Donald Trump is digging his own grave

[Subduction Zone]

No I’m the one laughing that your so called evidence is a video of a man that was fired from Fox News following revelations of multiple settlements involving sexual harassment allegations against him.

And a man so ignorant he thought that no one could explain the tides.

Of course after debating endlessly with those that won't let themselves understand rather basic ideas, when ones's dearly held beliefs are threatened by reality cognitive dissonance often kicks in. People with strong beliefs, whether religious or political, sometimes have a very difficult time understanding rather simple ideas if their political or religious icons are threatened. Support for Trump is melting faster and to a greater extent than ever before. We can only hope that it continues.

 

[Callisto]

So it's not actually in the Constitution.

Just an interpreted by-law drawn up from the Election Commission which has to do with illegal contributions, not investigations.

Federal law is federal law regardless of which entity oversees it. Per the Constitution, the illegality of an official to solicit or accept contributions is addressed in the Foreign Emoluments Clause (Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 8). Emoluments and contributions encompass any kind of gain, that includes a service or advantage, not just simply monetary gifts and objects.

He violated this once before with Russia, got caught attempting to do so again with Ukraine, and then openly a third time with China.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Federal law is federal law regardless of which entity oversees it. Per the Constitution, the illegality of an official to solicit or accept contributions is addressed in the Foreign Emoluments Clause (Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 8). Emoluments and contributions encompass any kind of gain, that includes a service or advantage, not just simply monetary gifts and objects.

He violated this once before with Russia, got caught attempting to do so again with Ukraine, and then openly a third time with China.

How exactly is this per the Constitution?

 

[Callisto]

Yes, but how can it be proved that the information was going to be used to interfere in our elections? Law is not based on prophesy. It's based on what has occured.

It's illegal to solicit, that alone is criminal. How he would have used what he solicited is also criminal. Just like soliciting a hit man to kill one's spouse regardless of whether the hit ever takes place or even if it's an undercover cop posing as one. in both instances, solicitation in itself is a criminal offense.

And in the case of Ukraine, to withhold money that was already approved to be released could legally be argued as extortion which is defined as an offense that has as its elements the extraction of anything of value from another party by threat or placing that party in fear of injury to any persons. I.e., Withholding money and the javelin missiles which Ukraine needs to defend itself from further harm and advancement inflicted by the more powerful Russia.

 

[Callisto]

How exactly is this per the Constitution?

Because it's stated in the Constitution, I even provided where.

 

[Callisto]

It's not really an opinion, but an observation. I cannot think of a single instance ever, where someone is convicted of a crime before they committed it.

...And since Trump has not used any information yet, he is not guilty yet. Obviously.

In US. law the term is Conspiracy which is a criminal offense and for which one can be criminally charged regardless of whether any subsequent crime or crimes were achieved. It's not necessary to have had the subsequent crime occur or proof the subsequent crime was achieved. An example I gave earlier is soliciting a hit. Even if the hit does not take place it is still a crime to have solicit it. Other individuals involved with soliciting can also be charged. All that's needed is evidence of voluntarily participation and an overt act by any involved to further the effort.

 

[Callisto]

Viktor Shokin has claimed in an affidavit that he was indeed removed from office because he was leading a “wide-ranging corruption probe” into the Ukrainian energy production company that had given a high paying job to Hunter Biden who had no prior experience working in any energy production field.

Shokin was removed because he was corrupt and an ineffectual prosecutor which is not the same thing as due to investigating Biden's son. Nor would his removal prevent another person being appointed to the job nor prevent them from continuing any previously opened investigation that merit continuation.The

As reported in the New York Times:

"Bowing to pressure from international donors, the Ukrainian Parliament voted on Tuesday to remove a prosecutor general who had clung to power for months despite visible signs of corruption ... The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite. He was one of several political figures in Kiev whom reformers and Western diplomats saw as a worrying indicator of a return to past corrupt practices, two years after a revolution that was supposed to put a stop to self-dealing by those in power."

