Schiff on why Trump must be removed...
Last night in his closing arguments Adam "Pencil Neck" Schiff said the reason Trump must be removed, his high crime and misdemeanor, is for trusting Rudy Giuliani and that makes him dangers.
The Democrats have no case.
Comments
-
@reformed posted:
Last night in his closing arguments Adam "Pencil Neck" Schiff said the reason Trump must be removed, his high crime and misdemeanor, is for trusting Rudy Giuliani and that makes him dangers.
The Democrats have no case.
Rep. Schiff's argument for the president's removal last night was NOT that Mr Trump trusted Rudy Giuliani. Yes, Mr Schiff contended that the president "chose" Mr. Giuliani over the American intelligence community, but that reference was a precursor to Mr Schiff's main point. Here's the text of the relevant portion of his presentation:
It’s a somewhat different question though to ask, okay, it’s pretty obvious, whether we can say it publicly or we can’t say it publicly, we all know what we’re dealing here with this President. But does he really need to be removed? And this is why he needs to be removed: Donald Trump chose Rudy Giuliani over his own intelligence agencies. He chose Rudy Giuliani over his own FBI Director. He chose Rudy Giuliani over his own national security advisers.
When all of them were telling him this Ukraine 2016 stuff is kooky, crazy Russian propaganda. He chose not to believe them. He chose to believe Rudy Giuliani. That makes him dangerous to us, to our country. That was Donald Trump’s choice. Now, why would Donald Trump believe a man like Rudy Giuliani over a man like Christopher Wray? Okay. Why would anyone in their right mind believe Rudy Giuliani over Christopher Wray?
Because he wanted to and because what Rudy was offering him was something that would help him personally. And what Christopher Wray was offering him was merely the truth. What Christopher Wray was offering him was merely the information he needed to protect his country and its elections, but that’s not good enough. What’s in it for him? What’s in it for Donald Trump? This is why he needs to be removed.
And all of that was prelude to the real "trust" issue Mr Schiff raised in his closing argument. Here are his final words, which were preceded by a claim that in this country "right" and "truth" still matter:
If the truth doesn’t matter, we’re lost. Framers couldn’t protect us from ourselves, if right and truth don’t matter. And you know that what he did was not right. That’s what they do in the old country, that Colonel Vindman’s father came from. Or the old country that my great grandfather came from, or the old countries that your ancestors came from, or maybe you came from. But here, right is supposed to matter. It’s what’s made us the greatest nation on earth. No constitution can protect us, if right doesn’t matter anymore.
And you know you can’t trust this President to do what’s right for this country. You can trust he will do what’s right for Donald Trump. He’ll do it now. He’s done it before. He’ll do it for the next several months. He’ll do it in the election if he’s allowed to. This is why if you find him guilty, you must find that he should be removed. Because right matters. Because right matters and the truth matters. Otherwise, we are lost.
Mr Schiff did NOT argue that the president's trust of Giuliani was the reason the president should be removed from office. Schiff argued that Mr Trump should be removed from office because we can't trust him to do what's right for our country, that Mr Trump will predictably put himself and his own needs before the needs of the country, and that cannot be good or acceptable in a country where right and truth still matter.
-
Mr Schiff, was very persuasive. Good summary, Bill. CM
-
And all of that was prelude to the real "trust" issue Mr Schiff raised in his closing argument. Here are his final words, which were preceded by a claim that in this country "right" and "truth" still matter:
If that were indeed the case, a lot of things would be quite different with the USA ...
Schiff argued that Mr Trump should be removed from office because we can't trust him to do what's right for our country, that Mr Trump will predictably put himself and his own needs before the needs of the country,
Ha ha ha ...the dude should look in his own house and among his own party community ... can he show how innocent the Clintons, Obama, Bush presidents are of what he claims? How much did Mr. Biden do for his country in Ukraine? NOTHING good for the USA even worse a penny ... BUT A LOT into his own family's pockets ... by doing exactly what the Democs accuse Trump of doing ...
and that cannot be good or acceptable in a country where right and truth still matter.
