Serious questions for Trump supporters regarding this impeachment thing

[iceberg]

No.

Ok then why are you asking for it and why would I bother taking the time to show proof? Especially with these things that can easily be found if you bothered to do a few minutes of research. You’re obviously not here for fair debate. You have an agenda you are here to push no matter what the facts are. That makes you a hack and a troll.

Your BS is NOT PROOF!!

Saying something is proof does not mean it is !!

Showing quotes and statements and letters from officials isn’t proof? What do you consider proof then?

You haven't posted any quotes, statements of letters from government officials.

I offered to post a letter from congress when you said Biden’s support from the Obama admin doesn’t count. You dismissed the letter as partisan. So no point in posting it. I offered to post proof behind IMFs support of what Biden did. You said it would not change your thoughts about Biden’s actions. So again, if the evidence is not going to sway the debate then I’m not going to waste my time. I’ve done my research, I’ve read it so I know it’s there. But I’m not going to go look it up to show you when it makes no difference. Why are you even asking for it if it’s inconsequential?

I did a lot of research once in talking with you. It was a pretty big waste of time also so don't feel like you never do that to others.

 

[jc456]

Abuse of power, misuse of public office, breaking public trust, soliciting campaign aid from a foreign government

Except for the last one, none of those things are actual crimes, and that one never happened. He didn't solicit campaign funds from a foreign government, you lying puss bag.

Adam Schiff and Nazi Piglosi can be charged with all of those.

How many times do we have to explain this...

Impeachment is not a criminal process but a political one... It does not state you committed a crime but are you fit to do your job...

Example:
You could commit a crime and still retain your job, the NFL has loads examples of that... There is a fair few Presidents who committed crimes (Clinton Perjury, Reagan Iran Contra,...), some big and some small, but none of those crimes were deemed fireable offences. Again this doesn't exonerate them of crimes.

So how to get impeached? Well commit a crime which deemed as fireable. If you screw the boss's daughter, it is not a crime but ain't keeping your job (unless your the son-in- law).

So the question is Trump's actions impeachable... Again this is a political process. He coerced a foreign country to open and investigation on his political rival... that way past what Nixon did if the evidence hold up which it looks like it is...

He is either a complete moron or a worthless troll. At this point it’s been laid out crystal clear.

Your list basically says that Dims don't like the way he is running the government. No shit? How is that impeachable? The Constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors." Your list contains no crimes or misdemeanors.

The quid pro quo claim has been emphatically debunked. You sleazy lying morons believe if you keep repeating it that you can fool people into believing it.

Again, do your homework... learn what high crimes and misdemeanors are...

“After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

High Crimes and Misdemeanors - Constitutional Rights Foundation

Impeach him then! Wtf, are you waiting for?

 

[Slade3200]

Ok then why are you asking for it and why would I bother taking the time to show proof? Especially with these things that can easily be found if you bothered to do a few minutes of research. You’re obviously not here for fair debate. You have an agenda you are here to push no matter what the facts are. That makes you a hack and a troll.

Your BS is NOT PROOF!!

Saying something is proof does not mean it is !!

Showing quotes and statements and letters from officials isn’t proof? What do you consider proof then?

You haven't posted any quotes, statements of letters from government officials.

I offered to post a letter from congress when you said Biden’s support from the Obama admin doesn’t count. You dismissed the letter as partisan. So no point in posting it. I offered to post proof behind IMFs support of what Biden did. You said it would not change your thoughts about Biden’s actions. So again, if the evidence is not going to sway the debate then I’m not going to waste my time. I’ve done my research, I’ve read it so I know it’s there. But I’m not going to go look it up to show you when it makes no difference. Why are you even asking for it if it’s inconsequential?

I did a lot of research once in talking with you. It was a pretty big waste of time also so don't feel like you never do that to others.

Well I learned from that horrible mistake and now strive to be a better person.

 

[jc456]

The clam that multiple governments wanted the prosecutor fired. You made the claim by assuming it in your question.

No I didn’t. Do 5 minutes of research and you will see evidence backing that up

I don't do your homework.

I’ve done my homework. I’m suggesting you do your own so you stop making fake statements and sounding like an idiot in these conversations.

Producing evidence to support your sleazy claims is not my homework, moron.

The things I’m posting are common knowledge. What don’t you think is true?