See: Ukraine Ousts Viktor Shokin, Top Prosecutor, and Political Stability Hangs in the Balance

So it was multiple calls by other countries in addition to the US, not per the request or pressure by one country or politician nor over one case.

 

[sooda]

Trump admits he asked Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden, and asks China to do the same. Like Nixon telling America "I ordered the break in.

Trump says Biden and people like Biden are probably why China has had trade advantages over the US. Also he slams politicians who have their sons profiting off their offices, so sad for Donald trump Jr.

Asked about the recall of the US ambassador to Ukraine, Trump says, "I don't know if I recalled her or somebody recalled her."

Does trump not know that this is illegal or is it that he just didn't care knowing the Republicans will back him?

Yesterday Donald Junior was whining about Nepotism.. LOLOLOL

 

[Callisto]

Yesterday Donald Junior was whining about Nepotism.. LOLOLOL

Projecting must be a familial trait.

 

[Jollybear]

It is not an ad hominem. It is a fact. People explained to Bill what and why the President broke the law.

Bill explained, as well as many others have explained why trump did not break the law.

And yes, it is ad hominum to attack him if the point he made, which was trump believed biden was corrupt from the very beginning and you did not refute that point. That point is the sole reason i gave the video. Instead of refuting that point, you bring up dirt in bills past. Yes, that is AD HOMINUM. Now if the subject was "is bill have flaws?" And you brought up sexual harressment issues, then you may have a point. But, as far as it stands now, in context to the subject, it is ad hominum and a distraction from the point. Further, i never looked into why he got fired, and i certainly wont just take your word for it. But furthermore, i also dont care what he did or did not do. I care about this point he astablished and he did astablish it.

He was either too idiotic or too stubborn to allow himself to learn. O Reilly lost all credibility a long time ago. The real news hosts at FOX know what Trump did wrong. Why don't you listen to them?

Why dont you learn and actually address the points when there given to you?

When you present idiots a handwave is all that it takes to refute them.

No, a handwave is not all it takes. What it takes is for you to address the astablished point made and that point is the sole reason i gave the video. Trump believed biden was corrupt BEFORE biden ran for president.

No I’m the one laughing that your so called evidence is a video of a man that was fired from Fox News following revelations of multiple settlements involving sexual harassment allegations against him.

Again, a distraction from the point he made, trump believed biden was corrupt before he ran for president.

Its a distraction and a ad hominum on him. Its also more then an ad hominum, its stupidity because your argument is that any human that has a flaw cannot astablish a point or factor that is true. This is foolishness. But hey, keep arguing like this, it only serves to make potential onlookers see through you. It hurts your case, not mine.

 

[Prometheus85]

Bill explained, as well as many others have explained why trump did not break the law.

And yes, it is ad hominum to attack him if the point he made, which was trump believed biden was corrupt from the very beginning and you did not refute that point. That point is the sole reason i gave the video. Instead of refuting that point, you bring up dirt in bills past. Yes, that is AD HOMINUM. Now if the subject was "is bill have flaws?" And you brought up sexual harressment issues, then you may have a point. But, as far as it stands now, in context to the subject, it is ad hominum and a distraction from the point. Further, i never looked into why he got fired, and i certainly wont just take your word for it. But furthermore, i also dont care what he did or did not do. I care about this point he astablished and he did astablish it.



Why dont you learn and actually address the points when there given to you?



No, a handwave is not all it takes. What it takes is for you to address the astablished point made and that point is the sole reason i gave the video. Trump believed biden was corrupt BEFORE biden ran for president.



Again, a distraction from the point he made, trump believed biden was corrupt before he ran for president.

Its a distraction and a ad hominum on him. Its also more then an ad hominum, its stupidity because your argument is that any human that has a flaw cannot astablish a point or factor that is true. This is foolishness. But hey, keep arguing like this, it only serves to make potential onlookers see through you. It hurts your case, not mine.

And your willing to ignore those flaws even if those flaws are becoming a national disgrace for sexually harassing multiple women and paying settlements totaling in 32 million.

