Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Alternate Universes

#21

(01-30-2020, 07:37 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:
(01-30-2020, 05:34 PM)mikesez Wrote: Are you saying what Biden did is bad?
What if he had chosen to run for president in 2016?
What if, right after he did this, he told everyone that he only did it so that he could win his next election?
Then it wouldn't be bad, right? All forgiven?

As far as your first question, well yes.  That is in fact a quid-pro-quo or as the democrats originally put it, "bribery".  What President Trump said in the phone call is not near to what this was.

If he chose to run in the 2016 election he wouldn't have had a chance.  The DNC establishment already had Hillary as the chosen one.

The fact of the matter is, he didn't do this to win an election, he did it for money.

I'm actually not going to disagree with you, up to this point.
In reality, Biden had no chance in 2016. 
I don't know his real motives for messing with Ukraine, but it's certainly plausible he did it for money.
But what if Hillary was out of the picture, and Biden told us he did it for votes? What if we all believed him when he said it? And what if a lot of other smart people were saying that Ukraine's prosecutor hadn't done anything wrong? Meaning, if those smart people were right, there was no good reason, other than getting votes, for Biden to do that.
Would that have been okay?
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#22

(01-30-2020, 09:58 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:
(01-30-2020, 09:48 PM)mikesez Wrote: These are not my delusions, then.  The websites I read are the ones with the delusions.  Or maybe they're mostly right, and instead it's the people that you and JJ outsource your thinking to that are the deluded ones.  What are you guys doing? Listening to talk radio? Watching 24 hour news channels?

Reading the actual transcript of the phone call, and not imagining it says things other than what it says.

But if you are basing your beliefs on the lies ABC News and Politico are spouting, then that explains a lot.
He’s going to be really upset when Trump is acquitted.  I am really starting to be concerned for his wellbeing. He’s not going to handle this well.
Reply

#23
(This post was last modified: 01-30-2020, 10:11 PM by mikesez.)

(01-30-2020, 09:58 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:
(01-30-2020, 09:48 PM)mikesez Wrote: These are not my delusions, then.  The websites I read are the ones with the delusions.  Or maybe they're mostly right, and instead it's the people that you and JJ outsource your thinking to that are the deluded ones.  What are you guys doing? Listening to talk radio? Watching 24 hour news channels?

Reading the actual transcript of the phone call, and not imagining it says things other than what it says.

But if you are basing your beliefs on the lies ABC News and Politico are spouting, then that explains a lot.

Do you think that that transcript shows that Trump has a broad concern about overall corruption in Ukraine?

(01-30-2020, 10:02 PM)Jags Wrote:
(01-30-2020, 09:58 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: Reading the actual transcript of the phone call, and not imagining it says things other than what it says.

But if you are basing your beliefs on the lies ABC News and Politico are spouting, then that explains a lot.
He’s going to be really upset when Trump is acquitted.  I am really starting to be concerned for his wellbeing. He’s not going to handle this well.

Worry not for me.
I know he's going to be acquitted.
I'm hoping they at least have good reasons when they explain their votes. a lot of the stuff that gets said on this board and a lot of the stuff that the president's lawyers have said is totally specious. 
I'm hoping the senators at least have the guts to remove him, or they come up with better arguments.
But I'll be fine if they don't. I'll continue hugging my wife and kids I'm going to work each day.

The part that I really may not handle well at all is Biden winning the Democrats' nomination. Then we will all have to hear about all of this again, constantly, from about June all the way to November.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#24
(This post was last modified: 01-30-2020, 10:24 PM by Jags.)

(01-30-2020, 10:07 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(01-30-2020, 09:58 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: Reading the actual transcript of the phone call, and not imagining it says things other than what it says.

But if you are basing your beliefs on the lies ABC News and Politico are spouting, then that explains a lot.

Do you think that that transcript shows that Trump has a broad concern about overall corruption in Ukraine?

(01-30-2020, 10:02 PM)Jags Wrote: He’s going to be really upset when Trump is acquitted.  I am really starting to be concerned for his wellbeing. He’s not going to handle this well.

Worry not for me.
I know he's going to be acquitted.
I'm hoping they at least have good reasons when they explain their votes. a lot of the stuff that gets said on this board and a lot of the stuff that the president's lawyers have said is totally specious. 
I'm hoping the senators at least have the guts to remove him, or they come up with better arguments.
But I'll be fine if they don't. I'll continue hugging my wife and kids I'm going to work each day.

The part that I really may not handle well at all is Biden winning the Democrats' nomination. Then we will all have to hear about all of this again, constantly, from about June all the way to November.

Just so we’re clear, I do not worry about you. 

