a Tisket a tasket We all knew this would happen

[XCR1250]

Politics

Joe Biden Could Be Impeached by GOP Over Ukraine if He Wins, Iowa Senator Says

By 

Jennifer Epstein

February 2, 2020, 2:02 PM CST

Senator Joni Ernst Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

 

 

Iowa Senator Joni Ernst warned Sunday that Republicans could immediately push to impeach Joe Biden over his work in Ukraine as vice president if he win the White House.

 

 

“I think this door of impeachable whatever has been opened,” Ernst said in an interview with Bloomberg News. “Joe Biden should be very careful what he’s asking for because, you know, we can have a situation where if it should ever be President Biden, that immediately, people, right the day after he would be elected would be saying, ‘Well, we’re going to impeach him.’”

 

 

The grounds for impeachment, the first-term Republican said, would be “for being assigned to take on Ukrainian corruption yet turning a blind eye to Burisma because his son was on the board making over a million dollars a year.”

 

 

President Barack Obama sent Biden to Ukraine on his behalf to fight corruption, including leading the push from the U.S. and western European powers to remove prosecutor general Viktor Shokin from office. When Shokin was fired in 2016, no congressional Republicans expressed concern about the move. Eventually, though, Shokin began to argue that he was fired because he was investigating Burisma and Biden wanted to protect his son, Hunter, who was on the company’s board. The claim has been debunked.

 

 

Earlier this week, Ernst tied the Senate’s impeachment trial of President Donald Trump to Biden’s chances in Monday’s Iowa Democratic caucus, suggesting that the trial could hurt his case with caucus goers. “I’m really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters, those Democratic caucus goers. Will they be supporting Vice President Biden at this point? Not certain at that,” she said.

Biden has been sure to mention Ernst’s comments during every stump speech he’s made this week, drawing applause as he suggests that Ernst had “spilled the beans” about Republicans’ real intention in raising the Burisma issue to damage Biden’s candidacy. “You can ruin Donald Trump’s night by caucusing with me and ruin Joni Ernst’s night as well,” he’s told Iowa crowds this week.

Biden communications director Kate Bedingfield responded to Ernst’s latest comments by again encouraging Iowans to caucus for Biden. “Iowans have the chance tomorrow to say the words that Donald Trump and Joni Ernst fear most: I’m here to caucus for Joe Biden,” she said.

[racer254]

Of course, this has become the way they are now, it was caused by democrats.  We need to remove the whole lot of them

[spin_dry]

I love this new America. If we feast on one another there’s no more wars in the world. 

[Ez ryder]

1 hour ago, spin_dry said:

I love this new America. If we feast on one another there’s no more wars in the world. 

lol oh yes america has been the cause for all the worlds wars lmfao . 

[Guest]

Quote

 

Biden is dirty, always has been. The dems may still go with him. This is taking twists and turns. 

[Jimmy Snacks]

12 hours ago, racer254 said:

Of course, this has become the way they are now, it was caused by democrats.  We need to remove the whole lot of them

Yeah that's it Racer...Nevermind about the years and tens of millions spent to impeach Clinton for lying under oath about sex. Also don't forget that Trump called Starr...another of Epsteins legal team....a lunatic and a disaster and then had him as part of his  impeachment  legal team. Wake up.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Jimmy Snacks

[Sleepr2]

19 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Yeah that's it Racer...Nevermind about the years and tens of millions spent to impeach Clinton for lying under oath about sex. Also don't forget that Trump called Starr...another of Epsteins legal team....a lunatic and a disaster and then had him as part of his  impeachment  legal team. Wake up.

Instant defense of the rapist noted.

 

 

[Highmark]

2 hours ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Yeah that's it Racer...Nevermind about the years and tens of millions spent to impeach Clinton for lying under oath about sex. Also don't forget that Trump called Starr...another of Epsteins legal team....a lunatic and a disaster and then had him as part of his  impeachment  legal team. Wake up.

While he should not have been impeached for his actions it was far, far beyond lying under oath.  

[Jimmy Snacks]

23 minutes ago, Highmark said:

While he should not have been impeached for his actions it was far, far beyond lying under oath.  

Yeah you say that so why then was he impeached because of a perjury trap about sex? 4 years and 40 million plus and that was it. 
You know what I find fucked up and telling is that there is one common denominator here among Starr, Dershowitz, Clinton and Trump...he is no longer with us for whatever reason but doesn’t that seem strange to anybody? 

[Highmark]

1 minute ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Yeah you say that so why then was he impeached because of a perjury trap about sex? 4 years and 40 million plus and that was it. 
You know what I find fucked up and telling is that there is one common denominator here among Starr, Dershowitz, Clinton and Trump...he is no longer with us for whatever reason but doesn’t that seem strange to anybody? 

