Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

So the democratic party is essentially getting rid of the only guy who stands a chance at beating Trump, correct?

(10-01-2019, 09:06 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2019, 08:16 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It's ambiguous if you want it to be ambiguous. 
The whole reason that Rudy is horned in, in lieu of a real prosecutor, or a real diplomat, is so that, in case the Ukrainians wanted to cooperate, but quietly, Rudy could make sure the right stuff got into the US press at the right time.  Now you say, "oh but that's not in the transcript." You would be right. It's not. But I find no other way to explain Rudy's involvement.

Why would trumps personal attorney have been looking into ukraine during the mueller probe?

The Mueller probe was over at that point. It had been over for a while.

---

(10-01-2019, 11:18 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2019, 08:16 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It's ambiguous if you want it to be ambiguous. 
The whole reason that Rudy is horned in, in lieu of a real prosecutor, or a real diplomat, is so that, in case the Ukrainians wanted to cooperate, but quietly, Rudy could make sure the right stuff got into the US press at the right time.  Now you say, "oh but that's not in the transcript." You would be right. It's not. But I find no other way to explain Rudy's involvement.

Are you that clueless that you can't find ANY explanation for Trump involving his attorney?

1. Trump is not an attorney, and needs legal advise on anything that may involve a legal matter. That includes basically everything; have you seen the libraries-full of books just of federal laws?

2. Trump was primarily asking the Ukraine president about CrowdStrike. That has 100% to do with the Mueller report, which was a (failed) personal attack against Trump. The Biden mention was just an afterthought in that conversation.

I'm not an attorney either.  I don't have an attorney on retainer.  I get that POTUS has a more complicated job than I do, but he also has a cabinet full of lawyers!  Including a solicitor general that's basically a catch-all for the things other departments don't think is in their wheelhouse.  What's the difference? All of those positions are paid by US taxpayers, are accountable to us, and have specific laws and standards to follow.  A personal lawyer has none of that. Now the president is entitled to have a personal lawyer if he wants one of course.But the guy should not be looked in on matters of state, only on -get this- *personal* matters.

And there isn't a connection between Crowd Strike and Ukraine.

(10-01-2019, 01:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2019, 09:06 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Why would trumps personal attorney have been looking into ukraine during the mueller probe?

The Mueller probe was over at that point. It had been over for a while.

---

(10-01-2019, 11:18 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]Are you that clueless that you can't find ANY explanation for Trump involving his attorney?

1. Trump is not an attorney, and needs legal advise on anything that may involve a legal matter. That includes basically everything; have you seen the libraries-full of books just of federal laws?

2. Trump was primarily asking the Ukraine president about CrowdStrike. That has 100% to do with the Mueller report, which was a (failed) personal attack against Trump. The Biden mention was just an afterthought in that conversation.

I'm not an attorney either.  I don't have an attorney on retainer.  I get that POTUS has a more complicated job than I do, but he also has a cabinet full of lawyers!  Including a solicitor general that's basically a catch-all for the things other departments don't think is in their wheelhouse.  What's the difference? All of those positions are paid by US taxpayers, are accountable to us, and have specific laws and standards to follow.  A personal lawyer has none of that.  Now the president is entitled to have a personal lawyer if he wants one of course.But the guy should not be looked in on matters of state, only on -get this- *personal* matters.

And there isn't a connection between Crowd Strike and Ukraine.

The entire Russia-gate hoax was a personal matter, as is Russia-gate 2: Ukrainian Boogaloo. Trump is absolutely correct to treat his political opposition in both parties as treacherous, we've already seen their Deep State gambit exposed, and will again.

Just popping in to drop a dime or two.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/...80/photo/1

(10-01-2019, 02:15 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Just popping in to drop a dime or two.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/...80/photo/1

I'll wager you a ham sandwich that the person Adam Schiff sent was on the taxpayer's payroll.  Schiff wasn't signing his checks.
If you can find that this person actually used their trip to advance the interests of the Democratic party or of Schiff as a candidate, I would be surprised, but, that's not what this little piece of evidence indicates, on its own.