Now that that’s out of the way...I’m sure they have a real good reason to acquit.  Mainly in the fact that nothing happened.  You and I both know he’s not getting removed and the senators have sense luckily. 

I’m glad you love your family.  Keep loving them.  I’m sure you have a great one and you all love each other.  I wish you all the best. 

We acan agree with the last paragraph.  But, in my opinion, the D next to a name now a days makes one unfit to be a president. But then again, y’all have shifted too darn far to the left be taken seriously.
Reply

#25

(01-30-2020, 10:07 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(01-30-2020, 09:58 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: Reading the actual transcript of the phone call, and not imagining it says things other than what it says.

But if you are basing your beliefs on the lies ABC News and Politico are spouting, then that explains a lot.

Do you think that that transcript shows that Trump has a broad concern about overall corruption in Ukraine?

Yes, it more than does. That's why it's exculpatory to all except the deluded TDS'rs.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


Reply

#27

(01-30-2020, 10:01 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(01-30-2020, 07:37 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: As far as your first question, well yes.  That is in fact a quid-pro-quo or as the democrats originally put it, "bribery".  What President Trump said in the phone call is not near to what this was.

If he chose to run in the 2016 election he wouldn't have had a chance.  The DNC establishment already had Hillary as the chosen one.

The fact of the matter is, he didn't do this to win an election, he did it for money.

I'm actually not going to disagree with you, up to this point.
In reality, Biden had no chance in 2016. 
I don't know his real motives for messing with Ukraine, but it's certainly plausible he did it for money.
But what if Hillary was out of the picture, and Biden told us he did it for votes? What if we all believed him when he said it? And what if a lot of other smart people were saying that Ukraine's prosecutor hadn't done anything wrong? Meaning, if those smart people were right, there was no good reason, other than getting votes, for Biden to do that.
Would that have been okay?

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.


There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Reply

#28
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2020, 06:14 PM by mikesez.)

(01-31-2020, 05:42 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:
(01-30-2020, 10:01 PM)mikesez Wrote: I'm actually not going to disagree with you, up to this point.
In reality, Biden had no chance in 2016. 
I don't know his real motives for messing with Ukraine, but it's certainly plausible he did it for money.
But what if Hillary was out of the picture, and Biden told us he did it for votes? What if we all believed him when he said it? And what if a lot of other smart people were saying that Ukraine's prosecutor hadn't done anything wrong? Meaning, if those smart people were right, there was no good reason, other than getting votes, for Biden to do that.
Would that have been okay?

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.

for the sake of argument let's agree that Biden committed a quid pro quo for money. 
I contend that Trump committed a quid pro quo to get a negative story about Biden in the news and influence this year's election.
As voters, which type of quid pro quo should we be more concerned about? Guys looking to skim a little bit of foreign money on the side, or guys looking to get those foreign governments to tip the scales in the election?

(01-31-2020, 05:42 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: 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.

Nancy Pelosi is our speaker of the house. There's only one and she's both of ours.
But I'm a registered Republican.
I have no idea why she delayed the articles.
Speculating, she either thought she could win a few news cycles and persuade a few senators, or she just wanted to give the managers more time to rehearse their speeches.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#29

(01-31-2020, 06:10 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(01-31-2020, 05:42 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: 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.

for the sake of argument let's agree that Biden committed a quid pro quo for money. 
I contend that Trump committed a quid pro quo to get a negative story about Biden in the news and influence this year's election.
As voters, which type of quid pro quo should we be more concerned about? Guys looking to skim a little bit of foreign money on the side, or guys looking to get those foreign governments to tip the scales in the election?

(01-31-2020, 05:42 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: 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.

Nancy Pelosi is our speaker of the house. There's only one and she's both of ours.
But I'm a registered Republican.
I have no idea why she delayed the articles.
Speculating, she either thought she could win a few news cycles and persuade a few senators, or she just wanted to give the managers more time to rehearse their speeches.

You don't get it.

A "negative story about Joe Biden" in the news"?  Really?  Telling the truth and it getting into the news is a "quid-pro-quo"?  You my liberal democrat friend have gone off the deep end.  You might want to run along and meet up with the other 6 or 7 Bernie or Warren supporters at their next rally.


There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#30
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2020, 07:10 PM by mikesez.)

(01-31-2020, 06:43 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:
(01-31-2020, 06:10 PM)mikesez Wrote: for the sake of argument let's agree that Biden committed a quid pro quo for money. 
I contend that Trump committed a quid pro quo to get a negative story about Biden in the news and influence this year's election.
As voters, which type of quid pro quo should we be more concerned about? Guys looking to skim a little bit of foreign money on the side, or guys looking to get those foreign governments to tip the scales in the election?


