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

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
53,796
Reaction score
11,086
Points
113

There is no accusation that Biden broke any US laws. You don't see an issue with the President using the Attorney General and DOJ to go after his political opponents?
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
16,335
Reaction score
697
Points
113
There is no accusation that Biden broke any US laws. You don't see an issue with the President using the Attorney General and DOJ to go after his political opponents?

There isn't?

And I don't look at it as Trump going after his political opponent. I look at it as Trump trying to get to the bottom of the corruption. And one of the people at the bottom of it just happens to also be running for the Democratic nomination, not actually running against Trump yet.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
53,796
Reaction score
11,086
Points
113
There isn't?

And I don't look at it as Trump going after his political opponent. I look at it as Trump trying to get to the bottom of the corruption. And one of the people at the bottom of it just happens to also be running for the Democratic nomination, not actually running against Trump yet.

Trump is corruption. He's not trying to get to the bottom of anything and you know it. The entire thing, that Russia didn't attack us even and Ukraine did even though every intelligence agency agrees it was Russia and the Biden stuff is Qnon stuff put in his head by Rudy, Manafort and co.
 
Last edited:

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
53,796
Reaction score
11,086
Points
113
OK then let him investigate if you are so sure.

He already has Bill Barr running around trying to "prove" that the FBI and every other intelligence agency is wrong about Russia interfering in 2016. It's sick and you're waving your pom poms for it. The AG and DOJ are supposed to be independent. Not Trump's hit men.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
16,335
Reaction score
697
Points
113
He already has Bill Barr running around trying to "prove" that the FBI and every other intelligence agency is wrong about Russia interfering in 2016. It's sick and you're waving your pom poms for it. The AG and DOJ are supposed to be independent. Not Trump's hit men.

You are jumping all over the place...

Everyone agrees Russia interfered in the election, to what extent isn't necessarily agreed upon. Maybe you meant to say he has Bill running around trying to "prove" Trump didn't collude with Russia? I'll wave my pom poms at that because I stated clearly I didnt' think Trump colluded with russia from the very beginning. If you have been paying attention I've attacked Trump almost as much as anyone here. I just do it when he deserves it and not for everything and especially not for the made up stuff like you and jtf.

Like I said, you clearly don't want the answers to Biden's involvement in the corruption in Ukraine. You are making it clear as day here by pretzeling. Sad how big of a hypocrite you have become.
 

bottlebass

Main Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
16,335
Reaction score
697
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.

JTF got real quiet on the subject after this post. Still posting in other threads though.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
43,117
Reaction score
4,354
Points
113
He already has Bill Barr running around trying to "prove" that the FBI and every other intelligence agency is wrong about Russia interfering in 2016. It's sick and you're waving your pom poms for it. The AG and DOJ are supposed to be independent. Not Trump's hit men.

It is now obvious to all but the dumbest of human beings that they tried to frame Trump. That's why there was a two year investigation that fell flat on its face and in fact even the investigators knew that it was over before it started. That is also why Barr is investigating the intel community and the actions of the Obama administration. It is not to protect Trump. It is to save faith in the American government for the years ahead. If there was corruption and spying (there was) then it needs to be rooted out and punished otherwise we are no better than a banana republic.

If Barr and Rosenstein (who seem to get along pretty well by the way) were out to protect Trump, then why did the pair of them let Mueller have free reign to investigate all things Trump for two years? They didn't even have Mueller investigate the other side of the story (FBI/CIA corruption- it wasn't in his "purview"), so one sided was the Mueller investigation, but they let him do it anyway.

I think you know all of this because I also know that you are actually not dumb. But you do have a problem. The problem that is making you look like a dishonest idiot is your hatred for Donald Trump. You have lost all sense of reason. This is why you have to re create what everyone else says to make it worse so that you can make yourself feel better about your untenable position.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
43,117
Reaction score
4,354
Points
113
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.

I see. So by that standard, Obama could not have ordered nor allowed the FBI (which is under the DOJ) to run a counterintelligence investigation on Donald Trump, but they did. And it would have been perfectly legal to do so had their been a legal predicate for it. Unfortunately for Obama, there was not.

Again, you are no long able to think things through logically because it is all feelings of hatred that drives you.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
43,117
Reaction score
4,354
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.

Great post.

There was no personal quid pro quo. The dealings with Ukraine were for the protection of the taxpayer's dollars and our nation's best interests. America First. Long before this phone call Trump was attempting to cut back aid to corrupt or undeserving countries- because it is a pure waste of our tax dollars to send it to be used for corrupt purposes.

