VP Biden’s quid pro quo threat to Ukraine...

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,450
Reaction score
172
Points
63
All the foot pounding and misdirection in the world isn't going to stop Durham and Barr from getting to the bottom of what happened in Ukraine with DNC election meddling, foreign collusion, high level political corruption involving (at least) Biden, Kerry, Romney and a host of NSC/CIA agents. It's a criminal investigation now. This is happening.
TROLLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,451
Reaction score
1,255
Points
113
All the foot pounding and misdirection in the world isn't going to stop Durham and Barr from getting to the bottom of what happened in Ukraine with DNC election meddling, foreign collusion, high level political corruption involving (at least) Biden, Kerry, Romney and a host of NSC/CIA agents. It's a criminal investigation now. This is happening.
Thanks Q! Lyin Bill Barr will find something or die trying!
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
349
Points
83
All the foot pounding and misdirection in the world isn't going to stop Durham and Barr from getting to the bottom of what happened in Ukraine with DNC election meddling, foreign collusion, high level political corruption involving (at least) Biden, Kerry, Romney and a host of NSC/CIA agents. It's a criminal investigation now. This is happening.
It's funny watching how big of hypocrites the Ds are when it comes to election meddling and foreign collusion. They must investigate Trump over and over but when there is evidence of their best chance at beating trump in the next election doing it "nothing to see here"... What a joke, how about have some integrity Ds?
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
9,452
Reaction score
968
Points
113
All the foot pounding and misdirection in the world isn't going to stop Durham and Barr from getting to the bottom of what happened in Ukraine with DNC election meddling, foreign collusion, high level political corruption involving (at least) Biden, Kerry, Romney and a host of NSC/CIA agents. It's a criminal investigation now. This is happening.
Go ahead and have all of those, that you name.

Watch me not give a shat.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
9,452
Reaction score
968
Points
113
I think justice will end up winning out, despite the fact that you hope it won't. I hope that all of those who illegally went after Trump are caught and duly punished. If Rudy did something wrong, which I doubt, then he too is not above the law.

Rudy understands the law and he understands that every step that anyone who works for Trump is and was being scrutinized. I think he knows better than to have done anything corrupt. May the truth win out.
If it saves Trump from jail, you’re willing to toss Rudy to the lions. Guessing you feel the same towards Pence and Barr, too. Noted
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,525
Reaction score
328
Points
83
It's funny watching how big of hypocrites the Ds are when it comes to election meddling and foreign collusion. They must investigate Trump over and over but when there is evidence of their best chance at beating trump in the next election doing it "nothing to see here"... What a joke, how about have some integrity Ds?
What evidence is there of Biden working with a foreign government to interfere in any election?
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,525
Reaction score
328
Points
83
Where in the phone call did Trump's quid pro quo happen?
A) I notice you've avoided the question. If you're going to make bold claims, you should at least be able to describe the background of those bold claims.
B) When he said, "I need you to do us a favor" immediately after Zelensky mentioned the javelins.
C) We've been over this 100 times, but the phone call was one event. There's mountains of evidence, including lots of testimony from Trump appointees, of other events that established the quid pro quo.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
349
Points
83
A) I notice you've avoided the question. If you're going to make bold claims, you should at least be able to describe the background of those bold claims.
B) When he said, "I need you to do us a favor" immediately after Zelensky mentioned the javelins.
C) We've been over this 100 times, but the phone call was one event. There's mountains of evidence, including lots of testimony from Trump appointees, of other events that established the quid pro quo.
A)I noticed you only asked about the election and not any foreign collusion. Or how about his son and the conflicts there?

Joe Biden-
"I looked at them and said: 'I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," he said.

B) No quid pro quo , thanks for admitting that

C) There are mountains of selective leaks by the Ds. There are also testimony's that say "no quid pro quo" you just ignore those. You read headlines on twitter and form your opinions based of selective leaked fake info that shifty schiff is feeding you.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
9,452
Reaction score
968
Points
113
^^^

bass getting in your face over the position of "there was no quid pro quo on the phone call", a silly little point, because he thinks that's the best way to extract the most pleasure out of you by frustrating you the most.

Don't play his game.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
12,876
Reaction score
448
Points
83
A) I notice you've avoided the question. If you're going to make bold claims, you should at least be able to describe the background of those bold claims.
B) When he said, "I need you to do us a favor" immediately after Zelensky mentioned the javelins.
C) We've been over this 100 times, but the phone call was one event. There's mountains of evidence, including lots of testimony from Trump appointees, of other events that established the quid pro quo.
First, Zelensky brought up the javelins, and they were unrelated to the aid. Ukraine was PURCHASING the javelins and there’s no evidence that that purchase was delayed as it went through normal channels. As has been stated many times, Trump doesn’t like giving away millions of dollars in aid, but he has expressed no problem with countries buying our stuff from us.

