Why did nobody tell Trump that it would be a bad idea to get Ukraine to investigate Biden?

Trump didn't have anything to do with it. Trump distanced himself from it by asking Zelinsky to have his people work with AG Barr. Read the transcript of the call.

 

Of course the fact that Steele provided the dossier to people in Hillary's state dept while she was head was never news but talking about corruption in Ukraine is front page impeachment news.

 

Biden will not be Trump's opponent unless he wins the primary, which looks bleak. Biden ran for president quite a few times and always lost, and that was when he was younger, and had less political baggage.

There never was a quid pro quo, get over it. Well, not unless you believe the hearsay and opinions of someone who claims their sister's, friend's, cousin's uncle, heard from his coworker....

 

Yup, could you imagine if Pence did what Joe Biden did? Or if Melania Trump were routinely receiving $100,000 - $500,000 for speeches before Russian bankers, etc...? Whew!

But Joe and Hilary can do all of that, but it's debunked because enough dems shrugged at it already

 

This impeachment is about trump. As stated , Investigate Biden all you want. But if Biden is guilty it does not make trump innocent

trump is only not guilty by reason of insanity.

the stable genius


And for the Hillary haters

she is gone. Bye bye. No more adios

she is NOT relevant to trumps conspiracy. She has no control over trumps actions

 

There is NO requirement Trump "have nothing to do with it" and cannot request the assistance of Ukraine as required BY TREATY. And it IS our judicial system, the DOJ, that will do the investigation and the Ukraine investigators will help in the matters that occurred in their country. Why do you think we have the mutual cooperation agreement it is for just such investigations.

 

It could be that with the previous corrupt government running Ukraine, it was seen as a useless endeavor to try and get them to investigate what just might turn into them, investigating their own corrupt activities? How would you think that would have gone?

 

Ukraine is the third most corrupt nation on the planet. Asking them to clean up their act isn’t unreasonable.

 

They have a left of center lean, as I already stated. AP, also mentioned, has no apparent political leanings. Ive cites my claims. I’d you say otherwise then you should provide some actual evidence if your goal is to actually debate the topic.

 

If you bothered to lookup the quote you’d know it’s attributable to someone who has.

 

Besides, we do not know the extent of information uncovered by our Justice Department, concerning Ukraine and the Bidens, that could have prompted Trump to ask Ukraine to work with our DOJ. We are assuming all Trump had to go on was that public statement by Biden, where he bragged about blackmailing Ukraine to fire the prosecutor.

 

From the side that screams “taken out of context” daily, I’d think you’d be interested in providing context to those statements. Does hypocrisy prevent that?

 

Are you implying that people are watching the video of Biden's bragging about blackmailing Ukraine, and taking it out of context?

 

Biden was expressing U.S. policy. The prosecutor the U.S. and its allies and international organizations wanted removed was pro-Russian and FAILING to investigate Ukrainian corruption. And, he never actually withheld any aid. The Ukrainian President and Parliament acted as a response to Western demands. If Trump or AG Barr has any evidence to the contrary, they should make it publicly known.

 

I’m implying, factually, that his actions were the result of the stated mission of the majority of the western world.
I’ve been seeking evidence, from anyone, that that is not the case. Thus far, no takers.

 

So it's not of concern if our government's US policy is possibly being implemented to benefit or enrich the children of politicians? But US policy is bad if it involves our DOJ investigating possible corruption or abuse of power, by US politicians?

 

So you think that Russian propaganda should be treated as anything BUT propaganda?

Fiona Hill called you and people like you out for all to see.

Putin smiles

 

The case, as laid out by witness testimony, not the rantings of Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan, but by the testimony of the witnesses themselves, they clearly laid out a case where Trump used his position of power in an effort to try to force Zelensky to make a public statement that had no purpose other than to personally benefit Trump.

If Trump was so innocent, why not have Pompeo, Bolton, Mulvaney, and Giuliani on the witness stand? Why not release relevant documents to Congress? Surely they would show Trump’s innocence, wouldn’t they. You know, if Trump was on the up and up.

 

Thousands of people sit on Boards of Directors with varying degrees of competence, experience, and compensation.

Are we going to investigate each and every one now ...or just the ones we can use politically

 

Boom

 

Investigate away...I only wrote that if Trump or Barr or anybody has probable cause or evidence that Biden did anything illegal, they should make it known to the public. On using his influence to get his son a job, I think you're confusing cause and effect. Getting rid of a pro-Russian Ukrainian prosecutor who was refusing to investigate Ukrainian corruption was a common western position, which the U.S. supported.
I keep wondering how the GOP is going to run on a "Pro-Putin Platform" in 2020?

 

Joe Biden used US aid money to fire the prosecutor investigating the employer of his son. That was unethical, and deserves to be scrutinized as a distinct conflict of interest.

You seem to be trying to tell me that Joe Biden blackmailed Ukraine into firing the prosecutor investing Burisma, a corporation in Ukraine known for suspiciously corrupt activity, and his son had been employed by the company, did not set any red flags?

Are you trying to say that Joe thought the current prosecutor into Burisma was going too easy on Burisma? That he was not digging deep enough, not doing a detailed enough investigation to uncover corruption or illicit activities? That Joe wanted someone else to investigate, so that person would dig deeper, and more thoroughly, and possibly uncover incriminating implicating his own son, or damaging his son's reputation??

I think it's very possible that the opposite was taking place. that Joe wanted a new, bought and paid for prosecutor that he could depend upon to not dig too deep, to not deliver any results that might look badly for his son. This is exactly why a sleazy company like Burisma would hire the son of a US Vice President to work for them.

 

You are missing the point behind the firing of the prosecutor...namely that most of the international organizations and the EU also wanted him fired for NOT investigating Ukrainian corruption, which included Burisma.

 

.
Simple, because just like dems fraudulent Trump-Russia collusion sham, this quid pro quo is nothing but a sham.

Both are part of the same excuse to try and get as many Trump administration people under oath as possible. the dems either seek to entrap them in silly process crimes, or to ruin them financially, so that no one will want to work for Trump, or associate with him, for fear of being the next person targeted by the dems.

This is nothing but the Democrat's ongoing fishing expedition to attack Trump.

We already know that hearsay, innuendo, rumor, gossip, conjecture and speculative opinions are taken as fact evidence by the dems. Why allow them to use it to smear Trump's entire cabinet?

There is a thing called separation of powers, and it needs to be upheld, especially with such an unhinged vile partisan House as we have today, with members who have stated they wanted to impeach Trump before he was even sworn in.