Question for all on this board

[M14 Shooter]

So you take no issue with Biden being under investigation while running for President
Good.

Should Barr open an investigation into Biden (or anybody) solely because Trumpybear asked him? To look for some kind of general corruption?

OOohhh.. You think Trump had no reason to ask the Ukraine to look into Biden's actions
That's funny.

Look at you, unable to answer the question.
As usual

Don't blame me for your inability to ask a question that's reflective of the issue at hand.

I understand....

Not once.

 

[BlindBoo]

Should Barr open an investigation into Biden (or anybody) solely because Trumpybear asked him? To look for some kind of general corruption?

OOohhh.. You think Trump had no reason to ask the Ukraine to look into Biden's actions
That's funny.

Look at you, unable to answer the question.
As usual

Don't blame me for your inability to ask a question that's reflective of the issue at hand.

I understand....

Not once.

Did you answer the question if Barr should open an investigation into any American based on Trumpybears word alone, not once.

I'm not surprised.

 

[dblack]

Biden's guilt or innocence is irrelevant. The question is whether the phone call would have taken place, ie would Trump have been personally concerned, if Biden wasn't running for the Presidency.

Why do you think the PouTUS would or should not be concerned with the possibly corrupt actions taken by an elected official with respect to one of our allies?

I didn't say they should or shouldn't. The question is whether the power of the Presidency can be used to dig up dirt on political enemies.

Unless you believe running against an incumbent White House makes you immune to federal investigation of actions you took while you held federal office, the answer is yes.

No one said that. You made that up, silly.

The complaint here is that Biden is Trump's political opponent; the question is if the federal government can investigate Biden for actions he took as VP while he runs against Trump.
The answer is "Yes"
Why would or should it be otherwise?

Of course the federal government can investigate people who are running for office. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether an elected official should be allowed to specifically target political enemies for investigation. If you think they should, how will you react when a Democrat does the same thing? I realize that you will avoid answering that question until the cows come home, because the answer would expose your abject hypocrisy.

 

[Andylusion]

Why do you think the PouTUS would or should not be concerned with the possibly corrupt actions taken by an elected official with respect to one of our allies?

I didn't say they should or shouldn't. The question is whether the power of the Presidency can be used to dig up dirt on political enemies.

Unless you believe running against an incumbent White House makes you immune to federal investigation of actions you took while you held federal office, the answer is yes.

No one said that. You made that up, silly.

The complaint here is that Biden is Trump's political opponent; the question is if the federal government can investigate Biden for actions he took as VP while he runs against Trump.
The answer is "Yes"
Why would or should it be otherwise?

Of course the federal government can investigate people who are running for office. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether an elected official should be allowed to specifically target political enemies for investigation. If you think they should, how will you react when a Democrat does the same thing? I realize that you will avoid answering that question until the cows come home, because the answer would expose your abject hypocrisy.

I'm game. Sure. Let's have all the politicians investigate each other. As long you only convict based on actual crimes, let's do it.

And here's the problem with your entire argument.... You say "how will you react when a Democrat does the same thing?"..... as if you people have not been doing this for a decade now.

Are you oblivious or something? Sparky... you guys have been propping up entirely politically motivated investigations for YEARS. YEARS you have been doing this.

I can think of dozens of politically motivated investigations over the past decade. You want a case an point? Bret Kavanough. Can't remember where the party was, when it was, who was there, or what specifically happened, didn't talk to anyone about it for decades, and the key collaborating witness says it never happened..... but that was grounds for demanding multiple investigations, even after the FBI said they did a full background check, and found nothing.

If you guys are not going to practice what you preach, then stop preaching it. It's that simple. You don't want politicians starting investigations for political gain... lead by example. Otherwise... save your breath for someone who cares.

 

[Flopper]

Given the "whistleblower" topic of all the MSM today, I'd like to ask all of you on this board this question:
If you didn't like your boss and or you though you knew that there were some shenanigans going on,
would you go to work everyday trying to destroy your company or boss?

It appears the political whistleblower didn't like Trump...as much of the status quo, career bureaucrats evidently making up the dark state don't like Trump.
Consequently instead of working to improve the country, the never-trumpers are "working" against Trump.

What most people do is put up with it, come home like my Dad did and ***** and moan BUT still he went to work, did his job and retired.
These people like the whistleblower wants to destroy Trump. Pure and simple and get paid while doing it!
Intel officials want CIA's Gina Haspel to defend Ukraine whistleblower

It is not a matter of liking or disliking the president. The president's staff as do all federal employees swears an oath not to protect the president but the constitution. They have a statutory obligation to report criminal wrongdoing. The Whistleblower Act give protection to federal employees who report what he or she believes is a violation of the law or federal regulations.