---

(10-01-2019, 01:35 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2019, 01:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The Mueller probe was over at that point. It had been over for a while.

---

I'm not an attorney either.  I don't have an attorney on retainer.  I get that POTUS has a more complicated job than I do, but he also has a cabinet full of lawyers!  Including a solicitor general that's basically a catch-all for the things other departments don't think is in their wheelhouse.  What's the difference? All of those positions are paid by US taxpayers, are accountable to us, and have specific laws and standards to follow.  A personal lawyer has none of that.  Now the president is entitled to have a personal lawyer if he wants one of course.But the guy should not be looked in on matters of state, only on -get this- *personal* matters.

And there isn't a connection between Crowd Strike and Ukraine.

The entire Russia-gate hoax was a personal matter, as is Russia-gate 2: Ukrainian Boogaloo. Trump is absolutely correct to treat his political opposition in both parties as treacherous, we've already seen their Deep State gambit exposed, and will again.

You don't have to try so hard to make me laugh, I already love you, sweetheart.

(10-01-2019, 03:13 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2019, 02:15 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Just popping in to drop a dime or two.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/...80/photo/1

I'll wager you a ham sandwich that the person Adam Schiff sent was on the taxpayer's payroll.  Schiff wasn't signing his checks.
If you can find that this person actually used their trip to advance the interests of the Democratic party or of Schiff as a candidate, I would be surprised, but, that's not what this little piece of evidence indicates, on its own.

---

(10-01-2019, 01:35 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]The entire Russia-gate hoax was a personal matter, as is Russia-gate 2: Ukrainian Boogaloo. Trump is absolutely correct to treat his political opposition in both parties as treacherous, we've already seen their Deep State gambit exposed, and will again.

You don't have to try so hard to make me laugh, I already love you, sweetheart.

It's so very Republican of you to see evil in every Trump action but justification for every move of the Dems. But you're pretty much just a Pelosi mouthpiece at this point, so, good on ya I guess? Keep the faith, you'll win someday. Eventually. Maybe.

(10-01-2019, 03:13 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2019, 02:15 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Just popping in to drop a dime or two.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/...80/photo/1

I'll wager you a ham sandwich that the person Adam Schiff sent was on the taxpayer's payroll.  Schiff wasn't signing his checks.
If you can find that this person actually used their trip to advance the interests of the Democratic party or of Schiff as a candidate, I would be surprised, but, that's not what this little piece of evidence indicates, on its own.

---

(10-01-2019, 01:35 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]The entire Russia-gate hoax was a personal matter, as is Russia-gate 2: Ukrainian Boogaloo. Trump is absolutely correct to treat his political opposition in both parties as treacherous, we've already seen their Deep State gambit exposed, and will again.

You don't have to try so hard to make me laugh, I already love you, sweetheart.

You aren't very good at this, huh? As a staffer, who do you think pays Thomas Brooke Crosby Eager's Salary? I raise you a roast beef sandwich that it is a congressional member named Schiff. At least read it and research it. Sure have been a lot of Dem visits and communications with Ukraine over the last few years. I wonder why Soros is funding the trip? I wonder why they are all meeting with former Ukrain President and staffers to discuss new President and staffers? I'm sure it's nothing. The Dems are screaming about Ukraine's corruption and Trump, yet he is the only one that hasn't had previous contact or a hand in it. Nearly every senior Dem has a deep connection to Ukraine, including Pelosi and Schiff.

(10-01-2019, 01:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2019, 09:06 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Why would trumps personal attorney have been looking into ukraine during the mueller probe?

The Mueller probe was over at that point. It had been over for a while.

---

(10-01-2019, 11:18 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]Are you that clueless that you can't find ANY explanation for Trump involving his attorney?

1. Trump is not an attorney, and needs legal advise on anything that may involve a legal matter. That includes basically everything; have you seen the libraries-full of books just of federal laws?

2. Trump was primarily asking the Ukraine president about CrowdStrike. That has 100% to do with the Mueller report, which was a (failed) personal attack against Trump. The Biden mention was just an afterthought in that conversation.

