The media and Dems defense of Bidens quid pro quo is absurd

a reply to: carewemust

Yep. Releasing that transcript so quickly, but after their initial assertions were made public, threw a wrench in the whole plot.
Ever since, they've looked off kilter.

I'm sure the plan was to milk it as long as possible with only the assertions of Ciaramella, Schiff, Vindman, Taylor and the female ambassador that was fired.

Really does make me wonder if Trump's team knew a plot was in the works.

I guess we'll just have to see

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Grambler

I don't know about all the BS in your post. But I do know the following statements were made:

Sullivan: "Soliciting investigations into a domestic political opponent, I don't think that would be in accord with our values"

A week later, Taylor was even more concerned, texting Sondland: "As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

Vindman: "I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine"

Vindman: "I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend OUR country, irrespective of party or politics"

This why we need people to testify under oath with threat of jail time for perjury. Maybe Trump is innocent. Or, maybe if enough people testify the truth will come out.

I don't understand why Republicans do not support the rule-of-law. Does only the rule-of-law apply to Democrats?

The rule of law is that the President is completely within his remit to investigate political corruption.
Running for office does not provide immunity.

Unless you want to claim there is no reason to investigate Biden, you and your Democrat buddies are pissing in the wind.

The most hilarious thing of all is that the Democrats have been going after their political rival, Trump, for 3 years... Federal and State level - for anything they can think of. Have not heard you complain a single time about that. In fact you've cheered it on, hypocrite.

Quid No Joe 3no33no and Son Inc.

Countin' their blessings as old Joe runs for President to cover-up his BS !! 😃 🤓 😃

a reply to: Grambler

This story makes no sense. Why would Biden want his sons company investigated harder?

Because truth&justice is his middle name. Imagine how truthful and just he is...he even wanted his son investigated. Now that's a moral high ground if I ever saw one.

Joe for Prezz !!!!!!

originally posted by: Grambler

So I want to look at the media and democrats defense of Biden's quid pro quo (extortion) of the Ukraine that used a billion US tax dollars to force the firing of a prosecutor looking into his son's company.

The Prosecutor was not looking into "his son's company".

All real-time reporting from that time actually shows the exact opposite.

The Prosecutor was NOT investigating corruption and THAT is why he was fired.

originally posted by: Grambler

This story makes no sense. Why would Biden want his sons company investigated hareder?

Because Biden's son was not then, nor now, in any danger of legal trouble?

Burisma paid Biden's son for PURE name dropping purposes. Companies everywhere do it all the time.

Biden Jr. wasn't running around the globe in a doctor evil flying ship. Hell he wasn't even lawyering for them. He was paid for his name.

You being a trump worshipper should appreciate that since most of trump's revenues are from slapping his name on buildings, but not owning them.

What the hell did VP Biden have to protect his son from??? I'll wait.

Meanwhile you are like going for some special award at denying reality.

You would think this is the twilight zone.

Biden used tax payer money as leverage to protect his son.......dems be like nothing to see here...nothing out of the ordinary.

Trump raises the issue and that's illegal. Impeach.
He asked the Ukrainian president what the deal with biden was..the horror.

How can any u.s. citizen align themselves anything with Democrat.....real la la land out of touch with reality people....they are jokes to eveyone and they get used.

Your pretense is false, as is your attempt at playing dems good republicans bad. It seems that's all you have...
who brought up biden in "the call"

And, as you say why do x not following the rule of law... how are you OK knowing what is said took place by Bidens camp and NOT investigating? It's as though you aren't supporting the law for your own interest???

a reply to: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Grambler

So I want to look at the media and democrats defense of Biden's quid pro quo (extortion) of the Ukraine that used a billion US tax dollars to force the firing of a prosecutor looking into his son's company.

The Prosecutor was not looking into "his son's company".

All real-time reporting from that time actually shows the exact opposite.

The Prosecutor was NOT investigating corruption and THAT is why he was fired.

Thats not true and irrelvant.

One, even the anti corruption action center, the Obama soros funded group admits the investigation into Biuden was still open, even if it wasnt being acted upon quickly by shokin. The investigation then went to the agency that worked with Obama before, and interfered in the 2016 electuon to help dems, the NABU, who finally buried it.

Secondly, even if Shokin was not acting on it, the obama admin and biden had no way of knowing that (unless your claim is they were illegally meddling into an ongoing investigation into bidens sons company while it was ongoing). So still them forcing the guy on paper leading the investigation shokin to be fired, so the case would go to their ally the NABU warrants investigation.

Third, Shokin has sworn in tetsimoney he actually was procedding with the investigation. Bursimas own lawyers admitted shokin was investigating them to interim prosector sevruk.

a reply to: Extorris

Then why is biden and the dems so against an investigation now?

If they have nothing to hide?

The claim Biden wanted his son investigated harder, so myuch so he threatened to withhold a billion dollars until the prosecutor looking into his son was fired, but then suddenly he had a change of heart, and when the democrats ally NABU got the case and the buried it, he all of the sudden was totally fine with it is laughable.

a reply to: Grambler

That really is confusing. Biden is running to be President in 2020. Why is he not still seeking Burisma to be investigated? He was decrying Burisma and the Ukraine corruption in 2016, why is he not heralding this investigation, especially if it could come back and clear the air before 2020 election?

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: Grambler

That really is confusing. Biden is running to be President in 2020. Why is he not still seeking Burisma to be investigated? He was decrying Burisma and the Ukraine corruption in 2016, why is he not heralding this investigation, especially if it could come back and clear the air before 2020 election?