Donald Trump keeps asking for disclosure of the name of the whistle blower. He either knows who it is or can certainly find out so why doesn't he out him? It is not a violation of the law. The only reason I can see is that the action would lead to an additional article of impeachment.

 

[healthmyths]

OOohhh.. You think Trump had no reason to ask the Ukraine to look into Biden's actions
That's funny.

Look at you, unable to answer the question.
As usual

Don't blame me for your inability to ask a question that's reflective of the issue at hand.

I understand....

Not once.

Did you answer the question if Barr should open an investigation into any American based on Trumpybears word alone, not once.

I'm not surprised.

I'm looking at this transcript of Biden's statement...
"I (Biden) looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours.
If the prosecutor is not fired, (QUID...) you’re not getting the money. (QUO) Well, son of a *****. (Laughter.) He got fired.
And they put in place someone who was solid at the time...(someone who wouldn't investigate Burisma, Biden's son's employer.)..
FLASHBACK, 2018: Joe Biden Brags At CFR Meeting About Withholding Aid To Ukraine To Force Firing Of Prosecutor

Those are the exact words of Biden...Quid Pro Quo...
fire the prosecutor who is investigating my son's company or you're not getting the money!

 

[Flopper]

Biden's guilt or innocence is irrelevant. The question is whether the phone call would have taken place, ie would Trump have been personally concerned, if Biden wasn't running for the Presidency. I don't think anyone really believes it would have. Even the people supplying excuses.

If Biden was not running for president, there would be no violation of a federal campaign law which bars the president from accepting anything of value from a foreign country in connection with the campaign.

However, more importantly, it is inappropriately use of power. Clearly, the president is attempting to bride a foreign leader with military aid in order to discredit a candidate. That will get him an article of impeachment, "abuse of power" which was one of the articles in both the Clinton and Nixon impeachment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

OOohhh.. You think Trump had no reason to ask the Ukraine to look into Biden's actions
That's funny.

Look at you, unable to answer the question.
As usual

Don't blame me for your inability to ask a question that's reflective of the issue at hand.

I understand....

Not once.

Did you answer the question if Barr should open an investigation into any American based on Trumpybears word alone, not once.
I'm not surprised.

Don't blame me for your inability to ask a question that's reflective of the issue at hand.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why do you think the PouTUS would or should not be concerned with the possibly corrupt actions taken by an elected official with respect to one of our allies?

I didn't say they should or shouldn't. The question is whether the power of the Presidency can be used to dig up dirt on political enemies.

Unless you believe running against an incumbent White House makes you immune to federal investigation of actions you took while you held federal office, the answer is yes.

No one said that. You made that up, silly.

The complaint here is that Biden is Trump's political opponent; the question is if the federal government can investigate Biden for actions he took as VP while he runs against Trump.
The answer is "Yes"
Why would or should it be otherwise?

Of course the federal government can investigate people who are running for office. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether an elected official should be allowed to specifically target political enemies for investigation

As you said: Of course the federal government can investigate people who are running for office.
I don't see why you think there's a problem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Clearly, the president is attempting to bride a foreign leader with military aid in order to discredit a candidate

Cite your source, and quote the text.

 

[Syriusly]

Given the "whistleblower" topic of all the MSM today, I'd like to ask all of you on this board this question:
If you didn't like your boss and or you though you knew that there were some shenanigans going on,
would you go to work everyday trying to destroy your company or boss?

It appears the political whistleblower didn't like Trump...as much of the status quo, career bureaucrats evidently making up the dark state don't like Trump.
Consequently instead of working to improve the country, the never-trumpers are "working" against Trump.

What most people do is put up with it, come home like my Dad did and ***** and moan BUT still he went to work, did his job and retired.
These people like the whistleblower wants to destroy Trump. Pure and simple and get paid while doing it!
Intel officials want CIA's Gina Haspel to defend Ukraine whistleblower

If I saw my boss do something which I thought was either illegal, or went completely against company policy- I would of course report it, irregardless of my feelings for my boss.
I have worked for bosses I didn't care for- didn't matter I did the work. And I have been really close to a situation where a boss was about to cross over the line into doing something illegal. Luckily he listened to myself and others and didn't break the law.

Of course in this case, Trump demands loyalty to himself personally- rather than loyalty to America and our Constitution.