I'm not an attorney either.  I don't have an attorney on retainer.  I get that POTUS has a more complicated job than I do, but he also has a cabinet full of lawyers!  Including a solicitor general that's basically a catch-all for the things other departments don't think is in their wheelhouse.  What's the difference? All of those positions are paid by US taxpayers, are accountable to us, and have specific laws and standards to follow.  A personal lawyer has none of that.  Now the president is entitled to have a personal lawyer if he wants one of course.But the guy should not be looked in on matters of state, only on -get this- *personal* matters.

And there isn't a connection between Crowd Strike and Ukraine.

Are you "bet your child's life" sure that there's no connection between CrowdStrike and Ukraine? In any case, Trump obviously thought there was and acted on that premise. The Mueller investigation was a personal attack against Trump. Trump was wise to involve a personal lawyer there.

And you are so far down the road to spouting the Democrat talking points, you might as well be Schiff himself.

(10-01-2019, 04:07 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2019, 03:13 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'll wager you a ham sandwich that the person Adam Schiff sent was on the taxpayer's payroll.  Schiff wasn't signing his checks.
If you can find that this person actually used their trip to advance the interests of the Democratic party or of Schiff as a candidate, I would be surprised, but, that's not what this little piece of evidence indicates, on its own.

---

You don't have to try so hard to make me laugh, I already love you, sweetheart.

You aren't very good at this, huh? As a staffer, who do you think pays Thomas Brooke Crosby Eager's Salary? I raise you a roast beef sandwich that it is a congressional member named Schiff. At least read it and research it. Sure have been a lot of Dem visits and communications with Ukraine over the last few years. I wonder why Soros is funding the trip? I wonder why they are all meeting with former Ukrain President and staffers to discuss new President and staffers? I'm sure it's nothing. The Dems are screaming about Ukraine's corruption and Trump, yet he is the only one that hasn't had previous contact or a hand in it. Nearly every senior Dem has a deep connection to Ukraine, including Pelosi and Schiff.

Members of Congress are given a budget to hire people. The amount of money they get to hire depends on their committee assignments. But those people are paid by us as taxpayers. they are expected to show a general loyalty to the taxpayers and the nation and a specific loyalty to the member of Congress that hired them. 

But the relationship between Trump and Giuliani is not like this. Giuliani's position expects loyalty only to Trump and adherence to only the bare minimum of ethical standards that are in the administrative code of whichever state he is registered with the bar in (probably New York).

(10-01-2019, 06:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2019, 04:07 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]You aren't very good at this, huh? As a staffer, who do you think pays Thomas Brooke Crosby Eager's Salary? I raise you a roast beef sandwich that it is a congressional member named Schiff. At least read it and research it. Sure have been a lot of Dem visits and communications with Ukraine over the last few years. I wonder why Soros is funding the trip? I wonder why they are all meeting with former Ukrain President and staffers to discuss new President and staffers? I'm sure it's nothing. The Dems are screaming about Ukraine's corruption and Trump, yet he is the only one that hasn't had previous contact or a hand in it. Nearly every senior Dem has a deep connection to Ukraine, including Pelosi and Schiff.

Members of Congress are given a budget to hire people. The amount of money they get to hire depends on their committee assignments. But those people are paid by us as taxpayers. they are expected to show a general loyalty to the taxpayers and the nation and a specific loyalty to the member of Congress that hired them. 

But the relationship between Trump and Giuliani is not like this. Giuliani's position expects loyalty only to Trump and adherence to only the bare minimum of ethical standards that are in the administrative code of whichever state he is registered with the bar in (probably New York).

The murller probe wasnt over when he started looking into ukraine.  Think harder.

Handsy Uncle Joe was surely unaware that he was acting in his son's best interest now wasn't he?


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine...ment-files

FTA: “Mr. Shokin attempted to continue the investigations but on or around June or July of 2015, the U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves, which according to Mr. Shokin, that implied do nothing,” the notes from the interview stated. The notes also claimed Shokin was told Biden had held up U.S. aid to Ukraine over the investigation."