Most anything you post! Still waiting on what trump did to deserve this other than beating hitlery! Go, post up his list!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Abuse of power, misuse of public office, breaking public trust, soliciting campaign aid from a foreign government

Except for the last one, none of those things are actual crimes, and that one never happened. He didn't solicit campaign funds from a foreign government, you lying puss bag.

Adam Schiff and Nazi Piglosi can be charged with all of those.

How many times do we have to explain this...

Impeachment is not a criminal process but a political one... It does not state you committed a crime but are you fit to do your job...

Example:
You could commit a crime and still retain your job, the NFL has loads examples of that... There is a fair few Presidents who committed crimes (Clinton Perjury, Reagan Iran Contra,...), some big and some small, but none of those crimes were deemed fireable offences. Again this doesn't exonerate them of crimes.

So how to get impeached? Well commit a crime which deemed as fireable. If you screw the boss's daughter, it is not a crime but ain't keeping your job (unless your the son-in- law).

So the question is Trump's actions impeachable... Again this is a political process. He coerced a foreign country to open and investigation on his political rival... that way past what Nixon did if the evidence hold up which it looks like it is...

He is either a complete moron or a worthless troll. At this point it’s been laid out crystal clear.

Your list basically says that Dims don't like the way he is running the government. No shit? How is that impeachable? The Constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors." Your list contains no crimes or misdemeanors.

The quid pro quo claim has been emphatically debunked. You sleazy lying morons believe if you keep repeating it that you can fool people into believing it.

Again, do your homework... learn what high crimes and misdemeanors are...

“After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

High Crimes and Misdemeanors - Constitutional Rights Foundation

So how many Presidents in the past doesn't that apply to?

If you want to see your leaders impeach Trump on such flaccid points, then what do you think will happen with the next Democrat President with a Republican Congress?

 

[jc456]

Your BS is NOT PROOF!!

Saying something is proof does not mean it is !!

Showing quotes and statements and letters from officials isn’t proof? What do you consider proof then?

You haven't posted any quotes, statements of letters from government officials.

I offered to post a letter from congress when you said Biden’s support from the Obama admin doesn’t count. You dismissed the letter as partisan. So no point in posting it. I offered to post proof behind IMFs support of what Biden did. You said it would not change your thoughts about Biden’s actions. So again, if the evidence is not going to sway the debate then I’m not going to waste my time. I’ve done my research, I’ve read it so I know it’s there. But I’m not going to go look it up to show you when it makes no difference. Why are you even asking for it if it’s inconsequential?

I did a lot of research once in talking with you. It was a pretty big waste of time also so don't feel like you never do that to others.

Well I learned from that horrible mistake and now strive to be a better person.

Or not!

 

[Slade3200]

Except for the last one, none of those things are actual crimes, and that one never happened. He didn't solicit campaign funds from a foreign government, you lying puss bag.

Adam Schiff and Nazi Piglosi can be charged with all of those.

How many times do we have to explain this...

Impeachment is not a criminal process but a political one... It does not state you committed a crime but are you fit to do your job...

Example:
You could commit a crime and still retain your job, the NFL has loads examples of that... There is a fair few Presidents who committed crimes (Clinton Perjury, Reagan Iran Contra,...), some big and some small, but none of those crimes were deemed fireable offences. Again this doesn't exonerate them of crimes.

So how to get impeached? Well commit a crime which deemed as fireable. If you screw the boss's daughter, it is not a crime but ain't keeping your job (unless your the son-in- law).

So the question is Trump's actions impeachable... Again this is a political process. He coerced a foreign country to open and investigation on his political rival... that way past what Nixon did if the evidence hold up which it looks like it is...

He is either a complete moron or a worthless troll. At this point it’s been laid out crystal clear.

Your list basically says that Dims don't like the way he is running the government. No shit? How is that impeachable? The Constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors." Your list contains no crimes or misdemeanors.

The quid pro quo claim has been emphatically debunked. You sleazy lying morons believe if you keep repeating it that you can fool people into believing it.

Again, do your homework... learn what high crimes and misdemeanors are...

“After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

High Crimes and Misdemeanors - Constitutional Rights Foundation

So how many Presidents in the past doesn't that apply to?

If you want to see your leaders impeach Trump on such flaccid points, then what do you think will happen with the next Democrat President with a Republican Congress?