 

[Flopper]

I didn't say they should or shouldn't. The question is whether the power of the Presidency can be used to dig up dirt on political enemies.

Unless you believe running against an incumbent White House makes you immune to federal investigation of actions you took while you held federal office, the answer is yes.

No one said that. You made that up, silly.

The complaint here is that Biden is Trump's political opponent; the question is if the federal government can investigate Biden for actions he took as VP while he runs against Trump.
The answer is "Yes"
Why would or should it be otherwise?

Of course the federal government can investigate people who are running for office. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether an elected official should be allowed to specifically target political enemies for investigation. If you think they should, how will you react when a Democrat does the same thing? I realize that you will avoid answering that question until the cows come home, because the answer would expose your abject hypocrisy.

I'm game. Sure. Let's have all the politicians investigate each other. As long you only convict based on actual crimes, let's do it.

And here's the problem with your entire argument.... You say "how will you react when a Democrat does the same thing?"..... as if you people have not been doing this for a decade now.

Are you oblivious or something? Sparky... you guys have been propping up entirely politically motivated investigations for YEARS. YEARS you have been doing this.

I can think of dozens of politically motivated investigations over the past decade. You want a case an point? Bret Kavanough. Can't remember where the party was, when it was, who was there, or what specifically happened, didn't talk to anyone about it for decades, and the key collaborating witness says it never happened..... but that was grounds for demanding multiple investigations, even after the FBI said they did a full background check, and found nothing.

If you guys are not going to practice what you preach, then stop preaching it. It's that simple. You don't want politicians starting investigations for political gain... lead by example. Otherwise... save your breath for someone who cares.

The impeachment investigation is not a legal investigation just as impeachment is not legal procedure. It is a political investigation and political procedure. Using the federal government to bride a foreign country for your own personnel gain is abuse of power, not necessary a violation of the law but a common charge used in impeachment. Other charges such as conduct unbecoming the office, violation of oath of office, failure to supervise, drunkenness, etc have all been used in successful in impeachments. In others words proving a president violated a specific statute is not necessary for impeachment. Violation of the spirit of law can be just as damaging to a president as a clear violation of a statue, bad news for a guy like Trump who has spent his life skirting around the law.

 

[Andylusion]

Unless you believe running against an incumbent White House makes you immune to federal investigation of actions you took while you held federal office, the answer is yes.

No one said that. You made that up, silly.

The complaint here is that Biden is Trump's political opponent; the question is if the federal government can investigate Biden for actions he took as VP while he runs against Trump.
The answer is "Yes"
Why would or should it be otherwise?

Of course the federal government can investigate people who are running for office. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether an elected official should be allowed to specifically target political enemies for investigation. If you think they should, how will you react when a Democrat does the same thing? I realize that you will avoid answering that question until the cows come home, because the answer would expose your abject hypocrisy.

I'm game. Sure. Let's have all the politicians investigate each other. As long you only convict based on actual crimes, let's do it.

And here's the problem with your entire argument.... You say "how will you react when a Democrat does the same thing?"..... as if you people have not been doing this for a decade now.

Are you oblivious or something? Sparky... you guys have been propping up entirely politically motivated investigations for YEARS. YEARS you have been doing this.

I can think of dozens of politically motivated investigations over the past decade. You want a case an point? Bret Kavanough. Can't remember where the party was, when it was, who was there, or what specifically happened, didn't talk to anyone about it for decades, and the key collaborating witness says it never happened..... but that was grounds for demanding multiple investigations, even after the FBI said they did a full background check, and found nothing.

If you guys are not going to practice what you preach, then stop preaching it. It's that simple. You don't want politicians starting investigations for political gain... lead by example. Otherwise... save your breath for someone who cares.

The impeachment investigation is not a legal investigation just as impeachment is not legal procedure. It is a political investigation and political procedure. Using the federal government to bride a foreign country for your own personnel gain is abuse of power, not necessary a violation of the law but a common charge used in impeachment. Other charges such as conduct unbecoming the office, violation of oath of office, failure to supervise, drunkenness have all been used in successful in impeachments. In others words proving a president violated a specific statute is not necessary for impeachment.

That's all fine... but what I'm responding to, is that basic question is, how can people support Trump, and oppose impeachment.

The reason is... the other side is a bunch of liars. Why would anyone trust people who lie constantly?

