Priorities of the GOP controlled House

[Boilermaker03]

Nothing wrong. Wow.

You realize I didn’t refer to Russian collusion right? He and his campaign still did plenty wrong, it warranted an investigation, and it determined there was no cooperation.
The phone call was perfect right?

If you're talking about the Ukraine phone call, yes. There was nothing wrong there. Did you actually read it?

He sat on his ass and watched his supporters beat police and break into the Capitol while everybody from his Chief of Staff to Shawn Hannity begged him to stop it. There would have been no 1/6 without his baseless accusation of rigging.

He acted within an hour to tell people to stop. What else should he have done?

He took documents from the WH that didn’t belong to him. That’s a fact. Full stop. That’s wrong.

As a sitting president who presided over a great economy, he should never have lost an election. Then he personally submarined two congressional elections. Yeah, keep supporting him. He’s got all the answers.

Did he? I haven't seen any proof of that yet.

I never said he has all the answers. He was a great president while he was in office though. He did a ton for this country that was good. Who knows how much he could have actually done if the Democrats weren't constantly up his crotch with bullshit accusations.

I defend him because there hasn't been any REAL evidence of wrong doing. There's stuff that they bring up that either ends up being totally made up, or isn't anything different than what any other president has done. You and people like you have a hardon for Trump all due to bullshit and it's ****ing sad you can't see that.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Wtf do you know? Something the rest of us don’t?
He TOOK THE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS slick. That’s the wrong. That’s the investigation. After that ACTUALLY FREAKIN HAPPENED all sorts of people leaped to all sorts of conclusions. Just because some dem whacko said something about giving secrets to Russia or whatever doesn’t make that the REASON FOR THE INVESTIGATION. JFC man, you are so damn entangled in your partisan web you can’t even accept simple facts anymore.

Yes sure I'm in a partisan web. Look in the fukking mirror jack.

 

[bonefish1]

Nothing wrong. Wow.

You realize I didn’t refer to Russian collusion right? He and his campaign still did plenty wrong, it warranted an investigation, and it determined there was no cooperation.
The phone call was perfect right?

He sat on his ass and watched his supporters beat police and break into the Capitol while everybody from his Chief of Staff to Shawn Hannity begged him to stop it. There would have been no 1/6 without his baseless accusation of rigging.

He took documents from the WH that didn’t belong to him. That’s a fact. Full stop. That’s wrong.

As a sitting president who presided over a great economy, he should never have lost an election. Then he personally submarined two congressional elections. Yeah, keep supporting him. He’s got all the answers.

So, which was worse, the Trump phone call or Biden (on video.....) telling Ukraine that he was withholding a billion $ in aid money unless the prosecutor who was investigating the company that Hunter was a $60,000/month special consultant for, was fired?

 

[Boilermaker03]

So, which was worse, the Trump phone call or Biden (on video.....) telling Ukraine that he was withholding a billion $ in aid money unless the prosecutor who was investigating the company that Hunter was a $60,000/month special consultant for, was fired?

He's going to claim that the prosecutor wasn't investigating Burisma.

 

[BuilderBob6]

So, which was worse, the Trump phone call or Biden (on video.....) telling Ukraine that he was withholding a billion $ in aid money unless the prosecutor who was investigating the company that Hunter was a $60,000/month special consultant for, was fired?

Lol. Shokin WASN’T investigating Burisma……… or anything else he should have been. It was the policy of the US AND EUROPE that Shokin be removed. Corruption was rampant. Money was being shipped to Russia.

This is another example of you reading right wing headlines and refusing to look any further because it says what you want to hear. Any appearance of impropriety is all you need It’s been debunked over and over. You’ll just wait a few months and bring it up again.

Here’s some links that explain it, which you will undoubtedly label fake news.

