There should be some medicine to help with that twitch sir.  I guess if some Americans get together and start a revolution against the government and claim freedom from oppression and start their own government that screams equality for all, that would be held in high regard with you.  I can list too many reasons to name of why this should happen within this country, but you'll probably just say its being non-american, which i would agree with.  I just need to make up a name for what the revolutionist should call themselves and create some new governmental policies to start the nation.

Depends on what you mean by "equality for all".  But maybe you should start a separate thread; this one is about the ongoing Schiff Show.

---

It is inevitable that investigations into political rivals will affect elections if they occur.
But affecting the election cannot be the primary motive.
And the investigation must be predicated upon probable cause.
It may be that Hunter Biden or Joe Biden violated Ukraine's laws or manipulated Ukraine unethically.
Neither of these things is a violation of US law.
Trump as US president can be impeached for mere abuse of power, which is a lower and broader standard than violating a specific law.

1. Are you claiming that threatening to withhold foreign aid in order to save your son's phony high-paying job isn't an abuse of power?
2. Are you claiming that asking the foreign power to provide any info they have to the AG on a probable abuse of power by the previous administration is itself an abuse of power?
3. Are you claiming that Biden is protected from investigation because he's running against the current president?

These are the takes we get from what you've written. If you believe these things you must be heavily partaking in the Marxist Left's lotus flowers.

1) No, in fact if protecting his son was the motive, it would be an abuse of power, but probably not a crime.

2) it would be inbounds to investigate a crime from the previous administration, but not a mere abuse of power. However, the evidence read into the record so far is that Biden's withholding of aid had nothing to do with his son and in fact was meant to restart an investigation into some of his son's colleagues.

3) absolutely not. The claim is that there is no probable cause for a crime under US law. and that if there is a crime under Ukrainian law, that is none of our government's business unless the Ukrainian government asks first. That is how the treaty between us and the Ukraine works.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

There should be some medicine to help with that twitch sir.  I guess if some Americans get together and start a revolution against the government and claim freedom from oppression and start their own government that screams equality for all, that would be held in high regard with you.  I can list too many reasons to name of why this should happen within this country, but you'll probably just say its being non-american, which i would agree with.  I just need to make up a name for what the revolutionist should call themselves and create some new governmental policies to start the nation.

That expression makes me laugh.  Again, no one is planning a revolt to my knowledge, so all we can do is enjoy the life we have in the nation we are in.  Ya'll can argue political policies and whatever else you like about this corrupt country.  I just know, those in power and those whom benefit from previous actions from their ancestors, should be happy they don't have to worry about any repercussions.  Live long and peacefully.

There should be some medicine to help with that twitch sir.  I guess if some Americans get together and start a revolution against the government and claim freedom from oppression and start their own government that screams equality for all, that would be held in high regard with you.  I can list too many reasons to name of why this should happen within this country, but you'll probably just say its being non-american, which i would agree with.  I just need to make up a name for what the revolutionist should call themselves and create some new governmental policies to start the nation.

Depends on what you mean by "equality for all".  But maybe you should start a separate thread; this one is about the ongoing Schiff Show.

No need.  I've learned enough from other people about racism to waste any energy in debating.   The disrespect stemming from those who have it vested in them alone is a waste of communication.  Happiness will come from seeing them burn when life stops, not a message board.

---

Season Tix, Section 409

2023 and still counting.....SB will finally be ours soon enough.
TLaw aka 'the prince that was promised' supporter.

1. Are you claiming that threatening to withhold foreign aid in order to save your son's phony high-paying job isn't an abuse of power?
2. Are you claiming that asking the foreign power to provide any info they have to the AG on a probable abuse of power by the previous administration is itself an abuse of power?
3. Are you claiming that Biden is protected from investigation because he's running against the current president?

These are the takes we get from what you've written. If you believe these things you must be heavily partaking in the Marxist Left's lotus flowers.

1) No, in fact if protecting his son was the motive, it would be an abuse of power, but probably not a crime.

2) it would be inbounds to investigate a crime from the previous administration, but not a mere abuse of power. However, the evidence read into the record so far is that Biden's withholding of aid had nothing to do with his son and in fact was meant to restart an investigation into some of his son's colleagues.

3) absolutely not. The claim is that there is no probable cause for a crime under US law. and that if there is a crime under Ukrainian law, that is none of our government's business unless the Ukrainian government asks first. That is how the treaty between us and the Ukraine works.

2.) Debunked lie.  Investigation was advanced a month before the prosecutor was fired.  Home of the owner was raided.  Son scheduled to testify.  

