Perhaps because the whole thing was corrupt?  It happened while Joe Biden was Vice President and there is video tape of Biden bragging about doing it.  Really, do you think that Joe Biden ever had a legitimate chance to be the democrat nominee?  Is he really a "threat" in the upcoming election?

The actual bottom line is that he's getting to the bottom of the corruption of the previous administration.  You know... draining the swamp.  It has nothing to do with his campaign.

Let me ask you this.  Was what was done by the Bidens acceptable?  More specifically the then Vice President using his position pressuring a government for his own (in this case his family's) personal gain?

Mikesez told us that Uncle Joe had no personal reasons to do that, it was all about the good of the Nation, but that Trump would only do such a thing for personal reasons, not the good of the Nation. See, it's all about "who" is doing the talking whether or not it's a crime. We call that Cognitive Yoga.

I did not say any of that.
I said that "national interest" is what Joe Biden claims.  I implied the claim was plausible (it is), but then I said we need more evidence to really see why Joe wanted that prosecutor fired. 

Having read Trump's transcript and watched the video of Biden, it seems more likely that, of the two, Trump was the one using a foreign government for personal or partisan gain.  But I don't really have a complete picture. None of us posting here do, not yet.

But both things are still independently wrong.  If Biden really broke Ukrainian law, that's none of Trump's business. If Biden broke US law, Trump is supposed to have US DoJ look into that. So it's hard to explain how Trump's action was appropriate regardless of whether or not Biden was corrupt.

---

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

Mikesez told us that Uncle Joe had no personal reasons to do that, it was all about the good of the Nation, but that Trump would only do such a thing for personal reasons, not the good of the Nation. See, it's all about "who" is doing the talking whether or not it's a crime. We call that Cognitive Yoga.

I did not say any of that.
I said that "national interest" is what Joe Biden claims.  I implied the claim was plausible (it is), but then I said we need more evidence to really see why Joe wanted that prosecutor fired. 

Having read Trump's transcript and watched the video of Biden, it seems more likely that, of the two, Trump was the one using a foreign government for personal or partisan gain.  But I don't really have a complete picture. None of us posting here do, not yet.

But both things are still independently wrong.  If Biden really broke Ukrainian law, that's none of Trump's business. If Biden broke US law, Trump is supposed to have US DoJ look into that. So it's hard to explain how Trump's action was appropriate regardless of whether or not Biden was corrupt.

Joe wanted the prosecutor fired because he was corrupt and was doing nothing about the corruption in the Ukraine.  This was the opinion of the entire international community and the IMF.  Joe Biden wasn't the only one who wanted him fired.  Everybody wanted him fired.  

As of yet, there is no evidence that Joe Biden broke US or Ukrainian law.

---

I did not say any of that.
I said that "national interest" is what Joe Biden claims.  I implied the claim was plausible (it is), but then I said we need more evidence to really see why Joe wanted that prosecutor fired. 

Having read Trump's transcript and watched the video of Biden, it seems more likely that, of the two, Trump was the one using a foreign government for personal or partisan gain.  But I don't really have a complete picture. None of us posting here do, not yet.

But both things are still independently wrong.  If Biden really broke Ukrainian law, that's none of Trump's business. If Biden broke US law, Trump is supposed to have US DoJ look into that. So it's hard to explain how Trump's action was appropriate regardless of whether or not Biden was corrupt.

Joe wanted the prosecutor fired because he was corrupt and was doing nothing about the corruption in the Ukraine.  This was the opinion of the entire international community and the IMF.  Joe Biden wasn't the only one who wanted him fired.  Everybody wanted him fired.  

As of yet, there is no evidence that Joe Biden broke US or Ukrainian law.

So a bunch of crooked globalist banksters didn't like the prosecutor sniffing around and messing up their pay-for-play scheme? I'm not surprised.

---

Mikesez told us that Uncle Joe had no personal reasons to do that, it was all about the good of the Nation, but that Trump would only do such a thing for personal reasons, not the good of the Nation. See, it's all about "who" is doing the talking whether or not it's a crime. We call that Cognitive Yoga.