Every negotiation we have as a nation, whether it is a negotiation on aid or on trade or whatever, involves quid pro quo nation to nation (it had better!), the exchange of one thing for another. Otherwise why do it at all?
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,451
Reaction score
2,754
Points
113
He already has Bill Barr running around trying to "prove" that the FBI and every other intelligence agency is wrong about Russia interfering in 2016. It's sick and you're waving your pom poms for it. The AG and DOJ are supposed to be independent. Not Trump's hit men.
“Stop lying!” Barr turned the investigation completely over to John Durham, who has prosecuted Rs and Ds. When international investigations are required, it is customary to have the top law enforcement official introduce the Federal investigator to countries’ top law enforcement for cooperation.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,451
Reaction score
2,754
Points
113
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.
“Stop lying!” I told you that there’s a chance that Biden has violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or had extorted Ukrainian officials. There is circumstantial evidence to suggest so.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
43,117
Reaction score
4,354
Points
113
I see. So by that standard, Obama could not have ordered nor allowed the FBI (which is under the DOJ) to run a counterintelligence investigation on Donald Trump, but they did. And it would have been perfectly legal to do so had their been a legal predicate for it. Unfortunately for Obama, there was not.

Again, you are no long able to think things through logically because it is all feelings of hatred that drives you.

Bump for Howie- Why was Obama allowed to investigate Trump through the FBI (which is part of the DOJ)?
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
43,117
Reaction score
4,354
Points
113
There is no accusation that Biden broke any US laws. You don't see an issue with the President using the Attorney General and DOJ to go after his political opponents?

Do you want the swamp drained or not? It appears not. Your dream is to continue to have standard politicians that go to Washington to get rich or as in Biden's case launder the money through your son. Trump irritates that whole status quo system and the elites need him out- ASAP. Thus...impeachment- the insurance policy.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
Great post.

There was no personal quid pro quo. The dealings with Ukraine were for the protection of the taxpayer's dollars and our nation's best interests. America First. Long before this phone call Trump was attempting to cut back aid to corrupt or undeserving countries- because it is a pure waste of our tax dollars to send it to be used for corrupt purposes.

Every negotiation we have as a nation, whether it is a negotiation on aid or on trade or whatever, involves quid pro quo nation to nation (it had better!), the exchange of one thing for another. Otherwise why do it at all?

Or not:

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

SONDLAND:

uZl2IrL.png
 
Last edited:

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
43,117
Reaction score
4,354
Points
113
Or not:

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

SONDLAND:

uZl2IrL.png

Your point?

The President wants to stop corruption in countries we are partnering with. I think this is a good idea. It appears that you think it is a bad one. That's dumb.

The reason for Giuliani is obvious. The deep state employees in the State Department don't believe that the President runs the foreign policy. They think that they are entitled to do that. Some of them in fact are conflicted and perhaps involved financially or politically with past corruption dating back to 2016. Think Vindland and Tayor for starters. Bottom line- they were not trust worthy to look at the 2016 corruption since they might well be part of covering it up. Thus Giuliani
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
Your point?

The President wants to stop corruption in countries we are partnering with. I think this is a good idea. It appears that you think it is a bad one. That's dumb.

The reason for Giuliani is obvious. The deep state employees in the State Department don't believe that the President runs the foreign policy. They think that they are entitled to do that. Some of them in fact are conflicted and perhaps involved financially or politically with past corruption dating back to 2016. Think Vindland and Tayor for starters. Bottom line- they were not trust worthy to look at the 2016 corruption since they might well be part of covering it up. Thus Giuliani

You said, "The dealings with Ukraine were for the protection of the taxpayer's dollars and our nation's best interests." Trump put Rudy in charge, and Rudy says that's not true, that everything he did was aimed at helping Trump specifically.

At some point you guys are going to have to disavow Rudy. You might want to get out in front of that.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
43,117
Reaction score
4,354
Points
113
You said, "The dealings with Ukraine were for the protection of the taxpayer's dollars and our nation's best interests." Trump put Rudy in charge, and Rudy says that's not true, that everything he did was aimed at helping Trump specifically.

At some point you guys are going to have to disavow Rudy. You might want to get out in front of that.