So when you say "Using the federal government to bride a foreign country for your own personnel gain", yeah that's nice. I think you are just lying. Because that's what you people do. You people have been lying non-stop for 10 years, and now expect me to take this "Trump is doing bad" at face value... no. You need to prove it now. I don't believe even the smallest sound that comes out of your mouth.

So all that "we don't need proof"... well yeah you do if you want to convince us to stop supporting Trump.

And don't be surprised that we don't trust you when..... you lying constantly and we don't trust you.

 

[Flopper]

Clearly, the president is attempting to bride a foreign leader with military aid in order to discredit a candidate

Cite your source, and quote the text.

House releases text of impeachment probe resolution

 

[Flopper]

No one said that. You made that up, silly.

The complaint here is that Biden is Trump's political opponent; the question is if the federal government can investigate Biden for actions he took as VP while he runs against Trump.
The answer is "Yes"
Why would or should it be otherwise?

Of course the federal government can investigate people who are running for office. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether an elected official should be allowed to specifically target political enemies for investigation. If you think they should, how will you react when a Democrat does the same thing? I realize that you will avoid answering that question until the cows come home, because the answer would expose your abject hypocrisy.

I'm game. Sure. Let's have all the politicians investigate each other. As long you only convict based on actual crimes, let's do it.

And here's the problem with your entire argument.... You say "how will you react when a Democrat does the same thing?"..... as if you people have not been doing this for a decade now.

Are you oblivious or something? Sparky... you guys have been propping up entirely politically motivated investigations for YEARS. YEARS you have been doing this.

I can think of dozens of politically motivated investigations over the past decade. You want a case an point? Bret Kavanough. Can't remember where the party was, when it was, who was there, or what specifically happened, didn't talk to anyone about it for decades, and the key collaborating witness says it never happened..... but that was grounds for demanding multiple investigations, even after the FBI said they did a full background check, and found nothing.

If you guys are not going to practice what you preach, then stop preaching it. It's that simple. You don't want politicians starting investigations for political gain... lead by example. Otherwise... save your breath for someone who cares.

The impeachment investigation is not a legal investigation just as impeachment is not legal procedure. It is a political investigation and political procedure. Using the federal government to bride a foreign country for your own personnel gain is abuse of power, not necessary a violation of the law but a common charge used in impeachment. Other charges such as conduct unbecoming the office, violation of oath of office, failure to supervise, drunkenness have all been used in successful in impeachments. In others words proving a president violated a specific statute is not necessary for impeachment.

That's all fine... but what I'm responding to, is that basic question is, how can people support Trump, and oppose impeachment.

The reason is... the other side is a bunch of liars. Why would anyone trust people who lie constantly?

So when you say "Using the federal government to bride a foreign country for your own personnel gain", yeah that's nice. I think you are just lying. Because that's what you people do. You people have been lying non-stop for 10 years, and now expect me to take this "Trump is doing bad" at face value... no. You need to prove it now. I don't believe even the smallest sound that comes out of your mouth.

So all that "we don't need proof"... well yeah you do if you want to convince us to stop supporting Trump.

And don't be surprised that we don't trust you when..... you lying constantly and we don't trust you.

When the president attempts to use military aid to bribe the Ukraine into launching a campaign against his political opponent that is abuse of power.

 

[dblack]

And here's the problem with your entire argument.... You say "how will you react when a Democrat does the same thing?"..... as if you people have not been doing this for a decade now.

First of all, piss off with your "you people". You know goddamned well I'm not a Democrat.

Second, I'm quite sure Democrats have done the same thing. But they haven't been caught. If they had, you all would be freaking out. Go ahead, lie to me and tell me you wouldn't.

 

[BlindBoo]

Look at you, unable to answer the question.
As usual

Don't blame me for your inability to ask a question that's reflective of the issue at hand.

I understand....

Not once.

Did you answer the question if Barr should open an investigation into any American based on Trumpybears word alone, not once.

I'm not surprised.

I'm looking at this transcript of Biden's statement...
"I (Biden) looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours.
If the prosecutor is not fired, (QUID...) you’re not getting the money. (QUO) Well, son of a *****. (Laughter.) He got fired.
And they put in place someone who was solid at the time...(someone who wouldn't investigate Burisma, Biden's son's employer.)..
FLASHBACK, 2018: Joe Biden Brags At CFR Meeting About Withholding Aid To Ukraine To Force Firing Of Prosecutor

Those are the exact words of Biden...Quid Pro Quo...
fire the prosecutor who is investigating my son's company or you're not getting the money!