3.) Debunked lie.  Obstruction of justice, foreign corrupt practices, technically it would also count as an impoundment violating the law that appropriated the money in the first place, 

A.) under our joint cooperation treaty with ukraine the US head of state is under an obligation to report instances of corrupt practices.  

B.) Under US statute the president has am affirmative responsibility to ensure that foreign aid doesnt ho yo corrupt countries or serve an illicit purpose.

---

1) No, in fact if protecting his son was the motive, it would be an abuse of power, but probably not a crime.

2) it would be inbounds to investigate a crime from the previous administration, but not a mere abuse of power. However, the evidence read into the record so far is that Biden's withholding of aid had nothing to do with his son and in fact was meant to restart an investigation into some of his son's colleagues.

3) absolutely not. The claim is that there is no probable cause for a crime under US law. and that if there is a crime under Ukrainian law, that is none of our government's business unless the Ukrainian government asks first. That is how the treaty between us and the Ukraine works.

2.) Debunked lie.  Investigation was advanced a month before the prosecutor was fired.  Home of the owner was raided.  Son scheduled to testify.  

3.) Debunked lie.  Obstruction of justice, foreign corrupt practices, technically it would also count as an impoundment violating the law that appropriated the money in the first place, 

A.) under our joint cooperation treaty with ukraine the US head of state is under an obligation to report instances of corrupt practices.  

B.) Under US statute the president has am affirmative responsibility to ensure that foreign aid doesnt ho yo corrupt countries or serve an illicit purpose.

Things don't get debunked just because some political talk show host claims to have debunked them. The claims that you are speaking about will have to be read into the record under oath. As the claims that you say are debunked already have been.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

2.) Debunked lie.  Investigation was advanced a month before the prosecutor was fired.  Home of the owner was raided.  Son scheduled to testify.  

3.) Debunked lie.  Obstruction of justice, foreign corrupt practices, technically it would also count as an impoundment violating the law that appropriated the money in the first place, 

A.) under our joint cooperation treaty with ukraine the US head of state is under an obligation to report instances of corrupt practices.  

B.) Under US statute the president has am affirmative responsibility to ensure that foreign aid doesnt ho yo corrupt countries or serve an illicit purpose.

Things don't get debunked just because some political talk show host claims to have debunked them. The claims that you are speaking about will have to be read into the record under oath. As the claims that you say are debunked already have been.

Lol.  I have to keep reminding myself that you don't actually know what you're talking about.  

You're right, Just saying something is debunked doesn't make it so.  Someone should probably tell Cooper, Lemon, Maddow and all the rest of them.  Something is debunked when you have evidence that disproves it.

In the case of the start time of the Ukrainian investigation into Burisma its a readily available verifiable fact that on 2/2/2016 Viktor Shokin, Prosecutor General of Ukraine, filed the paperwork to shift the Burisma investigation into gear.  This lead to the raiding of the home of the Owner of the Company, and Hunter Biden was scheduled to give a deposition.  The idea that Shokin was fired because the VP actually wanted to investigate Burisma is a progressive bedtime story that doesn't make any sense.  

As to the legality of extorting a country for the purpose of protecting your sons business interests from prosecution, the Foreign Corrupt Practices act has already been passed and signed into law. As to whether or not its our business to protect the legal and criminal justice interests of the Ukraine Our treaty of cooperation with the Ukraine has already been ratified. As to the role of the president in rooting out corruption in foreign countries, the statute on Foreign aid giving the Chief Executive the affirmative responsibility to ensure that funds don't go to corrupt countries for illicit or corrupt purposes has already been passed into law.  Are you seriously asserting that these laws don't exist?

As for the "record" During the closed door portion of the inquiry the State Department inspector general actually turned over the Dossier compiled by Rudy Giuliani.  Enclosed were Sworn affidavits under penalty of Perjury from former prosecutors General in Ukraine affirming that there was an active investigation Burisma holdings along with prosecutors notes and court filings to prove it.  The Russia investigation was started and accelerated in the FISA court based on less evidence.

As far as all this evidence that you think was read into the record again, you don't know what you're talking about.  Schiff didn't introduce any evidence as to the validity or lack there of for the investigations in question.  He just pronounced them debunked in his opening statement and didn't offer the question for consideration and blocked every witness that the GOP wanted to call.  Under the current rules of the House, Adam Schiff has unilaterally decided that these documents don't exist and the public doesn't get to see them and Republican Congressman can't make reference to them in their questioning.  Now, when a public official doesn't violate a specific law but conspires to withhold exculpatory evidence to further a purely political agenda what's that called?  Abuse of...  oh nevermind.

