I agree that it wouldn't do anything to help Trump get acquitted, but the American people should still know what exactly the hell was going on in Ukraine, esp considering he's at the root of what this trial was about. People don't want that ignored. Plus, this also isn't a normal trial (cheap tactic but it does have some validity).

I never argued this for Trump's defense, I was using it as an example of a blocked witness by the Democrats.

Considering other individuals also didn't add much to Trump's guilt, or even the subject at hand, like Yovanovich, who was also utilized as a scape goat to try to paint a "how dare this bad man fire this woman", for a decent chunk of that hearing. Lol.

I have my fingers crossed for a continuation of an investigation in Biden, but who knows if that will happen. Though supposively the previous Ukraine prosecutor is demanding it being looked into and having Biden charged.

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Feb 1 2020 07:12pm

If Biden is corrupt that should be its own investigation, and Trump has the power to investigate Biden using official channels. If he really cared that Biden is corrupt he shouldn't have waited until it was really obvious he is only investigating to take down a political opponent.

I have no doubt that part of the benefit for exposing Biden is for some political gain. However, it's also really a double whammy. It's pretty hard to argue that political gain for Trump is the only benefit, when there are possible ties of corruption to an already prominent political figure. It also seems pretty legitimate to have a country investigate their own company.

I edited this part in to my previous response.

"I have my fingers crossed for a continuation of an investigation in Biden, but who knows if that will happen. Though supposively the previous Ukraine prosecutor is demanding it being looked into and having Biden charged."

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Feb 1 2020 07:19pm

Political gain doesn't have to be the "only benefit". His primary motivation was pretty undoubtedly political gain.

Let's say a sheriff gets a warrant to investigate his election opponent and they find a gram of marijuana. Does that retroactively exonerate the sheriff for using political means to silence his competition? Absolutely not. People in positions of authority should avoid even the appearance of impropriety, and that is the standard we hold some political offices to, such as judges.

And that's an opinion, even if I agree with you, it doesn't hold up considering there are other benefits for the US as a result of that. I see the value in exposing a corrupt politician and so do many others. While it seems like Trump had some knowledge of this in.. January I believe? Prior to Biden announcing his candidacy.

Becoming a presidential candidate should now rule him out of having this investigated into? I don't think so.

Biden isn't even the announced primary.

What was the basis for the warrant? Did the sheriff have a son that was obtaining hundreds of thousands of dollars, possibly a million+ through possible illegal means that he himself had some involvement in?

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Feb 1 2020 07:54pm

Should we investigate Trump for hiring his children into national advisors when they shouldn't have security clearances?

This post was edited by Skinned on Feb 1 2020 07:54pm

I have zero knowledge of this or things to contribute to that. But I also doubt it's the same as a previously corrupt foreign company that has collected millions of dollars, firing a prosecutor from investigating into it, and having a new prosecutor appear that magically does nothing in regards to an investigation.

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Feb 1 2020 08:02pm

Nobody is saying it makes Biden immune to being investigated, we're saying that Trump was clearly abusing his position to do an investigation he wasn't otherwise going to do for the purpose of harming a political opponent. If Trump was going to investigate Biden because he wanted to out corruption then he would have done it anytime from 2016 to 2018, and would have done it through his own justice department and not with a shady phone call demanding a public announcement.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 1 2020 07:57pm

How do you know he had knowledge of it back then?

"Jan. 25-26, 2019 — Giuliani and Ukraine Prosecutor General Lutsenko meet for first time, New York.

Giuliani and Lutsenko meet in New York over the space of two to three days. They discuss “the Ukrainian political situation and the fight against corruption,” Bloomberg News reports, paraphrasing Lutsenko. “Giuliani asked him about investigations into the owner of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevskiy, as well as whether the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was `not loyal to President Trump,’” the article says.

The two met “multiple times” during those days in New York, and Lutsenko told associates that, during their first meeting in January, Giuliani excitedly called Trump to brief the President on what he had found, the New York Times reported. Giuliani “acknowledged that he has discussed the matter with the president on multiple occasions,” the Times wrote."

Here's the source I'm reading through, lots of information. Possibly into Bidens innocence. Though it's a lot to read, I'm not sure if it's obv. all accurate. Still find it odd a VP's son working with that company though.

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Feb 1 2020 08:32pm