Second, if there’s “mountains of evidence”, how come there’s not one statement from Trump’s mouth that says “if they do this, we can do that” regarding anything except proving that they are addressing its corruption. Trump never said it to Ukraine and never said it to Sondland or Volker, the primary Ukraine liaisons.

“Mountains of evidence’? We know Trump said “no quid pro quo”, but we don’t have anything more than opinions or interpretations of what he meant that caused some to assume a quid pro quo. If so, name it?

On the other hand, Biden proclaimed his quid pro quo while his son was deeply involved and outrageously paid by the most corrupt, biggest energy company in Ukraine that had been under criminal investigation, and Biden’s son would personally benefit if VP Biden can get Ukraine to get off Burisma’s back.

I’ll ask again, does anyone believe Joe Biden when he says he didn’t know Hunter was on the Burisma Board of Directors being paid millions of dollars?
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
9,452
Reaction score
968
Points
113
Second, if there’s “mountains of evidence”, how come there’s not one statement from Trump’s mouth that says “if they do this, we can do that” regarding anything except proving that they are addressing its corruption. Trump never said it to Ukraine and never said it to Sondland or Volker, the primary Ukraine liaisons.

“Mountains of evidence’? We know Trump said “no quid pro quo”, but we don’t have anything more than opinions or interpretations of what he meant that caused some to assume a quid pro quo. If so, name it?
Just like when a mob boss knows his phone is tapped and tells his henchman "oh and by the way, whatever you do, don't murder that guy who owes us money and won't pay up. I don't want him murdered, capiche?" And then the guy gets murdered.


You'll believe what you want to believe, no matter what.

A jury will believe differently. In the end, that's the real truth that matters.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,525
Reaction score
328
Points
83
A)I noticed you only asked about the election and not any foreign collusion. Or how about his son and the conflicts there?

Joe Biden-
"I looked at them and said: 'I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," he said.

B) No quid pro quo , thanks for admitting that

C) There are mountains of selective leaks by the Ds. There are also testimony's that say "no quid pro quo" you just ignore those. You read headlines on twitter and form your opinions based of selective leaked fake info that shifty schiff is feeding you.
You said, " but when there is evidence of their best chance at beating trump in the next election doing it "nothing to see here"... What a joke, how about have some integrity Ds?" I responded to that. I assume you're now saying that claim was entirely fabricated out of whole cloth.

I form my opinions based on full transcripts and I cite and screenshot those transcripts.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
349
Points
83
You said, " but when there is evidence of their best chance at beating trump in the next election doing it "nothing to see here"... What a joke, how about have some integrity Ds?" I responded to that. I assume you're now saying that claim was entirely fabricated out of whole cloth.

I form my opinions based on full transcripts and I cite and screenshot those transcripts.
Biden is the Ds best chance to beat Trump in the next election. You don't think it's fishy that the Ds are pushing hard "there is nothing to see here"? The Ds want Trump to be investigated over and over but don't want Biden to be investigated when there is arguably more evidence of Biden doing exactly what Trump is accused of? Hypocrites! Giant ones! Almost as big as beeg.

You can keep lying but everyone knows you just see a headline on twitter and post it here. You do this over and over.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,525
Reaction score
328
Points
83
First, Zelensky brought up the javelins, and they were unrelated to the aid. Ukraine was PURCHASING the javelins and there’s no evidence that that purchase was delayed as it went through normal channels. As has been stated many times, Trump doesn’t like giving away millions of dollars in aid, but he has expressed no problem with countries buying our stuff from us.

Second, if there’s “mountains of evidence”, how come there’s not one statement from Trump’s mouth that says “if they do this, we can do that” regarding anything except proving that they are addressing its corruption. Trump never said it to Ukraine and never said it to Sondland or Volker, the primary Ukraine liaisons.

“Mountains of evidence’? We know Trump said “no quid pro quo”, but we don’t have anything more than opinions or interpretations of what he meant that caused some to assume a quid pro quo. If so, name it?

On the other hand, Biden proclaimed his quid pro quo while his son was deeply involved and outrageously paid by the most corrupt, biggest energy company in Ukraine that had been under criminal investigation, and Biden’s son would personally benefit if VP Biden can get Ukraine to get off Burisma’s back.

I’ll ask again, does anyone believe Joe Biden when he says he didn’t know Hunter was on the Burisma Board of Directors being paid millions of dollars?
A) Has the Javelin purchase happened?