Nancy Pelosi is our speaker of the house. There's only one and she's both of ours.
But I'm a registered Republican.
I have no idea why she delayed the articles.
Speculating, she either thought she could win a few news cycles and persuade a few senators, or she just wanted to give the managers more time to rehearse their speeches.

You don't get it.

A "negative story about Joe Biden" in the news"?  Really?  Telling the truth and it getting into the news is a "quid-pro-quo"?  You my liberal democrat friend have gone off the deep end.  You might want to run along and meet up with the other 6 or 7 Bernie or Warren supporters at their next rally.

If it was just a negative story, I wouldn't be worried.
As I already said, there is no evidence Joe or Hunter committed a crime as defined in US statutes. Accepting a job that you're not qualified for is not a crime.  Maybe it should be a crime. Withholding funds to influence a foreign government, even for personal benefit, is merely abuse of power. Maybe Joe should have been impeached in 2015. But by 2017 and later, he is out of office, and there's nothing for a government official to discuss. 

This is what I want you to understand. Starting in July of 2019, Trump could have made Joe Biden and Ukraine a topic of every stump speech. He could have his press secretary or anyone else he wants to hire in an informal role with his own money go on TV and talk about Joe Biden and Ukraine. Talk about how suspicious it is and how unethical it seems to be. None of that would have invoked any of the powers that are unique to his role as president. So none of that would have been an abuse of power. 

he could have gotten Joe Biden and Ukraine into the news just as much as it is right now, without abusing his power.

But he didn't. Why not?
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#31

(01-31-2020, 07:07 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(01-31-2020, 06:43 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: You don't get it.

A "negative story about Joe Biden" in the news"?  Really?  Telling the truth and it getting into the news is a "quid-pro-quo"?  You my liberal democrat friend have gone off the deep end.  You might want to run along and meet up with the other 6 or 7 Bernie or Warren supporters at their next rally.

If it was just a negative story, I wouldn't be worried.
As I already said, there is no evidence Joe or Hunter committed a crime as defined in US statutes. Accepting a job that you're not qualified for is not a crime.  Maybe it should be a crime. Withholding funds to influence a foreign government, even for personal benefit, is merely abuse of power. Maybe Joe should have been impeached in 2015. But by 2017 and later, he is out of office, and there's nothing for a government official to discuss. 

This is what I want you to understand. Starting in July of 2019, Trump could have made Joe Biden and Ukraine a topic of every stump speech. He could have his press secretary or anyone else he wants to hire in an informal role with his own money go on TV and talk about Joe Biden and Ukraine. Talk about how suspicious it is and how unethical it seems to be. None of that would have invoked any of the powers that are unique to his role as president. So none of that would have been an abuse of power. 

he could have gotten Joe Biden and Ukraine into the news just as much as it is right now, without abusing his power.

But he didn't. Why not?

There you go again...  

Structure of payments from Burisma.  Money laundering

Getting prosecutor fired to protect his son. Obstruction of justice, corrupt practices in violation of our treaty with Ukraine.  Criminal complaint filed this week.



1974 Impoundment control act: keeping ur son out of the clink isn't covered as an appropriate reason to pause aid.  

I've been explaining this to you for months now.
Reply

#32

(01-31-2020, 09:38 PM)jj82284 Wrote:
(01-31-2020, 07:07 PM)mikesez Wrote: If it was just a negative story, I wouldn't be worried.
As I already said, there is no evidence Joe or Hunter committed a crime as defined in US statutes. Accepting a job that you're not qualified for is not a crime.  Maybe it should be a crime. Withholding funds to influence a foreign government, even for personal benefit, is merely abuse of power. Maybe Joe should have been impeached in 2015. But by 2017 and later, he is out of office, and there's nothing for a government official to discuss. 

This is what I want you to understand. Starting in July of 2019, Trump could have made Joe Biden and Ukraine a topic of every stump speech. He could have his press secretary or anyone else he wants to hire in an informal role with his own money go on TV and talk about Joe Biden and Ukraine. Talk about how suspicious it is and how unethical it seems to be. None of that would have invoked any of the powers that are unique to his role as president. So none of that would have been an abuse of power. 

he could have gotten Joe Biden and Ukraine into the news just as much as it is right now, without abusing his power.

But he didn't. Why not?

There you go again...  

Structure of payments from Burisma.  Money laundering

Getting prosecutor fired to protect his son. Obstruction of justice, corrupt practices in violation of our treaty with Ukraine.  Criminal complaint filed this week.