Sorry, Bill .... when I first came to the USA In the mid 1970s I would have most likely regarded the USA "a country where right and truth still matter". As I have grown older and become a little wiser and have observed more objectively "right and truth" in light of Scripture, I have seen a sharp decline in these regards in the USA ... A country that bombs other countries back into the Middle Ages and thus claims to bring "democracy, human rights, or liberty and justice" by means of destruction should not be mentioned in connection with right and truth.
And, USA folks here, don't come with trying to make things better for your patriotic feelings by calling me names ... I have only mentioned some facts which speak for themselves.
-
Yeah, I heard the same thing you did. The rest of Schiff's comments are only his own speculation and opinion. Not fact.
-
Schiff is pathetic and laughable. Not to mention a liar.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Ha ha ha ...the dude should look in his own house and among his own party community ... can he show how innocent the Clintons, Obama, Bush presidents are of what he claims? How much did Mr. Biden do for his country in Ukraine? NOTHING good for the USA even worse a penny ... BUT A LOT into his own family's pockets ... by doing exactly what the Democs accuse Trump of doing ...
It's not clear which Biden(s) you're referring to here, Wolfgang, so I'll take them separately:
- If you're talking about Vice President Joe Biden, then what he did in Ukraine was to execute the foreign policy of the United States at the time as established by the then-president Barack Obama - that being to seek the removal of someone who was regarded by the international community as a corrupt prosecutor. Vice President Biden did that by leveraging a loan guarantee he knew the Ukrainians needed. Was that a form of quid pro quo? Yes. Happens all the time as a matter of official U.S. foreign policy, BUT NOT, as was the case with President Trump, as part of quests for foreign government involvement in U.S. domestic political elections.
- If you're talking about VP Biden's son Hunter, then what he did in Ukraine was to take a board of directors position with a private energy company, a position for which he seemed to have had very few if any qualifications, and that fact has produced sensible questions about how he got the position. Two Ukrainian government investigations of the matter found nothing illegal. Was Biden's board appointment shady? Looks like it. Was it a bad idea? Looks like it. Was it illegal? No. Was Hunter Biden's appointment the result of the actions or insistence of a U.S. government official, and therefore in any way analogous to Mr Trump's actions in Ukraine? No. Was Biden's appointment a legitimate reason for Mr Trump to withhold American military assistance to Ukraine until that government announced an investigation into the appointment and the debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, intruded in America's 2016 election? Of course not.
Sorry, Bill .... when I first came to the USA In the mid 1970s I would have most likely regarded the USA "a country where right and truth still matter". As I have grown older and become a little wiser and have observed more objectively "right and truth" in light of Scripture, I have seen a sharp decline in these regards in the USA ... A country that bombs other countries back into the Middle Ages and thus claims to bring "democracy, human rights, or liberty and justice" by means of destruction should not be mentioned in connection with right and truth.
I am well aware of your "war crimes" interpretation of past and current American foreign policy. You are of course entitled to your views, but unless you're suggesting that previous American presidents engaged in conduct analogous to Mr Trump's conduct - i.e. they too sought foreign government investigations of their domestic political rivals (that is "exactly" what Democrats accuse Mr Trump of doing) - I choose not to engage you on the matter.
And, USA folks here, don't come with trying to make things better for your patriotic feelings by calling me names ... I have only mentioned some facts which speak for themselves.
No name calling. In my view, you have not "mentioned some facts which speak for themselves." You have instead made some assertions based on your personal views and observations, but whose core truth remains unproven.
-
@reformed posted:
Yeah, I heard the same thing you did. The rest of Schiff's comments are only his own speculation and opinion. Not fact.
Schiff's role as closer in last nigh't presentation was not to present facts; he and other managers had done that throughout the day with clarity, precision, and damning detail. Schiff's role last night was to bring the case home to the American people as much as to the senators in the room. That he did brilliantly.