Trump just publicly implored Xi to investigate Biden...on TV. This is officially wacky town.

(10-03-2019, 11:33 AM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]Trump just publicly implored Xi to investigate Biden...on TV. This is officially wacky town.

It's wacky that Biden's been allowed to get away with this stuff for so long.

It's pretty clear who the party of corruption is.. and they always get away with it.. no consequences ever... because democrats are inherently good and republicans are evil.

Sad.

Even sadder is some poor dumb people believe the democrats care about them.. they only care about themselves and the money they can make using the system.

(10-03-2019, 12:11 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-03-2019, 11:33 AM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]Trump just publicly implored Xi to investigate Biden...on TV. This is officially wacky town.

It's wacky that Biden's been allowed to get away with this stuff for so long.

It's pretty clear who the party of corruption is.. and they always get away with it.. no consequences ever... because democrats are inherently good and republicans are evil.

Sad.

Even sadder is some poor dumb people believe the democrats care about them.. they only care about themselves and the money they can make using the system.

Whatever lens you choose to look at this through...

(10-03-2019, 11:10 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Handsy Uncle Joe was surely unaware that he was acting in his son's best interest now wasn't he?


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine...ment-files

FTA: “Mr. Shokin attempted to continue the investigations but on or around June or July of 2015, the U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves, which according to Mr. Shokin, that implied do nothing,” the notes from the interview stated. The notes also claimed Shokin was told Biden had held up U.S. aid to Ukraine over the investigation."

It says right there in the article that the founder of the gas company was the target of the investigation, not Hunter Biden. The article does not say why the founder was under investigation.

Hunter was appointed to the Burisma board in 2014.
Shokin reports that he was told to "do nothing" against Burisma in 2015, and he followed this advice.
Joe Biden did not withhold money from Ukraine until 2016.

It is more likely than not that this natural gas company hired Hunter Biden mainly to protect itself from prosecution.

And if that was the case, it is more likely than not that Joe and Hunter understood their role.

But it was not illegal in either country for Hunter biden to simply accept the position.

And it's not clear if Joe did anything overt to make the investigation shut down in 2015. It could simply be that the president and prosecutor of Ukraine were afraid of him, or maybe they were afraid of someone else in the company creating trouble for them.

When Joe finally makes his move in 2016, it appears to have nothing to do with his son's role at Burisma.

Even if that's not true, Joe's actions would have been an abuse of power but not a violation of law.

And the motive would simply be to enrich himself.

Whereas Trump's abuse of power was motivated by a desire to harm the other political party, or manipulate the press during elections, or simply settle a personal vendetta.  

Each of these possible motives is more corrosive to domestic representative democracy than grifting a foreign country.

If Biden was in office now, it would be worth investigating him for possible impeachment based on what we know today. Presidents or vice presidents should be impeached for abusing their power whether or not they did anything technically illegal.

But Biden is not in office now. Anyone who wants to is free to try to investigate him, but they cannot and should not deploy the tools of US foreign policy to aid investigation, because there's no probable cause that he violated any part of US criminal code.

Trump is in office now, and he must be punished for abusing his power.

(10-03-2019, 12:19 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-03-2019, 11:10 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Handsy Uncle Joe was surely unaware that he was acting in his son's best interest now wasn't he?


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine...ment-files

FTA: “Mr. Shokin attempted to continue the investigations but on or around June or July of 2015, the U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves, which according to Mr. Shokin, that implied do nothing,” the notes from the interview stated. The notes also claimed Shokin was told Biden had held up U.S. aid to Ukraine over the investigation."

It says right there in the article that the founder of the gas company was the target of the investigation, not Hunter Biden. The article does not say why the founder was under investigation.

Hunter was appointed to the Burisma board in 2014.
Shokin reports that he was told to "do nothing" against Burisma in 2015, and he followed this advice.
Joe Biden did not withhold money from Ukraine until 2016.

It is more likely than not that this natural gas company hired Hunter Biden mainly to protect itself from prosecution.

And if that was the case, it is more likely than not that Joe and Hunter understood their role.