B) I think it seems pretty clear that Sondland is doing his best to protect Trump. He got caught lying about conversations and had to amend himself, but even still he's using really qualified language.

C) Trump told actual diplomats to work with Giuliani on Ukraine. The diplomats didn't like it, but they complied. Giuliani not only won't testify, but is connected to people who are indicted for working on behalf of oligarchs. In other words, the person most likely to have been involved in damning conversations with Trump won't testify.

D) No, I don't believe that about Biden. But on the other hand, there's a whole list of people who wanted Shokin fired, and a whole list of people who don't think Shokin was investigating Burisma, so there's no evidence Shokin's firing was in any way related to Hunter Biden.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
12,876
Reaction score
448
Points
83
MG, That is a truly stupid analogy. Anyone who read it, is dumber for it.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
9,452
Reaction score
968
Points
113
^^^ he knows I'm right and couldn't think of a good counter-argument.

Watch, he'll say something like "no I'm just stating a fact that you're stupid". Or he won't respond at all. <--- either of those confirms I'm correct.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
12,876
Reaction score
448
Points
83
A) Has the Javelin purchase happened?

B) I think it seems pretty clear that Sondland is doing his best to protect Trump. He got caught lying about conversations and had to amend himself, but even still he's using really qualified language.

C) Trump told actual diplomats to work with Giuliani on Ukraine. The diplomats didn't like it, but they complied. Giuliani not only won't testify, but is connected to people who are indicted for working on behalf of oligarchs. In other words, the person most likely to have been involved in damning conversations with Trump won't testify. The only direct statements testified to was “no quid pro quo” on more than one occasion.

D) No, I don't believe that about Biden. But on the other hand, there's a whole list of people who wanted Shokin fired, and a whole list of people who don't think Shokin was investigating Burisma, so there's no evidence Shokin's firing was in any way related to Hunter Biden.
A) yes.

B) Caught lying? If he was lying, I doubt he would amend it. At worst, it would be different recollections. There is no recording. Looks like he made an honest effort to correct the record.
And yes, “presuming” is very qualified, and a reflection that Trump did not tell him this for that.

C) no one knows exactly what Giuliani did or said, but you can’t assume guilt without evidence or guilt by association. Again, Sondland and Volker were the US government and Trump administration liaisons. Volker explicitly said that he knows of no quid pro quo. Sondland says he only presumed it. Bad presumption.

D) It wasn’t just Shokin that they wanted gone. Others wanted the whole prosecutor department and parts of the Ukraine government cleansed. Biden only mentioned THE prosecutor. There’s circumstantial evidence, just like with Trump. But for some reason Dems on care about Trump circumstantial evidence and not Biden’s. Trump’s is being investigated. Biden’s isn’t.

Both are arguably cloaked in greater purposes, Trump trying to ensure anti-corruption in Ukraine and Biden the same. Both can be interpreted for personal gain, Trump to damage a potential political opponent and Biden to protect his son’s ridiculous income and his own reputation. But only one threatened a quip pro quo and, in fact, stupidly bragged about it publicly.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
12,876
Reaction score
448
Points
83
If MG responds to my posts, he’s a tool. If he doesn’t, he’s a tool.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,892
Reaction score
1,303
Points
113
A) yes.

B) Caught lying? If he was lying, I doubt he would amend it. At worst, it would be different recollections. There is no recording. Looks like he made an honest effort to correct the record.
And yes, “presuming” is very qualified, and a reflection that Trump did not tell him this for that.

C) no one knows exactly what Giuliani did or said, but you can’t assume guilt without evidence or guilt by association. Again, Sondland and Volker were the US government and Trump administration liaisons. Volker explicitly said that he knows of no quid pro quo. Sondland says he only presumed it. Bad presumption.

D) It wasn’t just Shokin that they wanted gone. Others wanted the whole prosecutor department and parts of the Ukraine government cleansed. Biden only mentioned THE prosecutor. There’s circumstantial evidence, just like with Trump. But for some reason Dems on care about Trump circumstantial evidence and not Biden’s. Trump’s is being investigated. Biden’s isn’t.

Both are arguably cloaked in greater purposes, Trump trying to ensure anti-corruption in Ukraine and Biden the same. Both can be interpreted for personal gain, Trump to damage a potential political opponent and Biden to protect his son’s ridiculous income and his own reputation. But only one threatened a quip pro quo and, in fact, stupidly bragged about it publicly.
The fact that Sondland only spoke to Ukraine in September about this shows that he only addressed it after Schiff and Taylor leaked it out in order to force Sondland to address it with Ukraine.

Trump said no quid pro quo and Sondland knew that Trump had no intention of making such an overt bargain.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
9,452
Reaction score
968
Points
113
^^^ he knows I'm right and couldn't think of a good counter-argument.