I did not say any of that.
I said that "national interest" is what Joe Biden claims.  I implied the claim was plausible (it is), but then I said we need more evidence to really see why Joe wanted that prosecutor fired. 

Having read Trump's transcript and watched the video of Biden, it seems more likely that, of the two, Trump was the one using a foreign government for personal or partisan gain.  But I don't really have a complete picture. None of us posting here do, not yet.

But both things are still independently wrong.  If Biden really broke Ukrainian law, that's none of Trump's business. If Biden broke US law, Trump is supposed to have US DoJ look into that. So it's hard to explain how Trump's action was appropriate regardless of whether or not Biden was corrupt.

Did u or did u not read where he asked the president to coordinate with the attorney general?  Soliciting investigative cooperation from a foreign country is a diplomatic function of the chief executive.  PERIOD!

---

I did not say any of that.
I said that "national interest" is what Joe Biden claims.  I implied the claim was plausible (it is), but then I said we need more evidence to really see why Joe wanted that prosecutor fired. 

Having read Trump's transcript and watched the video of Biden, it seems more likely that, of the two, Trump was the one using a foreign government for personal or partisan gain.  But I don't really have a complete picture. None of us posting here do, not yet.

But both things are still independently wrong.  If Biden really broke Ukrainian law, that's none of Trump's business. If Biden broke US law, Trump is supposed to have US DoJ look into that. So it's hard to explain how Trump's action was appropriate regardless of whether or not Biden was corrupt.

Joe wanted the prosecutor fired because he was corrupt and was doing nothing about the corruption in the Ukraine.  This was the opinion of the entire international community and the IMF.  Joe Biden wasn't the only one who wanted him fired.  Everybody wanted him fired.  

As of yet, there is no evidence that Joe Biden broke US or Ukrainian law.

Thats a lie.  The structure of the payments to hunter biden, being routed through three or four countries, is in and of itself probable cause of intent to evade detection/ money laundering and warrants further investigation.  Also, his appointment to the board of directors was devoid any reciprical economic value, he had no experience in the country, energy sector, and was just discharged based on a drug offense.  Thats a few days after his father coordinated the delivery of 1.8 billion dollars to a bank owned by his new employer for the benefit of that employers economic sector.  Further in bidens public comments he said he didnt know his son was under investigation, open source reporting demonstrates that to be a lie.  Lying about material facts in that matter is probable cause to draw a negative inference that it did have some bearing on his decision.  

As for the prosecutor, youre right.  The world was upset particularly because to that point he had protected companies like burisma.  A conpany owned by a ukranian oligarch so onerous thathe was barred from entry into the united states and had 23 million in assets frozen by the british government.  They were only unfrozen becsuse the prosecutor refused to cooperate with the british inquiry so lacking evidence, the brits had to drop the case.  If joe was so concerned about the prosecutor protecting companies like burisma, why the hell did he coordinate depositing 1.8 billion dollars in a bank owned by the same oligarch for the benefit of his company?

In short, if you want to be reductive, its usually the family that actually pockets money thats persuing personal gain.

---

I did not say any of that.
I said that "national interest" is what Joe Biden claims.  I implied the claim was plausible (it is), but then I said we need more evidence to really see why Joe wanted that prosecutor fired. 

Having read Trump's transcript and watched the video of Biden, it seems more likely that, of the two, Trump was the one using a foreign government for personal or partisan gain.  But I don't really have a complete picture. None of us posting here do, not yet.

But both things are still independently wrong.  If Biden really broke Ukrainian law, that's none of Trump's business. If Biden broke US law, Trump is supposed to have US DoJ look into that. So it's hard to explain how Trump's action was appropriate regardless of whether or not Biden was corrupt.

Did u or did u not read where he asked the president to coordinate with the attorney general?  Soliciting investigative cooperation from a foreign country is a diplomatic function of the chief executive.  PERIOD!