Perjury Trap?   The perjury was minor compared what he did to cover it up.   Dude you obviously know little about what that was about.   Again no he didn't deserve to be impeached over it as it wasn't high crimes and misdemeanors.   Technically it could have been considered bribery but not against the United States. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/explainthree122098.htm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/explainone122098.htm#bennett

Encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit. Monica Lewinsky testified that Clinton raised the idea of filing an affidavit. Although Lewinsky testified that Clinton never told her to lie, the committee report says that Clinton knew any affidavit "would have to be false for Ms. Lewinsky to avoid testifying. If she filed a truthful affidavit, one acknowledging a sexual relationship with the president, she certainly would have been called as a deposition witness and her subsequent truthful testimony would have been damaging to the president both politically and legally." Democrats concede that Clinton and Lewinsky discussed submitting an affidavit to avoid testifying. But they say that does not prove Clinton wanted her to file a false affidavit and that, since the Jones case involved allegations of unwelcome sexual harassment, Lewinsky might have been able to avoid testifying with an affidavit saying she was not the subject of harassment or unwelcome advances.

Encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if called to appear. Republicans say that, before Lewinsky became a possible witness, she and the president discussed fabricated stories to use to cover up their relationship and that, according to Lewinsky's testimony, the president repeated those stories when he telephoned her on Dec. 17 to say she was on the Paula Jones witness list. As Lewinsky recalled that conversation, Clinton said, "You know, you can always say you were coming to see Betty or that you were bringing me letters." Clinton said he had "no specific memory" of any conversations with cover stories before Dec. 17 but that if any conversation took place, it was "in a nonlegal context."

Encouraging Lewinsky to hide gifts. Lewinsky testified that she told Clinton the gifts had been subpoenaed at a Dec. 28 meeting and suggested, "maybe I should put the gifts away outside my house somewhere or give them to someone, maybe Betty." She said Clinton replied, "I don't know" or "Let me think about that." Lewinsky testified that later that day Betty Currie called her and said, "I understand you have something to give me" or "The president says you have something for me." Currie then arrived at Lewinsky's apartment, retrieved a sealed box of presents, and put them under her bed.

Both Clinton and Currie have a different version of events. Clinton said that when Lewinsky raised the issue of the gifts, he told her, "If they asked her for gifts, she'd have to give them whatever she had." Currie said Lewinsky called her and asked her to pick up the package, not the other way around.

Republicans argue that Lewinsky's version is more credible and that it is clear that Clinton instructed Currie to retrieve the gifts. They point to a cell phone record showing that Currie called Lewinsky's house that afternoon. Democrats counter that Clinton was not particularly concerned about the gifts, something evidenced by the fact that he gave Lewinsky additional gifts at the Dec. 28 meeting -- something even GOP counsel Schippers acknowledged seems "odd." They say that Lewinsky provided conflicting accounts of her conversations with Clinton and that the telephone call from Currie occurred after the time that Lewinsky said Currie arrived at her apartment to pick up the gifts.

Getting Lewinsky a job to ensure her silence. Impeachment backers say the efforts by Clinton and his allies to help Lewinsky get a job in New York intensified in early December, just after Clinton learned that Lewinsky was on the Jones witness list. They point to the extensive efforts by Clinton confidant Vernon E. Jordan Jr. to help Lewinsky get a job and to keep the president informed of his efforts even as he was also helping Lewinsky obtain a lawyer in the Jones case. When -- after Jordan phoned the chief executive of the company -- Lewinsky finally got a job offer, Jordan telephoned Currie with the news: "Mission accomplished."

As the report puts it, "It is logical to infer from the chain of events that the efforts of the president and others at the president's direction to obtain a job in New York for Monica Lewinsky were motivated to influence the testimony of a potential witness in the case of Jones v. Clinton, if not to prevent her testimony outright."

Democrats point to Lewinsky's testimony: "No one ever asked me to lie and I was never promised a job for my silence." They say that efforts by White House officials to help Lewinsky get a job began long before her name surfaced on the Jones witness list and that Lewinsky raised the idea of enlisting Jordan's help after Linda Tripp suggested it.

Letting Bennett make false and misleading statements. (See discussion under Article I, above.)

Tampering with the testimony of Currie, a potential witness. A few hours after the Jones deposition, Clinton called Currie and asked her to come into the office the next day, a Sunday. Clinton said he asked Currie "certain questions, in an effort to get as much information as quickly as I could," seeking to "ascertain what the facts were, trying to ascertain what Betty's perception was."

Currie testified that Clinton made a series of remarks "more like statements than questions," saying, "You were always there when she was there, right? We were never really alone. You could see and hear everything. Monica came on to me and I never touched her, right? She wanted to have sex with me and I couldn't do that." Currie said she had a similar conversation with Clinton a few days later.