Watch, he'll say something like "no I'm just stating a fact that you're stupid". Or he won't respond at all. <--- either of those confirms I'm correct.
Like I said :cool:
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
12,876
Reaction score
448
Points
83
The fact that Sondland only spoke to Ukraine in September about this shows that he only addressed it after Schiff and Taylor leaked it out in order to force Sondland to address it with Ukraine.

Trump said no quid pro quo and Sondland knew that Trump had no intention of making such an overt bargain.
Funny how Dems want to believe Volker about Biden, but not about Trump.

I believe Volker believes good about Biden and isn’t aware of the circumstance, but Volker was in the middle of the Ukraine-Trump communications and knows what did and didn’t happen.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,892
Reaction score
1,303
Points
113
Joe Biden had no idea.... except maybe he did... Everyone in the Obama adminstration knew that Hunter Biden and Burisma was an issue.

Memos newly released through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Southeastern Legal Foundation on my behalf detail how State officials in June 2016 worked to prepare the new U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, to handle a question about “Burisma and Hunter Biden.”

In multiple drafts of a question-and-answer memo prepared for Yovanovitch’s Senate confirmation hearing, the department’s Ukraine experts urged the incoming ambassador to stick to a simple answer.

“Do you have any comment on Hunter Biden, the Vice President’s son, serving on the board of Burisma, a major Ukrainian Gas Company?,” the draft Q&A asked.

The recommended answer for Yovanovitch: “For questions on Hunter Biden’s role in Burisma, I would refer you to Vice President Biden’s office.”


https://johnsolomonreports.com/in-midst-of-2016-election-state-department-saw-burisma-as-joe-bidens-issue-memos-show/
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Joe Biden had no idea.... except maybe he did... Everyone in the Obama adminstration knew that Hunter Biden and Burisma was an issue.

Memos newly released through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Southeastern Legal Foundation on my behalf detail how State officials in June 2016 worked to prepare the new U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, to handle a question about “Burisma and Hunter Biden.”

In multiple drafts of a question-and-answer memo prepared for Yovanovitch’s Senate confirmation hearing, the department’s Ukraine experts urged the incoming ambassador to stick to a simple answer.

“Do you have any comment on Hunter Biden, the Vice President’s son, serving on the board of Burisma, a major Ukrainian Gas Company?,” the draft Q&A asked.

The recommended answer for Yovanovitch: “For questions on Hunter Biden’s role in Burisma, I would refer you to Vice President Biden’s office.”


https://johnsolomonreports.com/in-midst-of-2016-election-state-department-saw-burisma-as-joe-bidens-issue-memos-show/
Which then begs the question why did he lie about it? Why did he need to try to cover it up? The Ds really don't want answers to those questions.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,451
Reaction score
1,255
Points
113
It's funny watching how big of hypocrites the Ds are when it comes to election meddling and foreign collusion. They must investigate Trump over and over but when there is evidence of their best chance at beating trump in the next election doing it "nothing to see here"... What a joke, how about have some integrity Ds?
What did Joe Biden do that was illegal? KGF can't tell me. If there is anything, by all means investigate it.

Trump tried to extort/bribe Ukraine into announcing investigations in Q-non conspiracies to help him politically. Both on the phone call and via intermediaries. You can "both sides" all you like, it doesn't change that.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
349
Points
83
What did Joe Biden do that was illegal? KGF can't tell me. If there is anything, by all means investigate it.

Trump tried to extort/bribe Ukraine into announcing investigations in Q-non conspiracies to help him politically. Both on the phone call and via intermediaries. You can "both sides" all you like, it doesn't change that.
OK let Trump investigate then. You are on the record of having no problem with Trump investigating Biden's dealings in Ukraine. So this impeachment inquiry then is what to you? Or do you want to pretzel and hypocrite again?
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,451
Reaction score
1,255
Points
113
OK let Trump investigate then. You are on the record of having no problem with Trump investigating Biden's dealings in Ukraine. So this impeachment inquiry then is what to you? Or do you want to pretzel and hypocrite again?
Trump can investigate him. He can't use Bill Barr or the DOJ to do it. And he can't use the power of his office to extort Ukraine to do it for him. I've said before, if all he did was send his Fool Rudy to investigate, there would be no issue.

The impeachment inquiry is because he did exactly those things.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
349
Points
83
Trump can investigate him. He can't use Bill Barr or the DOJ to do it. And he can't use the power of his office to extort Ukraine to do it for him. I've said before, if all he did was send his Fool Rudy to investigate, there would be no issue.

The impeachment inquiry is because he did exactly those things.
Why not?
 
Top Bottom