Now if you're telling us that you watched the presentation throughout the day - that you read/heard the texts and documents that managers presented, and witnessed the video clips of Mr Trump's own words as well as impeachment inquiry witness testimony, and also listened to the narrative that brought all of that evidence into a chronological story - yet STILL believe they presented no facts, then in my view you're simply wrong. Yesterday's case was, to my hearing, overwhelming: masterful, decisive, and I bet, irrefutable. On several occasions through the day, I found myself awestruck by the specificity with which the managers presented their case.
I'm eager to hear the president's case starting tomorrow. They don't have ANY facts to present, because the facts in this case all direct us to the same conclusion. I'm banking on a bunch of angry voices from his team speaking objections to the process, but not engaging the facts - a bunch of shiny objects tossed into the microphone to distract attention from the truth the House managers presented. (And I'm looking forward to FoxNews televising the proceedings again! The last two nights, their prime time shows did not take the trial live. I bet they will when the president's team speaks!... as will CNN and MSNBC.)
Will the Senate convict the president in response to the House's overwhelming case.? Of course not. But objective truth is not decided by popular vote. The truth is and will always be that Donald Trump sought foreign government intervention in an American election for his personal political benefit.
BTW, you didn't engage the central point of my last post (as you have also yet to engage THIS POST, which referred to THIS POST) that Schiff did NOT argue the president should be removed because he trusted Rudy Giuliani. Does your silence on that issue mean that you acknowledge the error of your previous claim? If not, please quote from Schiff's presentation so as to prove that such WAS Schiff's argument.
-
Vice President Biden did that by leveraging a loan guarantee he knew the Ukrainians needed. Was that a form of quid pro quo? Yes. Happens all the time as a matter of official U.S. foreign policy,
Ah so ... Ah so ....matter of official U.S. foreign policy ?? 😉
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Ah so ... Ah so ....matter of official U.S. foreign policy ??
Of course. Nations offer support to nations whose policies and actions comport with their national interests, and refuse support to nations whose policies and actions do not comport with their national interests. THAT makes sense. What doesn't makes sense is a head of a state's withholding financial support for another nation until that nation announces an investigation into one of the head of state's domestic political rivals. THAT'S wrong.
-
Of course. Nations offer support to nations whose policies and actions comport with their national interests, and refuse support to nations whose policies and actions do not comport with their national interests.
So then, same for each case where "pressure" is applied on foreign government or officials ... the pressure point may be different, but the steps or the results are the same.
Now, as there was an ongoing investigation on Biden Jr., seems that the fellow was going to be in trouble for deeds not in harmony with Ukrainian law.. How did he even get this high position, except most likely with knowledge and with "mingling" of the old Biden misusing his official position for private advantages ? So then, private Biden family interests were advanced by vice-president's pressure of government official matters?
-
@Wolfgang posted:
So then, same for each case where "pressure" is applied on foreign government or officials ... the pressure point may be different, but the steps or the results are the same.
That the "pressure point" is "different" is the critical thing! When government leaders pressure other government leaders in pursuit of their nations' interests, that's called foreign relations (though clearly some forms of leader-to-leader pressure can be inappropriate). But when one leader pressures another leader in pursuit of his or her personal domestic political aims, that's basically ALWAYS wrong.
The "steps or results" aren't the point so much as is the intent. If the intent is to further the nation's interests, there can be an assumption of propriety. If the intent is to further the leader's personal interests, there must be a presumption of impropriety. Do you agree, Wofgang? Or do you believe that as a matter of principle, heads of state may ethically pressure foreign leaders to help with their domestic political campaigns?
Now, as there was an ongoing investigation on Biden Jr., seems that the fellow was going to be in trouble for deeds not in harmony with Ukrainian law.. How did he even get this high position, except most likely with knowledge and with "mingling" of the old Biden misusing his official position for private advantages ? So then, private Biden family interests were advanced by vice-president's pressure of government official matters?
I know of no evidence that Hunter Biden "was going to be in trouble for deeds not in harmony with Ukrainian law." Please provide links to information that supports your claim. Yes, there were, eventually, two Ukrainian investigations, BOTH OF WHICH found no wrongdoing on Biden's part, but we must recall that there was NO ongoing investigation into Hunter Biden's activity when VP Biden executed American foreign policy and pressured Ukraine to fire the corrupt prosecutor.
