If its bad for Trump to go to Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden...

[Blackrook]

...why was it okay for Hillary to go to Great Britain to dig up dirt on Trump?

 

[The Banker]

...why was it okay for Hillary to go to Great Britain to dig up dirt on Trump?

Because it is perfectly legal under US law to hire a British firm to do opposition research, as other GOP candidates used the same group for the same reasons in the GOP primary.

It is completely illegal to use Congressionally approved aid as a tool for political gains against a potential rival. Especially when that aid is needed to fight a war against Russia.

See the distinction.

Hey at least you can admit that there was a Quid Pro QUo. Better then most. Really I think the GOP should use the Mulvaney defense, admit it, but say it's not a big deal, at least that is respectable. This total fantasy land lie that there was no QPQ is just pathetic.

 

[Blackrook]

...why was it okay for Hillary to go to Great Britain to dig up dirt on Trump?

Because it is perfectly legal under US law to hire a British firm to do opposition research, as other GOP candidates used the same group for the same reasons in the GOP primary.

It is completely illegal to use Congressionally approved aid as a tool for political gains against a potential rival. Especially when that aid is needed to fight a war against Russia.

See the distinction.

Hey at least you can admit that there was a Quid Pro QUo. Better then most. Really I think the GOP should use the Mulvaney defense, admit it, but say it's not a big deal, at least that is respectable. This total fantasy land lie that there was no QPQ is just pathetic.

Please cite the statute that Trump broke.

 

[Hossfly]

...why was it okay for Hillary to go to Great Britain to dig up dirt on Trump?

Because it is perfectly legal under US law to hire a British firm to do opposition research, as other GOP candidates used the same group for the same reasons in the GOP primary.

It is completely illegal to use Congressionally approved aid as a tool for political gains against a potential rival. Especially when that aid is needed to fight a war against Russia.

See the distinction.

Hey at least you can admit that there was a Quid Pro QUo. Better then most. Really I think the GOP should use the Mulvaney defense, admit it, but say it's not a big deal, at least that is respectable. This total fantasy land lie that there was no QPQ is just pathetic.

What was the Quid Pro Quo? I must have missed that part.

 

[satrebil]

...why was it okay for Hillary to go to Great Britain to dig up dirt on Trump?

Because it is perfectly legal under US law to hire a British firm to do opposition research, as other GOP candidates used the same group for the same reasons in the GOP primary.

It is completely illegal to use Congressionally approved aid as a tool for political gains against a potential rival. Especially when that aid is needed to fight a war against Russia.

See the distinction.

Hey at least you can admit that there was a Quid Pro QUo. Better then most. Really I think the GOP should use the Mulvaney defense, admit it, but say it's not a big deal, at least that is respectable. This total fantasy land lie that there was no QPQ is just pathetic.

You do realize there is a treaty between the US and Ukraine to mutually investigate and pursue criminal matters, right?

https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf

 

[Blackrook]

Obama allowed four men to die, including our Ambassador, rather than fight al Quada terrorists that he funded.

Why wasn't Obama impeached for that?

 

[Blackrook]

Obama smuggled guns to drug lords, and one of those guns was used to murder a border patrol officer.

Why wasn't Obama impeached for that?

 

[Blackrook]

Clinton lied under oath, said Monica didn't give him a blow job when she did. He told Monica to lie, which is obstruction of justice.

Why did Democrats not vote to impeach Clinton for that?

 

[satrebil]

...why was it okay for Hillary to go to Great Britain to dig up dirt on Trump?

Because it is perfectly legal under US law to hire a British firm to do opposition research, as other GOP candidates used the same group for the same reasons in the GOP primary.

It is completely illegal to use Congressionally approved aid as a tool for political gains against a potential rival. Especially when that aid is needed to fight a war against Russia.

See the distinction.

Hey at least you can admit that there was a Quid Pro QUo. Better then most. Really I think the GOP should use the Mulvaney defense, admit it, but say it's not a big deal, at least that is respectable. This total fantasy land lie that there was no QPQ is just pathetic.

You do realize there is a treaty between the US and Ukraine to mutually investigate and pursue criminal matters, right?

https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf

The relevant bits, since we know you won't actually read the fucking thing:


“To the Senate of the United States: With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex, signed at Kiev on July 22, 1998. I transmit also, for the information of the Senate, an exchange of notes which was signed on September 30, 1999, which provides for its provisional application, as well as the report of the Department of State with respect to the Treaty. The Treaty is one of a series of modern mutual legal assistance treaties being negotiated by the United States in order to counter criminal activities more effectively. The Treaty should be an effective tool to assist in the prosecution of a wide variety of crimes, including drug trafficking offenses. The Treaty is self-executing. It provides for a broad range of cooperation in criminal matters. Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state. I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Treaty and give its advice and consent to ratification.”