Did you or did you not read the part where he also asked the man to cooperate with his personal attorney?
What kind of president involves his personal attorney in foreign relations?!
remember that folks like the attorney general and the secretary of state have specific duties and limitations spelled out in US statutes that are hundreds of years old.
However, a personal attorney is only bound by a code of ethics to act in the interest of his client.

---

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

Did u or did u not read where he asked the president to coordinate with the attorney general?  Soliciting investigative cooperation from a foreign country is a diplomatic function of the chief executive.  PERIOD!

However, a personal attorney is only bound by a code of ethics to act in the interest of his client.

If you really believe that then you really don't understand the concept of professional ethics.

---

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

However, a personal attorney is only bound by a code of ethics to act in the interest of his client.

If you really believe that then you really don't understand the concept of professional ethics.

Don't be reductive with the "only".
A personal lawyer, and a secretary of state, and an attorneys general, also have to be competent, zealous, discrete, etc.
My point is that the Atty General and Sec of State have to be those things *in pursuit of the national interest*.
And a personal attorney only has to be those things *in pursuit of the best interests of his client*.

---

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

If you really believe that then you really don't understand the concept of professional ethics.

Don't be reductive with the "only".
A personal lawyer, and a secretary of state, and an attorneys general, also have to be competent, zealous, discrete, etc.
My point is that the Atty General and Sec of State have to be those things *in pursuit of the national interest*.
And a personal attorney only has to be those things *in pursuit of the best interests of his client*.

The White House Counsel and personal attorney, sometimes one of the same as in the case of Bush, Obama, and others are held to the same professional ethics and malpractice laws. They must be cleared by the DOJ to represent in an official government capacity.

---

Did u or did u not read where he asked the president to coordinate with the attorney general?  Soliciting investigative cooperation from a foreign country is a diplomatic function of the chief executive.  PERIOD!

Did you or did you not read the part where he also asked the man to cooperate with his personal attorney?
What kind of president involves his personal attorney in foreign relations?!
remember that folks like the attorney general and the secretary of state have specific duties and limitations spelled out in US statutes that are hundreds of years old.
However, a personal attorney is only bound by a code of ethics to act in the interest of his client.

1st, Giuliani has stated that he was initially solicited by the State department to help develop a relationship with the potential incoming Ukrainian Regime.  In diplomacy, there are lots of relationships and back channels developed to facilitate lines of communication.  

Second, A president who faced allegations from a foreign source that resulted in criminal investigation!  Crowd strike is a Ukrainian based firm that was responsible for examining the DNC server and came to the conclusion that the Russians were responsible for the breach.  Later that year they were found to have fabricated evidence about the Russians hacking a Ukrainian military app.  That diagnosis resulted in millions of dollars of legal fees for the Trump administration and associated officials & Tens of millions of dollars on a bogus investigation.  The idea that a defense attorney doesn't have the ability to follow up on the most famous accuser of his client is patently false!  

Moreover, We already know that Ukrain interfered in the 2016 election on behalf of the previous administration and their preferred candidate for president.  In that case you had illegal leaks of confidential information that resulted in the prosecution of Paul Manafort, whose in jail right now as a result!  How do we know?  The Ukrainian courts already found the parties guilty!  So don't sit here and try to pedal this pearl clutching nonsense about the President of the United States having his personal defense council investigate inflammatory accusations made by anyone, foreign or domestic.  

Also, the entire premise of this conversation is flawed.  If Joe Biden was funding terrorists through a foreign shell company, does that mean Republicans can't investigate.  If Joe Biden killed someone on foreign soil, does that mean we can't look into it?  If there is legitimate probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed then the fact that you aren't a member of the ruling party doesn't immunize you against prosecution!  There should be a standard of transparency, there should be clear and credible evidence, but anyone with eyes can see that this deal (wait till we get to china) stinks to high heaven of corruption and its the fundamental duty of the chief law enforcement officer to facilitate investigation of illicit actions by American citizens wherever they may have occurred, let alone involving billions of dollars in US aid!