I don't think we KNOW how Biden got his board position, but it's a good bet that his last name was a critical factor. That's not illegal, but it raises serious appearance issues, and likely was something Biden should not have done. But there is no evidence that "private Biden family interests were advanced by vice-president's pressure of government official matters." In fact, Hunter Biden went on the Buresma board in 2014, LONG before the VP's 2015 pressure in search of the corrupt prosecutor's firing.
-
That the "pressure point" is "different" is the critical thing!
the "pressure point" (whether knife or bare hands or gun or something else) makes little or no difference for the outcome of a murder ... The problem is when one "pressure point" is regarded as being irrelevant or even lauded while another is regarded as a crime. And it gets worse, when the onee that is a real corruption crime is swept under the rug while the other is made to be "the biggest crime" in the world.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
the "pressure point" (whether knife or bare hands or gun or something else) makes little or no difference for the outcome of a murder ... The problem is when one "pressure point" is regarded as being irrelevant or even lauded while another is regarded as a crime. And it gets worse, when the onee that is a real corruption crime is swept under the rug while the other is made to be "the biggest crime" in the world.
I might not have made my "pressure point" assertion clearly enough. Your response here likens more than one pressure point to the various kinds of weapons by which a murder can be committed; that's NOT my assertion about "pressure points." My use of the term concerns motive in the terminology of your murder theme. Pressure applied to a foreign government in pursuit of PERSONAL DOMESTIC POLITICAL INTERESTS is NOT the same as pressure applied in pursuit of A NATION'S NATIONAL INTERESTS. Of course you may or may not support the national interests pursued by the latter form of pressure, just as you may or may not support the domestic political interests of the leader applying the former form of pressure, but neither of those reactions changes the fact that the two forms of pressure are fundamentally different.
Put differently: I think it's fair to say that heads of state have the authority and right to pressure foreign governments in order to pursue THEIR NATIONS' NATIONAL INTERESTS. They might use improper means to apply the pressure (your weapons imagery) which would be wrong. They might have bad national interests, which would be troublesome, perhaps illegal. But those evaluations would be made AS OR AFTER the leader applied the pressure. When the interests pursued are a leader's PERSONAL DOMESTIC POLITICAL INTERESTS, we don't have to wait for implementation. We know before the leader applies the first bit of pressure that it's wrong - ALWAYS wrong - to pressure a foreign government in order to pursue one's personal domestic political interests. We DO NOT know that it's ALWAYS wrong to apply pressure on a foreign government to pursue the nation's national interests.
In the case of Mr Trump, I believe the evidence is overwhelming that over several months he and his minions pressured a foreign government in pursuit of Mr Trump's personal domestic political interests, which BY DEFINITION AND BEFORE THEY APPLIED ONE BIT OF PRESSURE made their efforts wrong.
All that said, I'll repeat the question I posed to you in my last post: Do you agree with my view about personal domestic political interests, or do you believe that as a matter of principle, heads of state may ethically pressure foreign governments in order to advance their personal domestic political interests?
-
All that said, I'll repeat the question I posed to you in my last post: Do you agree with my view about personal domestic political interests, or do you believe that as a matter of principle, heads of state may ethically pressure foreign governments in order to advance their personal domestic political interests?
I am of the opinion that Biden's personal interests were not political but corrupt private family business for which he used his political authority in a blackmail type move (to which he admitted publically -- as I count his words that can be viewed on a video as such "proud" admittance)
I am of the opinion that Biden's crime is of worse level than what occurred between Trump and the Ukraine president ... which appears more unclear and clear from various reports I have read in other than US media, especially some info of the Ukraine president's own words concerning respective phone conversation.