PolitiFact - Fact-checking Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and Ukraine

Editor's Note, Sept. 23, 2019: This story was first published May 9, 2019; we have since published additional coverage t

www.politifact.com

The story behind Biden's son, Ukraine and Trump's claims

WASHINGTON (AP) — In 2014, then-Vice President Joe Biden was at the forefront of American diplomatic efforts to support Ukraine's fragile democratic government as it sought to fend off Russian aggression and root out corruption.

apnews.com

Here is what Joe Biden actually did in Ukraine

Joe Biden made at least half a dozen visits to Ukraine when he was vice president. Here's what he was doing.

www.latimes.com

Misleading: Joe Biden threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine unless the Ukrainian Prosecutor investigating the Gas company was fired.

Joe Biden's efforts at removing Viktor Shokin was a part of internationally co-ordinated efforts towards curbing corruption in Ukraine.

www.logically.ai

 

[BuilderBob6]

He's going to claim that the prosecutor wasn't investigating Burisma.

At the time, he wasn’t. The investigation was dormant. You have a link backing up your position?

The funny thing is, Shokin was an example of the corruption trump used as a reason for holding up aid years later. So Ukraine was corrupt AFTER all the Russian allies were tossed out of the government but not when they were in office?

 

[bonefish1]

He's going to claim that the prosecutor wasn't investigating Burisma.

nailed it.

 

[BuilderBob6]

nailed it.

So that’s it? All the links I posted said he wasn’t investigating him at the time……..but that’s all lies?

The fact that it wasn’t just Biden’s assertion that Shokin was not investigating corruption……… it was the official policy of the US government and several European countries………doesn’t change your opinion that Biden publicly said he was holding back aid because Shokin was investigating his son. Well of course he didn’t say that, you’re just inferring it. Like Biden would say ANYTHING like that publicly if it were true. He would just throw that out with no concern that it might get him in hot water.

The head trump ass kisser gave you an out and you took it. End of story.

 

[Riveting-]

Given this is the first day, it appears there’s only one.

View embedded media

"CBS Mornings" anchor Gayle King said perhaps Hunter Biden should have just paid his laptop bill and avoided a lot of trouble.

The admission about the laptop's legitimacy is a far cry from previous CBS News reporting on the scandalous computer.

"60 Minutes" veteran journalist Lesley Stahl laughed off then-President Trump's claim that Joe Biden was "in the midst of a scandal" in an interview that aired just days before the 2020 election.

"He's not," Stahl gleefully replied.

"Of course he is, Lesley," Trump sternly doubled down.

"No, c'mon," Stahl continued to reject the president's claim, before lecturing him, "This is '60 Minutes' and we can't put on things that we can't verify."

CBS News verifies Hunter Biden’s scandalous laptop two years after dismissing it

CBS News became the latest corporate media organization to confirm the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s scandal-plagued laptop, a far cry from the network’s previous reporting.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Riveting-]

Nice touch by CBS hack Gayle King, right @HoosierfanJM .?

Is CBS the network that has all the fake FBI shows you love to watch?

 

[tjreese]

"CBS Mornings" anchor Gayle King said perhaps Hunter Biden should have just paid his laptop bill and avoided a lot of trouble.

The admission about the laptop's legitimacy is a far cry from previous CBS News reporting on the scandalous computer.

"60 Minutes" veteran journalist Lesley Stahl laughed off then-President Trump's claim that Joe Biden was "in the midst of a scandal" in an interview that aired just days before the 2020 election.

"He's not," Stahl gleefully replied.

"Of course he is, Lesley," Trump sternly doubled down.

"No, c'mon," Stahl continued to reject the president's claim, before lecturing him, "This is '60 Minutes' and we can't put on things that we can't verify."

CBS News verifies Hunter Biden’s scandalous laptop two years after dismissing it

CBS News became the latest corporate media organization to confirm the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s scandal-plagued laptop, a far cry from the network’s previous reporting.

www.foxnews.com

How does someone blessed with such artistic ability that draws so much money for his paintings while being a highly respected, savvy businessperson land such great business positions and yet would leave his laptop so carelessly. Those circumstances seem so conflicting. Maybe the disinformation bureau will weigh in on this?

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Nice touch by CBS hack Gayle King, right @HoosierfanJM .?

