Pelosi officially announces impeachment inquiry

Actually you're not getting my point which is it's entirely unreasonable to ask for something so far beyond the scope of the inquiry, which is the President's quid pro quo. Not agreeing with you isn't a lack of understanding.

It's not the Democrats job to do what the Ukraine and the Justice Department is unwilling to do (a second time in Ukrain's instance.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

This is a major step for you, admitting that Trump asked the Ukrainian President for an investigation into Biden, I'm very proud of you. What I would like you to consider is in Laura Cooper's testimony released today, she reiterated that the Department of Defense already determined that Ukraine has made the necessary steps in reducing "general" corruption and cleared the funding for US equipment to be released. Only that was sidelined by the President. This is the entire argument by House investigators, that President conditioned support on the aforementioned investigations. I get that the RNC and White House are demanding that "Biden" be said as often and loudly as possible to sidetrack impeachment inquiry, but surely you understand that the President cannot require, nor ask other countries to investigate his rivals for political gain?



I thank you for identifying my chief argument, that substantiating the President's motive isn't on the table, so I fixed your adjective. The President has his own attorney general in his pocket for investigating perceived crimes, only wait, Barr has already denied any involvement in this whole scandal AND the Ukraine has already cleared Hunter Biden. Sooo.. how is this not an exercise in Trump requesting interference into the American electoral system..again?

---

lol @ your rep :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

Actually you're not getting my point which is it's entirely unreasonable to ask for something so far beyond the scope of the inquiry, which is the President's quid pro quo. Not agreeing with you isn't a lack of understanding.

---

Okay let's cut the bullshit and see if you can actually engage in a conversation without deflecting and distracting.

For one minute let's just say Trump had good reason to want Burisma/Biden investigated, do you think it would have been acceptable for him to ask Ukraine to investigate? Not for a quid pro quo, just a simple "Hey I think Burisma is pretty corrupt, I think their hiring of Hunter Biden was also corrupt and I think Joe Biden's actions as Vice President were also corrupt, care to take a gander at that?"

Is that wrong, yes or no?

Okay, I'll grant your premise for the sake of your hypothetical, but with a distinction. If and only if Hunter Biden were currently on the board of Burisma and the aid being paid to Ukraine were for energy infrastructure or purchases, then yes it would be fair for Ukraine to investigate.

However this is not the case. Not only is he no longer with Burisma, but the military aid package is actually a Government to Government purchase of military equipment and defensive weapons. Burisma is a privately held company who is in no way associated with military purchase or deployment. This is why a current investigation is not only irrelevant, but a silly distraction engineered by the RNC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

Okay, I'll grant your premise for the sake of your hypothetical, but with a distinction. If and only if Hunter Biden were currently on the board of Burisma and the aid being paid to Ukraine were for energy infrastructure or purchases, then yes it would be fair for Ukraine to investigate.

However this is not the case. Not only is he no longer with Burisma, but the military aid package is actually a Government to Government purchase of military equipment and defensive weapons. Burisma is a privately held company who is in no way associated with military purchase or deployment. This is why a current investigation is not only irrelevant, but a silly distraction engineered by the RNC.

---

My hypothetical had absolutely nothing to do with aid. Also crimes don't cease being crimes just because the person no longer works for a company that committed said crimes.

So try again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

My hypothetical had absolutely nothing to do with aid. Also crimes don't cease being crimes just because the person no longer works for a company that committed said crimes.

So try again.

---

Ah, so your hypothetical had nothing to do with the topic, or you're moving goalposts. That's too bad, I was pretty impressed with how insightful your hypothetical was in making what I perceived your argument to be.

But now you point out that my interpretation was wrong, well I'll just have to wait for a better argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

Ah, so your hypothetical had nothing to do with the topic, or you're moving goalposts.

---

It has everything to do with the topic and I think you finally figured it out which is why you're doing what you do best: deflect and spin like there is no tomorrow.

I'll ask again just to see if you're actually interested in conversation like you claimed a couple of days ago.

If Trump had good reason to believe corruption occurred surrounding the Burisma/Hunter Biden/Joe Biden mess and HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH AID, do you think it would be wrong of Trump to ask Ukraine to look into it? Or would you consider this "digging up dirt" on a political opponent, even if Trump had actual good reason to believe corruption happened?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

It's not the Democrats job to do what the Ukraine and the Justice Department is unwilling to do (a second time in Ukrain's instance.)

---

Was it Joe Biden's job to withhold a billion dollars in aid unless they fired the lawyer investigating his son?

WAIT WAIT WAIT. Let me rephrase.

Was it Joe Biden's job to ask Ukraine to do THIS (fire lawyer investigating his son) for THAT (a billion dollars in US aid).

As I've stated before, all you have to do is recognize that QPQ is literally how we deal with everyone in the world.