Cover up

[SDBoiler1]

Fox News has been using “basement rooms” to sound ominous. They met in a SCIF obviously, and that’s where it was. Were they going to hold the hearings in a park on a nice sunny day? Lol, don’t be so easily misled. Also it’s a complete lie to say Republicans weren’t allowed in the meetings. Another right wing false propaganda point. There’s evidence that Republicans were in the room, how did you fall for that?

Wrong. There were a instances when neither Rs nor Trump’s counsel were allowed to attend depositions. I didn’t say always. Ds claimed they were transparent - that was an absolute fabrication.

 

[SDBoiler1]

I’m able to honestly look at facts and make an assessment. I don’t have to be dishonest to create an alternate reality like you guys do.

For you, if it’s reported on CNN or MSNBC or WAPO or NYT, it MUST be true.

 

[BoilerMadness]

My recollection is that standing committees have subpoenae powers and that the chairmen of most standing committees do as well. Am I mistaken?
I also seem to recall some of the correspondence back and forth indicating that any subpoenae related to the relevant committee investigations as well as the possibility of impeachment proceedings.
I don't have time to check on those at the moment to confirm my recollection.

I believe that you're right, if the committee is doing the business it was originally designed to do.

This is an odd situation though. Usually, an impeachment investigation is conducted by the Judicial Committee, but apparently Pelosi doesn't have much trust in Nadler, so the Intelligence Committee took the reins, under Schiff. Since this committee was dealing with things outside it's normal purview, I believe they heeded to be given approval from Congress to issue subpoenas dealing with the impeachment. I think they place some limits on the types of information they can go after in each committee to keep them from fishing in other committees ponds.
At least, that's my understanding of how it works.

 

[indy35]

Wrong. There were a instances when neither Rs nor Trump’s counsel were allowed to attend depositions. I didn’t say always. Ds claimed they were transparent - that was an absolute fabrication.

Which depositions were Republicans not allowed to attend?

 

[indy35]

For you, if it’s reported on CNN or MSNBC or WAPO or NYT, it MUST be true.

They do tend to be much more accurate than anything on the right, but I’ll still make sure to look things up from multiple sources. It keeps me from saying things like Republicans weren’t allowed in the hearings, Obama frequented gay bathhouses, Democrats gerrymander just as much as Republicans, Biden may not have even been a target of what Trump was doing in Ukraine. You know, some of your greatest hits of utterly false and totally unhinged claims.

 

[70boiler]

I believe that you're right, if the committee is doing the business it was originally designed to do.

This is an odd situation though. Usually, an impeachment investigation is conducted by the Judicial Committee, but apparently Pelosi doesn't have much trust in Nadler, so the Intelligence Committee took the reins, under Schiff. Since this committee was dealing with things outside it's normal purview, I believe they heeded to be given approval from Congress to issue subpoenas dealing with the impeachment. I think they place some limits on the types of information they can go after in each committee to keep them from fishing in other committees ponds.
At least, that's my understanding of how it works.

I think this page of the October 4, 2019 letter from the 3 committee chairmen to Chief of Staff Mulvaney clarifies the matter substantially -

 

[doubleyous]

Nice feeble attempt.

Trump, for all his flaws, understands business and marketing. Granted, he has a good staff that works out a lot of the details, but don't forget for a minute, that he's in the driver's seat and he's controlling where the country is going. Most of the things he did were actually campaign promises, which he kept, unlike too many other politicians.

It's funny how all this stuff is occurring on his watch and you actively avoid giving him credit for any of it.

Nice feeble counterpoint.

1) Trump, "for all his flaws", understands land development & its opportunities involving luxury hotels, golf resorts, and office buildings. He also "understands" reality television and beauty pageants. "Marketing" ?
Certainly of Trump, Inc. ...and of himself.
2) What he 's learned in the way of understanding domestic macro economics , apparently, can be written on the head of a pin. Never having spent one millisecond in public service, b-4 taking office, became painfully obvious to all, in short order.
3) To claim that he's "controlling where the country is going", is an overstatement. Certainly in the realm of foreign affairs, a president's pre-eminence is obvious. But using this board's obsessive beliefs as a prime example, Trump's effect on the NYSE would seem to be puppetmaster/puppet.....to hear some of you rhapsodize about gains.
4) Keeping campaign promises is a virtue to Trump's base, and mostly ONLY to his base. Want his climate change- denial executive orders to be polled among Independents and Democrats ?? Huh ??
5) People don't think he's intelligent enough to take credit for all that much of the US' current state ? We've heard him endlessly speak and tweet.....he's left no doubt....

