protect his Schiff-show.

Under these circumstances - I do not believe the "whistleblower" complaint is credible - or should have been referred to the judiciary committee . good chance it ws orchestrated by Schiff himself - as there is evidence the Whistleblower approached the committee prior to the complaint filing.

That whole scenario reeks - but the DPST's just seem to get away scot free with their malfeasance.



My bottom line - "no effect on the outcome" is no rationale or excuse to nullify a criminal act from prosecution - and i doubt anywhere in the Federal code is there that exemption for criminal behavior. i disagree with that opinion.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Thanks for helping out the new kid on the block

From a handle with a join date of Halloween this year? Were you referring to yourself?

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

From a handle with a join date of Halloween this year? Were you referring to yourself?

I was but I can't help but wonder who you think I might have meant.


And what the hell does Lolling mean Mr. Hummer?