---

Don't be reductive with the "only".
A personal lawyer, and a secretary of state, and an attorneys general, also have to be competent, zealous, discrete, etc.
My point is that the Atty General and Sec of State have to be those things *in pursuit of the national interest*.
And a personal attorney only has to be those things *in pursuit of the best interests of his client*.

The White House Counsel and personal attorney, sometimes one of the same as in the case of Bush, Obama, and others are held to the same professional ethics and malpractice laws. They must be cleared by the DOJ to represent in an official government capacity.

Mikesez that's not so, of course.

---

If you really believe that then you really don't understand the concept of professional ethics.

Don't be reductive with the "only".
A personal lawyer, and a secretary of state, and an attorneys general, also have to be competent, zealous, discrete, etc.
My point is that the Atty General and Sec of State have to be those things *in pursuit of the national interest*.
And a personal attorney only has to be those things *in pursuit of the best interests of his client*.

Yes, how dare I quote what you said!

---

I did not say any of that.
I said that "national interest" is what Joe Biden claims.  I implied the claim was plausible (it is), but then I said we need more evidence to really see why Joe wanted that prosecutor fired. 

Having read Trump's transcript and watched the video of Biden, it seems more likely that, of the two, Trump was the one using a foreign government for personal or partisan gain.  But I don't really have a complete picture. None of us posting here do, not yet.

But both things are still independently wrong.  If Biden really broke Ukrainian law, that's none of Trump's business. If Biden broke US law, Trump is supposed to have US DoJ look into that. So it's hard to explain how Trump's action was appropriate regardless of whether or not Biden was corrupt.

Joe wanted the prosecutor fired because he was corrupt and was doing nothing about the corruption in the Ukraine.  This was the opinion of the entire international community and the IMF.  Joe Biden wasn't the only one who wanted him fired.  Everybody wanted him fired.  

As of yet, there is no evidence that Joe Biden broke US or Ukrainian law.

Lol, he really really wanted the corruption rooted out the minute the prosecutor started looking at his kid's corrupt role with a corrupt company. That's why he extorted his termination from the Ukrainians, he was totes concerned about corruption when he acted corruptly to protect his corrupt progeny.

---

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

Well, is he impeached yet?

---

Well, is he impeached yet?

You can't really impeach Biden since he's already out of office.

---

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

Well, is he impeached yet?

You can't really impeach Biden since he's already out of office.

Plus it would be unethical since he’s impeared. 
*knee slap* Get it??



I’ll show myself out.

---

You can't really impeach Biden since he's already out of office.

Plus it would be unethical since he’s impeared. 
*knee slap* Get it??



I’ll show myself out.

---

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

Little Adam Schiff really embarrassed himself today. So hard to watch.

Does Trump ever lose at anything?

---

It’s being reported the whistleblower is a CIA officer detailed to the White House.

---

Little Adam Schiff really embarrassed himself today. So hard to watch.

Does Trump ever lose at anything?

It was parody, doncha know.

---

Whistleblower letter is released. It contains nothing but exculpatory statements.

And I'd like to know how many teams of Dem wonks and lawyers word-wrestled this sentence:

"I am deeply concerned that the actions described below constitute "a serious or flagrant
problem, abuse, or violation of law or Executive Order" that "does not include differences of
opinions concerning public policy matters,"

---

Little Adam Schiff really embarrassed himself today. So hard to watch.

Does Trump ever lose at anything?

Trump is playing Schiff and Pelosi like a Stradivarius....

And the Fat lady is warming up in the wings for the Democrats

Shows Over and had been over since 2016

Y'all lost so.......

---

Wants to join the "cereal box" dating service. I've dated enough flakes and nuts...all I want is the prize now.

He's been deleting tweets. He's suggesting members of his own administration be executed for treason. He's implicating Giuliani and Barr. If he's playing anyone, this is an odd way to play it.

---

I'll play you in ping pong.