WILLIAM J. CLINTON.

 

[Blackrook]

Ted Kennedy drove his car into a creek and left a woman to die.

Why didn't Democrats not force Ted out of the Senate for that?

 

[Crepitus]

...why was it okay for Hillary to go to Great Britain to dig up dirt on Trump?

Because it is perfectly legal under US law to hire a British firm to do opposition research, as other GOP candidates used the same group for the same reasons in the GOP primary.

It is completely illegal to use Congressionally approved aid as a tool for political gains against a potential rival. Especially when that aid is needed to fight a war against Russia.

See the distinction.

Hey at least you can admit that there was a Quid Pro QUo. Better then most. Really I think the GOP should use the Mulvaney defense, admit it, but say it's not a big deal, at least that is respectable. This total fantasy land lie that there was no QPQ is just pathetic.

They will claim they don't see the distinction and deflect to something else like "no first hand witnesses" or "where's our due process".

 

[Blackrook]

Epstein was murdered to cover up for Clinton, who is a pedophile.

Why don't Democrats want Clinton prosecuted for that?

 

[The Banker]

...why was it okay for Hillary to go to Great Britain to dig up dirt on Trump?

Because it is perfectly legal under US law to hire a British firm to do opposition research, as other GOP candidates used the same group for the same reasons in the GOP primary.

It is completely illegal to use Congressionally approved aid as a tool for political gains against a potential rival. Especially when that aid is needed to fight a war against Russia.

See the distinction.

Hey at least you can admit that there was a Quid Pro QUo. Better then most. Really I think the GOP should use the Mulvaney defense, admit it, but say it's not a big deal, at least that is respectable. This total fantasy land lie that there was no QPQ is just pathetic.

What was the Quid Pro Quo? I must have missed that part.

Because you live in a total fantasy land and can't accept simple facts and reality...

 

[Blackrook]

Clinton actually raped a woman.

Why didn't the Democrats force him to resign for that?

 

[The Banker]

Epstein was murdered to cover up for Clinton, who is a pedophile.

Why don't Democrats want Clinton prosecuted for that?

Because that is fake news and didn't happen as they determined there was no foul play what so ever. The fact that you think that was a scandal shows you are just a clueless partisan hack that believes anything Foxnews tells you to believe instead of thinking for yourself.

 

[Blackrook]

Democrats have one standard for themselves and a totally different standard for Republicans.

 

[eagle1462010]

Trump has every right to look for dirt on a political rival............they do it all the time.

His Lawyer has every right........................AND OBLIGATION ...........to DEFEND his client..........and going to find evidence to defend his client is his JOB.

Trump is under attack.................and it could go to a Senate trial.........OMFG..........and he has the right to find evidence and issues for his defense........He also has the right to FACE HIS ACCUSERS...........under the Constitution.

 

[Blackrook]

Epstein was murdered to cover up for Clinton, who is a pedophile.

Why don't Democrats want Clinton prosecuted for that?

Because that is fake news and didn't happen as they determined there was no foul play what so ever. The fact that you think that was a scandal shows you are just a clueless partisan hack that believes anything Foxnews tells you to believe instead of thinking for yourself.

Epstein didn't kill himself.

Even the retarded man in the home for retarded people knows that.

 

[eagle1462010]

Epstein was murdered to cover up for Clinton, who is a pedophile.

Why don't Democrats want Clinton prosecuted for that?

Because that is fake news and didn't happen as they determined there was no foul play what so ever. The fact that you think that was a scandal shows you are just a clueless partisan hack that believes anything Foxnews tells you to believe instead of thinking for yourself.

Epstein's brother got an independent autopsy and that guy said it wasn't suicide..............Does it mean this guy is right........or the other side is right.........

Not that I care about the Perv..............just saying they could push this into the courts.

 

[The Banker]

Epstein was murdered to cover up for Clinton, who is a pedophile.

Why don't Democrats want Clinton prosecuted for that?

Because that is fake news and didn't happen as they determined there was no foul play what so ever. The fact that you think that was a scandal shows you are just a clueless partisan hack that believes anything Foxnews tells you to believe instead of thinking for yourself.

Epstein didn't kill himself.

Even the retarded man in the home for retarded people knows that.

Oh because Alex Jones said so I guess. Too bad in the real world you need facts and evidence.

Now you just look stupid.