Trump Amb. to EU Sondland reverses himself on Ukraine quid pro quo

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Burisma was under investigation for activities in 2010-12.

Biden joined the Board in 2014.

Your source seems to be an opinion article. I can't argue with opinion theirs or yours.

And won't try. Your claim is that President Obama held loan guarantees (not as you continue to claim 'a billion dollars') to stop an investigation into Biden's son.

You have yet to prove that.

Cop out

Its quotes the prosecutor biden called a solid guy, saying he wanted to investigate payments biden recieved.

Thats not part of the opinion, this is a quote from the prosecutor.

Of course you would ignore it, because it doesnt fit your narrative.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Your claim is that President Obama held loan guarantees (not as you continue to claim 'a billion dollars') to stop an investigation into Biden's son.

You have yet to prove that.

Show me where i claimed this.

I said he withheld a billion dollars (in loan guarantees if it makes you feel better to include that) to ensure the prosecutor that was looking into the company bidens son was on the board of directors of was fired.

that is absolutely true.

That warrants an investigation.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So at the very least, Hunter Biden was a leveraging pawn hired by Burisma to get the assistance of the US government to help them shake the Ukrainian prosecutor off their ass. In that regard, perhaps Hunter being a criminal is too free and easy with the term... a massive liability for the then Vice President would be more accurate. A liability which did, in fact, lead to a quid pro quo, meaning the intention to use Biden's son as a leveraging pawn worked and yeah... allowing it to work was, in fact, a crime by that administration.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I agree that nepotism sucks.

An "ethics question" is hardly a criminal investigation.

And you're citing Warren? Wow.

Actually, laws are based in ethics, so yeah, any ethics question can easily become a criminal investigation.

I cited Warren only to demonstrate that even her initial reaction was that the situation was not good... before she copped out and realized she was potentially opening up a can of worms that would (will?) take down a number of high ranking Democrats if it ever sees the care and consideration it deserves from our lawmakers who are currently wasting their time chasing Chinese Whispers and playing grabass in the House chambers.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Rememebr the first thing that was made public about the dossier? The pee allegations.

If this was true, that trump had hookers pee on him or on each other in a bed obama once used, was that a crime? Nope.

Yet dems and the media wanted to investigate. Because they said this could be used to compromise trump by corrupt russians.

Now with Biden and his son, Biden, Obama, and many more said Hunter bidens boss zlochevsky was corrupt. Biden was the head person in the obama admin trying to root out corruption in ukraine.

So why wouldnt we investigate to see if their was a conflict of interest? especially when the following facts are undisputed; Biden and obama used a billion tax dollars to force the prosecutor tasked with investigating zlochevsky to be fired, and the agency that picked up the case left zlochevsky off wth a slap on the wrist.

Everyone knows this is reason fo an investigation.

But once more, we see a complete double standard by the dems and the media from trump to democrats.

a reply to: Grambler

Frankly, the majority of the attempts to publicly smear Trump have stemmed from judgement calls against him which have zero validity where law and crime is concerned.

2 scoops of ice cream
ketchup on a well done steak
urinating whores
serving hamburgers to college football players
the Stormy Daniels fiasco

this is just some of the more mundane and ridiculous bullcrap we've heard, the list could go on for a good while.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Grambler

Frankly, the majority of the attempts to publicly smear Trump have stemmed from judgement calls against him which have zero validity where law and crime is concerned.

2 scoops of ice cream
ketchup on a well done steak
urinating whores
serving hamburgers to college football players
the Stormy Daniels fiasco

this is just some of the more mundane and ridiculous bullcrap we've heard, the list could go on for a good while.

I know

But as ridiculous as those all are, the media, and even sometimes democratic law makers wanted investigations into those things.

Yet they say the past admin using a billion tax dollars to force the firing of a prosecutor looking into one of their families companies is not only perfectly fine, but illegal to investigate.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Not an unreasonable supposition I guess.

Except for the combined efforts to similar ends of the EU, IMF etc.

Were they all out to help Hunter?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Not an unreasonable supposition I guess.

Except for the combined efforts to similar ends of the EU, IMF etc.

Were they all out to help Hunter?

