Is this the end of Democrat front runner Joe Biden?

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Uh, oh! Seems Hunter Biden’s name came up in emails by the Burisma representative requesting the US State Department’s help in adding pressure on Ukraine to end the Burisma corruption probe. I wonder how Joe will slither his way out of this? Sure seems Biden’s threat to hold back a billion dollars plus, unless Ukraine fired the investigator that was looking into corruption of the company his son was on the board of directors, has all the workings of corrupt influence on US policy that House Democrats are accusing Donald Trump of in their impeachment proceedings, doesn’t not?

https://johnsolomonreports.com/hunter-bidens-ukraine-gas-firm-pressed-obama-administration-to-end-corruption-allegations-memos-show/

I don’t see what the problem is, there. Burisma wanted the same outcome that the GOP, State Department, IMF, EU, and White House did? They specifically highlighted that the investigation had to date turned up nothing to justify its protracted existence.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Uh, oh! Seems Hunter Biden’s name came up in emails by the Burisma representative requesting the US State Department’s help in adding pressure on Ukraine to end the Burisma corruption probe. I wonder how Joe will slither his way out of this? Sure seems Biden’s threat to hold back a billion dollars plus, unless Ukraine fired the investigator that was looking into corruption of the company his son was on the board of directors, has all the workings of corrupt influence on US policy that House Democrats are accusing Donald Trump of in their impeachment proceedings, doesn’t not?

https://johnsolomonreports.com/hunter-bidens-ukraine-gas-firm-pressed-obama-administration-to-end-corruption-allegations-memos-show/

Why do you insist on posting false tales and tall stories? Have you no interest in genuine discussion? That's not what happened.

Two completely different things as has been explained to you numerous times on numerous threads.

Biden, the EU and congress wanted rid of a lackluster investigator because there wasn't enough being done against corruption.

Trump threatened to hold back congress approved funds to get dirt on a personal political rival and as it turns out save his pal Putin by fraudulently trying to put election interference on Ukraine.

The POTUS is siding with Russia against the United States and it's allies. There should be a coup in Washington IMO.

********************

Thankfully for normal Americans, I reckon Biden is done. He's too old, too old school and not what the U.S. needs after that clown Trump. I'd like to see Buttigieg win.

Loafing Oaf

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Why do you insist on posting false tales and tall stories? Have you no interest in genuine discussion? That's not what happened.

Two completely different things as has been explained to you numerous times on numerous threads.

Maybe he's a bit...obtuse...

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Why do you insist on posting false tales and tall stories? Have you no interest in genuine discussion? That's not what happened.

Two completely different things as has been explained to you numerous times on numerous threads.

Biden, the EU and congress wanted rid of a lackluster investigator because there wasn't enough being done against corruption.

Trump threatened to hold back congress approved funds to get dirt on a personal political rival and as it turns out save his pal Putin by fraudulently trying to put election interference on Ukraine.

The POTUS is siding with Russia against the United States and it's allies. There should be a coup in Washington IMO.

********************

Thankfully for normal Americans, I reckon Biden is done. He's too old, too old school and not what the U.S. needs after that clown Trump. I'd like to see Buttigieg win.

Wrong as usual. Trump was most interested in getting to the bottom of Ukraine interference in the 2016 election. The Biden quid pro quo was an afterthought in the phone call and involved potential corruption by a US elected official. Biden himself was the one who caused the red flags. There’s numerous allegations that Joe Biden improperly pressured the government of Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who was investigating the company whose board included his son Hunter. Perhaps there’s something to the allegations, perhaps not. And it is in the public’s interest to know the truth. Trump was simply trying to get to the bottom of it. If a sitting vice president acted improperly, wouldn’t it be good to find out?

kowloon

notobtuse wrote: »

If a sitting vice president acted improperly, wouldn’t it be good to find out?

It would be good, just as it would be good to find out why a sitting president acted improperly, which he did.

notobtuse

kowloon wrote: »

It would be good, just as it would be good to find out why a sitting president acted improperly, which he did.

Incorrect. As long as Trump was acting on behalf of the public interest he behaved appropriately.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Wrong as usual. Trump was most interested in getting to the bottom of Ukraine interference in the 2016 election. The Biden quid pro quo was an afterthought in the phone call and involved potential corruption by a US elected official. Biden himself was the one who caused the red flags. There’s numerous allegations that Joe Biden improperly pressured the government of Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who was investigating the company whose board included his son Hunter. Perhaps there’s something to the allegations, perhaps not. And it is in the public’s interest to know the truth. Trump was simply trying to get to the bottom of it. If a sitting vice president acted improperly, wouldn’t it be good to find out?