I don’t support impeachment

 

[jc456]

How many times do we have to explain this...

Impeachment is not a criminal process but a political one... It does not state you committed a crime but are you fit to do your job...

Example:
You could commit a crime and still retain your job, the NFL has loads examples of that... There is a fair few Presidents who committed crimes (Clinton Perjury, Reagan Iran Contra,...), some big and some small, but none of those crimes were deemed fireable offences. Again this doesn't exonerate them of crimes.

So how to get impeached? Well commit a crime which deemed as fireable. If you screw the boss's daughter, it is not a crime but ain't keeping your job (unless your the son-in- law).

So the question is Trump's actions impeachable... Again this is a political process. He coerced a foreign country to open and investigation on his political rival... that way past what Nixon did if the evidence hold up which it looks like it is...

He is either a complete moron or a worthless troll. At this point it’s been laid out crystal clear.

Your list basically says that Dims don't like the way he is running the government. No shit? How is that impeachable? The Constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors." Your list contains no crimes or misdemeanors.

The quid pro quo claim has been emphatically debunked. You sleazy lying morons believe if you keep repeating it that you can fool people into believing it.

Again, do your homework... learn what high crimes and misdemeanors are...

“After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

High Crimes and Misdemeanors - Constitutional Rights Foundation

So how many Presidents in the past doesn't that apply to?

If you want to see your leaders impeach Trump on such flaccid points, then what do you think will happen with the next Democrat President with a Republican Congress?

I don’t support impeachment

Why you talking about it then? Bam

 

[Ernie S.]

I've been reading for a long time that Trump supporters want the impeachment proceedings to happen, and I'm seeing a lot of celebrating here, but I'm not quite sure why.

My guess is that you're thinking the Dems will make themselves look bad in the process, just in time for the next elections, would that be fair? (I can't disagree that politicians can make themselves look foolish, by the way, especially when they think they smell blood)

Any other reasons? And isn't it possible that some negative or damaging news on Trump will come to light as well, which might hurt him in 2020?

Serious questions.
.

For one, an impeachment would probably result in jail time for uncle Joe, perhaps even hillary clinton. And there is the fact that it is not a criminal proceeding and 5th Amendment rights (self incrimination) do not apply. Witness perjury would probably be prosecuted.

 

[beagle9]

No. Anything called "bipartisan" is almost always not bipartisan. Furthermore, you claimed that every country in the EU wants him gone. I didn't know Ukraine had an IMF which stands for "International Monetary Fund."

that was a typo, IMF and Ukraines own top officials. Since you are playing little word games instead of staying on topic I’m going to take that as a concession.

Show us where the IMF demanded that the prosecutor be fired.

If I show you proof that the IMF pushed for the firing of the prosecutor before Biden got it done will you concede the point that Biden was acting on behalf of our government and the international community and not as a personal attempt to cover for his son?

No.

Ok then why are you asking for it and why would I bother taking the time to show proof? Especially with these things that can easily be found if you bothered to do a few minutes of research. You’re obviously not here for fair debate. You have an agenda you are here to push no matter what the facts are. That makes you a hack and a troll.

So Biden knowing that the company his son was working for was under investigation by whom ever it was that was investigating it, and on the other hand it was a company that was being protected by whomever it was that tried to stop the investigation all due to their possible interest involved, ummm gave Biden the ability to pull the trigger while hiding behind the world players involved, and protected his son and interest all at the same time ??? His son being involved in all of this mess lays the conduit for the quid pro quo in which Biden stepped in and used to remove the prosecutor for all interest involved.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is proof that the Dems have MADE THEMSELVES LOOK BAD in the process...or rather what you stated in the OP

Hello

Could be. That's the risk they're taking, but they can't back out now without looking even worse.

We'll see what the Articles of Impeachment say, if they take it that far.
.

That's a good question. What actual crime are they going to accuse Trump of committing?

Everything is just noise and guesses and assumptions and bullshit until we see that document.
.

What document and why do you need it? Either there’s a crime to investigate or not. Our rule of law doesn’t allow to point at an individual and say let’s find dirt! Did you leave the country?

Last time I checked trump’s still a citizen and is allowed the same rights as you

by the way, mueller shared his document and didn’t find dirt

The Articles of Impeachment would require more specifics than we're getting now. Specifics behind which the Dems would have to stand in historical terms.