Is CBS the network that has all the fake FBI shows you love to watch?

Not gonna touch my post asking whether it’s a good idea to immunize Hunter Biden, eh?

 

[Riveting-]

Not gonna touch my post asking whether it’s a good idea to immunize Hunter Biden, eh?

I certainly agree he should be immunized against every venereal disease there is, but I missed your post.

Doesn't he already have full immunity against federal prosecution while his dad is prez and Garland is AD?

 

[HoosierfanJM]

I certainly agree he should be immunized against every venereal disease there is, but I missed your post.

Doesn't he already have full immunity against federal prosecution while his dad is prez and Garland is AD?

No—for real.

Hunter clearly has criminal exposure, but the only thing I’ve seen that even remotely mentions his dad is complete hearsay where hunter says he’s going to talk to his dad about stuff.

That gives you the choice of immunizing hunter and compelling his testimony, or allowing, the only person that can illuminate the hearsay to take five. What have you got?

 

[Riveting-]

How does someone blessed with such artistic ability that draws so much money for his paintings while being a highly respected, savvy businessperson land such great business positions and yet would leave his laptop so carelessly. Those circumstances seem so conflicting. Maybe the disinformation bureau will weigh in on this?

Russian disinformation is the only possible explanation.

Don't forget, Joe says Hunter is the smartest guy he knows -- and judging from cabinet and press sec, he may be right.

 

[Riveting-]

No—for real.

Hunter clearly has criminal exposure, but the only thing I’ve seen that even remotely mentions his dad is complete hearsay where hunter says he’s going to talk to his dad about stuff.

That gives you the choice of immunizing hunter and compelling his testimony, or allowing, the only person that can illuminate the hearsay to take five. What have you got?

Bobulinski, a highly credible witness, has testified to the FBI that he met with Hunter, Joe and Joe's brother on two occasions to discuss the family 'business". Not hearsay at all.

 

[tjreese]

Russian disinformation is the only possible explanation.

Don't forget, Joe says Hunter is the smartest guy he knows -- and judging from cabinet and press sec, he may be right.

Joe is right, but who told Joe the correct answer?

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Bobulinski, a highly credible witness, has testified to the FBI that he met with Hunter, Joe and Joe's brother on two occasions to discuss the family 'business". Not hearsay at all.

That would be hearsay as it related to any actions taken by Joe Biden with any of Hunter Biden’s business partners.

There would need to be testimony of somebody in the room when Joe Biden, met Hunter Biden’s business partners.

 

[tjreese]

Bobulinski, a highly credible witness, has testified to the FBI that he met with Hunter, Joe and Joe's brother on two occasions to discuss the family 'business". Not hearsay at all.

I think Tony would like to tell more...

 

[HoosierfanJM]

I think Tony would like to tell more...

Say, this business partner guy says he met with Hunter and Joe, and they talked about paying gazillion of dollars to Hunter based on Joe’s influence. That is still not evidence of a crime. You need someone who is actually involved in potential illicit payments to testify.

 

[tjreese]

Say, this business partner guy says he met with Hunter and Joe, and they talked about paying gazillion of dollars to Hunter based on Joe’s influence. That is still not evidence of a crime. You need someone who is actually involved in potential illicit payments to testify.

I have no idea what all he wanted to say and what if any trails are opened up. All I know is he said it took a year or so for the FBI to get back with him and he has volunteered that he wished to speak longer and welcomed future meetings. If he has more to say, which he indicates he does...then we don't know all that he wants to say and what that might lead to...if anything He is credible and would be one that very easily could have other information that might open other doors.

I suspect that everyone knows Hunter was pay for play and that play would have little value if it were only about Hunter. Look how long the Clinton Foundation had pay for play until she lost in 2016 and the donations stopped...and nothing happened. There are all kinds of people in the house and senate that are doing pay for play, but not as obvious perhaps, although so many have their wealth grown well past their salary and few care...

 

[BuilderBob6]

Bobulinski, a highly credible witness, has testified to the FBI that he met with Hunter, Joe and Joe's brother on two occasions to discuss the family 'business". Not hearsay at all.