 

[BuilderBob6]

l
That's a crock. I didn't imply anything. I stated a fact.

All the other witnesses were hearsay witnesses that had been "told" there was quid pro quo and Sondland was the source, either first hand or second hand, because he had PRESUMED that there would be. None of the other alleged witnesses had any first hand knowledge of quid pro quo. I watched the testimony. If you had watched the WH lawyers Saturday, they showed the clip of Sondland admitting that he had PRESUMED quid pro quo and was later told by the President, when he asked what he wanted from Ukraine, "I want nothing. No quid pro quo." You are completely wrong. It makes a lot of difference, if you actually watch the testimony, rather than relying on a chronic liar like Adam Schiff to tell you what happened.

Watch the two hour rebuttal from the WH lawyers, which is probably on Youtube. You can see it for yourself.

When are you people going to stop hiding behind "hearsay" and "second hand" info?
There was a clear policy all the people from State and NSC were implementing. Please answer at least one of these questions. WHERE did that policy come from? WHO initiated it? Do you believe Sondland was the mastermind? Did all these people make up this policy?
Taylor, Kent, Vindman, Morrison, Hill, Holmes, Sondland, McKinley, Volker.

What facts would you accept? Sounds like short of a recording by Trump of him laying out the policy in detail nothing else would satisfy you.

You're say these people are all lying......but YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE TRUMP when he says there was no QPQ........after the investigation was public? What else would he say? Besides the FACT that he has lied REPEATEDLY throughout his term to protect himself or attack his opponents or make himself appear superior. Just because Trump said it makes it a fact? Are you freakin serious?

 

[SDBoiler1]

When are you people going to stop hiding behind "hearsay" and "second hand" info?
There was a clear policy all the people from State and NSC were implementing. Please answer at least one of these questions. WHERE did that policy come from? WHO initiated it? Do you believe Sondland was the mastermind? Did all these people make up this policy?
Taylor, Kent, Vindman, Morrison, Hill, Holmes, Sondland, McKinley, Volker.

What facts would you accept? Sounds like short of a recording by Trump of him laying out the policy in detail nothing else would satisfy you.

You're say these people are all lying......but YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE TRUMP when he says there was no QPQ........after the investigation was public? What else would he say? Besides the FACT that he has lied REPEATEDLY throughout his term to protect himself or attack his opponents or make himself appear superior. Just because Trump said it makes it a fact? Are you freakin serious?

I believe this, Bob.

 

[indy35]

I believe this, Bob.

View embedded media

Uhhh, maybe you don’t want to do that.



Did you happen to find out which hearings Republicans weren’t allowed to attend? I’ve been looking all over and can’t find what you’re referring to. You seemed very confident in your post so if you could provide the answer that’d be great.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Uhhh, maybe you don’t want to do that.

View embedded media

Did you happen to find out which hearings Republicans weren’t allowed to attend? I’ve been looking all over and can’t find what you’re referring to. You seemed very confident in your post so if you could provide the answer that’d be great.

No, I still do.

The President was generally not allowed to have counsel present in the depositions. What kind of fair process doesn't allow the counsel for someone accused to listen to the testimony of people accusing him of wrongdoing? The Ds did not give the President due process afforded him and all citizens in the Constitution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-every-standard-due-process-it-will-backfire/

 

[70boiler]

... What kind of fair process doesn't allow the counsel for someone accused to listen to the testimony of people accusing him of wrongdoing? The Ds did not give the President due process afforded him and all citizens in the Constitution.

Every Grand Jury proceeding in the United States.

 

[doubleyous]

No, I still do.

The President was generally not allowed to have counsel present in the depositions. What kind of fair process doesn't allow the counsel for someone accused to listen to the testimony of people accusing him of wrongdoing? The Ds did not give the President due process afforded him and all citizens in the Constitution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-every-standard-due-process-it-will-backfire/

Due Process. Clearly defined for federal and state, civil and criminal , law proceedings.
Now, if you please, find the term "due process" in the parts of the Constitution that outline Impeachment
Articles.
We'll wait right here.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Every Grand Jury proceeding in the United States.

