(11-16-2019, 05:14 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(11-16-2019, 04:49 PM)jj82284 Wrote: 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.

---