• First off, Ukraine is a very corrupt country. This is the one thing that all sides agree on.
• In particular, Ukraine’s Prosecutor General in 2016 was Viktor Shokin, a man so corrupt that both the IMF and pretty much every European country insisted he be removed if Ukraine wanted any assistance from the outside world.
• At this time, Shokin was not investigating Burisma, the energy company on which Hunter Biden held a board seat. This is one of the (many) reasons he was considered corrupt.
• Joe Biden later told the story of Shokin’s firing like this: “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 *****. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.” Now, this might be a bit of Biden exaggeration, but it accurately describes the general attitude toward Shokin at the time.
• A new Prosecutor General was appointed and immediately reopened the investigation into Burisma. In other words, by switching prosecutors Biden probably made things harder on his son, not easier.
• The new prosecutor eventually reached a deal with Burisma. As with everything in Ukraine, it’s unclear if this was on the up-and-up, but in any case it happened after Trump had won election and Joe Biden no longer had any power or influence.
• There has never been even a hint of evidence that Hunter Biden did anything wrong. He’s a Washington lobbyist who sits on various boards and had done a few small jobs for Burisma during the Obama administration. The head of Burisma at the time was trying to assemble an “all-star” board of directors and approached Hunter Biden. Was this an attempt to curry favor with the White House? I wouldn’t be surprised. But that has nothing to do with Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma, which he says was mostly about corporate governance.
• The new prosecutor has stated many times that his investigation came up with absolutely nothing on Hunter Biden.
• Likewise, there’s not a hint of evidence that Joe Biden ever did anything wrong.

So that’s the Biden side of the story. Your Foxbot friends will never hear any of this, so I figure it’s useful for you to have it all in one place. I assure you that there is no partisan slant to any of this. This is pure conventional wisdom, agreed to by virtually everyone outside the Trump orbit.

The Hunter Biden Timeline

 

[Lastamender]

Given the "whistleblower" topic of all the MSM today, I'd like to ask all of you on this board this question:
If you didn't like your boss and or you though you knew that there were some shenanigans going on,
would you go to work everyday trying to destroy your company or boss?

It appears the political whistleblower didn't like Trump...as much of the status quo, career bureaucrats evidently making up the dark state don't like Trump.
Consequently instead of working to improve the country, the never-trumpers are "working" against Trump.

What most people do is put up with it, come home like my Dad did and ***** and moan BUT still he went to work, did his job and retired.
These people like the whistleblower wants to destroy Trump. Pure and simple and get paid while doing it!
Intel officials want CIA's Gina Haspel to defend Ukraine whistleblower

If I saw my boss do something which I thought was either illegal, or went completely against company policy- I would of course report it, irregardless of my feelings for my boss.
I have worked for bosses I didn't care for- didn't matter I did the work. And I have been really close to a situation where a boss was about to cross over the line into doing something illegal. Luckily he listened to myself and others and didn't break the law.

Of course in this case, Trump demands loyalty to himself personally- rather than loyalty to America and our Constitution.

You are a shining example and have no idea what Trump demands.

 

[charwin95]

You can’t prove that Bidens did anything wrong wrong either.

Not without an investigation.
If they did nothing wring, why worry?

1. That depends who is doing the investigation?

No. It doesn't.

Yes it does. Why is a personal lawyer Guilliani doing the investigation? This is like ...... You might as well ask Jeffrey Dahmer lawyer to do the criminal investigation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[charwin95]

You can’t prove that Bidens did anything wrong wrong either.

Not without an investigation.
If they did nothing wring, why worry?

1. That depends who is doing the investigation? Hint Guilliani.
2. That depends who is asking the investigation?

3. That depends the nature of the request of the investigation?

4. I will give you your money unless you do me a favor. That is bribery or extortion no matter how you twist it.

5. Why not investigate Shokin the corrupted Ukrainian prosecutor general?

6. Why not investigate John Solomon who created the conspiracy theory of Biden.

So is this a "quid pro quo"...
"I (Biden) looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours.
If the prosecutor is not fired, (QUID...) you’re not getting the money. (QUO) Well, son of a *****. (Laughter.) He got fired.
And they put in place someone who was solid at the time...(someone who wouldn't investigate Burisma, Biden's son's employer.)..
FLASHBACK, 2018: Joe Biden Brags At CFR Meeting About Withholding Aid To Ukraine To Force Firing Of Prosecutor

In black and white.. Biden said If the prosecutor is not fired, (QUID...) you’re not getting the money
Please refute Biden statement.

Biden has every right to fire a corrupted general prosecutor Shokin.