Do you think Trump was justified in asking Ukraine to look into potential corruption involving the B

Then why did he try to hide what he'd done?

 

You mean hard to find evidence in those sources.

 

Rooski

 

Not getting the outrage over quid pro quo. Every time you buy a candy bar there's quid pro quo.

It's only wrong if either the quid or the quo, or both, are illegal. Bribing a cop to not give you a ticket is illegal on both ends. Trump asking for an investigation into young Biden (who is not a political opponent) is not illegal, no matter how outraged you pretend to be. Nor would the investigation have been.

Speaking of which, suppose Ukraine goes ahead and does it, and then suppose they find something dirty. Was it wrong for them to have checked? In their own country, under their own laws??

 

Lol

 

Evidently you don’t know what a quid pro quo entails and didn’t watch the testimony. The case is so weak the dem clown show is still on their witch hunt and afraid to send the articles.

 

Oh, that's right. You work in the "main office" of the "company", and have vast experience (i.e. none at all) addressing evidentiary issues.

Me and my 30 years of experience DOING JUST THAT is meaningless because, well, things and stuff. There was ample evidence, even if Impotus obstructed the process by withholding documents and witnesses. (As an aside, is hiding things the way an innocent man behaves?)

I think Speaker Pelosi knows what she's doing. Recall that she gave Bonespurs an embarrassing public spanking over the government shutdown...it's going to happen again.

 

Oh, that's right. The eeeevil "deep state", and stuff.

Read the IG report. It debunks what most of us knew was a load of **** anyway.

Here comes another beat down for Impotus Bonespurs.

 

The one that lists 17 'errors' that had nothing to do with bias, just incompetence? I think they are biased and you think they are incompetent but either way it's hard to trust what they say.

 

List those for me, and then explain why it renders what Impotus Bonespurs did is magically irrelevant.

Bias against whom? Carter Page?

BTW, do you acknowledge that there is no "deep state"? The IG says there isn't.

 

"Not getting the outrage" over Impotus Bonespurs trying to use his office for personal political gain? That's a shocking lack of perspective. Really.

1. Impotus abusing his office is not remotely like "buying a candy bar". There's that GOP inability to draw analogies again. Good job of trivializing a gross abuse of the office that the moron tried to hide.
2. People have to be exceptionally naive or willfully ignorant to fail to grasp that trying to dirty Hunter Biden is really an attack on Bonespurs' political rival, Joe Biden.
3. What ifs are not facts or even relevant arguments. If there was a hint of an issue with Hunter Biden, surely there would be an investigation. This is in sharp contrast with investigating the Impotus Bonespurs' Campaign, where there was a great deal of smoke leading to the investigation, indictments, convictions and a trove of evidence. Read the Mueller Report.

 

Not at all. If you'd bother to scan it, you'd see an ocean of evidence that is cited to in the report.

Read the damned thing. If you're going to make comments and don't want them to be off-base (it's like trying to be an expert about a book that you haven't even seen, let alone read), read the report and scan the footnotes. Otherwise, don't bother trying to comment on it.

 

What do you mean by hide?

 

Probably more than you and you are confused that it is an intelligence matter when it is a criminal matter. Now try addressing what I asked.

But tell me did you hold the same position about the Obama administration investigating the Trump campaign and then incoming administration? What was the HARD evidence of wrongdoing?

Trump's not on trial in the Senate there have been no articles of impeachment filed with the Senate. And we STILL need a full investigation into the Hunter Biden/Ukraine oligarchs pay for play scheme.

 

Oh, dear God. Have you forgotten about this so soon?

It's right in the WB report:

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/...ssified-system-hide-trumps-phone-call/160163/

"The whistleblower said that multiple White House officials told him that the rough transcript of the president’s call was put into a standalone computer system that is reserved for top-level intelligence information, not the computer system in which such transcripts are usually kept and distributed to Cabinet-level officials."

 

2016 called. They want their debunked conspiracy theories back.

 

That's fine as far as it goes, but stop whining about quid pro quo. It doesn't mean "bad."

I can't think of many things an incumbent can do that his opponents can't call an abuse of office. Your abuse is the best man's use.

Not even a hint? How about a 2 by 4? The hint is that he was getting his candy bars in the Ukraine at a good price. Such a good bargain hunter. Maybe that's why he's called Hunter.

 

So now take off your dancing shoes.

But tell me did you hold the same position about the Obama administration investigating the Trump campaign and then incoming administration? What was the HARD evidence of wrongdoing?

 

Conversations between the President and world leaders are classified at birth they are not released to the public. They are distributed on a need to know basis. And BTW that still needs to be investigated as to who leaked that classified information to the complainer and if the law was violated that person prosecuted.

 

the thing is, when you here the in house background.... he did not much care whether there actually WAS an investigation....nit was not enough for the pres ok Ukraine to say he would have someone look into it... he wanted an investigation to be ANNOUNCED.... and would reward the pres of Ukraine when the investigation was publicly announced.

it’s like some opponent is running against you... and you ask the head of the fbi to announce that they are investigating him for child abuse and child porn.

if you think there is a problem... the proper way is to tell the head of the justice dept to coordinate with the state dept and ambassador to make sure this is checked out.... you tell them what info you have and where it came from

and, btw, you do not withhold previously approved aid pending action

I mean... when have you ever heard of a mayor withholding the police budget until the police announce an investigation into your political apponent?

 

Btw.... what is going on with the investigation? Given all the “evidence” gathered by Giuliani.... one would think this would be moving pretty quickly

 

So, you also didn’t watch the IGs testimony either. No wonder you are so confused on the facts.

 

bipartisan agreement? We all know this would never be possible

 

I agree there is power structure intrenched government and that it defends itself and is bipartisan. Call it what you will.

 

I watched most of the testimony in the impeachment.