---

Things don't get debunked just because some political talk show host claims to have debunked them. The claims that you are speaking about will have to be read into the record under oath. As the claims that you say are debunked already have been.

Lol.  I have to keep reminding myself that you don't actually know what you're talking about.  

You're right, Just saying something is debunked doesn't make it so.  Someone should probably tell Cooper, Lemon, Maddow and all the rest of them.  Something is debunked when you have evidence that disproves it.

In the case of the start time of the Ukrainian investigation into Burisma its a readily available verifiable fact that on 2/2/2016 Viktor Shokin, Prosecutor General of Ukraine, filed the paperwork to shift the Burisma investigation into gear.  This lead to the raiding of the home of the Owner of the Company, and Hunter Biden was scheduled to give a deposition.  The idea that Shokin was fired because the VP actually wanted to investigate Burisma is a progressive bedtime story that doesn't make any sense.  

As to the legality of extorting a country for the purpose of protecting your sons business interests from prosecution, the Foreign Corrupt Practices act has already been passed and signed into law.  As to whether or not its our business to protect the legal and criminal justice interests of the Ukraine Our treaty of cooperation with the Ukraine has already been ratified.  As to the role of the president in rooting out corruption in foreign countries, the statute on Foreign aid giving the Chief Executive the affirmative responsibility to ensure that funds don't go to corrupt countries for illicit or corrupt purposes has already been passed into law.  Are you seriously asserting that these laws don't exist?

As for the "record" During the closed door portion of the inquiry the State Department inspector general actually turned over the Dossier compiled by Rudy Giuliani.  Enclosed were Sworn affidavits under penalty of Perjury from former prosecutors General in Ukraine affirming that there was an active investigation Burisma holdings along with prosecutors notes and court filings to prove it.  The Russia investigation was started and accelerated in the FISA court based on less evidence.  

As far as all this evidence that you think was read into the record again, you don't know what you're talking about.  Schiff didn't introduce any evidence as to the validity or lack there of for the investigations in question.  He just pronounced them debunked in his opening statement and didn't offer the question for consideration and blocked every witness that the GOP wanted to call.  Under the current rules of the House, Adam Schiff has unilaterally decided that these documents don't exist and the public doesn't get to see them and Republican Congressman can't make reference to them in their questioning.  Now, when a public official doesn't violate a specific law but conspires to withhold exculpatory evidence to further a purely political agenda what's that called?  Abuse of...  oh nevermind.

Kent and Taylor touched why Shokin was fired in their testimony.  They both said the US wasn't Shokin to be more active in pursuit of Burisma's founder, not less.
Oddly, the Republicans did not touch on the scheduled deposition and raid that you are harping on.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Lol.  I have to keep reminding myself that you don't actually know what you're talking about.  

You're right, Just saying something is debunked doesn't make it so.  Someone should probably tell Cooper, Lemon, Maddow and all the rest of them.  Something is debunked when you have evidence that disproves it.

In the case of the start time of the Ukrainian investigation into Burisma its a readily available verifiable fact that on 2/2/2016 Viktor Shokin, Prosecutor General of Ukraine, filed the paperwork to shift the Burisma investigation into gear.  This lead to the raiding of the home of the Owner of the Company, and Hunter Biden was scheduled to give a deposition.  The idea that Shokin was fired because the VP actually wanted to investigate Burisma is a progressive bedtime story that doesn't make any sense.  

As to the legality of extorting a country for the purpose of protecting your sons business interests from prosecution, the Foreign Corrupt Practices act has already been passed and signed into law.  As to whether or not its our business to protect the legal and criminal justice interests of the Ukraine Our treaty of cooperation with the Ukraine has already been ratified.  As to the role of the president in rooting out corruption in foreign countries, the statute on Foreign aid giving the Chief Executive the affirmative responsibility to ensure that funds don't go to corrupt countries for illicit or corrupt purposes has already been passed into law.  Are you seriously asserting that these laws don't exist?

As for the "record" During the closed door portion of the inquiry the State Department inspector general actually turned over the Dossier compiled by Rudy Giuliani.  Enclosed were Sworn affidavits under penalty of Perjury from former prosecutors General in Ukraine affirming that there was an active investigation Burisma holdings along with prosecutors notes and court filings to prove it.  The Russia investigation was started and accelerated in the FISA court based on less evidence.  