Yes, but Grand Juries are supposed to be "not partisan" and composed of one's peers, not of political rivals with demonstrated animus.

 

[indy35]

No, I still do.

The President was generally not allowed to have counsel present in the depositions. What kind of fair process doesn't allow the counsel for someone accused to listen to the testimony of people accusing him of wrongdoing? The Ds did not give the President due process afforded him and all citizens in the Constitution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-every-standard-due-process-it-will-backfire/

Did you find out yet which hearings the Republicans weren’t allowed to attend?

 

[70boiler]

Yes, but Grand Juries are supposed to be "not partisan" and composed of one's peers, not of political rivals with demonstrated animus.

I take it you didn't like that the answer didn't fit your preference.

 

[miksta]

Keep telling yourself that. You believe everything that <Trump critic> says. Try doing some fact checking on <Trump critic>. You'll find if <his or her> lips are moving, <he or she>'s lying. You're blinded by your desperate need to stay true to your ideology. You're proving incapable of objective thought. Try questioning your belief system occasionally. I do it all the time. You're so blindly accepting of everything that the Left puts out, that it's made you oblivious to the difference between fact and fiction.

Uh oh, I think you forgot to fill out your template!

 

[SDBoiler1]

I take it you didn't like that the answer didn't fit your preference.

Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. I wouldn’t go as far as to say “non sequitur”, but it is close.

 

[BoilerJS]

You're right SDBoiler, other than all of the evidence, there's nothing to show that they were specifically targeting Biden.

• December 6th 2018. Parnas and Fruman attend a private meeting with Trump and Giuliani where Trump tasks them to pressure the Ukranian government to investigate the Bidens.

• Jan 23rd 2019. Giuliani along with Parnas and Fruman conduct an interview with Shokin in an attempt to gather more information on the Bidens.

• February 2019. At Giuliani's behest, Parnas and Fruman press Poroshenko to initiate an investigation into the Bidens. They said the action would be rewarded by a White House visit.

• March 2019. Nunes senior aide Harvey has a call arranged by Lev Parnas to speak with Kostiantyn Kulyk and Nazar Kholodnytsky. Kulyk and Kholodnytsky have been accused in Ukraine of corruption and pursuing politically motivated prosecutions. Kulyk had created a dossier of Biden disinformation and unproven theories.

• March 28th 2019. Giuliani provided a packet to Pompeo that contains disinformation and unproven theories on the Bidens.

• April 1st 2019. John Solomon has an article published that advances the disinformation on Biden that Giuliani had gathered.

• April 7th 2019. John Solomon publishes an interview with Kulyk that airs the disinformation on Biden.

• May 7th 2019. Ukranian Presidential advisors meet with Zelensky to discuss Trump and Giuliani's demands for investigations of the Bidens.

• May 9th 2019. Giuliani tells the New York Times he plans to travel to Kyiv to meet with Zelensky and urge him to investigate the Bidens.

• May 10th 2019. Trump interview with Politico where he says it would be an appropriate thing to have an investigation into Biden. He stated he saw Biden as the clear front runner in the Democratic race and that Trump would speak to Giuliani about his trip to Ukraine.

• June 21st 2019. Giuliani tweets that the "new President of Ukraine is still silent on investigation of alleged Biden bribery on Proshenko. Time for leadership and investigation."

• Late June 2019. At Giuliani's direction, Parnas and Fruman offer Dmitry Firtash help with the Justice Department in exchange for dirt on the Bidens.Giuliani also proposes that Firtash hire Toensing and diGenova as Firtash's lawyers, the two were also working on dirt on the Bidens.

• July 2019. Firtash hires Toensing and diGenova, then uses his network of Ukranian contact to attempt to find damaging information on the Bidens.

• July 10th 2019. Sondland meets with two of Zelensky's top advisors and encourages them that investigations that need to be started again, referencing Biden and Burisma. It was this meeting that Bolton became incensed and later referred to Sondland's suggestion as a "drug deal." After the meeting there was a debriefing which Vindman and Hill both attend, Sondland once again emphasizes the importance of Ukraine delivering an investigation of the Bidens.

• July 19th 2019. Volker and Giuliani meet for breakfast with Lev Parnas. Volker texts that he had setup a call for Monday with Zelensky and that it was "most important for Zelensky to say that he will help with an investigation."