I assumed that would be obvious.
.

Correct, but thus far, the only charge Democrats and their sheep here have are interpretations, not actual words or phrasing. That's not enough to impeach anybody. The Democrats seemingly want to move towards having Thought Police guide our justice system and Congress.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

You haven't posted any quotes, statements of letters from government officials.

I offered to post a letter from congress when you said Biden’s support from the Obama admin doesn’t count. You dismissed the letter as partisan. So no point in posting it. I offered to post proof behind IMFs support of what Biden did. You said it would not change your thoughts about Biden’s actions. So again, if the evidence is not going to sway the debate then I’m not going to waste my time. I’ve done my research, I’ve read it so I know it’s there. But I’m not going to go look it up to show you when it makes no difference. Why are you even asking for it if it’s inconsequential?

If you don't have any evidence to support your claim, fine. Why do you continue whining about it?

What am I whining about?

You're whining about having no proof to support your bogus claim.

I’m not whining about proof, you are! Haha. I have the proof, I’ve read it. I’m not just not going to play your games and waste time going down your rabbit holes. You tell me what evidence clears Biden and I’ll get that

Biden is guilty of the worst act ever

Mass murder of us citizen babies

 

[Slade3200]

that was a typo, IMF and Ukraines own top officials. Since you are playing little word games instead of staying on topic I’m going to take that as a concession.

Show us where the IMF demanded that the prosecutor be fired.

If I show you proof that the IMF pushed for the firing of the prosecutor before Biden got it done will you concede the point that Biden was acting on behalf of our government and the international community and not as a personal attempt to cover for his son?

No.

Ok then why are you asking for it and why would I bother taking the time to show proof? Especially with these things that can easily be found if you bothered to do a few minutes of research. You’re obviously not here for fair debate. You have an agenda you are here to push no matter what the facts are. That makes you a hack and a troll.

So Biden knowing that the company his son was working for was under investigation by whom ever it was that was investigating it, and on the other hand was being protected by whomever it was that tried to stop it due to their possible interest involved, ummm gave Biden the ability to pull the trigger while hiding behind the world players involved, and protected his son and interest all at the same time ??? His son being involved in all of this mess lays the conduit for the quid pro quo in which Biden stepped in and used to remove the prosecutor for all interest involved.

The US government and international community had been going after this guy for a while and it had nothing to do with trying to protect Biden’s son.

Leaving a prosecutor who was weak on fighting corruption probably would have been better for Hunter Bidens company rather than replacing the guy with somebody who had a mandate to prosecute.

 

[beautress]

I'm just saying I don't think Communism is compatible with the Constitution.

Yeah, I'd agree. I think it flies in the face of the spirit of the Constitution, but that doesn't mean it still can't be voted in, in one form or another. And also, the definition of the word "socialism" is now clearly flexible and up for debate, so that whole conversation might be pointless. I think it would be smarter for the GOP to (a) moderate its position on the role of government and (b) work on changing hearts & minds, because people vote.

I'm not expecting that, by the way, but I think the GOP is at risk here of going too far with the whole "the government is the problem" thing.

Thanks for the civil conversation, by the way. I'm usually getting screamed at by now.
.

Well, your POV is not far off a lot of Americans who have never had to experience a few days in a Gulag that people are sentenced to a lifetime of in Communist Russia, nor search for a gas station in a remote Iraqi village that was sarin-gassed by Saddam Hussein the dictator the day before with the press scared to shitless to explore it since releasing information would likely be edited out by the publisher who doesn't desire to see his family hanging from one of the walls in Baghdad.

We discovered the 100,000,000 estimated killings of China and the over 20,000,000 killings of Russians following World War II, which led to a very cold relationship with Stalin the murderer and Mao the mass murderer by President Dwight Eisenhower, who frankly, had his hands tied up with Hitler whose killings totalled out at around 15,000,000, when all was said and done, 6 million of whom were able-bodied Jews they gave a free train ride to any one of 500 "vacation locations" in Eastern Europe, where they met their fate when being "deloused" in showers after their long train rides to wherever they had their inconvenient populations stripped of clothes and jewelry prior to their showers. Their handlers were often young people who for the price of living knew their information would be a month of unbearable torture before their ultimate "shower." Other people the socialist Nazis murdered were anyone with a handicap that caused him to "look different," and loss of abilities too long to list here; Christian and Jewish ministers and public leaders of this ilk (starting to sound familiar?) etc. Anyone who inconvenienced Hitler's little band of hit-men was at risk to be targeted for paying the price of their belief system or disability in the face of invading forces, was deemed useless to the Nazis and sent to their deaths in their temporary vacation location.