If trump believed Biden was corrupt and If Trump was truly so deeply concerned with Biden’s role in firing a Ukrainian prosecutor, which took place in March 2016, why didn’t Trump ask the Ukrainians about it in 2017 in his first year as president? Why didn’t Trump raise it in 2018 when his administration gave the Ukrainian government $200 million in military aid? Or at least raise it in April 2019 when he first spoke to Zelensky after he won his election?

Let’s not forget trump has his own issues with corruption. As well as the Ukrainian government found no wrongdoing by the Bidens as I proved multiple times on this thread.

 

[Ouroboros]

Here's another thing I've pondered about yesterday, how is it that Trump is pushing a Nationalist agenda yet at the same time wants to involve other countries in our government?

 

[Ouroboros]

And your willing to ignore those flaws even those flaws are becoming a national disgrace for sexually harassing multiple women and paying settlements totaling in 32 million.

If trump believed Biden was corrupt and If Trump was truly so deeply concerned with Biden’s role in firing a Ukrainian prosecutor, which took place in March 2016, why didn’t Trump ask the Ukrainians about it in 2017 in his first year as president? Why didn’t Trump raise it in 2018 when his administration gave the Ukrainian government $200 million in military aid? Or at least raise it in April 2019 when he first spoke to Zelensky after he won his election?

Let’s not forget trump has his own issues with corruption. As well as the Ukrainian government found no wrongdoing by the Bidens as I proved multiple times on this thread.

And why isn't he asking China to investigate his daughter and son-in-law's shady businesses in China and other places? It's very targeted. He's only interested in rooting out corruption in a single case, a person who's part of the election.

 

[Ouroboros]

Here's something important to know about impeachment. It doesn't have to be based on some serious crime. Misdemeanors are enough. It's based on high crimes and misdemeanors, specified as:

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as dishonesty, negligence, perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of public funds or assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, including such offenses as tax evasion.

No, has there been dishonesty, perjury of oath abuse of authority, intimidation, misuse of funds, derelict of duty, unbecoming conduct in Trump's case? Yeah, maybe. So it's beyond any specific rule or law. The House actually decides if he failed to fulfill his duties and didn't uphold the constitution and the law of the country.

From Wikipedia:

Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. The word "High" refers to the office and not the offense. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute.See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for “intentional, evil deeds” that “drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency” — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bill explained, as well as many others have explained why trump did not break the law.

No, Bill just denied. That is all that he can do. He is an idiot after all.

And yes, it is ad hominum to attack him if the point he made, which was trump believed biden was corrupt from the very beginning and you did not refute that point. That point is the sole reason i gave the video. Instead of refuting that point, you bring up dirt in bills past. Yes, that is AD HOMINUM. Now if the subject was "is bill have flaws?" And you brought up sexual harressment issues, then you may have a point. But, as far as it stands now, in context to the subject, it is ad hominum and a distraction from the point. Further, i never looked into why he got fired, and i certainly wont just take your word for it. But furthermore, i also dont care what he did or did not do. I care about this point he astablished and he did astablish it.

But he made no point. Once again he only had denial. And dishonest denial at that. Quote how he supposedly refuted the claims of Trump breaking a law. I bet that you confirm that he is an idiot instead.

Why dont you learn and actually address the points when there given to you?

What points? All you have at this time are PRATT'S.

No, a handwave is not all it takes. What it takes is for you to address the astablished point made and that point is the sole reason i gave the video. Trump believed biden was corrupt BEFORE biden ran for president.

Wrong again. You presented Bill O Reilly, a moron that thinks tides cannot be understood, as if he was any sort of expert in the field. And you forgot, Trump is a liar. Biden is not corrupt. He was going after his son who does not appear to be corrupt either. You have not been following this discussion because you would have known that the Ukrainian that he helped to oust from office was internationally thought to be corrupt. He has his own story of course but no one takes it seriously. Well except for a few people that will believe anything.

Again, a distraction from the point he made, trump believed biden was corrupt before he ran for president.