Point is: Biden should be the one dealt with for corruption misuse of his political office as vice president for personal gain ... evidence being clear and in the open. Trump's conversation about what was going on in Ukraine in relation to Biden may have also had personal interest ... but one should note, Biden's trouble and possible dismissal from presidential candidacy in 2020 is due to Biden's own doings in Ukraine ...not to Trump's phone conversation with the president of Ukraine.
What happened to the land of liberty and JUSTICE for all ... including corruption of vice presidents bearing consequences ?
-
@Wolfgang posted:
I am of the opinion that Biden's personal interests were not political but corrupt private family business for which he used his political authority in a blackmail type move (to which he admitted publically -- as I count his words that can be viewed on a video as such "proud" admittance)
We strongly disagree as to what VP Biden did in his visit to Ukraine and why he did it, but that's at best secondary to my interest in your response to the question I'll now ask you for the third time in hopes that you will address it directly: Do you believe that as a matter of principle, heads of state may ethically pressure foreign governments to act for the purpose of advancing their personal domestic political interests?
-
Do you believe that as a matter of principle, heads of state may ethically pressure foreign governments to act for the purpose of advancing their personal domestic political interests?
Since you emphasize "heads of state", what about "vice-heads of state"? or other "state officials" ? And since you emphasize "ethically pressure" what about "economically pressure"? "militarily pressure"? or "{other kinds of} pressure"?
And in the case at hand, it is not even clear (and doubtful when comparing statements by Ukraine president and other Ukraine sources) that the current US President actually did what has been constructed as accusations by the party in power and its representative who were actually subject to already ongoing investigations !
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Since you emphasize "heads of state", what about "vice-heads of state"? or other "state officials" ? And since you emphasize "ethically pressure" what about "economically pressure"? "militarily pressure"? or "{other kinds of} pressure"?
In my view, NO heads of state or state officials - "vice" or otherwise - may ethically, economically, militarily, or any other-ally pressure a foreign government to act for the purpose of advancing their personal domestic political interests.
And in the case at hand, it is not even clear (and doubtful when comparing statements by Ukraine president and other Ukraine sources) that the current US President actually did what has been constructed as accusations by the party in power and its representative who were actually subject to already ongoing investigations !
The meaning of the last third of your assertion here - about "the party in power and its representative who were actually subject to already ongoing investigations" - is not clear to me, but as to the first two-thirds of your assertion, I believe the evidence of President Trump's "guilt" in this matter has been shown beyond a reasonable - pretty much beyond ANY - doubt, the "statements by Ukraine president and other Ukraine sources" notwithstanding. Our current exchange, and particularly the question I asked you, is not about Mr Trump's guilt of innocence, however. It's about the ethical propriety of asking foreign governments for their assistance in our domestic politics.
And about the question I asked you: In this post I have responded directly to the question(s) you posed to me about various forms of pressure to act for the purpose of advancing their domestic political interests they might apply to heads of state and other state officials. I hope you will offer the same direct response to me as now for the fourth time I ask you, do you believe that as a matter of principle, heads of state (or vice-heads of state, or other state officials) may ethically pressure foreign governments to act for the purpose of advancing their personal domestic political interests? [Over the years, Wolfgang, you and I have each noted that among the reasons posters don't address directly the questions posed to them is they know or fear that such a direct response would weaken their arguments and/or compel them to acknowledge uncomfortable or inconvenient truth. Is that what explains your failure to address directly my question the first three times I asked it?]
-
In my view, NO heads of state or state officials - "vice" or otherwise - may ethically, economically, militarily, or any other-ally pressure a foreign government to act for the purpose of advancing their personal domestic political interests.
Great ... let's then make the first fuzz concerning "Ukrainegate" about Biden ...once that has been dealt with, one can talk about the next one, instead of falling for the lame excuse of the first one and his political party of attacking the second one -- on less clear evidence -- in order to get away with misusing office for personal gain.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Great ... let's then make the first fuzz concerning "Ukrainegate" about Biden ...once that has been dealt with, one can talk about the next one, instead of falling for the lame excuse of the first one and his political party of attacking the second one -- on less clear evidence -- in order to get away with misusing office for personal gain.
