Former US ambassador Marie Yovanovitch: Victim or co-conspirator?

What is unConstitutional about a President asking President to investigate?

Only libs are allowed to investigate.

images%20(14)

1 Like

Spoiler alert: Shokin wasn’t investigating anyone.

I assume you mean “President Trump asking President Zelensky”.

Not UnConsitutional, just unprecedented and clearly at odds with Trump’s America First ideology to ask a foreign country to investigate a US citizen. Questionably appropriate since it derives that citizen of the Constitutional protections they would have were they investigated by US authorities.

Moving a suspected crime by a US citizen from US jurisdiction to overseas jurisdiction – could that be an Abuse of Power?

If the argument is that all of this was not just OK, but warranted and essential to stop corruption in Ukraine, why won’t any of the administration testify? They should be proud of their patriotism.

Do you all support Mulvaney, Perry, Pompeo, Giuliani and Trump directly testifying?

Or if you think the House process is not fair, do you support them testifying for the Senate trial? It certainly would clear everything up.

1 Like

Hunter Biden was on a on the board for Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company, which has been under investigation for corruption:

Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, . . . held a directorship with a Ukrainian natural gas company called Burisma Holdings in 2014. At one point, Hunter was making $50,000 a month from Burisma.

Burisma was owned by Mykola Zlochevsky, a minister who went into exile after a popular revolution removed President Viktor F. Yanukovych. With Yanukovych gone, Zlochevsky faced numerous corruption investigations involving Burisma Holdings.

In 2015, Ukraine appointed Viktor Shokin as their new prosecutor. His removal in 2016 is at the center of the bribery allegations.

Supporters of Biden claim that getting rid of the Ukrainian prosecutor was really about reducing corruption in Ukraine, which is also a defense of Trump’s actions with Ukraine.

To me the Democrat impeachment inquiry is all about holding a Republican president to a different standard than what applies to Democrats.

1 Like

Any President asking any President.

It does not deprive the citizen of anything; it is an inquiry, not a trial, remember?

“Moving”? Where was the potential crime committed?

Did Hildawg “move” the investigation into Trump to London?

Because impeachment is a political process. What happened the last time? Process crimes out the ass.

I wonder why you feel this way. Are you saying conservatives were never allowed to investigate Bill Clinton, or Hillary Clinton, or the origins of the Mueller Probe?

And over the past eight days:

Didn’t you see Gym Jordan, sleeves rolled up, talking a mile a minute yelling at witnesses in every session and never letting them finish an answer. Didn’t you see Dishonest Devin using every opening statement session to denounce “The Russia Hoax” while hiding the fact that he was working with Rudy Giuliani and Russian mobsters to gin up the claim that Ukraine was at fault in 2016. Weren’t those good enough conservative investigations for you?

1 Like

Nobody but Democrats is buying into this impeachment ploy.

[quote=“SneakySFDude, post:28, topic:222754, full:true”]

Any President asking any President.

It does not deprive the citizen of anything; it is an inquiry, not a trial, remember?

That’s silly. No US Constitutional rights apply to an “investigation” in the Ukraine.

What rights do you have during an investigation?

It’s the same standard. One is furthering our nation’s interests by carrying out the official foreign policy of the US. The other is furthering the President’s interests while jeopardizing our national interests counter to our foreign policy stance.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

That’s silly. You are equating a government investigation with private information gathering. Not analogous.

This is false. It has been shown to be false on numerous occasions to you and others here. Yet you continue to repeat it. Are you intentionally disregarding the truth and facts that have been provided?
Why? How do you do that?
It has been shown that Shokin tipped off the Burisma owner to investigations and monies that were about to be repatriated. Shokin did nothing to investigate.

How do you come here and throw this lie out there again. This is a serious question. You aren’t the only one here that does it. Is it difficult to convince yourself of something that has been shown to be false.

I’m amazed that anyone would use a link to a Solomon article as a credible source. Then you are using his interview with Lutsenko to support your position. Apparently, you did not watch the testimony over the last two weeks to see how every diplomat responded to questions about Lutsenko.

I don’t know what else to say aobut your argument exept maybe C’mon man

1 Like

How convenient for you.

Withholding a White House visit to the Ukrainian head of state and delaying security aid is absolutely against our foreign policy stance.

So you have no answer…