1974 Impoundment control act: keeping ur son out of the clink isn't covered as an appropriate reason to pause aid.  

I've been explaining this to you for months now.

Oh really?  In what country? Which country's law was broken?
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#33

(01-31-2020, 09:59 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(01-31-2020, 09:38 PM)jj82284 Wrote: There you go again...  

Structure of payments from Burisma.  Money laundering

Getting prosecutor fired to protect his son. Obstruction of justice, corrupt practices in violation of our treaty with Ukraine.  Criminal complaint filed this week.



1974 Impoundment control act: keeping ur son out of the clink isn't covered as an appropriate reason to pause aid.  

I've been explaining this to you for months now.

Oh really?  In what country? Which country's law was broken?

All I can do is shake my head with u....  This has been going on for 4 months now...  

A.) how many times have i explained to u that we have a treaty with Ukraine that OBLIGATES cooperation on anti-corruption?  Would u say it's at least once a week?  At a minimum right?  So that means over a dozen occasions I've debunked your childish "well he only broke Ukrainian laws so why does the president care" b.s.  why do u keep spouting it?  For fun?

B.) The ICA, FCPA are both american laws, obstruction of justice is against american law, extortion, etc.  Not to mention that the chief executive has both the power and the interest to review past policies of the executive branch, specifically as it relates to how we spend money.  Joe Biden was responsible for 7 billion dollars in aid money.  The overwhelming majority of which has been misplaced.  No one is seriously asserting, not even ur democrats in congress, that the president lacks jurisdiction over the official actions over a former vice president.  

C.) Please, just admit you say this stuff to wind people up....
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#34
(This post was last modified: 02-01-2020, 02:52 AM by pirkster.)

If I'm giving significant money to someone, I'd like to know how that money is being spent/invested, and would like to follow up on how successful that investment was before deciding whether or not to keep funding that investment.

This is the story of an outsider lifting the cover of possible money laundering and kickbacks of taxpayer money to accomplice governments, and those involved wailing and gnashing teeth against his efforts to expose and stop it.

Puts the dry well that's become of the Clinton Foundation into perspective, for sure. Surely it was just coincidence that funding came to a halt once she was no longer Secretary of State.
"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."
Reply

#35

(01-31-2020, 06:10 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(01-31-2020, 05:42 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: 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.

for the sake of argument let's agree that Biden committed a quid pro quo for money. 
I contend that Trump committed a quid pro quo to get a negative story about Biden in the news and influence this year's election.
As voters, which type of quid pro quo should we be more concerned about? Guys looking to skim a little bit of foreign money on the side, or guys looking to get those foreign governments to tip the scales in the election?

Bruh.
Reply

#36

(02-01-2020, 11:18 PM)Last42min Wrote:
(01-31-2020, 06:10 PM)mikesez Wrote: for the sake of argument let's agree that Biden committed a quid pro quo for money. 
I contend that Trump committed a quid pro quo to get a negative story about Biden in the news and influence this year's election.
As voters, which type of quid pro quo should we be more concerned about? Guys looking to skim a little bit of foreign money on the side, or guys looking to get those foreign governments to tip the scales in the election?

Bruh.

+1
Reply

#37

(02-01-2020, 11:18 PM)Last42min Wrote:
(01-31-2020, 06:10 PM)mikesez Wrote: for the sake of argument let's agree that Biden committed a quid pro quo for money. 
I contend that Trump committed a quid pro quo to get a negative story about Biden in the news and influence this year's election.
As voters, which type of quid pro quo should we be more concerned about? Guys looking to skim a little bit of foreign money on the side, or guys looking to get those foreign governments to tip the scales in the election?

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

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#38

(02-02-2020, 03:36 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(02-01-2020, 11:18 PM)Last42min Wrote: 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]

Newly elected president of Ukraine.  Case closed!
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.
 

Reply

#39

(02-02-2020, 03:36 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(02-01-2020, 11:18 PM)Last42min Wrote: 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]

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.
Reply

#40

(01-31-2020, 05:42 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:
(01-30-2020, 10:01 PM)mikesez Wrote: I'm actually not going to disagree with you, up to this point.
In reality, Biden had no chance in 2016. 
I don't know his real motives for messing with Ukraine, but it's certainly plausible he did it for money.
But what if Hillary was out of the picture, and Biden told us he did it for votes? What if we all believed him when he said it? And what if a lot of other smart people were saying that Ukraine's prosecutor hadn't done anything wrong? Meaning, if those smart people were right, there was no good reason, other than getting votes, for Biden to do that.
Would that have been okay?

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

[Image: kiWL4mF.jpg]
 
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!