Starting in July of 2019, Trump could[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif] have gotten Joe Biden and Ukraine into the news just as much as it is right now, without abusing his power.
[/font]

[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]But he didn't. Why not?[/font]

Newly elected president of Ukraine.  Case closed!

Well, look who couldn't stay away.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Regarding the part in bold, it was most likely because they (Ukraine) were investigating his son regarding corruption.  You know, the son that had no experience in the industry that he was "hired" for.  It was all about the money.

You can say "what if" all you want (as far as Hillary being out of the picture).  There really is no relevance to your rambling about it.  The fact of the matter remains.  Joe Biden did in fact commit a "prid-quo-pro" while serving as the Vice President.  It had nothing to do with political gain and everything to do about money.

The contrast here is that President Trump did NOT commit a "qrid-quo-pro" or bribery (which were the initial allegations).  He made a legitimate request to a new Prime Minister regarding corruption.

Answer this.  Your Speaker of The House Nancy Pelosi said that he committed bribery among other things.  Why is that not one of the Articles of Impeachment?  Why was it so important to rush the vote through in The House, yet she held the articles for so long before sending them to The Senate?

I can't wait to see how you spin this one.

The current investigation into Burisma was for activities between 2010 and 2012. Hunter Biden joined Burisma in 2014, and the investigation was dormant at the time of Shokin's removal.

Ukraine had met every requirement to qualify for the aid, the new administration was dedicated to stopping corruption. 

Not spin. Facts. 

Of all the countries to which the US provides aid, many of them plagued with corruption, the one Trump was focused on just happened to involve the son of his political rival. An amazing coincidence.

Now that the questions about Hillary Clinton's emails have been answered,  and there was nothing to "lock her up" for, Trump needs something new to get his MAGA troops chanting.

Awwwwwwww.  That's so cute.  U believe in santa or the Easter bunny too?  So sweet.  

2
2
16

Game
Over

#MAGA

---

Newly elected president of Ukraine.  Case closed!

Well, look who couldn't stay away.

-1

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Bruh.

Starting in July of 2019, Trump could[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif] have gotten Joe Biden and Ukraine into the news just as much as it is right now, without abusing his power.
[/font]

[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]But he didn't. Why not?[/font]

Check your premises!

1. Trump didn't abuse his power.

2. Trump's goal wasn't to get Joe Biden into the news. Read the transcript.

3. Trump didn't get Biden into the news. That was done by the Democrats by pushing a lame excuse for impeachment. Biden's quid pro quo for family money would likely have never come to light had Schiff and Ciaramella not conspired to overturn the 2016 election.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Starting in July of 2019, Trump could[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif] have gotten Joe Biden and Ukraine into the news just as much as it is right now, without abusing his power.
[/font]

[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]But he didn't. Why not?[/font]

As if they wouldn’t have said the same thing.
They never would’ve allowed him to go after them without bringing up some sort of quid pro quo argument.

I'm not saying you're wrong, because I don't understand what you are saying.  Who are "they" and "them"?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Starting in July of 2019, Trump could[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif] have gotten Joe Biden and Ukraine into the news just as much as it is right now, without abusing his power.
[/font]

[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]But he didn't. Why not?[/font]

Check your premises!

1. Trump didn't abuse his power.

2. Trump's goal wasn't to get Joe Biden into the news. Read the transcript.

3. Trump didn't get Biden into the news. That was done by the Democrats by pushing a lame excuse for impeachment. Biden's quid pro quo for family money would likely have never come to light had Schiff and Ciaramella not conspired to overturn the 2016 election.

1) Republican senators are conceding the point that he abused his powers.  Because he did.

2) Read the text messages.

3) Guiliani was going on TV talking about this Biden-Ukraine narrative for three or four months before the phone call. Which was totally legal for him to do. Trump's people could have done more of that. They could have recruited Shokin, now a private citizen, to play along even.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Check your premises!

1. Trump didn't abuse his power.

2. Trump's goal wasn't to get Joe Biden into the news. Read the transcript.

3. Trump didn't get Biden into the news. That was done by the Democrats by pushing a lame excuse for impeachment. Biden's quid pro quo for family money would likely have never come to light had Schiff and Ciaramella not conspired to overturn the 2016 election.

1) Republican senators are conceding the point that he abused his powers.  Because he did.

2) Read the text messages.

3) Guiliani was going on TV talking about this Biden-Ukraine narrative for three or four months before the phone call. Which was totally legal for him to do. Trump's people could have done more of that. They could have recruited Shokin, now a private citizen, to play along even.

1. They're going to throw out the accusations Wednesday. So no, just because two or three Republican Senators said that (or maybe they just said that IF he abused his powers it was too insignificant on which to base an impeachment) doesn't make it true.

2. I read the text message you posted. It didn't say what you claimed. In any case the impeachment was about the phone call in which Biden was only mentioned in passing.

3. Guilliani was on TV saying Biden-Ukraine? How do you know since you claim you don't watch TV?

3b. Your point that bringing in Ukraine to investigate Biden was unnecessary is a strong point towards understanding that Trump wasn't asking for that, and against all of the presumptions you have to accept in order for this to be anything but another nothingburger.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

As if they wouldn’t have said the same thing.
They never would’ve allowed him to go after them without bringing up some sort of quid pro quo argument.

I'm not saying you're wrong, because I don't understand what you are saying.  Who are "they" and "them"?

The same people trying to impeach him now?

---

I'm not saying you're wrong, because I don't understand what you are saying.  Who are "they" and "them"?

The same people trying to impeach him now?

I don't think so.  My point is that there didn't need to be a quid pro quo at all. Donald could have hired a private investigator to go after the Bidens. He could have bought TV ads about it. He could have asked privately during a closed door meeting with Ukraine's president, without holding up the aid or making any kind of threat against Ukraine, and no Democrat would have ever found out.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The same people trying to impeach him now?

I don't think so.  My point is that there didn't need to be a quid pro quo at all. Donald could have hired a private investigator to go after the Bidens. He could have bought TV ads about it. He could have asked privately during a closed door meeting with Ukraine's president, without holding up the aid or making any kind of threat against Ukraine, and no Democrat would have ever found out.

Bwwwwahhhahahahahahahaaaaaaaa.  You've really lost your mind. Your point, heard loud and clear for weeks now, is that you can't get the fact that there was no quid pro quo. Its consumed you that your entire belief was based on a lie that you couldn't help yourself but believe. TDS, the next great diagnosis for the DSM.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The same people trying to impeach him now?

I don't think so.  My point is that there didn't need to be a quid pro quo at all. Donald could have hired a private investigator to go after the Bidens. He could have bought TV ads about it. He could have asked privately during a closed door meeting with Ukraine's president, without holding up the aid or making any kind of threat against Ukraine, and no Democrat would have ever found out.

Who told Ukraine the aid was on hold again?

---

I don't think so.  My point is that there didn't need to be a quid pro quo at all. Donald could have hired a private investigator to go after the Bidens. He could have bought TV ads about it. He could have asked privately during a closed door meeting with Ukraine's president, without holding up the aid or making any kind of threat against Ukraine, and no Democrat would have ever found out.

Bwwwwahhhahahahahahahaaaaaaaa.  You've really lost your mind. Your point, heard loud and clear for weeks now, is that you can't get the fact that there was no quid pro quo. Its consumed you that your entire belief was based on a lie that you couldn't help yourself but believe. TDS, the next great diagnosis for the DSM.

+1

MB hall of fame!

---