Impeachment proponents note that Clinton repeatedly invoked Currie's name when questioned about Lewinsky during the deposition and that she was therefore a potential witness in the case. His explanation that he was trying to determine the facts "is simply not credible in light of the fact" that he knew some of the statements he made "were clearly false." Clinton's defenders argue that when Clinton spoke with Currie she was not among the potential witnesses listed by the Jones lawyers and that there were only a few weeks left for pretrial discovery. They say that Clinton's statements were not spurred by a desire to influence her testimony but that he was worried that the story of his relationship with Lewinsky was about to leak and, as the minority report put it, Clinton "was testing [Currie] to see how much she knew . . . because it would help dictate the media strategy he adopted."

Lying to aides about his relationship with Lewinsky when he knew they were potential grand jury witnesses who would repeat the falsehoods before the grand jury. After the Lewinsky story broke in the press, Clinton denied having a sexual relationship with Lewinsky to five aides who were later called before the grand jury. For example, he told John D. Podesta, now his chief of staff, that he did not have any kind of sexual encounter with Lewinsky. He told aide Sidney Blumenthal that he hadn't "done anything wrong," that Lewinsky had stalked and threatened him and likened himself to a character in Arthur Koestler's "Darkness at Noon."

Republicans say Clinton acknowledged his aides were likely to be called as witnesses and would repeat his false accounts before the grand jury, and that his actions therefore amount to witness tampering.

Democrats say Clinton's false or misleading statements to his staff were motivated by a desire to hide an embarrassing relationship, not to obstruct the grand jury. "To put the point most simply: Does anyone really think the president would have admitted to this relationship even if no grand jury had been sitting?" the minority report asks.

 

[snoughnut]

9 hours ago, Polaris 550 said:

Biden is dirty, always has been. The dems may still go with him. This is taking twists and turns. 

Let's hope so, they will suffer a massive beating if Quid Pro Joe gets the nod.

[Jimmy Snacks]

Blah, blah, blah...not engaging in your usual partisan idiocy. The fact remains they are all shitbags cut from the same cloth.

[racer254]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Blah, blah, blah...not engaging in your usual partisan idiocy. The fact remains they are all shitbags cut from the same cloth.

Yet, you seem to constantly run defense for one party,  but complain about the other.  Maybe you should think about that.

Edited February 3, 2020 by racer254

[snoughnut]

15 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Blah, blah, blah...not engaging in your usual partisan idiocy. The fact remains they are all shitbags cut from the same cloth.

[Sleepr2]

58 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Perjury Trap?   The perjury was minor compared what he did to cover it up.   Dude you obviously know little about what that was about.   Again no he didn't deserve to be impeached over it as it wasn't high crimes and misdemeanors.   Technically it could have been considered bribery but not against the United States. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/explainthree122098.htm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/explainone122098.htm#bennett

Encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit. Monica Lewinsky testified that Clinton raised the idea of filing an affidavit. Although Lewinsky testified that Clinton never told her to lie, the committee report says that Clinton knew any affidavit "would have to be false for Ms. Lewinsky to avoid testifying. If she filed a truthful affidavit, one acknowledging a sexual relationship with the president, she certainly would have been called as a deposition witness and her subsequent truthful testimony would have been damaging to the president both politically and legally." Democrats concede that Clinton and Lewinsky discussed submitting an affidavit to avoid testifying. But they say that does not prove Clinton wanted her to file a false affidavit and that, since the Jones case involved allegations of unwelcome sexual harassment, Lewinsky might have been able to avoid testifying with an affidavit saying she was not the subject of harassment or unwelcome advances.

Encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if called to appear. Republicans say that, before Lewinsky became a possible witness, she and the president discussed fabricated stories to use to cover up their relationship and that, according to Lewinsky's testimony, the president repeated those stories when he telephoned her on Dec. 17 to say she was on the Paula Jones witness list. As Lewinsky recalled that conversation, Clinton said, "You know, you can always say you were coming to see Betty or that you were bringing me letters." Clinton said he had "no specific memory" of any conversations with cover stories before Dec. 17 but that if any conversation took place, it was "in a nonlegal context."

Encouraging Lewinsky to hide gifts. Lewinsky testified that she told Clinton the gifts had been subpoenaed at a Dec. 28 meeting and suggested, "maybe I should put the gifts away outside my house somewhere or give them to someone, maybe Betty." She said Clinton replied, "I don't know" or "Let me think about that." Lewinsky testified that later that day Betty Currie called her and said, "I understand you have something to give me" or "The president says you have something for me." Currie then arrived at Lewinsky's apartment, retrieved a sealed box of presents, and put them under her bed.

Both Clinton and Currie have a different version of events. Clinton said that when Lewinsky raised the issue of the gifts, he told her, "If they asked her for gifts, she'd have to give them whatever she had." Currie said Lewinsky called her and asked her to pick up the package, not the other way around.

