So it’s ok for a sitting President to use the influence of his office to sic a foreign government on a private citizen for political purposes? Really?
No, but unfortunately for your tribe that didn't happen.
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So it’s ok for a sitting President to use the influence of his office to sic a foreign government on a private citizen for political purposes? Really?
Wait? Is that the exact quote or are you making BS up? I heard that and I don't recall Obama saying "Putin can get what he wants from the US".
I have seen this claim made numerous times over the past couple of days and there are two fundamental problems with it.The problem with the Biden accusation is there is no evidence Biden acted outside the direction of the administration. The prosecutor was widely viewed as ineffective and Biden wasn't acting unilaterally. There are some that even say Biden has exaggerated his role in the prosecutors ouster. Most reports also say there were no ongoing investigations into the company Hunter was a part of and it wouldn't make sense for Joe Biden to call for the firing of a prosecutor not going after corruption to be replaced by one that would.
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.
Yes.
And what do you think should happen if Biden did?
Could you reference this allegation from the released transcripts? please, thanks.
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.
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.So, the prosecutor was trying to bribe Burisma, but they weren't going for it, and that is a negative fact for Biden?
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.
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?
What’s the overall issue?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?
What’s the overall issue?
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.The problem with the Biden accusation is there is no evidence Biden acted outside the direction of the administration. The prosecutor was widely viewed as ineffective and Biden wasn't acting unilaterally. There are some that even say Biden has exaggerated his role in the prosecutors ouster. Most reports also say there were no ongoing investigations into the company Hunter was a part of and it wouldn't make sense for Joe Biden to call for the firing of a prosecutor not going after corruption to be replaced by one that would.
I also dont think Clinton asked Ukraine for Trump dirt and if she did, it certainly wasn't while she was Sec of State.
You guys don't get it, the deed is done,... Biden is most likely guilty of nothing more than bad judgement when it came to managing his son's activities,... but that bad judgement has now going to cost him the nomination....
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
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.
If he's was getting Holder involved like Trump said Barr would be involved, what's the problem? That's workSay, Obama calls Putin up and says there are allegations of Trump doing some shady stuff in Russia and I need you to do me a favor and look into it. No quid pro quo, just a request for help. How does the right react to that?
I mean, getting a FISA warrant has brought allegations of treason by some. I can't imagine what directly soliciting dirt from Putin would mean.
Do you not see the difference?Lol, I’m making a mental note about this post. The next time a conservative starts a separate ‘whatabout’ thread we’ll see if it flies.
Oh, I understand the difference. But I also know that Dems don’t tolerate either one from Republicans.Do you not see the difference?