Again Trump is a liar. And another moron. If he thought that Biden was corrupt he should have had him investigated properly. He did not do so. He broke the law instead. By the way, if you read this whole statement it is not an ad hominem either since it explains why we know that Trump is a liar and an idiot.

Its a distraction and a ad hominum on him. Its also more then an ad hominum, its stupidity because your argument is that any human that has a flaw cannot astablish a point or factor that is true. This is foolishness. But hey, keep arguing like this, it only serves to make potential onlookers see through you. It hurts your case, not mine.

No, it is not a distraction. It is not an ad hominem. It is a fact. And the problem is that Bill O Reilly is the bottom of the barrel. He has a long history of lying and idiocy and cannot be properly used as a reliable source. There are times that a person can ruin his own credibility. Like O'Reilly did. There are ways to earn that credibility back, but until that person does so he is of no use as a reference. You should be able to understand this. Until Bill atones for his past wrongs he is forever stuck in the position of being a liar and and idiot and of no use whatsoever in a debate.

Try again.

 

[Salvador]

FROM THE HOMEPAGE

I see you’re still spreading this trash after I debunked it already.


Claims Biden was corrupt because he was pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin. Who he claims was investigations Bidens son, he wasn’t

Irony: claims what Biden did was wrong. But it wasn’t wrong to pressure coney, sessions, etc to end investigation of HIMSELF, then Mueller investigation.

————————-

Claims it was wrong for Bidens son to work for companies that then did business in Ukraine and with China. Because it’s corrupt

Irony: it’s not corrupt for his kids to do business with countries right now? It’s not corrupt for HIM to be force feeding business to his properties??

————————-

Reality is Shokin wasn’t going after any of the corruption in the Ukraine. Ignoring it, not going after any of it. THE WORLD and IMF were trying to get rid of him. His deputy resigned due to the corruption.

Irony: it’s kind of like Barr right now. Ignoring the corruption etc. everyone but trump knows it and wants him gone.

————————-

It’s been stated by Ukraine Bidens son was not involved, was innocent, nothing to do with anything. Not by the guy who was ignoring the corruption. But also by the guy who replaced him!!! Remember, Shokin was not fired because he was

Investigating Bidens son or anyone else for that matter. He was fired because he WASNT investigating anyone lol

Lastly. “Billions of dollars” makes it sound like a Biden made a lot of money. What was at stake? ONE billion dollars. Well, not quite even that. It was a billion dollar LOAN GUARANTEE. To get rid of the guy who there was an international agreement wasn’t doing enough to stop corruption. Literally, the opposite of what’s being accused of here. FYI. The Obama administration actually SUPPORTED an investigation into the company Bidens son worked for. Important little detail conveniently left out.

Shokin was removed because he was corrupt and an ineffectual prosecutor which is not the same thing as due to investigating Biden's son. Nor would his removal prevent another person being appointed to the job nor prevent them from continuing any previously opened investigation that merit continuation.The

As reported in the New York Times:

"Bowing to pressure from international donors, the Ukrainian Parliament voted on Tuesday to remove a prosecutor general who had clung to power for months despite visible signs of corruption ... The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite. He was one of several political figures in Kiev whom reformers and Western diplomats saw as a worrying indicator of a return to past corrupt practices, two years after a revolution that was supposed to put a stop to self-dealing by those in power."

See: Ukraine Ousts Viktor Shokin, Top Prosecutor, and Political Stability Hangs in the Balance

So it was multiple calls by other countries in addition to the US, not per the request or pressure by one country or politician nor over one case.

Shokin may have been fired under false pretense. A false narrative of Shokin's ineptitude as a legal prosecutor or Shokin's being a corrupt prosecutor could be false cover-stories hiding the real reason he was fired, which could be he was actually fired in order to end Shokin's probe into why Joe Biden's son received a high paying lucrative job at a Ukrainian energy production company when Hunter Biden had zero prior work experience in the energy production field.

There is documentation showing the dissemination of misinformation about Shokin by U.S. representatives and public figures:

Ukraine PGO Memo Translation

Former Ukraine Inspector General Viktor Shokin testified he was notified that he was fired in March 2016 because former Vice President Joe Biden was upset about his investigation of the natural gas company that paid his son $50,000 a month.

