- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
- Messages
- 8,529
- Reaction score
- 3,422
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Incorrect and a bit sophomoric.
True. They are not even following the rules they laid down.
In a sane world you would be joking. Biden boasted about doing what the Democrats accuse Trump of doing, holding up aid for a personal favor.
There is also discussion in the phone call about Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election,
Finally, there is Hunter Biden who is a person of interest in corruption cases in both Ukraine and China.
You have to willfully blind to miss the references to corruption.
I already said that. You did realize it meant you, right?Absolutely wrong and childish.
Since you want it this way, absolutely wrong and childish. In the House Rules, points of order are always priority.The Democratic leadership are following rules "laid down" when the Republicans held the majority.
Mostly irrelevant. You do acknowledge that there is a legitimate issue wrt Hunter Biden, which is progress. In turn, this acknowledges that there are legitimate reasons to ask for information, something you have been denying.Absolutely false, even tRump supporters have agreed that V.P. Biden was promoting defined National AND International security policies, that his actions were NOT personal AND if anything put his son and the company worked for in greater jeopardy than he would have if he had not acted.
Absolutely wrong and more than a little childish. There are points that have been "debunked" but not the whole and there is a larger pattern that the Bidens a embedded. The intelligence organizations have definitely not finished with that, nor is the Biden issue resolved. You are correct that Barr is the person that head an investigation. You just ahve the parties wrong.Which has been totally debunked by our National Security organizations. Which is a red herring, that has nothing to do with the current impeachment charges and if corruption was present should be taken up by a very willing and cooperative Bill Barr. NO, you have to be willfully partisan to refuse to acknowledge the evidence of National and International Security organizations.
Today Elise Stefanic got Axex Vindman to admit it is US law to investigate corruption in a country BEFORE aid is given. Second the US signed a treaty with 6 other countries including Ukraine to investigate corruption.
As I see it this totally blows all to hell Schiff's and the democrats "inquiry". President Trump was just following the law.
Time for Pelosi and Schiff to pack up their clown show and move on. Maybe just maybe they could get on with the business they were sent to Washington to do for a change.
Comments?
I already said that. You did realize it meant you, right?
Since you want it this way, absolutely wrong and childish. In the House Rules, points of order are always priority.
Mostly irrelevant. You do acknowledge that there is a legitimate issue wrt Hunter Biden, which is progress. In turn, this acknowledges that there are legitimate reasons to ask for information, something you have been denying.
Absolutely wrong and more than a little childish. There are points that have been "debunked" but not the whole and there is a larger pattern that the Bidens a embedded. The intelligence organizations have definitely not finished with that, nor is the Biden issue resolved. You are correct that Barr is the person that head an investigation. You just ahve the parties wrong.
Today Elise Stefanic got Axex Vindman to admit it is US law to investigate corruption in a country BEFORE aid is given. Second the US signed a treaty with 6 other countries including Ukraine to investigate corruption.
As I see it this totally blows all to hell Schiff's and the democrats "inquiry". President Trump was just following the law.
Time for Pelosi and Schiff to pack up their clown show and move on. Maybe just maybe they could get on with the business they were sent to Washington to do for a change.
Comments?
That is a problem, why? Sounds like a standard investigation.Well the big problem here is the idea of investigating Biden wasn't based on any good leads; just unsubstantiated "connect the dots".
You keep saying debunked. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Answered to your satisfaction is not sufficient. Answered to the satisfaction of the appropriate authority is sufficient, Thus, Trump/Russia collusion has been debunked. The several issues of the Bidens have not."I" was saying that you were wrong in assessing my comment: "Except that Ukraine had already been vetted with regard to corruption before the aid was approved and certainly before Don Vito tRump withheld it." as incorrect and no, wrong again, childish is not the same is as sophomoric; it is several levels down from sophomoric.
We, actually YOU, were talking rules not points of order: "They are not even following the rules they laid down." -Jay59.
The issue with the Bidens has been debunked, universally, as a non issue as evidenced by the lack of concern or interest by the Attorney General.
No you are trying to conflate the two, unrelated, issues or obfuscate tRumps culpability in Ukraine. Which is moronically disingenuous.
That is a problem, why? Sounds like a standard investigation.
That is a problem, why? Sounds like a standard investigation.
You keep saying debunked. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Answered to your satisfaction is not sufficient. Answered to the satisfaction of the appropriate authority is sufficient, Thus, Trump/Russia collusion has been debunked. The several issues of the Bidens have not.
Other than that, you conceded a couple of points, for which I thank you. Better luck next time.
You just described the entire impeachment inquiry. Since you support that, what is the problem?Because there will typically be a solid lead to start an investigation versus "hey, I think that guy did some thing". I have no issue with Biden being investigated, but it should be because of some type of evidence that warrants it.
Today Elise Stefanic got Axex Vindman to admit it is US law to investigate corruption in a country BEFORE aid is given. Second the US signed a treaty with 6 other countries including Ukraine to investigate corruption.
As I see it this totally blows all to hell Schiff's and the democrats "inquiry". President Trump was just following the law.
Time for Pelosi and Schiff to pack up their clown show and move on. Maybe just maybe they could get on with the business they were sent to Washington to do for a change.
Comments?
You just described the entire impeachment inquiry. Since you support that, what is the problem?
None that I know of. The old expression is follow the money, of which there is a lot.So who has filed a complaint about Biden's actions in Ukraine or China?
Today Elise Stefanic got Axex Vindman to admit it is US law to investigate corruption in a country BEFORE aid is given. Second the US signed a treaty with 6 other countries including Ukraine to investigate corruption.
As I see it this totally blows all to hell Schiff's and the democrats "inquiry". President Trump was just following the law.
None that I know of. The old expression is follow the money, of which there is a lot.
Based on logic. That's funny.The same applies to the current president and his business interests in various parts of the world. Based on that logic, one wouldn't be wrong to question how much consideration Trump gives to his financial interests in his dealings with nations to which he has business ties.
Based on logic. That's funny.
Mr Trump and then President Trump were and are under constant investigation. Remember 1,500,000 documents surrendered. Based on logic Joe Biden should be under intense investigation. So should Hunter Biden.
You are confused, There is no known corruption of Biden, and Trump didn't mention corruption. He mentioned Biden.
Hard to believe you are still confused. This has been pointed out about 200 times.
Finally, there is Hunter Biden who is a person of interest in corruption cases in both Ukraine and China. You have to willfully blind to miss the references to corruption.
You have been complaining about one.Well why hasn't the GOP launched that investigation? Why doesn't this administration allow certain officials to testify?
Are you being dense on purpose? We don't run China's law enforcement services.Why would Trump suggest China open an investigation into Biden if there already was one? I wouldn't think any negotiation was necessary to get Zelensky to announce an already ongoing investigation. I think you've been misinformed.
Are you being dense on purpose? We don't run China's law enforcement services.
Who said anything about announcing an investigation? They are usually done in as much secrecy as possible.
You have been complaining about one.
:lamoExcept this one was done to target a specific individual and not nationwide Ukranian corruption, includes a personal lawyer running backchannel operations, and potentially involves the POTUS leveraging foreign aid for a political advantage. Again, if this were all some big misunderstanding, then having officials testify to clear it up shouldn't be a problem.
What is funny is that for every thread from a liberal about hiw " this is the thing that will sink Trump" there's one from a Trumowtte claiming that it's all over.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?