But it was not illegal in either country for Hunter biden to simply accept the position.

And it's not clear if Joe did anything overt to make the investigation shut down in 2015. It could simply be that the president and prosecutor of Ukraine were afraid of him, or maybe they were afraid of someone else in the company creating trouble for them.

When Joe finally makes his move in 2016, it appears to have nothing to do with his son's role at Burisma.

Even if that's not true, Joe's actions would have been an abuse of power but not a violation of law.

And the motive would simply be to enrich himself.

Whereas Trump's abuse of power was motivated by a desire to harm the other political party, or manipulate the press during elections, or simply settle a personal vendetta.  

Each of these possible motives is more corrosive to domestic representative democracy than grifting a foreign country.

If Biden was in office now, it would be worth investigating him for possible impeachment based on what we know today. Presidents or vice presidents should be impeached for abusing their power whether or not they did anything technically illegal.

But Biden is not in office now. Anyone who wants to is free to try to investigate him, but they cannot and should not deploy the tools of US foreign policy to aid investigation, because there's no probable cause that he violated any part of US criminal code.

Trump is in office now, and he must be punished for abusing his power.

Good talk. You've certainly done your best to speak ImaginationLand into existence.

(10-03-2019, 12:40 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-03-2019, 12:19 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It says right there in the article that the founder of the gas company was the target of the investigation, not Hunter Biden. The article does not say why the founder was under investigation.

Hunter was appointed to the Burisma board in 2014.
Shokin reports that he was told to "do nothing" against Burisma in 2015, and he followed this advice.
Joe Biden did not withhold money from Ukraine until 2016.

It is more likely than not that this natural gas company hired Hunter Biden mainly to protect itself from prosecution.

And if that was the case, it is more likely than not that Joe and Hunter understood their role.

But it was not illegal in either country for Hunter biden to simply accept the position.

And it's not clear if Joe did anything overt to make the investigation shut down in 2015. It could simply be that the president and prosecutor of Ukraine were afraid of him, or maybe they were afraid of someone else in the company creating trouble for them.

When Joe finally makes his move in 2016, it appears to have nothing to do with his son's role at Burisma.

Even if that's not true, Joe's actions would have been an abuse of power but not a violation of law.

And the motive would simply be to enrich himself.

Whereas Trump's abuse of power was motivated by a desire to harm the other political party, or manipulate the press during elections, or simply settle a personal vendetta.  

Each of these possible motives is more corrosive to domestic representative democracy than grifting a foreign country.

If Biden was in office now, it would be worth investigating him for possible impeachment based on what we know today. Presidents or vice presidents should be impeached for abusing their power whether or not they did anything technically illegal.

But Biden is not in office now. Anyone who wants to is free to try to investigate him, but they cannot and should not deploy the tools of US foreign policy to aid investigation, because there's no probable cause that he violated any part of US criminal code.

Trump is in office now, and he must be punished for abusing his power.

Good talk. You've certainly done your best to speak ImaginationLand into existence.

Tell me which claims of fact are false.
Tell me which inferences are unreasonable.
Tell me what you think the true fact is in each case.

(10-03-2019, 12:40 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-03-2019, 12:19 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It says right there in the article that the founder of the gas company was the target of the investigation, not Hunter Biden. The article does not say why the founder was under investigation.

Hunter was appointed to the Burisma board in 2014.
Shokin reports that he was told to "do nothing" against Burisma in 2015, and he followed this advice.
Joe Biden did not withhold money from Ukraine until 2016.

It is more likely than not that this natural gas company hired Hunter Biden mainly to protect itself from prosecution.

And if that was the case, it is more likely than not that Joe and Hunter understood their role.

But it was not illegal in either country for Hunter biden to simply accept the position.

And it's not clear if Joe did anything overt to make the investigation shut down in 2015. It could simply be that the president and prosecutor of Ukraine were afraid of him, or maybe they were afraid of someone else in the company creating trouble for them.

When Joe finally makes his move in 2016, it appears to have nothing to do with his son's role at Burisma.

Even if that's not true, Joe's actions would have been an abuse of power but not a violation of law.