• July 22 2019. Giuliani speaks with Yermak over the phone and discuss the Trump-Giuliani demands for investigations into the Bidens.

• July 25th 2019. Trump has phone call with Zelensky in which he asks Zelensky to look into Biden and Biden's son.

• July 25th 2019. Prior to the Trump/Zelensky phone call, Volker texts Yermak saying that he heard from the White House and assuming Zelensky can convince Trump he'll start an investigation, they'll setup a White House visit.

• July 26th 2019. Volker, Sondland, Taylor, and Holmes meet with Zelensky. Zelensky states that Trump had raised some very sensitive issues on their call and Zelensky would have to follow up in person. Holmes testifies that after reading the call memo, that "sensitive issues" referred to the investigation of the Bidens.

• August 2nd 2019. Giuliani and Parnas fly to Madrid to meet with Yermak. Giuliani presses Yermak to investigate the Bidens. Giuliani tweets on August 3rd from Madrid, additional disinformation about the Bidens.

• August 9th 2019. Volker texts Sondland and Giuliani to suggest a phone call "to make sure I advise Zelensky correctly as to what he should be saying" for when Zelensky announced the Bidens investigations.Sondland texts that potus wants the deliverable. Sondland later testifies that the "deliverable" refers to the public statement announcing investigations into the Bidens.

• August 10th 2019. Yermak texts Volker that Zelensky won't announce the investigations without a firm date for a White House visit. Sondland emails Pompeo to inform him about Zelensky's agreement to have a press conference to announce the investigation.

• August 11th 2019. Volker texts Giuliani about a draft statement that they want Zelensky to read when announcing an investigation into the Bidens.

• August 12th 2019 Whistleblower files a complaint to the ICIG

• August 13th 2019. Volker and Sondland text Yermak urging him to include in the Zelensky draft, specific references to Burisma.

• August 17th 2019. Sondland texts Volker asking if the US side still wants Zelensky to give them a draft on an announcement into the investigations of Biden. Volker responds that "that's the clear message so far...I'm hoping we can put something out there that causes him to respond."

There is no evidence that Trump with held assistance to Ukraine period. (heresy is not evidence, opinions are not evidence) It was delivered!
The direct evidence indicates the opposite. Sondland's testimony, the phone call transcript and Zelensky's response to questions.
Maybe Trump did request privately to have Biden and the DNC, Crowdstrike investigated, there was cause for concern. (see link)

https://www.foxnews.com/media/peter-schweizer-how-biden-family-got-rich

If Ukraine did the investigating as a favor to the POTUS or if Rudy Giuliani investigated the situation as his personal lawyer on behalf of the POTUS, BFD. It isn't costing the tax payers a penny.
Any hint of corruption by the VP or information of a server containing classified information should be investigated.

 

[BuilderBob6]

I believe this, Bob.

View embedded media

That's nothing but a cop out.

Stop hiding behind

I believe this, Bob.

View embedded media

I'm quite sure you do.

But you still won't address where the policy came from that all these admin officials were implementing. They didn't create it out of midair. A rookie ambassador who wasn't even responsible for the region would not have done this on his own.

Trump told Rudy to do it and Rudy instituted in......while Pompeo took a powder. Trump used his PERSONAL attorney to run his shadow foreign policy. He's not a bright man but he wasn't dumb enough to tell everybody what he was doing. Going through Rudy kept it insulated by attorney client privilege. He blocked all the senior officials from testifying.
But it appears he didn't think about Bolton. He's counting on the pubs in the senate to shut him up.

 

[BuilderBob6]

There is no evidence that Trump with held assistance to Ukraine period. (heresy is not evidence, opinions are not evidence) It was delivered!
The direct evidence indicates the opposite. Sondland's testimony, the phone call transcript and Zelensky's response to questions.
Maybe Trump did request privately to have Biden and the DNC, Crowdstrike investigated, there was cause for concern. (see link)

https://www.foxnews.com/media/peter-schweizer-how-biden-family-got-rich

If Ukraine did the investigating as a favor to the POTUS or if Rudy Giuliani investigated the situation as his personal lawyer on behalf of the POTUS, BFD. It isn't costing the tax payers a penny.
Any hint of corruption by the VP or information of a server containing classified information should be investigated.