Trump was supposedly interested in finding out about corruption by Biden, for the U.S. public interest...I see that tale has changed to cover for Trump doing Putin the favour of trying to blame Ukraine for Russian interference.

There was an elected official carrying out his duty, verses a POTUS out for himself against the interests of the American congress. Your country is in big trouble.
He wasn't his hole. Nobody buys these ever changing excuses. The people should rise up against Trump.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Incorrect. As long as Trump was acting on behalf of the public interest he behaved appropriately.

Be he wasn't. Not in any shape or form.

kowloon

notobtuse wrote: »

Incorrect. As long as Trump was acting on behalf of the public interest he behaved appropriately.

He acts in his own interest and in the interest of a small circle of people. He merrily ****s over anyone if it suits him, including staff, friends and allies.

notobtuse

kowloon wrote: »

He acts in his own interest and in the interest of a small circle of people. He merrily ****s over anyone if it suits him, including staff, friends and allies.

That’s merely you’re opinion. Just as the impeachment witch-hunt are based on opinions. What are we on... the third reason for impeachment because the first two fell apart? You can’t impeach a president over differences of opinion… there needs to be clear and undeniable reasons laid out in the US Constitution. The kangaroo impeachment court makes it clear it is being undertaken purely for political purposes. That was made evident by the votes down party lines. This is exactly what the founding fathers warned us of when they developed the impeachment authority given to Congress. They’d be turning over in their graves if they knew how Democrats were trashing the Constitution.

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Be he wasn't. Not in any shape or form.

Let’s see if you have the guts to answer the question honestly....

Which of the two is actually a quid pro quo?

Scenario one:

A vice president, who claims he is acting on the orders of the president, threatens the Ukrainian president that if he doesn’t fire a prosecutor within six hours he will not receive over a billion dollars in aid.

Ukraine fires the prosecutor within the time limit.

The money is then released to Ukraine.


Scenario two:

The president is holding up several millions of dollars because he doesn’t believe Ukraine is doing enough to look into their possible interference in the 2016 US election and possible corrupt acts of a US elected official.

The Ukrainian president doesn’t know any money was being held up, and didn’t believe there was a quid pro quo.

Ukraine does nothing regarding the request to look into their possible interference in the 2016 election and possible corruption of a US elected official.

The money is released to Ukraine, anyway.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Let’s see if you have the guts to answer the question honestly....

Which of the two is actually a quid pro quo?

Scenario one:

A vice president, who claims he is acting on the orders of the president, threatens the Ukrainian president that if he doesn’t fire a prosecutor within six hours he will not receive over a billion dollars in aid.

Ukraine fires the prosecutor within the time limit.

The money is then released to Ukraine.


Scenario two:

The president is holding up several millions of dollars because he doesn’t believe Ukraine is doing enough to look into their possible interference in the 2016 US election and possible corrupt acts of a US elected official.

The Ukrainian president doesn’t know any money was being held up, and didn’t believe there was a quid pro quo.

Ukraine does nothing regarding the request to look into their possible interference in the 2016 election and possible corruption of a US elected official.

The money is released to Ukraine, anyway.

Let's make the questions based on facts first?

IMO, both a quid pro quo.
Biden was acting on behalf of congress, the EU etc.
Trump was working against the U.S. congress in his own interests. I believe they are looking to impeach him over it.

kowloon

notobtuse wrote: »

That’s merely you’re opinion. Just as the impeachment witch-hunt are based on opinions.

Everything is opinion if you don't believe we all live in the same objective reality. Otherwise, opinions are weighted and some are based on fact.

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Let's make the questions based on facts first?

IMO, both a quid pro quo.
Biden was acting on behalf of congress, the EU etc.
Trump was working against the U.S. congress in his own interests. I believe they are looking to impeach him over it.

Did you purchase that crystal ball of yours online or do you use a ouija board?

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Did you purchase that crystal ball of yours online or do you use a ouija board?

Point out where I'm wrong.

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Point out where I'm wrong.