And the motive would simply be to enrich himself.

Whereas Trump's abuse of power was motivated by a desire to harm the other political party, or manipulate the press during elections, or simply settle a personal vendetta.  

Each of these possible motives is more corrosive to domestic representative democracy than grifting a foreign country.

If Biden was in office now, it would be worth investigating him for possible impeachment based on what we know today. Presidents or vice presidents should be impeached for abusing their power whether or not they did anything technically illegal.

But Biden is not in office now. Anyone who wants to is free to try to investigate him, but they cannot and should not deploy the tools of US foreign policy to aid investigation, because there's no probable cause that he violated any part of US criminal code.

Trump is in office now, and he must be punished for abusing his power.

Good talk. You've certainly done your best to speak ImaginationLand into existence.

Not coming to Mike's defense, but you can't simultaneously claim corruption on Biden's side while ignoring the illegality of what Trump is doing. Well, I guess you can, but it doesn't take away the fact that abuse of power is happening in plain sight, even though corruption exists elsewhere. The tactic is clear - normalize the behavior. DARVO, in black and white.

(10-03-2019, 12:19 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-03-2019, 11:10 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Handsy Uncle Joe was surely unaware that he was acting in his son's best interest now wasn't he?


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine...ment-files

FTA: “Mr. Shokin attempted to continue the investigations but on or around June or July of 2015, the U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves, which according to Mr. Shokin, that implied do nothing,” the notes from the interview stated. The notes also claimed Shokin was told Biden had held up U.S. aid to Ukraine over the investigation."

It says right there in the article that the founder of the gas company was the target of the investigation, not Hunter Biden. The article does not say why the founder was under investigation.

Hunter was appointed to the Burisma board in 2014.
Shokin reports that he was told to "do nothing" against Burisma in 2015, and he followed this advice.
Joe Biden did not withhold money from Ukraine until 2016.

It is more likely than not that this natural gas company hired Hunter Biden mainly to protect itself from prosecution.

And if that was the case, it is more likely than not that Joe and Hunter understood their role.

But it was not illegal in either country for Hunter biden to simply accept the position.

And it's not clear if Joe did anything overt to make the investigation shut down in 2015. It could simply be that the president and prosecutor of Ukraine were afraid of him, or maybe they were afraid of someone else in the company creating trouble for them.

When Joe finally makes his move in 2016, it appears to have nothing to do with his son's role at Burisma.

Even if that's not true, Joe's actions would have been an abuse of power but not a violation of law.

And the motive would simply be to enrich himself.

Whereas Trump's abuse of power was motivated by a desire to harm the other political party, or manipulate the press during elections, or simply settle a personal vendetta.  

Each of these possible motives is more corrosive to domestic representative democracy than grifting a foreign country.

If Biden was in office now, it would be worth investigating him for possible impeachment based on what we know today. Presidents or vice presidents should be impeached for abusing their power whether or not they did anything technically illegal.

But Biden is not in office now. Anyone who wants to is free to try to investigate him, but they cannot and should not deploy the tools of US foreign policy to aid investigation, because there's no probable cause that he violated any part of US criminal code.

Trump is in office now, and he must be punished for abusing his power.

You need to dig a little deeper.  When you put the pieces together there was clear corruption by the former administration, and Joe Biden was a big part of it.  This is a good starting point for research into the matter.  It's only "one piece to the puzzle" so-to-speak.

(10-03-2019, 01:02 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-03-2019, 12:40 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Good talk. You've certainly done your best to speak ImaginationLand into existence.

Not coming to Mike's defense, but you can't simultaneously claim corruption on Biden's side while ignoring the illegality of what Trump is doing. Well, I guess you can, but it doesn't take away the fact that abuse of power is happening in plain sight, even though corruption exists elsewhere. The tactic is clear - normalize the behavior. DARVO, in black and white.

Regarding the parts in bold, what exactly is the "illegality of what Trump is doing"?  How are his comments an "abuse of power"?  To suggest that other heads of state investigate the possibility of corruption when there is evidence that it happened?