(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.

---