Hitler snuck in the back door of German politics with nicey-nicey talk of the Germans (still smarting from WWI 20 years later) being empowered by him to "not take it anymore" from their enemies and people who were so helpless they became wards of the state for maintenance the Nazis had no use for. You could also just be too old and cranky to be assassinated in a remote location, disappearing with a quick routing of your possessions following your fatal and final disappearance. The socialist Nazis didn't care to pay for taking care of the helpless nor hospitals for the mentally insane, much less do for those born with conditions the Nazis considered the bad example of the way they appeared to be reason for removal from society by surreptitious means, not to mention the private hell they put Jewish German citizens through unless they were very, very gifted in an area of study or medicine that Hitler himself would protect with the guardian SS unless the subject became a socialist's problem.

The trouble with disabling a country's means of support through hard work, is that you can promise people a way out to get votes, but your successors can just as easily whiplash the new expense to the zero category and eliminate complainers by one means or another. Eventually, socialists (communists, etc.) just get tired of detaining people in separatist camps which become a fiscal nightmare, and simply abolish the people, which abolishes the socialist's problem. Absolute power over other human beings leads to an asocial viewpoint and merciless disposition.

Of that we must be chary. And I am very chary of one who lauds socialism while attempting to win people over to allowing them to "teach" children stuff (as in "It takes a village to raise a child." ~ Hillary Clinton, socialist extraordinaire).

Right now, the socialists in this country are bent on destroying their rivals by (1) Marginalizing conservatives and Republicans to be thought of by the public as idiots, miscreants, mentally ill, greedmongers, and every bad thought that comes to their cheeriest delusion. (2) Taking over the press by indoctrination in otherwise innocent-enough-looking outlets like a heavily-unionized teacher's association, where power to get and block curriculum is to target separating children from families through mores, belief systems, and acquiring a love for marginalizing parents, priests, ministers, and anyone who is a threat to the socialist with defensive rhetoric created by a central committee comprised of far leftist teachers, thinkers, lawyers, and others in the pocket of the socialists who basically target and isolate one public institution after another for complete and total control.

The people hurt the most are those who are idealists and are swept away by phase I of socialism, and in Machiavellian fashion of felling one by one by one of people's beliefs, do away with the institution target the socialists are bent on getting rid of.

You're at risk if you still think Mr. Biden, with his recent projections of his wrongdoing against President Trump, is a nice guy just trying to survive by keeping his resources a dozen steps hidden through money laundering it to death "for party" (not really, the man loves high living and ensuring that his kin get exclusives on his estate.) Normal? Of course, it looks normal. That's where the foolery comes in. I think Missouri people have a conundrum, because as quickly as they ask questions, the Socialists have an instant backup. It takes longer for the tried-and-true right to please the show-me people of that state. But when they see the light, the Socialists will likely double down on them, making their choice to do the right thing for America very hard, but not impossible.

We should be asking Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Senator Feinstein, Senator Schumer, Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, and Nancy Pelosi "show me."

Instead, going along with the bought-and-paid-for leftwing press/DNC mouthpieces exclusively, seems easier and far more entertaining than getting down to the niddy-griddy "Where are we going?" Paint your Wagon song says it best about the socialists. It goes (with important parts bolded):

Gold! Gold! Gold!
Gold! Gold! Gold!
Gold!! (whispered loudly)

Gotta dream boy
Gotta song
Paint your wagon
And come along

Where am I goin'?
I don't know
Where am I headin'?
I ain't certain
All I know
Is I am on my way

When will I be there?
I don't know
When will I get there?
I ain't certain
All that I know
Is I am on my way

Gotta dream boy
Gotta song
Paint your wagon
And come along
​

How appealing is that can o' beans to young strapling Americans who've been raised in the trust of families that didn't know their children were being communized and made ripe for fooling by the time they get to college that promises a better way of life than their parents had?