Republicans argue that Lewinsky's version is more credible and that it is clear that Clinton instructed Currie to retrieve the gifts. They point to a cell phone record showing that Currie called Lewinsky's house that afternoon. Democrats counter that Clinton was not particularly concerned about the gifts, something evidenced by the fact that he gave Lewinsky additional gifts at the Dec. 28 meeting -- something even GOP counsel Schippers acknowledged seems "odd." They say that Lewinsky provided conflicting accounts of her conversations with Clinton and that the telephone call from Currie occurred after the time that Lewinsky said Currie arrived at her apartment to pick up the gifts.

Getting Lewinsky a job to ensure her silence. Impeachment backers say the efforts by Clinton and his allies to help Lewinsky get a job in New York intensified in early December, just after Clinton learned that Lewinsky was on the Jones witness list. They point to the extensive efforts by Clinton confidant Vernon E. Jordan Jr. to help Lewinsky get a job and to keep the president informed of his efforts even as he was also helping Lewinsky obtain a lawyer in the Jones case. When -- after Jordan phoned the chief executive of the company -- Lewinsky finally got a job offer, Jordan telephoned Currie with the news: "Mission accomplished."

As the report puts it, "It is logical to infer from the chain of events that the efforts of the president and others at the president's direction to obtain a job in New York for Monica Lewinsky were motivated to influence the testimony of a potential witness in the case of Jones v. Clinton, if not to prevent her testimony outright."

Democrats point to Lewinsky's testimony: "No one ever asked me to lie and I was never promised a job for my silence." They say that efforts by White House officials to help Lewinsky get a job began long before her name surfaced on the Jones witness list and that Lewinsky raised the idea of enlisting Jordan's help after Linda Tripp suggested it.

Letting Bennett make false and misleading statements. (See discussion under Article I, above.)

Tampering with the testimony of Currie, a potential witness. A few hours after the Jones deposition, Clinton called Currie and asked her to come into the office the next day, a Sunday. Clinton said he asked Currie "certain questions, in an effort to get as much information as quickly as I could," seeking to "ascertain what the facts were, trying to ascertain what Betty's perception was."

Currie testified that Clinton made a series of remarks "more like statements than questions," saying, "You were always there when she was there, right? We were never really alone. You could see and hear everything. Monica came on to me and I never touched her, right? She wanted to have sex with me and I couldn't do that." Currie said she had a similar conversation with Clinton a few days later.

Impeachment proponents note that Clinton repeatedly invoked Currie's name when questioned about Lewinsky during the deposition and that she was therefore a potential witness in the case. His explanation that he was trying to determine the facts "is simply not credible in light of the fact" that he knew some of the statements he made "were clearly false." Clinton's defenders argue that when Clinton spoke with Currie she was not among the potential witnesses listed by the Jones lawyers and that there were only a few weeks left for pretrial discovery. They say that Clinton's statements were not spurred by a desire to influence her testimony but that he was worried that the story of his relationship with Lewinsky was about to leak and, as the minority report put it, Clinton "was testing [Currie] to see how much she knew . . . because it would help dictate the media strategy he adopted."

Lying to aides about his relationship with Lewinsky when he knew they were potential grand jury witnesses who would repeat the falsehoods before the grand jury. After the Lewinsky story broke in the press, Clinton denied having a sexual relationship with Lewinsky to five aides who were later called before the grand jury. For example, he told John D. Podesta, now his chief of staff, that he did not have any kind of sexual encounter with Lewinsky. He told aide Sidney Blumenthal that he hadn't "done anything wrong," that Lewinsky had stalked and threatened him and likened himself to a character in Arthur Koestler's "Darkness at Noon."

Republicans say Clinton acknowledged his aides were likely to be called as witnesses and would repeat his false accounts before the grand jury, and that his actions therefore amount to witness tampering.

Democrats say Clinton's false or misleading statements to his staff were motivated by a desire to hide an embarrassing relationship, not to obstruct the grand jury. "To put the point most simply: Does anyone really think the president would have admitted to this relationship even if no grand jury had been sitting?" the minority report asks.

 

Jimmah the dumbfuck owned again 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, snoughnut said:

Let's hope so, they will suffer a massive beating if Quid Pro Joe gets the nod.

Whoever it will be, it will be fireworks at the debates...………...worth the price of admission.  

[racer254]

Good old joe.  Been copying people all his life to make himself look good.

 

[Jimmy Snacks]

5 hours ago, racer254 said:

Yet, you seem to constantly run defense for one party,  but complain about the other.  Maybe you should think about that.

STFU dummy.

I’ve said numerous times that impeachment was a waste of time and ripping Trump for being a lying shitbag doesn’t mean I’m defending Democrats. 

Edited February 3, 2020 by Jimmy Snacks