As far as all this evidence that you think was read into the record again, you don't know what you're talking about.  Schiff didn't introduce any evidence as to the validity or lack there of for the investigations in question.  He just pronounced them debunked in his opening statement and didn't offer the question for consideration and blocked every witness that the GOP wanted to call.  Under the current rules of the House, Adam Schiff has unilaterally decided that these documents don't exist and the public doesn't get to see them and Republican Congressman can't make reference to them in their questioning.  Now, when a public official doesn't violate a specific law but conspires to withhold exculpatory evidence to further a purely political agenda what's that called?  Abuse of...  oh nevermind.

Kent and Taylor touched why Shokin was fired in their testimony.  They both said the US wasn't Shokin to be more active in pursuit of Burisma's founder, not less.
Oddly, the Republicans did not touch on the scheduled deposition and raid that you are harping on.

The Republican members of congress are not allowed to broach certain topics in questioning unless Schiff allows it.  There are depositions that the GOP wants made public so that they can reference them, this is the same with the Dossier compiled by Giuliani.  Again, what you have is an extraconstitutional proceeding where the guy in charge is essentially prosecuting the charge of first degree murder.  If the judge bars any mention of the fact that the alleged victim is in fact alive then that is misconduct on the part of the judge, not proof of murder.  

In this case there was a court filing on 2/2/2019, Burisma itself announced that the cases weren't dismissed until September of that year https://www.kyivpost.com/business-wire/j...reloaded=1.  Hunter Biden was scheduled to testify and his lawyers immediately contacted Lutsenko, the prosecutor that Biden helped get appointed after Shokin was fired, to apologize for disinformation and offer introductions to US officials to smooth out relations.  

Again, what you're asking us to believe is that Joe Biden was so concerned about corruption that he allowed his son and his sons business partner to go to work for one of the most corrupt Oligarchs in the world.  Allowed a billion dollars of US funds to flow to the bank owned by Burisma's owner, and fired the prosecutor investigating the case.

---

Kent and Taylor touched why Shokin was fired in their testimony.  They both said the US wasn't Shokin to be more active in pursuit of Burisma's founder, not less.
Oddly, the Republicans did not touch on the scheduled deposition and raid that you are harping on.

The Republican members of congress are not allowed to broach certain topics in questioning unless Schiff allows it.  There are depositions that the GOP wants made public so that they can reference them, this is the same with the Dossier compiled by Giuliani.  Again, what you have is an extraconstitutional proceeding where the guy in charge is essentially prosecuting the charge of first degree murder.  If the judge bars any mention of the fact that the alleged victim is in fact alive then that is misconduct on the part of the judge, not proof of murder.  

In this case there was a court filing on 2/2/2019, Burisma itself announced that the cases weren't dismissed until September of that year https://www.kyivpost.com/business-wire/j...reloaded=1.  Hunter Biden was scheduled to testify and his lawyers immediately contacted Lutsenko, the prosecutor that Biden helped get appointed after Shokin was fired, to apologize for disinformation and offer introductions to US officials to smooth out relations.  

Again, what you're asking us to believe is that Joe Biden was so concerned about corruption that he allowed his son and his sons business partner to go to work for one of the most corrupt Oligarchs in the world.  Allowed a billion dollars of US funds to flow to the bank owned by Burisma's owner, and fired the prosecutor investigating the case.

Jordan asked lots of open ended questions about Hunter Biden.  Not credible that they wouldn't be allowed to flesh out your theory.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The Republican members of congress are not allowed to broach certain topics in questioning unless Schiff allows it.  There are depositions that the GOP wants made public so that they can reference them, this is the same with the Dossier compiled by Giuliani.  Again, what you have is an extraconstitutional proceeding where the guy in charge is essentially prosecuting the charge of first degree murder.  If the judge bars any mention of the fact that the alleged victim is in fact alive then that is misconduct on the part of the judge, not proof of murder.  

In this case there was a court filing on 2/2/2019, Burisma itself announced that the cases weren't dismissed until September of that year https://www.kyivpost.com/business-wire/j...reloaded=1.  Hunter Biden was scheduled to testify and his lawyers immediately contacted Lutsenko, the prosecutor that Biden helped get appointed after Shokin was fired, to apologize for disinformation and offer introductions to US officials to smooth out relations.  

Again, what you're asking us to believe is that Joe Biden was so concerned about corruption that he allowed his son and his sons business partner to go to work for one of the most corrupt Oligarchs in the world.  Allowed a billion dollars of US funds to flow to the bank owned by Burisma's owner, and fired the prosecutor investigating the case.