How is Sondland's testimony direct evidence? You didn't pay attention to his opinions?
Did you really just say it's not a BFD if trumps personal lawyer was doing a private investigation for him because it didn't cost us any money!!!!!!?

 

[indy35]

There is no evidence that Trump with held assistance to Ukraine period. (heresy is not evidence, opinions are not evidence) It was delivered!
The direct evidence indicates the opposite. Sondland's testimony, the phone call transcript and Zelensky's response to questions.
Maybe Trump did request privately to have Biden and the DNC, Crowdstrike investigated, there was cause for concern. (see link)

https://www.foxnews.com/media/peter-schweizer-how-biden-family-got-rich

If Ukraine did the investigating as a favor to the POTUS or if Rudy Giuliani investigated the situation as his personal lawyer on behalf of the POTUS, BFD. It isn't costing the tax payers a penny.
Any hint of corruption by the VP or information of a server containing classified information should be investigated.

Did right wing propaganda not report on the OMB emails that were released discussing the aid being withheld? The aid was withheld, it was delivered only after they had been caught. The whistle blower had made their report and investigations had started, then they released the aid.

https://www.businessinsider.com/unredacted-emails-pentagon-trump-ukraine-aid-freeze-illegal-2020-1
https://www.justsecurity.org/67863/...ts-reveal-extent-of-pentagons-legal-concerns/

 

[SDBoiler1]

That's nothing but a cop out.

Stop hiding behind

I'm quite sure you do.

But you still won't address where the policy came from that all these admin officials were implementing. They didn't create it out of midair. A rookie ambassador who wasn't even responsible for the region would not have done this on his own.

Trump told Rudy to do it and Rudy instituted in......while Pompeo took a powder. Trump used his PERSONAL attorney to run his shadow foreign policy. He's not a bright man but he wasn't dumb enough to tell everybody what he was doing. Going through Rudy kept it insulated by attorney client privilege. He blocked all the senior officials from testifying.
But it appears he didn't think about Bolton. He's counting on the pubs in the senate to shut him up.

It’s quite convenient that draft copies of Bolton’s book, which hasn’t even been vetted/marked up yet for Classified info, somehow made their way into the public domain and leaked to the NYT right before Trump’s counsel starts out going into detail today.

Bolton seems chapped he got fired by Trump. Bolton is a chicken hawk who didn’t get along with many people in the administration. He often butted heads with other cabinet-level people and aides. Now the Ds want to hang their hat on this disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind.

Tell you what. Let Bolton testify - if Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are also forced to testify.

Do you think that will happen? Will the DNC allow that? Will Schumer allow that?

 

[miksta]

It’s quite convenient that draft copies of Bolton’s book, which hasn’t even been vetted/marked up yet for Classified info, somehow made their way into the public domain and leaked to the NYT right before Trump’s counsel starts out going into detail today.

Bolton seems chapped he got fired by Trump. Bolton is a chicken hawk who didn’t get along with many people in the administration. He often butted heads with other cabinet-level people and aides. Now the Ds want to hang their hat on this disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind.

Tell you what. Let Bolton testify - if Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are also forced to testify.

Do you think that will happen? Will the DNC allow that? Will Schumer allow that?

And thus begins the character assassination of John Bolton. I can't stand Bolton on an ideological basis, but I have no reason to think he'd not be a reliable source in corroborating the claims of other ideologically opposed folks (hell, the diversity in ideologies of all of the corroborated witnesses is truly remarkable at this point). How big and fantastic is this conspiracy theory going to become?

All so folks can continue to fall on the sword for a doofus like Donald Trump. lol

Also, pretty sure we had folks on this board extolling the integrity of Bolton while he was still National Security Advisor.

Hard to keep up with all of these moving targets...

 

[doubleyous]

There is no evidence that Trump with held assistance to Ukraine period. (heresy is not evidence, opinions are not evidence) It was delivered!
The direct evidence indicates the opposite. Sondland's testimony, the phone call transcript and Zelensky's response to questions.
Maybe Trump did request privately to have Biden and the DNC, Crowdstrike investigated, there was cause for concern. (see link)

https://www.foxnews.com/media/peter-schweizer-how-biden-family-got-rich

If Ukraine did the investigating as a favor to the POTUS or if Rudy Giuliani investigated the situation as his personal lawyer on behalf of the POTUS, BFD. It isn't costing the tax payers a penny.
Any hint of corruption by the VP or information of a server containing classified information should be investigated.