"The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors," Shokin testified while citing a sworn affidavit submitted to a European court.

There have been false media reports that by the time of Biden's intervention, the Burisma probe had been dormant.

However, Shokin claims at that time of his firing he was investigating Mykola Zlochevsky, the former minister of ecology and natural resources of Ukraine — also the founder of Burisma where Hunter Biden was appointed to the board of the firm, which Shokin claimed was an appointment made by Zlochevsky “in order to protect himself.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

FROM THE HOMEPAGE




Shokin may have been fired under false pretense. A false narrative of Shokin's ineptitude as a legal prosecutor or Shokin's being a corrupt prosecutor could be false cover-stories hiding the real reason he was fired, which could be he was actually fired in order to end Shokin's probe into why Joe Biden's son received a high paying lucrative job at a Ukrainian energy production company when Hunter Biden had zero prior work experience in the energy production field.

There is documentation showing the dissemination of misinformation about Shokin by U.S. representatives and public figures:

Ukraine PGO Memo Translation

Former Ukraine Inspector General Viktor Shokin testified he was notified that he was fired in March 2016 because former Vice President Joe Biden was upset about his investigation of the natural gas company that paid his son $50,000 a month.

"The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors," Shokin testified while citing a sworn affidavit submitted to a European court.

There have been false media reports that by the time of Biden's intervention, the Burisma probe had been dormant.

However, Shokin claims at that time of his firing he was investigating Mykola Zlochevsky, the former minister of ecology and natural resources of Ukraine — also the founder of Burisma where Hunter Biden was appointed to the board of the firm, which Shokin claimed was an appointment made by Zlochevsky “in order to protect himself.”

Does anyone of any note besides Shokin support his claims? Quite often corrupt and inept people accuse others of their crimes. If you can only find claims of Shokin where he attacks those that fired him then you have no case at all.


Explainer: Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn't pursue corruption cases

 

[Salvador]

Does anyone of any note besides Shokin support his claims? Quite often corrupt and inept people accuse others of their crimes. If you can only find claims of Shokin where he attacks those that fired him then you have no case at all.


Explainer: Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn't pursue corruption cases

Does anyone of any note besides Shokin support his claims? Quite often corrupt and inept people accuse others of their crimes. If you can only find claims of Shokin where he attacks those that fired him then you have no case at all.


Explainer: Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn't pursue corruption cases

Shokin certainly would have reason to hold a grudge over his firing. But his account is supported by documents from Burisma’s legal team in America, which appeared to be moving into Ukraine with intensity as Biden’s effort to fire Shokin picked up steam.

Yes, we agree Sokin's claims should be investigated and then his claims can be verified or falsified.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Shokin certainly would have reason to hold a grudge over his firing. But his account is supported by documents from Burisma’s legal team in America, which appeared to be moving into Ukraine with intensity as Biden’s effort to fire Shokin picked up steam.

Yes, we agree Sokin's claims should be investigated and then his claims can be verified or falsified.

If that is the case you need to find reliable sources that back Sokin. I could not find any. All of the reliable sources appear to support the story that Shokin was the corrupt one.

And timing is everything. Why didn't Trump start to investigate a long time ago? Also how an investigation is done is very telling. Why didn't Trump go through proper channels? It appears that only the Trump Kool-Aid drinkers support this denial by a man universally judged to be corrupt.

 

[Jose Fly]

The good news is that it appears that these are the people on the fringe. Polls indicate a plurality for an impeachment investigation, if not quite a majority.

That's why I'm rapidly losing interest in arguing over this. It seems the Trump defenders are now down to the True Believers...the 24% who won't support impeachment no matter what...and their flat-earth level arguments.

I mean, when you have people saying there's no connection at all between "We want to buy missiles" and "I need a favor though", or "there's nothing wrong with leveraging military aid against an ally in order to get them to help you with your political campaign".....you know you're just arguing with people who aren't thinking rationally.....or thinking at all.