And the people that subsidized their children into "cool" universities are paying more than their love for children to go to school in time by being incarcerated for it. After all, their parents and friends in past years got away with it. Often it's disguised as scholarship donations for poor students. Who gets caught? My guess is anyone who didn't go through the socialist method. Everybody else who pays to play is a target for a nice, long jail sentence, courtesy of the lawyer system that is 85% Democrat and only 5% Republican.

 

[Slade3200]

I offered to post a letter from congress when you said Biden’s support from the Obama admin doesn’t count. You dismissed the letter as partisan. So no point in posting it. I offered to post proof behind IMFs support of what Biden did. You said it would not change your thoughts about Biden’s actions. So again, if the evidence is not going to sway the debate then I’m not going to waste my time. I’ve done my research, I’ve read it so I know it’s there. But I’m not going to go look it up to show you when it makes no difference. Why are you even asking for it if it’s inconsequential?

If you don't have any evidence to support your claim, fine. Why do you continue whining about it?

What am I whining about?

You're whining about having no proof to support your bogus claim.

I’m not whining about proof, you are! Haha. I have the proof, I’ve read it. I’m not just not going to play your games and waste time going down your rabbit holes. You tell me what evidence clears Biden and I’ll get that

Biden is guilty of the worst act ever

Mass murder of us citizen babies

Go away. You’re off topic

 

[Slade3200]

that was a typo, IMF and Ukraines own top officials. Since you are playing little word games instead of staying on topic I’m going to take that as a concession.

Show us where the IMF demanded that the prosecutor be fired.

If I show you proof that the IMF pushed for the firing of the prosecutor before Biden got it done will you concede the point that Biden was acting on behalf of our government and the international community and not as a personal attempt to cover for his son?

No.

Ok then why are you asking for it and why would I bother taking the time to show proof? Especially with these things that can easily be found if you bothered to do a few minutes of research. You’re obviously not here for fair debate. You have an agenda you are here to push no matter what the facts are. That makes you a hack and a troll.

So Biden knowing that the company his son was working for was under investigation by whom ever it was that was investigating it, and on the other hand it was a company that was being protected by whomever it was that tried to stop the investigation all due to their possible interest involved, ummm gave Biden the ability to pull the trigger while hiding behind the world players involved, and protected his son and interest all at the same time ??? His son being involved in all of this mess lays the conduit for the quid pro quo in which Biden stepped in and used to remove the prosecutor for all interest involved.

If Joe didn’t have a mandate by our gov and the international community to remove this guy and he acted on his own then you’d have a point. That would be corrupt and an abuse of power. But that’s not the case no matter how hard you try and push your distorted narrative

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Show us where the IMF demanded that the prosecutor be fired.

If I show you proof that the IMF pushed for the firing of the prosecutor before Biden got it done will you concede the point that Biden was acting on behalf of our government and the international community and not as a personal attempt to cover for his son?

No.

Ok then why are you asking for it and why would I bother taking the time to show proof? Especially with these things that can easily be found if you bothered to do a few minutes of research. You’re obviously not here for fair debate. You have an agenda you are here to push no matter what the facts are. That makes you a hack and a troll.

So Biden knowing that the company his son was working for was under investigation by whom ever it was that was investigating it, and on the other hand it was a company that was being protected by whomever it was that tried to stop the investigation all due to their possible interest involved, ummm gave Biden the ability to pull the trigger while hiding behind the world players involved, and protected his son and interest all at the same time ??? His son being involved in all of this mess lays the conduit for the quid pro quo in which Biden stepped in and used to remove the prosecutor for all interest involved.

If Joe didn’t have a mandate by our gov and the international community to remove this guy and he acted on his own then you’d have a point. That would be corrupt and an abuse of power. But that’s not the case no matter how hard you try and push your distorted narrative

He had no ******* mandate to extort the Ukrianians

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well let's see what Zelensky finds and go from there, because none of us know what really happened, and the Democrats were never expecting a Republican President, and figured they had all their bases covered.

What I think Joe did was get the prosecutor fired for going after the company his son worked for. Burisma has been long known for it's corruption in that country, and it's my theory that Hunter was hired for protection.

And do you think Biden convinced multiple governments to get rid of the prosecutor for the same reason? Do you think Biden did all
of this on his own accord?

So where were all these other governments to get rid of him? I only seen one do that, and it was our government.