1) Hey, JS...…..MUCH obliged for your link to the hit piece, on the Bidens, from the world-renowned PETER SCHWEITZER !!!! Fiercely independent, Mr. Schweitzer is...…...oh, wait....
Schweitzert is EDITOR-AT-LARGE OF BREITBART, ever'body………...Next !!
2) "Cause for concern" , on the part of Trump, regarding every single discredited conspiracy theory, emanating out of the Ukraine mess ?? Yeah,.....the country has ample evidence of how Trump addressed that "concern ", thank you very much.

 

[SDBoiler1]

And thus begins the character assassination of John Bolton. I can't stand Bolton on an ideological basis, but I have no reason to think he'd not be a reliable source in corroborating the claims of other ideologically opposed folks (hell, the diversity in ideologies of all of the corroborated witnesses is truly remarkable at this point). How big and fantastic is this conspiracy theory going to become?

All so folks can continue to fall on the sword for a doofus like Donald Trump. lol

Also, pretty sure we had folks on this board extolling the integrity of Bolton while he was still National Security Advisor.

Hard to keep up with all of these moving targets...

I’ve never been a fan of Bolton and was surprised that Trump took him to begin with. Bolton is a true neo-con who has never seen a war he didn’t like. Under Bush, Bolton was evil incarnate according to the Ds and the mainstream media. Now he’s the new shiny object to chase in trying to get something to stick to “Teflon Donald”.

 

[miksta]

I’ve never been a fan of Bolton and was surprised that Trump took him to begin with. Bolton is a true neo-con who has never seen a war he didn’t like. Under Bush, Bolton was evil incarnate according to the Ds and the mainstream media. Now he’s the new shiny object to chase in trying to get something to stick on “Teflon Donald”.

Nah, we still can't stand him. But that doesn't mean he has an incentive to be dishonest about this.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Nah, we still can't stand him. But that doesn't mean he has an incentive to be dishonest about this.

Bolton is a very proud man and his ego won’t allow a chance to get back at Trump slip away. He has a lot of incentives - selling books, making himself look good while taking a swipe at Trump to name a couple.

 

[BuilderBob6]

It’s quite convenient that draft copies of Bolton’s book, which hasn’t even been vetted/marked up yet for Classified info, somehow made their way into the public domain and leaked to the NYT right before Trump’s counsel starts out going into detail today.

Bolton seems chapped he got fired by Trump. Bolton is a chicken hawk who didn’t get along with many people in the administration. He often butted heads with other cabinet-level people and aides. Now the Ds want to hang their hat on this disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind.

Tell you what. Let Bolton testify - if Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are also forced to testify.

Do you think that will happen? Will the DNC allow that? Will Schumer allow that?

How do the Bidens prove or disprove the allegations against trump?

 

[miksta]

Bolton is a very proud man and his ego won’t allow a chance to get back at Trump slip away. He has a lot of incentives - selling books, making himself look good while taking a swipe at Trump to name a couple.

Hmm, plausible motivations, for sure. Still not sure that extends to him being dishonest, particularly if telling the truth accomplishes the same goals.

 

[doubleyous]

Hmm, plausible motivations, for sure. Still not sure that extends to him being dishonest, particularly if telling the truth accomplishes the same goals.

And particularly if he winds up being SWORN IN as a witness, under oath, in an upcoming session of the Senate's trial....

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Nah, we still can't stand him. But that doesn't mean he has an incentive to be dishonest about this.

I've never trusted Bolton...ever. He's a war hawk, he's a loose cannon, and I was totally disappointed when DJT gave him a job. Life has always been about Bolton and his career.

 

[doubleyous]

I've never trusted Bolton...ever. He's a war hawk, he's a loose cannon, and I was totally disappointed when DJT gave him a job. Life has always been about Bolton and his career.

" Life has always been about (fill in name ) and his career "....you say ??

Anybody have a better fill-in than " Bolton", on this one ??
One would think.

 

[Fansince72]

I've never trusted Bolton...ever. He's a war hawk, he's a loose cannon, and I was totally disappointed when DJT gave him a job. Life has always been about Bolton and his career.

Yea right. Do you expect anyone to believe that. LOL

 

[SDBoiler1]

How do the Bidens prove or disprove the allegations against trump?