You claimed he was working against the US congress in his own interests. That's only your opinion and not fact. My opinion is he was working in the public interest. How do you prove it one way or another? And if you can't, and Democrats impeach him, it proves it is only being done for political purposes.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

You claimed he was working against the US congress in his own interests. That's only your opinion and not fact. My opinion is he was working in the public interest. How do you prove it one way or another? And if you can't, and Democrats impeach him, it proves it is only being done for political purposes.

Congress said that money should go to Ukraine.
Trump threatened to hold it up for information on Biden.
The transcript, testimonies. The good news for Republicans and Trumpeters is it'll all be made public soon enough.
It is being done for political purposes, so what? The motive doesn't cancel out Trump's behavior.

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Congress said that money should go to Ukraine.
Trump threatened to hold it up for information on Biden.
The transcript, testimonies. The good news for Republicans and Trumpeters is it'll all be made public soon enough.
It is being done for political purposes, so what? The motive doesn't cancel out Trump's behavior.

No Trump didn't. The US government holds up money to other countries all the time, using it as leverage so that country does things for our public interest.

Was the money paid or not, and did Ukraine do anything that Trump asked of them?

Please show me one iota of proof that there was a quid pro quo on Trump's part. Hearsay, opinion and misunderstandings do not count.

What Biden did was a real quid pro quo, and seemingly for personal interest.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

No Trump didn't. The US government holds up money to other countries all the time, using it as leverage so that country does things for our public interest.

Was the money paid or not, and did Ukraine do anything that Trump asked of them?

Please show me one iota of proof that there was a quid pro quo on Trump's part. Hearsay, opinion and misunderstandings do not count.

What Biden did was a real quid pro quo, and seemingly for personal interest.

quid pro quo is irrelevant. trump asking is enough for impeachment

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

quid pro quo is irrelevant. trump asking is enough for impeachment

The Democrat controlled House could impeach Trump because they thought his tie was too loud... and probably would.

prinzeugen

notobtuse wrote: »

No Trump didn't. The US government holds up money to other countries all the time, using it as leverage so that country does things for our public interest.

Was the money paid or not, and did Ukraine do anything that Trump asked of them?

Please show me one iota of proof that there was a quid pro quo on Trump's part. Hearsay, opinion and misunderstandings do not count.

What Biden did was a real quid pro quo, and seemingly for personal interest.

It was in the summary of the call. (It is NOT a transcript. It makes that clear at the bottom of page 1.

www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

Trump and several others have even admitted it on live TV.

While the US might withhold aid it is for national gain.

And quid pro quo or not call it for what it is. Attempted blackmail for Trumps personal gain. There is oodles of evidence of that.

He used US taxpayers cash in an attempt to blackmail Ukraine into digging up dirt on a rival. That is fact and that is illegal.

You also seem to conveniently forget that almost every country in the EU wanted that prosecutor removed because of their ties to Russia.

brooke 2

notobtuse wrote: »

Uh, oh! Seems Hunter Biden’s name came up in emails by the Burisma representative requesting the US State Department’s help in adding pressure on Ukraine to end the Burisma corruption probe. I wonder how Joe will slither his way out of this? Sure seems Biden’s threat to hold back a billion dollars plus, unless Ukraine fired the investigator that was looking into corruption of the company his son was on the board of directors, has all the workings of corrupt influence on US policy that House Democrats are accusing Donald Trump of in their impeachment proceedings, doesn’t not?

https://johnsolomonreports.com/hunter-bidens-ukraine-gas-firm-pressed-obama-administration-to-end-corruption-allegations-memos-show/

John Solomon? :D

Best friends with Giuliani, Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman and, inevitably, Sean Hannitty, Laura Ingraham and Lou Dobbs!

brooke 2

notobtuse wrote: »

Let’s see if you have the guts to answer the question honestly....

Which of the two is actually a quid pro quo?

Scenario one:

A vice president, who claims he is acting on the orders of the president, threatens the Ukrainian president that if he doesn’t fire a prosecutor within six hours he will not receive over a billion dollars in aid.

Ukraine fires the prosecutor within the time limit.

The money is then released to Ukraine.


Scenario two:

The president is holding up several millions of dollars because he doesn’t believe Ukraine is doing enough to look into their possible interference in the 2016 US election and possible corrupt acts of a US elected official.

The Ukrainian president doesn’t know any money was being held up, and didn’t believe there was a quid pro quo.

Ukraine does nothing regarding the request to look into their possible interference in the 2016 election and possible corruption of a US elected official.

The money is released to Ukraine, anyway.

