Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I sit on 2 boards that my parents know nothing about, and we talk regularly.It's been said the other international support came only after they learned the US was upset about it so let's not get the cart before the horse. So here's what we know. Biden's son was on the board of this company bringing in a rather substantial amount of money each month. This company comes under investigation by the Ukraine government and his son potentially could find himself in trouble.
Out of all people in positions of power how can it be anyway reasonable to have him the Vice President taking up the charge on this request? Biden claims he didn't know his son was on the board of this gas company?
Considering the law of probability how probable is that? I can say at least in my life and in the lives of probably all my readers you always generally know what's going on in your offspring lives....as in how are things going financially and what type of career are they in? (that is unless you've had a rift with an offspring and haven't seen them for years which doesn't apply to the Biden family) Can anyone with any sincerity deny this is the case? I'd think not. So why consider it strange that the Biden story shouldn't warrant a serious investigation?
Graham says he won't read the Trump impeachment transcripts
Heaven forbid he might learn something and make an informed decision at Donald's impeachment...
Thoughts?
Well that could explain the word incoherent, but consider that the man (not Graham) has dealt with a specific kind of people through his life, more of a street or mob mentality. Obviously he is not polished around the edges, but he knows how to deal with his own kind (and there are a lot of leaders like him). It's the rest from the old status quo that are scratching their heads. Had he run up against an old school politician in the Ukraine instead of a comedian turned leader, things might have been different.Graham seems to be implying that Donald is just plain stupid.
Well that could explain the word incoherent, but consider that the man (not Graham) has dealt with a specific kind of people through his life, more of a street or mob mentality. Obviously he is not polished around the edges, but he knows how to deal with his own kind (and there are a lot of leaders like him). It's the rest from the old status quo that are scratching their heads.
Had he run up against an old school politician in the Ukraine instead of a comedian turned leader, things might have been different.
Interview the very people Trump doesn’t want interviewed. Such as Bolton. It’s been reported Bolton knew this narrative to be a Giuliani inspired conspiracy theory, and consequently, could take them down, calling him a “grenade.” Well, so, in one ear did Giuliani whisper this theory to Trump, and in the other ear Bolton told Trump Giuliani’s theory was baseless and why?
Who else in the room thought this narrative was false? Did they speak to Trump?
I’m skeptical his narrative is sincere, and I want the Dems to present evidence showing the narrative is false, or evidence Trump knew or should have known there was no reasonable basis to believe Biden acted improperly.
Dems should attempt to make the very best case they can, and that includes evidence refuting Trump’s anticipated defenses, not merely to obtain a conviction in the Senate, but to establish publicly for the rest of America to see and know Trump abused his power; and sell to the electorate it is their job to do what Senate Republicans didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to do, get him out of office!
Except that is not exactly what happened. Shokin was supposed to be investigating Bursima's activities during a period before Hunter Biden joined the board, but he wasn't doing it actively because he was corrupt, and it was because he was corrupt that the US and other Western powers wanted him removed. Your narrative, that Shokin was investigating Hunter Biden and Joe Biden got him canned for it, might make you feel good but it won't stand the light of day when it comes up in the Senate trial.Now I've got to stop you right here.....what do you mean should have known there was no reasonable basis to believe Biden acted improperly? You need to understand one must stay away from even the appearance of a conflict of interests and what can be more of an appearance of that than a son of a VP on a board raking in 50K a month and a father threatening to withhold aid to that nation of tax dollars if an investigation into that company isn't stopped?
Now I've got to stop you right here.....what do you mean should have known there was no reasonable basis to believe Biden acted improperly? You need to understand one must stay away from even the appearance of a conflict of interests and what can be more of an appearance of that than a son of a VP on a board raking in 50K a month and a father threatening to withhold aid to that nation of tax dollars if an investigation into that company isn't stopped?
And it's the job of Dems to stand up and have some intestinal fortitude and stand up to their leadership and demand it step down from it's unsubstantiated witch hunt and actually two of them did making it bipartisan support against impeachment
The problem is that anyone Donald doesn't want interviewed he's going to order to ignore the subpoenas... and what happens then?
An appearance of impropriety may justify scrutiny to ensure no impropriety occurred, unless of course one has knowledge of facts that only an appearance of impropriety exists but no impropriety occurred.
I did not say that.
Quit the mockery. It's unbecoming.
Of course not.
The thing is, no one has accused Biden of making any such "improper remarks." His motivations for pushing for Shokin's firing are being questioned, not the words that he used to do so when talking to the Ukranians. As I said, it's certainly possible that he said something to someone in Ukraine. However, it's far more likely that he said something to someone in the US, while he was orchestrating the push to make Shokin's firing a US policy position and pressuring our allies in the IMF and EU to go along with it.
Because it was an official foreign policy position, he had no NEED to say anything incriminating to the Ukrainians (though he could have). Therefore, it does not make sense to begin the investigation at that point. And even if you DO decide to start the investigation there, it makes sense to ALSO open an investigation on the US side of things. That was not done at any point - not when Trump first started talking about investigating Biden for corruption back in 2018 (through Giuliani), and not even after the call with Zelensky in which he said he would have the AG call him.
In short, my evidence that Trump was not actually interested in investigating Biden for corruption is that he didn't investigate Biden for corruption. All he ever did was ask Ukraine to announce that they were doing so. Nothing more. For someone with the power of the entire US Executive Branch backing him, that's a pretty weak effort.
Quit the mockery. It's unbecoming.
The thing is, no one has accused Biden of making any such "improper remarks."
His motivations for pushing for Shokin's firing are being questioned, not the words that he used to do so when talking to the Ukranians.
However, it's far more likely that he said something to someone in the US
Therefore, it does not make sense to begin the investigation at that point.
it makes sense to ALSO open an investigation on the US side of things.
pretty weak effort.
Right back atcha buddy! Your whole argument is based on the conjecture that Biden might have said something inappropriate in Ukraine.Then spare me the waste of time reading your conjecture and speculation.
Right back atcha buddy! Your whole argument is based on the conjecture that Biden might have said something inappropriate in Ukraine.
Again, ultimately, if you want to argue that Trump was worried about Biden's corruption, why not make use of the investigative resources available to the Executive Branch? We can argue back and forth over whether or not there was any merit to starting an investigation in Ukraine, but ultimately we're talking about violations of US law, so a US law enforcement organization should have been involved.
Right back atcha buddy! Your whole argument is based on the conjecture that Biden might have said something inappropriate in Ukraine.
but ultimately we're talking about violations of US law, so a US law enforcement organization should have been involved
It's the anti-Russian interference narrative- in this rendition, it wasn't Russia that interfered in the 2016 election, it was Ukraine. If it wasn't Russia, then Donald did not get any illegitimate help, Hillary did.I don't understand the point of investigating what a Ukrainian company did before a certain person joined it. Also, Trump had to know several other Democrats are running against JOE Biden.
Nevertheless, Rudy is going under the bus.Rudy Giuliani is a close friend and huge financial supporter. He endorsed Donald Trump on television with commercials during the 2016 campaign.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?