Exactly.

The defense of Biden and Obama quid pro quo is that you wouldnt want to give huge amounts of money to a corrupt adminstartion that allowed its prosecutors to cover up crimes of corrupt oligarchs.

So the money was given, the case kicked to Obamas allies in the NABU, and.....

The let Zlochevsky off the hook.

Had Biden and Obama came out and expressed anger at this, and suggested the US never agains give them money until Zlochevsky and Burisma were brought to justice, maybe I would by their defense.

But suddenly they have had a comlete change of heart, not only are they ok with giving aid although Zlochevsky and Burisma werent punished, they now say trump withholding aid would be criminal.

And yet the dems and media believe this!!

a reply to: dfnj2015


Here's my prediction. Biden will NEVER serve jail time for breaking the law because Republicans are just way too incompetent.

You really went out on a limb on that one but nobody is going to believe that people in government are incompetent ...Wait, Nevermind , False Left-Right Paradigm...

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Grambler

You started off strong with points 1-6 but then went way into left field with points 12+, entirely conjecture and not rooted in actual facts or presented evidence.

I'm not gonna sit here for an hour and refute all 20 something points you've tried to present because it's just a waste of time and, honestly, not worth the effort. Maybe I'll get, like, 5 stars for it, but ATS is Trumps-ville and you're not going to honestly listen.

Hell, we've already started devolving into calling a decorated war veteran an 'obese piece of #.' I'm sure we can go lower! Let's start going after his family next!!!

Translation : "I got nothing, but I want you to believe I do."

If the truth (as you see it) is so important, post it. Refute his points. Stop making excuses.

a reply to: Extorris

wow...that's some nasty 5 protestors you got there. Looks like the whole of Ukraine squeezed in there.

originally posted by: poncho1982

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Grambler

You started off strong with points 1-6 but then went way into left field with points 12+, entirely conjecture and not rooted in actual facts or presented evidence.

I'm not gonna sit here for an hour and refute all 20 something points you've tried to present because it's just a waste of time and, honestly, not worth the effort. Maybe I'll get, like, 5 stars for it, but ATS is Trumps-ville and you're not going to honestly listen.

Hell, we've already started devolving into calling a decorated war veteran an 'obese piece of #.' I'm sure we can go lower! Let's start going after his family next!!!

Translation : "I got nothing, but I want you to believe I do."

If the truth (as you see it) is so important, post it. Refute his points. Stop making excuses.

They can’t and never do

Honestly there are some left leaning members that disagree with me but are fair people willing to have an honest debate

But increasingly every time I do a thread, this is the only response from the left

Just saying it’s all wrong without answering anything specifically

Then they will start other threads ignoring this, and when I bring it up they say it’s already been debunked

Sad that partisanship allows them to throw away their own integrity

Amazing thread here.

Of course, we see the common themes of partisanship over facts, supposition over evidence, and most of all, good ol’ primate xenophobia ... you hurt us so we’re going to hurt you.

So now the claims have been adjusted ... “we only want an investigation” (quotes indicate emphasis not citation).

Fine. Let’s have investigations 24/7. Zero evidence that there was any crime committed but sure, let’s investigate anyway.

All you’re doing is further empowering a government already glutted on its own power.

You present yourselves as hating what the Democrats in the House are doing ... rightly so if the only thing at stake was the Ukraine phonecall ... and yet you advocate for doing the exact same thing. You’re the same as them. No, you’re less than them, because you’re only aping what you think They’ve done.

You must be so proud.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Grambler

I don't know about all the BS in your post. But I do know the following statements were made:

Sullivan: "Soliciting investigations into a domestic political opponent, I don't think that would be in accord with our values"

A week later, Taylor was even more concerned, texting Sondland: "As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

Vindman: "I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine"

Vindman: "I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend OUR country, irrespective of party or politics"

This why we need people to testify under oath with threat of jail time for perjury. Maybe Trump is innocent. Or, maybe if enough people testify the truth will come out.

I don't understand why Republicans do not support the rule-of-law. Does only the rule-of-law apply to Democrats?

The rule of law is that the President is completely within his remit to investigate political corruption.
Running for office does not provide immunity.

Is the President within his remit to withhold US Military Aid appropriated by congress to extort foreign countries to investigate his political rivals on his behalf?

AND if we want to get to the specifics of it, the demand was not an "investigation" it was that President Zelensky make an ANNOUNCEMENT on CNN saying Ukraine opened an investigation into Burisma and Biden, to read a statement edited by Rudy.

It was NOT an investigation Trump wanted, it was the Announcement that Trump cared about.

Pure campaign help.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Another post making no specifics saying the thread is wrong

Show me where

Show me where I have been xenophobic

I never claimed to have proof Biden or Hunter was guilty

I claimed that there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation, which means trump did nothing wrong by seeking that investigation

My stance has been very simple

Anytime an executive official uses tax dollars to force the firing of a prosecutor who is looking to someone in that administrations family’s company, there should be an investigation

Anyone who says that is not the case when their side does it is hopelessly partisan

a reply to: Extorris

It wasn’t ending corruption Biden and Obama wanted

If it was, they would have been outraged their allies at the NABU buried the case into zlwho they claim was corrupt

It was they wanted the story of the investigation into Biden’s sons company put off an buried

There is as much proof for that statement as yours

The truth is am investigation into Biden’s and Obama’s intent should have happened instead of just taking their word

But we know, you are fine with that