The money was only released to Ukraine AFTER the whistleblower came forward.

Skylinehead

notobtuse wrote: »

The Democrat controlled House could impeach Trump because they thought his tie was too loud... and probably would.

Imagine if he wore a tan suit :pac:

notobtuse

brooke 2 wrote: »

John Solomon? :D

Best friends with Giuliani, Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman and, inevitably, Sean Hannitty, Laura Ingraham and Lou Dobbs!

Ad Hominem Attacks-R-Us?

notobtuse

Skylinehead wrote: »

Imagine if he wore a tan suit :pac:

I laugh when I see this tired old faux outrage. I remember when Obama wore that tan suit. The liberal media went bat$hit crazy claiming the evil Right Wing media was attacking him because of his choice of suits. Other than a few fringe bloggers the right media, Republicans, and Conservatives didn’t care less. But that didn’t stop the DNC media handmaidens from lying, ad nauseum, over the supposed Right media outrage. But it did help the DNC with soliciting donations from their gullible followers. If Biden needs cash, perhaps he SHOULD wear a tan suit so the biased media can once again go into prevarication overdrive.

Don’t believe me? Then prove me wrong and show where any prominent right leaning media types attacked Obama for his tan suit. And good luck with that!

notobtuse

prinzeugen wrote: »

It was in the summary of the call. (It is NOT a transcript. It makes that clear at the bottom of page 1.

www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

Trump and several others have even admitted it on live TV.

While the US might withhold aid it is for national gain.

And quid pro quo or not call it for what it is. Attempted blackmail for Trumps personal gain. There is oodles of evidence of that.

He used US taxpayers cash in an attempt to blackmail Ukraine into digging up dirt on a rival. That is fact and that is illegal.

You also seem to conveniently forget that almost every country in the EU wanted that prosecutor removed because of their ties to Russia.

Wrong! Trump wanted the Ukraine to look into their possible illegal influence in the 2016 US election, and possible corruption of a high-powered US elected official.

National gain to end outside interference in our elections and to investigate potential corruption of our officials.

Ah yes… BLACKMAIL. The new left wing talking point for impeachment. First, impeachment claimed collusion. When that fell apart it was obstruction. Then when it was determined there was no obstruction it became quid pro quo. Now that the only people who claim there was a quid pro quo are those who base it on assumptions, presumptions and from talking to people who spoke to people who talked to other people... and maybe even crystal balls. Now it seems to have become blackmail... Keep throwing darts and hope something sticks, eh?

What will next weeks reason be for impeachment?

And ‘almost every country in the EU wanted that prosecutor removed because of their ties to Russia.’ How did they do on that front? Thank gawd Uncle Joe rode in on his white horse demanding Ukraine fire the prosecutor who was looking into corruption of the company his son was a board member... within six hours, or they could kiss their billions of dollars of aid from the US goodbye.

The first witnesses the Republicans should call in the impeachment hearings are Lying Congressman Shiff for Brains, the whistleblower biased leaker who worked with foreign entities to remove Trump since the day he was elected, Quid Pro Joe, and Put-Me-On-Your-Boards-Because-My-Dad-Will-Get-You-What-You-Want Hunter Biden.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

You claimed he was working against the US congress in his own interests. That's only your opinion and not fact. My opinion is he was working in the public interest. How do you prove it one way or another? And if you can't, and Democrats impeach him, it proves it is only being done for political purposes.

Congress ordered the money go to Ukraine. He tied that to an investigation on Biden. All the pedantry in the world won't change that. We have testimonies which will soon be fully out in the public domain. We have the call. We have the WH saying 'quid pro quo, we do it all the time'.
All that's left is how little ethics and loyalty the Republicans have towards the United States in when they say 'enough is enough'.

Why they are doing it is completely irrelevant, yet another effort at dismissing it by the GOP.

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Congress ordered the money go to Ukraine. He tied that to an investigation on Biden. All the pedantry in the world won't change that. We have testimonies which will soon be fully out in the public domain. We have the call. We have the WH saying 'quid pro quo, we do it all the time'.
All that's left is how little ethics and loyalty the Republicans have towards the United States in when they say 'enough is enough'..

No he didn't. You can tell that falsehood all you want but it doesn't make it so.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

No he didn't. You can tell that falsehood all you want but it doesn't make it so.

Everyone involved says he did. He even had bagman Rudy in the mix. Gangsters.