There is a bipartisan letter from our congress urging the administration to remove the prosecutor, theres the support of our executive branch, the support of the European Union and the support of Ukraine’s own IMF to remove this guy because he was doing nothing to stop corruption.

Have you done any independent research on this subject? Look for hard evidence not just partisan talking points. That’s the first thing you should have done so you didn’t spend days making false accusations

It seems to me all you have is partisan talking points. Ignoring what Biden said about withholding funds to the Ukraine, his son getting a winning lottery ticket, the political unrest by the Democrats all point in one direction if you ask me. But you choose to ignore every one.

Partisan talking point? No Ray, I’m pointing to actual things that disprove your narrative. If all these entities wanted this guy gone then it doesn’t matter what Biden said... it makes his actions that of multiple governments not personal gain. This is elementary stuff, how is it going over your head?

I'm having a hard time seeing the differences here.

Biden threatened the withholding of US funds if Ukraine didn't fire the prosecutor who was after his son's company, and that's fine.

The current President has every reason to believe the last administration may have participated in corruption, and simply asked a favor of their new President to look into it, and that's an impeachable offense.

What's painfully obvious here is the double standard. You are accusing Trump of doing what Biden did do, but claim it was okay for Biden. But because you only think Trump tried to do the same thing, it's not okay because it's Trump.

 

[beagle9]

I'm asking because I'm almost certain you can't produce the evidence. I know because I've searched for it myself.

You're absolutely correct that I have an agenda . . . just like you do. However, it's not "no matter what the facts are." So far, I haven't seen anything leftwingers have claimed that is actually a fact.

Again, why would I take the time to show you the proof when it makes no difference in the debate. That’s a waste of my time. Let’s try this.... What would you need to see to convince you that Biden was acting on behalf of our government and the international community and not doing a solo act to cover for his son?

It can be "not solo" and still be done to protect his son.
Do you get that?

I do get it... except for a few things. Firing the prosecutor that wasn’t doing shit about corruption, including not doing anything with the Burisma case which has been dormant for months , that action isn’t protecting his son. Also the accusations being thrown at Biden are saying that he did something corrupt or inappropriate by firing the prosecutor... well if he was acting on behalf of our government and the international community then those accusations can’t be true.

Biden says he was acting on behalf of our government. Has Obama said he told Biden to demand that Ukraine fire Shokin?

If he did would you clear Biden or wrong doing? I’m not giving you anymore troll bait. And I’m not going on wild goose chases to get evidence that doesn’t sway the argument. I know the game. You ask for proof, I give you proof, you pivot to something else. I’m not playing that game.

You tell me what evidence would convince you that Biden acted appropriately and we can go from there. Let’s see if you are reasonable or a simple troll.

Yeah cast that blame on Obama the untouchable eh ?? How convenient. People are going to have to recognize how corruption is attempted to be insulated these days, and this back and forth is proving exactly how it is being done... Keep enlightening us oh wise one of how it is done, and how it is protected. This globalism is a corrupt thing, and it has left American's as toothless Lions roaring with no ability to fight back.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Show us where the IMF demanded that the prosecutor be fired.

If I show you proof that the IMF pushed for the firing of the prosecutor before Biden got it done will you concede the point that Biden was acting on behalf of our government and the international community and not as a personal attempt to cover for his son?

No.

Ok then why are you asking for it and why would I bother taking the time to show proof? Especially with these things that can easily be found if you bothered to do a few minutes of research. You’re obviously not here for fair debate. You have an agenda you are here to push no matter what the facts are. That makes you a hack and a troll.

So Biden knowing that the company his son was working for was under investigation by whom ever it was that was investigating it, and on the other hand it was a company that was being protected by whomever it was that tried to stop the investigation all due to their possible interest involved, ummm gave Biden the ability to pull the trigger while hiding behind the world players involved, and protected his son and interest all at the same time ??? His son being involved in all of this mess lays the conduit for the quid pro quo in which Biden stepped in and used to remove the prosecutor for all interest involved.

If Joe didn’t have a mandate by our gov and the international community to remove this guy and he acted on his own then you’d have a point. That would be corrupt and an abuse of power. But that’s not the case no matter how hard you try and push your distorted narrative

So just so I'm clear....."Fire him or you don't get the Billion Dollars" was good because Biden did it with Obama's blessing?