Jordan asked lots of open ended questions about Hunter Biden.  Not credible that they wouldn't be allowed to flesh out your theory.

Theory?  Article linked with burisma announcing the investigation was closed in september!

---

I don't understand the purpose of dragging Ambassador Yovanovitch in front of the inquiry. She stated she had no evidence of bribery or criminal action committed by the president. As far as I can ascertain, she is simply butt hurt that she was let go and the dems attempted to capitalize on her grievance. Where am I wrong?

You aren't.

Since the facts aren't on their side, they're going for feelings.

Per usual.  Same tired gameplan without substance.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

I don't understand the purpose of dragging Ambassador Yovanovitch in front of the inquiry. She stated she had no evidence of bribery or criminal action committed by the president. As far as I can ascertain, she is simply butt hurt that she was let go and the dems attempted to capitalize on her grievance. Where am I wrong?

You aren't.

Since the facts aren't on their side, they're going for feelings.

Per usual.  Same tired gameplan without substance.

True to an extent, but now they've crossed a line.  This is the most partisan congressional abuse of power in our lifetimes.  All hail the thousand tyrants.

---

Jordan asked lots of open ended questions about Hunter Biden.  Not credible that they wouldn't be allowed to flesh out your theory.

Theory?  Article linked with burisma announcing the investigation was closed in september!

Whoever authorized that press release for burisma, were they testifying under oath in the US?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Theory?  Article linked with burisma announcing the investigation was closed in september!

Whoever authorized that press release for burisma, were they testifying under oath in the US?

...  lol.  The majority is in possession of sworn testimony & supporting documents.  We have contemporaneous press releases, stories about the case being filed etc.  

Defendant "judge, my wife is alive & well she's right outside the court room"

Judge "no, I deem that witness out of order" 

Mikey: "murderer"

---

Whoever authorized that press release for burisma, were they testifying under oath in the US?

...  lol.  The majority is in possession of sworn testimony & supporting documents.  We have contemporaneous press releases, stories about the case being filed etc.  

Defendant "judge, my wife is alive & well she's right outside the court room"

Judge "no, I deem that witness out of order" 

Mikey: "murderer"

The rules say that the Republicans can call witnesses in this proceeding.
Even if I'm wrong about that, or even if perhaps schiff would allow the witness to be called but not allow a certain question to be asked, once the proceedings move to the Senate, the president's own lawyers will be able to decide who is called and what is asked, and chief justice Roberts will be the one to decide if certain witnesses are irrelevant, or certain questions are out of order.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

...  lol.  The majority is in possession of sworn testimony & supporting documents.  We have contemporaneous press releases, stories about the case being filed etc.  

Defendant "judge, my wife is alive & well she's right outside the court room"

Judge "no, I deem that witness out of order" 

Mikey: "murderer"

The rules say that the Republicans can call witnesses in this proceeding.
Even if I'm wrong about that, or even if perhaps schiff would allow the witness to be called but not allow a certain question to be asked, once the proceedings move to the Senate, the president's own lawyers will be able to decide who is called and what is asked, and chief justice Roberts will be the one to decide if certain witnesses are irrelevant, or certain questions are out of order.

If the Senate invokes the basic federal rules of evidence, the dems won't have a case to present.

---

The rules say that the Republicans can call witnesses in this proceeding.
Even if I'm wrong about that, or even if perhaps schiff would allow the witness to be called but not allow a certain question to be asked, once the proceedings move to the Senate, the president's own lawyers will be able to decide who is called and what is asked, and chief justice Roberts will be the one to decide if certain witnesses are irrelevant, or certain questions are out of order.

If the Senate invokes the basic federal rules of evidence, the dems won't have a case to present.

Nous verrons.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

If the Senate invokes the basic federal rules of evidence, the dems won't have a case to present.

Nous verrons.

Ridere.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

If the Senate invokes the basic federal rules of evidence, the dems won't have a case to present.

The Dems won't allow this to go to the Senate unless they are certain they have enough Delectos ready to knife Trump in the back.  Why would Schiff For Brains give up his little fiefdom?  The House Resolution has no time limit.

---

Nous verrons.

Ridere.

I imagine you laughing in all your posts.
If I imagined otherwise, I wouldn't love you as much as I do.

---

If the Senate invokes the basic federal rules of evidence, the dems won't have a case to present.

The Dems won't allow this to go to the Senate unless they are certain they have enough Delectos ready to knife Trump in the back.  Why would Schiff For Brains give up his little fiefdom?  The House Resolution has no time limit.

Delectos... you can't make this stuff up!

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.