Four times now I've asked you the question whether heads of state, "vice" or otherwise, may ethically pressure foreign governments to act for the purpose of advancing their personal domestic political interests, and I still don't know your answer.
In your latest response, you describe something - I'm not sure what - as "great," then propose a sequence of "fusses" about Ukraine - one focused on the Bidens, before "the next one," which I presume refers to President Trump's request for Ukraine's investigations of his political rival. Yes, you appear to characterize V.P. Biden's actions as "misusing office for personal gain," and you seem to allow that there might be "less clear evidence" of President Trump's misuse of his office, but you don't offer the simple yes or no that my question requests. So, in light of the fact that my question makes NO mention of President Trump, VP Biden, or their respective actions while in office, but rather addresses the broader, principled issue of whether a specific conduct can be ethical, I ask you again, for the fifth time and with a specific request for a yes or no answer: Do you believe that as a matter of principle, heads of state (or vice-heads of state, or other state officials) may ethically pressure foreign governments to act for the purpose of advancing their personal domestic political interests?
[In my view, Wolfgang, each time your reply to this simple question fails to address it directly, the more obvious it is that you are intentionally evading the question, probably because a candid direct answer would be damaging to your point of view. I'm all but certain you agree with me that in these forums we shouldn't have to ask questions five times to get direct answers, and that there's basically only one reason people respond the way you have in our current exchange.]
-
Four times now I've asked you the question whether heads of state, "vice" or otherwise, may ethically pressure foreign governments to act for the purpose of advancing their personal domestic political interests, and I still don't know your answer.
The "Great ..." in my previous post was my answer by agreeing to your statement.
Nevertheless, your question seeems to me the wrong question in the sense that it tries to bypass what I consider the real issue.
Now, you tell me why Trump should try and pressure the Ukraine president to not purse the investigation of a corruption affair in his country? That a family member of one of his current Democrats political oponent is under investigation is not Trump's fault, is it? That investigation had been suppressed by pressure of then USA vice-president Biden on the then known corrupt US puppet Ukraine president. In the meantime, regime changes in both Ukraine and USA have taken place. With the new Ukraine president, the investigation was to be picked up again ... and the new USA president apparently deemed such proper Ukraine right and procedure. Since Biden was no longer in a position of power to exert on the new Ukraine president, he and his Democrats cohorts decided to twist the matter in making the new USA president the bad guy for agreeing with the Ukraine president to pursue their legal procedures ...
So what's the big deal? The one(s) who should be investigated for corruption and misuse of public office for personal private gain is Biden, not Trump.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Nevertheless, your question seeems to me the wrong question in the sense that it tries to bypass what I consider the real issue.
I don't want to bypass anything. In fact, I've discussed the facts in Mr Trump's case at great length and in multiple threads in these forums. The purpose of my question to you was to request your assessment of the principle involved here, whether in principle it is wrong for ANY head of state to do what Mr Trump is accused of doing. As a result of your latest response, we now know that you and I agree: If Mr Trump pressured the Ukrainian government to act for the purpose of advancing his personal domestic political interests, he acted unethically.
Now, you tell me why Trump should try and pressure the Ukraine president to not purse the investigation of a corruption affair in his country? That a family member of one of his current Democrats political oponent is under investigation is not Trump's fault, is it? That investigation had been suppressed by pressure of then USA vice-president Biden on the then known corrupt US puppet Ukraine president. In the meantime, regime changes in both Ukraine and USA have taken place. With the new Ukraine president, the investigation was to be picked up again ... and the new USA president apparently deemed such proper Ukraine right and procedure. Since Biden was no longer in a position of power to exert on the new Ukraine president, he and his Democrats cohorts decided to twist the matter in making the new USA president the bad guy for agreeing with the Ukraine president to pursue their legal procedures ...
I will resist the temptation to refuse direct engagement with your question until you ask it a fifth time to say the following:
- I don't understand the import of the first sentence of your paragraph. Why should Mr Trump "try and pressure the Ukraine president to not [pursue] the investigation of a corruption affair in his country"? I don't know what that question means. Who has ever claimed Mr Trump should pressure Mr Zelenskyy not to pursue such an investigation?