To get Joe to testify about his dealings with Ukraine as VP. Why did he take some of the actions he did? Trump knew about the previous dealings of the Obama administration with Ukraine. Some of Joe’s actions in hindsight seem questionable including discussions/actions related to Burisma, which was known to be a corrupt entity.

All of this adds context into why Trump’s administration did what it did.

Hunter Biden should testify and explain how he got onto the board of Burisma. (We already know how and why to some degree.)

Why is it that Joe Biden and his family have all gotten rich due to Joe’s contacts in places like China and Ukraine and the Middle East?

 

[SKYDOG]

To get Joe to testify about his dealings with Ukraine as VP. Why did he take some of the actions he did? Trump knew about the previous dealings of the Obama administration with Ukraine. Some of Joe’s actions in hindsight seem questionable including discussions/actions related to Burisma, which was known to be a corrupt entity.

All of this adds context into why Trump’s administration did what it did.

Hunter Biden should testify and explain how he got onto the board of Burisma. (We already know how and why to some degree.)

Why is it that Joe Biden and his family have all gotten rich due to Joe’s contacts in places like China and Ukraine and the Middle East?[/
https://americaswatchtower.com/2020/01/20/joe-bidens-brother-secured-54-million-in-taxpayer-funded-foreign-
https://www.breitbart.com/2020-elec...e-obama-administration-despite-no-experience/


[/https://americaswatchtower.com/2020...-54-million-in-taxpayer-funded-foreign-loans/

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Yea right. Do you expect anyone to believe that. LOL

You know....I could give two shits and a red rat's ass whether you believe it or not. And that's being complimentary.

 

[SKYDOG]

https://americaswatchtower.com/2020...-54-million-in-taxpayer-funded-foreign-loans/

 

[BuilderBob6]

To get Joe to testify about his dealings with Ukraine as VP. Why did he take some of the actions he did? Trump knew about the previous dealings of the Obama administration with Ukraine. Some of Joe’s actions in hindsight seem questionable including discussions/actions related to Burisma, which was known to be a corrupt entity.

All of this adds context into why Trump’s administration did what it did.

Hunter Biden should testify and explain how he got onto the board of Burisma. (We already know how and why to some degree.)

Why is it that Joe Biden and his family have all gotten rich due to Joe’s contacts in places like China and Ukraine and the Middle East?

How do the Bidens prove or disprove the allegations against trump?

Are you saying if the accusations (what are they by the way) against the Bidens were actually true, that would mean that trump asking Ukraine to investigate his political rival and withholding the aid was fine? What does the guilt or innocence of the Bidens have to do with what trump did?

If trump suspected the Bidens of wrongdoing, why didn't he have the FBI investigate? Why did he put his personal lawyer on the case? Why aren't they investigating NOW?

Why dont you link how the Bidens got rich in the ME and China?

What actions did Joe take that were questionable? You know of course his threats against Ukraine were backed by the EU and the IMF right?

 

[SDBoiler1]

How do the Bidens prove or disprove the allegations against trump?

Are you saying if the accusations (what are they by the way) against the Bidens were actually true, that would mean that trump asking Ukraine to investigate his political rival and withholding the aid was fine? What does the guilt or innocence of the Bidens have to do with what trump did?

If trump suspected the Bidens of wrongdoing, why didn't he have the FBI investigate? Why did he put his personal lawyer on the case? Why aren't they investigating NOW?

Why dont you link how the Bidens got rich in the ME and China?

What actions did Joe take that were questionable? You know of course his threats against Ukraine were backed by the EU and the IMF right?

Read this first.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/biden-ukrainian-gas-company
And......

"Hunter Biden's involvement with Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings was the subject of President Trump's July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine, which sparked the Democrats' impeachment push."

Schweizer said that Biden's 2019 claims he had "never talked with [his] son or brother or anyone else -- even distant family -- about their business interest" were far from the case.

He told Hegseth that, in addition to taxpayer-backed loans and grants, the family also was granted access to the White House and then-president Barack Obama.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/peter-schweizer-how-biden-family-got-rich

How do you know who Trump has had investigate the Bidens? How do you know there aren't investigations going on now of Joe and his family? Why don't you explain how Hunter Biden got $1.5B deal in China (with the Chinese national bank) right after Joe was there on "official business"?