Nooooo, they were out to finagle the Ukraine into the EU and, frankly, there's probably a money trail and some damn interesting conversations between Junker and Obama to secure the US' support of the intended EU outcome as well. That'll have to wait for a future flailing impeachment investigation, though.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Not an unreasonable supposition I guess.

Except for the combined efforts to similar ends of the EU, IMF etc.

Were they all out to help Hunter?

Those groups did not have to be out to help hunter.

Lets for the sake of argument assume the IMF, the EU, and everyone else who claimed shokin was corrupt were right.

Even in that case, this doesnt prove Obama and biden didnt want him fired for personal reasons, which needs to be investigated.

Youve ignored it everytime, but both democrats and republicans said comey should be fired. Were all of these republicans AND democrats protecting trump? Of course not!

Yet just because all of those people wanted comey fired for corruption or incompetence, the dems argued that this didnt mean trump didnt fire him for personal reasons, and dmeanded a special counsel and two year nvestigation.

The same would apply here.


The standard should be very simple.

Any time a high ranking executive member had the admin withhold huge sums of tax payer money to demand a prosecutor be fired who happens to be looking at a company a family member of that admin is on, there should be an investigation.

If biden and obama did nothing wrong, they should welcome the investigation, because they understand if trump did this, they would want an investigation into him.

Yet instead biden and the dems not only are fighting tooth and nail to stop an investigation from happening, they are saying trump should be impeached for trying to have one.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

You know as well as I do that an ethics violation is not criminal. Anything "could be" criminal if a crime was committed ... Still zero proof of that though ....

Warren threw shade at Joe? Can't imagine why.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

LOL we will see.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burdman30ott6

You know as well as I do that an ethics violation is not criminal. Anything "could be" criminal if a crime was committed ... Still zero proof of that though ....

Warren threw shade at Joe? Can't imagine why.

Hence the reason for an investigation.

To see if the ethics violation was criminal.

a reply to: Grambler

You have mischaracterized the multi year effort by the US in the Ukraine to a simple act to remove the prosecutor you falsely alleged was investigating Biden for a crime you cannot name.

You repeatedly misstate that loan guarantees are cash payments.

Your continual attempts to make this a partisan issue clearly highlight your actual concerns.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Extorris

Have you been able to parse what Hunter Biden's alleged crime was in all these posts? I keep asking to no avail.

Open to the forum: what is Hunter Biden's crime ?

I answered you before.

and again, a crime wasnt necessary for hunter to have committed in order for an investigation into his dad having obama withhold a billion dollars to get the prosecutor looking into his sons company fired.

That seems like a full on seizure of logic.

There is no murder required in order for their to be an investigation into whether someone is guilty of murder?

a reply to: Grambler

Who is trying to stop an investigation?

I have not argued against that so it's odd that you are directing that at me. Isn't this as yet unspecified investigation the basis for Trump's request to Ukraine?

It's is unclear what or who you are arguing against.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

You have mischaracterized the multi year effort by the US in the Ukraine to a simple act to remove the prosecutor you falsely alleged was investigating Biden for a crime you cannot name.

You repeatedly misstate that loan guarantees are cash payments.

Your continual attempts to make this a partisan issue clearly highlight your actual concerns.

Biden admitted it was about shokin.

The loan guarntees resulted in one billion tax dollars going to the ukraine, did it not?

Hunter biden's company was being investigated, the "solid" prosecutor lutsenkoe specifically mentioning they wanted to look at payments to hunters company.

Im not the one making it partisan, dems want to impeach trump for looking into this situation.

I have said over and over, Any time a high ranking executive member had the admin withhold huge sums of tax payer money to demand a prosecutor be fired who happens to be looking at a company a family member of that admin is on, there should be an investigation.

I dont care if its a republican or democrat.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Extorris

Have you been able to parse what Hunter Biden's alleged crime was in all these posts? I keep asking to no avail.

Open to the forum: what is Hunter Biden's crime ?

I answered you before.

and again, a crime wasnt necessary for hunter to have committed in order for an investigation into his dad having obama withhold a billion dollars to get the prosecutor looking into his sons company fired.

That seems like a full on seizure of logic.

There is no murder required in order for their to be an investigation into whether someone is guilty of murder?

There was no illegal russian collusion, yet their was an investigation into it.

I dont recall you being upset that that investigation happened.