- Who's under investigation in Ukraine is, or at least ought to be, Ukraine's business. In pursuit of national and international interests, I think it IS appropriate for heads of state and duly authorized representatives of their governments to request investigations or other official action against corruption, as the international community, including the U.S. and the European Union, did in the case of the Ukrainian prosecutor Mr Shokin. It is NOT appropriate, however, for those heads of state or their personal attorneys to request such investigations for the purpose of advancing domestic personal political interests, as in my view was the case in this instance. ONE IMPORTANT CORRECTION OF YOUR ASSERTION: As has been shown many times in these threads, at the time of Mr Biden's visit to Ukraine in which he pressured the government to fire Mr Shokin, neither the Bidens nor Burisma was under investigation. At the time of the VP's visit, that investigation was dormant. (One prosecutor had found no wrongdoing, and under Trump administration pressure, a second Ukrainian prosecutor examined the Biden/Burisma case and others, but at the time of the VP's visit, the case was NOT active, and therefore was NOT "suppressed by pressure of then USA vice-president Biden.")
- You're correct that the Zelenskky government reviewed several Burisma-related investigations, but in October 2019 and at the start of those reviews, the chief prosecutor said he had "no such information" when asked whether he had evidence implicating Hunter Biden in any wrongdoing. Notice, that's October 2019, three months AFTER Mr Trump's infamous call with Mr Zelenskyy. So your apparent suggestion that FIRST the Ukrainian government decided to review the probe AND THEN Mr Trump agreed is not incorrect. Pressure from Mr Trump came first, THEN Ukraine decided to reopen the case.
- As for the larger question of the explanation that Mr Trump's concern was corruption in Ukraine, not his personal domestic political interests, please directly answer these questions:
- Hunter Biden joined the Burisma board in April 2014, and left the board when his term ended in April 2019. If Hunter Biden's role as a Burisma board member struck Mr Trump as evidence of corruption, then why did he say nothing about that role in 2017 or 2018, Mr Trump's first two years in office and Mr Biden's third and fourth full calendar years as a Burisma board member? Why did Mr Trump raise his concerns about Biden's board membership in Ukraine only AFTER Joe Biden entered the presidential race in April 2019?
- And if Mr Trump believed Hunter Biden's board membership was corrupt, why did he not withhold or hold up assistance money to Ukraine in 2017 or 2018 so as to press for that government's investigation into that corruption? Why did the Trump Administration's Department of Defense on July 13, 2018, and May 23, 2019, certify that Ukraine had taken sufficient action in its fight against corruption to justify release of assistance money? Why did those DoD certifications make NO mention of Biden's Burisma board membership, if that membership was as corrupt as Mr Trump now alleges?
- And if corruption in Ukraine was SUCH a concern for Mr Trump, why in his July 25 call with Mr Zelenskyy didn't he mention ANY cases other than two that related to his personal domestic political concerns: the debunked conspiracy theory about Crowdstrike in 2016 and the Bidens? In a nation filled with corruption, as almost everyone agrees Ukkraine was, Mr Trump could ONLY reference two matters that had to do with himself? and he did that, by the way, without even using the word "corruption" in his conversation with Zelenskyy?!
- And if Mr Trump genuinely believed the Bidens to be corrupt, why did he not ask his own FBI to conduct the probe? That IS the chief investigatory body in the United States. Why instead did Mr Trump use his personal attorney to conduct the "investigation" into what he purportedly believed was corruption by a sitting vice-president of the United States?
So what's the big deal? The one(s) who should be investigated for corruption and misuse of public office for personal private gain is Biden, not Trump.
The Ukrainians investigated Hunter Biden and found no wrongdoing. The US House investigated Donald Trump and impeached him on two counts that are currently the subject a trial in the US Senate. THAT'S "the big deal."
-
Love how on Saturday they played Schiff's so-called "parody" of the phone call right after reading the transcript. Shows him for the liar he is.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)