Why would I have to disavow Rudy? Rudy is Trump's attorney and is getting at the corruption that was underlying the false accusations against Trump. Do you think that the President is not allowed a defense? Why is that so hard for you to figure out? Whatever Rudy uncovers is a double benefit, it is indeed a defense of Trump which was a need created by corruption in the Obama administration and the continued deep state corruption we still see today. And it is also beneficial to the country as it gives us a chance to get to the bottom of the 2016 election interference issue- which will show DNC/Obama administration collusion with Ukraine to attempt to sway the election- which by the way- YOU STILL LOST! :)

At some point I hope you will be smart enough to realize that there was no crime here nor was there any abuse of power. You are twisting and turning and trying to find an angle - well maybe it was bad that Rudy was there or maybe there really was quid pro quo or maybe it feels distasteful to you but the fact is nothing illegal happened. We all know it. You just hate Trump and you KNOW that you cannot win in 2020 with the weak sauce group of candidates you have to choose from. This necessitates that the insurance policy continues on in the form of this faux impeachment operation. You must overthrow Trump any way you can because you simply hate him.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
53,796
Reaction score
11,086
Points
113
At some point you guys are going to have to disavow Rudy. You might want to get out in front of that.

Beeg embraces Rudy as a beacon of truth who hates corruption. As Rudy (and his pals Lev and co and Fraud Guarantee go), Beeg will go with him.
 
Last edited:

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
Why would I have to disavow Rudy? Rudy is Trump's attorney and is getting at the corruption that was underlying the false accusations against Trump. Do you think that the President is not allowed a defense? Why is that so hard for you to figure out? Whatever Rudy uncovers is a double benefit, it is indeed a defense of Trump which was a need created by corruption in the Obama administration and the continued deep state corruption we still see today. And it is also beneficial to the country as it gives us a chance to get to the bottom of the 2016 election interference issue- which will show DNC/Obama administration collusion with Ukraine to attempt to sway the election- which by the way- YOU STILL LOST! :)

At some point I hope you will be smart enough to realize that there was no crime here nor was there any abuse of power. You are twisting and turning and trying to find an angle - well maybe it was bad that Rudy was there or maybe there really was quid pro quo or maybe it feels distasteful to you but the fact is nothing illegal happened. We all know it. You just hate Trump and you KNOW that you cannot win in 2020 with the weak sauce group of candidates you have to choose from. This necessitates that the insurance policy continues on in the form of this faux impeachment operation. You must overthrow Trump any way you can because you simply hate him.

But the bolded is a very different proposition from, "The dealings with Ukraine were for the protection of the taxpayer's dollars and our nation's best interests" Using diplomatic leverage of any sort to mount a defense against domestic accusations is the very definition of abuse of power.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
43,117
Reaction score
4,354
Points
113
But the bolded is a very different proposition from, "The dealings with Ukraine were for the protection of the taxpayer's dollars and our nation's best interests" Using diplomatic leverage of any sort to mount a defense against domestic accusations is the very definition of abuse of power.

That's only an assertion by you. He was working on 2016 election interference. Why was Obama able to investigate Trump in 2016 and by the way - use foreign powers (UK, Australia, Italy and perhaps Russian and Ukraine) to do so??

You see, you are hanging onto the idea of impeaching a President 12 months before the next election based on your negative feelings and opinion about what he did. It's he said, she said. The transcript has no quid pro quo whatsoever. You got all excited that the word "corruption" was never in the phone call. There also was never a word in the phone call about aid or money.

The problem you have is that you hate Trump and you know that you cannot win a fair election. Period. End if story.
 

Deleted_User

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
7,831
Reaction score
532
Points
113
Can you come up with something new other than this old canard.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
That's only an assertion by you. He was working on 2016 election interference. Why was Obama able to investigate Trump in 2016 and by the way - use foreign powers (UK, Australia, Italy and perhaps Russian and Ukraine) to do so??

You see, you are hanging onto the idea of impeaching a President 12 months before the next election based on your negative feelings and opinion about what he did. It's he said, she said. The transcript has no quid pro quo whatsoever. You got all excited that the word "corruption" was never in the phone call. There also was never a word in the phone call about aid or money.

The problem you have is that you hate Trump and you know that you cannot win a fair election. Period. End if story.

It's not an assertion by me. It's an assertion by Rudy Giuliani. You know, the guy we're talking about.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
43,117
Reaction score
4,354
Points
113
It's not an assertion by me. It's an assertion by Rudy Giuliani. You know, the guy we're talking about.

What is an assertion by Giuliani? And what is your point again?
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
23,788
Reaction score
2,162
Points
113
You said, "The dealings with Ukraine were for the protection of the taxpayer's dollars and our nation's best interests." Trump put Rudy in charge, and Rudy says that's not true, that everything he did was aimed at helping Trump specifically.

