No, but unfortunately for your tribe that didn't happen.
Last edited:
What would the conservative reaction be if Obama had asked Putin to dig into Trump?
- Thread starter BABiscuit
- Start date
No, but unfortunately for your tribe that didn't happen.
I have seen this claim made numerous times over the past couple of days and there are two fundamental problems with it.
1) The reason Shokin wasn’t actively investigating Burisma at the time Biden made the demand is that Shokin was demanding bribes from Burisma to slow-walk the investigation. Burisma was happy to see him fired because they were tired of dealing with his extortion.
2) The prosecutor who replaced Shokin quietly dropped the investigation a few months later.
And? My point stands. Maybe Obama meant he had flexibility with handing over nukes to Russia. Maybe he was talking about a fishing trip. It could have been anything but you and the other Con morons take it as, "The US will give Putin everything he wants after the election." So, again, bullshit.
Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It's a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible people.
So, the prosecutor was trying to bribe Burisma, but they weren't going for it, and that is a negative fact for Biden?
The narrative from the left is that Burisma didn’t benefit from Shokin being fired because he wasn’t even investigating the company. The fact is that they did benefit because he was shaking them down and then the guy who replaced him simply dropped the investigation.
Is the President not allowed to inquire about criminal wrongdoing? Where is the tie to Congressional appropriated funds?
So the argument is Biden did all this to put in a slightly less corrupt prosecutor that would close the case for a small payoff? Or are you saying he closed the case for a different reason?
Do you have any thoughts on the reports that virtually everybody wanted this prosecutor gone because he wasn't doing enough to stop corruption? Or that the driver behind the withholding the $1 billion was US embassy people in the Ukraine and not Biden? Do you think Trump's allegations are accurate or are you just looking to argue some small tiny piece without taking a stand on the overall issue?
Didn't you just say something about mobster code with Obama like 5 minutes ago?
I'm wondering, do you actually think Trump didn't do this? Or are you just fighting for your side? Do you honestly think that Trump wanted to dispatch Rudy Giuliani to work with Ukraine outside of official State Department procedures because he was doing vigilante police work?
Never mind. I'm fine with you explaining the small detail you want to argue. So feel free to just respond to that part of my last post.
Still sounds fishy af. They are similar circumstances and each one can easily defend against the accusation with just so happens a weird coincidence that is a very conflicted. So depending on which side of the aisle you are on, you will excuse one but not the other. I find it amusing that each side doesn't see the hypocrisy of themselves. They blindly defend their side and attack the other, yet claim to be the ones on the high horse. Most of em are shady ass mo fos that are corrupt on both sides.
I'll believe it when I see it. If the voting record, sexual harassment, and physical deterioration weren't enough to cost him I'll be surprised if this does
If you approach it from the view that they are the same and you don't want to see a difference, they definetly look the same.
I mean, OTOH, Biden represented the mainstream policy position of western democracies and was carrying out the orders of his administration. And on the other, Trump asked a foreign leader to investigate his opponent. Really no difference at all.
Well, I guess my question isn't a hypothetical. Trump just claimed Obama did ask foreign leaders for dirt on him.
This press conference probably needs it's own thread. Trump is no longer operating within the confines of reality.
Asked about why asking for dirt on an opponent is okay, Trump talked about the text messags noting an insurance policy, his election victory and the differences between the electoral college and the popular vote and how it isn't his fault Hillary didn't campaign in Wisconsin. The transcript is going to look crazy.
This press conference probably needs it's own thread. Trump is no longer operating within the confines of reality.
Asked about why asking for dirt on an opponent is okay, Trump talked about the text messags noting an insurance policy, his election victory and the differences between the electoral college and the popular vote and how it isn't his fault Hillary didn't campaign in Wisconsin. The transcript is going to look crazy.
If he's was getting Holder involved like Trump said Barr would be involved, what's the problem? That's work
Oh, I understand the difference. But I also know that Dems don’t tolerate either one from Republicans.
Similar threads