At some point you guys are going to have to disavow Rudy. You might want to get out in front of that.

Rudy, as much as I dislike the guy's politics, is a mf'ing bulldog. This new narrative, where the left has convinced themselves that Rudy is some loose cannon, goofball who's just shooting from the hip, is perfect. Just keep believing that.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,451
Reaction score
2,754
Points
113
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...company-hunter-biden-sat-on-tried-to-n2556018

Excerpt from WSJ:
A consulting firm hired by Burisma Group mentioned that former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s son served on the Ukrainian gas company’s board so the firm could leverage a meeting with the State Department, according to documents and a former U.S. official.
The documents—email exchanges between State Department staff members made public this week—show that the consulting firm, Washington-based Blue Star Strategies, used Hunter Biden’s name in a request for a State Department meeting and then mentioned him again during the meeting as part of an effort to improve Burisma’s image in Washington.
Mr. Biden was appointed to the Burisma board in 2014, when the company and its owner faced allegations of corruption, and he remained there until April of this year.
It isn’t clear whether the younger Mr. Biden knew his name was being used by Blue Star in its contacts with State Department officials on Burisma’s behalf in early 2016. A lawyer for Mr. Biden didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Hunter Biden served on Burisma’s board when his father, then the vice president, was overseeing U.S. efforts to get Ukraine to reduce corruption. That arrangement has drawn allegations from President Trump and his allies that the younger Mr. Biden sought to profit from his father’s name. Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s leader to investigate the Bidens—an act at the center of the House’s impeachment inquiry. Both Bidens deny any wrongdoing.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MattWolk...company-hunter-biden-sat-on-tried-to-n2556018
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...company-hunter-biden-sat-on-tried-to-n2556018

Excerpt from WSJ:

A consulting firm hired by Burisma Group mentioned that former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s son served on the Ukrainian gas company’s board so the firm could leverage a meeting with the State Department, according to documents and a former U.S. official.
The documents—email exchanges between State Department staff members made public this week—show that the consulting firm, Washington-based Blue Star Strategies, used Hunter Biden’s name in a request for a State Department meeting and then mentioned him again during the meeting as part of an effort to improve Burisma’s image in Washington.
Mr. Biden was appointed to the Burisma board in 2014, when the company and its owner faced allegations of corruption, and he remained there until April of this year.
It isn’t clear whether the younger Mr. Biden knew his name was being used by Blue Star in its contacts with State Department officials on Burisma’s behalf in early 2016. A lawyer for Mr. Biden didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Hunter Biden served on Burisma’s board when his father, then the vice president, was overseeing U.S. efforts to get Ukraine to reduce corruption. That arrangement has drawn allegations from President Trump and his allies that the younger Mr. Biden sought to profit from his father’s name. Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s leader to investigate the Bidens—an act at the center of the House’s impeachment inquiry. Both Bidens deny any wrongdoing.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MattWolk...company-hunter-biden-sat-on-tried-to-n2556018

I've added some bolding for you. Also, did the State Dept actually DO anything on Burisma or Blue Star's behalf?

I agree completely that it's a conflict of interest for Hunter Biden to be working for foreign companies while his dad is in office. But so far no one has shown that that theoretical influence actually resulted in anything. At least Biden has made the pledge that his son won't be involved in foreign business were he to win the Presidency.

I like how my screenshots of sworn testimony of Trump appointees are propaganda, but Town Hall tweets are totally cool.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,451
Reaction score
2,754
Points
113
I've added some bolding for you. Also, did the State Dept actually DO anything on Burisma or Blue Star's behalf?

I agree completely that it's a conflict of interest for Hunter Biden to be working for foreign companies while his dad is in office. But so far no one has shown that that theoretical influence actually resulted in anything. At least Biden has made the pledge that his son won't be involved in foreign business were he to win the Presidency.

I like how my screenshots of sworn testimony of Trump appointees are propaganda, but Town Hall tweets are totally cool.
I specifically said that you didn’t do anything wrong by using screenshots to score argument points. I never said it was “propaganda”. Stop crying pussycat. :cry:

Regarding your bolded, I can read. The point is that whether he knew or not, he would have to be pretty damned naive to think that they wouldn’t try to exploit he name when he was getting paid ridiculous amounts for nothing. The could’ve paid someone a lot less (tremendously less) who had vast experience, but no name. But we know...experience and expertise weren’t what they were interested in.
 
Top Bottom