Why is he a highly credible witness?
You sound like trump. Every time he speaks the adjectives he uses for his enemies are the worst one can think of. The opposite for those that make him look good.

Bobulinski says he will go on any show anywhere anytime. Yet he only shows up on right wing media.
All this is based on one line in a text. That’s it. No other evidence. Ask the WSJ. Go ahead and investigate.

Hunter Biden’s Ex-Business Partner Alleges Father Knew About Venture

An ex-business partner of Hunter Biden said he consulted his father about a planned venture with a Chinese oil company. Joe Biden denied any involvement in the venture and corporate records reviewed by The Journal show no role for him.

www.wsj.com

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Why is he a highly credible witness?
You sound like trump. Every time he speaks the adjectives he uses for his enemies are the worst one can think of. The opposite for those that make him look good.

Bobulinski says he will go on any show anywhere anytime. Yet he only shows up on right wing media.
All this is based on one line in a text. That’s it. No other evidence. Ask the WSJ. Go ahead and investigate.

Hunter Biden’s Ex-Business Partner Alleges Father Knew About Venture

An ex-business partner of Hunter Biden said he consulted his father about a planned venture with a Chinese oil company. Joe Biden denied any involvement in the venture and corporate records reviewed by The Journal show no role for him.

www.wsj.com

It doesn’t matter much whether he is or isn’t credible because he has no ability to testify about any actual action by Joe.

 

[BuilderBob6]

I think Tony would like to tell more...

Really? Seems to me going on any network other than Fox might get him some credibility.

Tony Bobulinski Dodged At Least Two Non-Fox News Interviews

Bobulinski and his bombastic accusations against Hunter Biden and the president have aired only on Fox News and been printed most widely in the New York Post

www.mediaite.com

 

[bonefish1]

"CBS Mornings" anchor Gayle King said perhaps Hunter Biden should have just paid his laptop bill and avoided a lot of trouble.

The admission about the laptop's legitimacy is a far cry from previous CBS News reporting on the scandalous computer.

"60 Minutes" veteran journalist Lesley Stahl laughed off then-President Trump's claim that Joe Biden was "in the midst of a scandal" in an interview that aired just days before the 2020 election.

"He's not," Stahl gleefully replied.

"Of course he is, Lesley," Trump sternly doubled down.

"No, c'mon," Stahl continued to reject the president's claim, before lecturing him, "This is '60 Minutes' and we can't put on things that we can't verify."

CBS News verifies Hunter Biden’s scandalous laptop two years after dismissing it

CBS News became the latest corporate media organization to confirm the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s scandal-plagued laptop, a far cry from the network’s previous reporting.

www.foxnews.com

The MSM is carefully instructed by the Dem on when and what can be released, investigated, verified, etc.

 

[BuilderBob6]

It doesn’t matter much whether he is or isn’t credible because he has no ability to testify about any actual action by Joe.

Legally, I understand your point. It certainly doesn’t matter to the trump republicans in the House. They are preparing to spend a lot of time and money on an investigation based on what he’s saying.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Really? Seems to me going on any network other than Fox might get him some credibility.

Tony Bobulinski Dodged At Least Two Non-Fox News Interviews

Bobulinski and his bombastic accusations against Hunter Biden and the president have aired only on Fox News and been printed most widely in the New York Post

www.mediaite.com

He’s still waiting for Lesley Stahl to call him.

 

[tjreese]

Really? Seems to me going on any network other than Fox might get him some credibility.

Tony Bobulinski Dodged At Least Two Non-Fox News Interviews

Bobulinski and his bombastic accusations against Hunter Biden and the president have aired only on Fox News and been printed most widely in the New York Post

www.mediaite.com

Perhaps Bob, but based upon what we know for the last couple of years there might be some pause on a recorded viewing. My deceased brother-in-law had 60 minutes interview him for a day and only showed 5 minutes. The rest was cut. Now in his case it didn't hurt him, but in any media controlling what is published, it can swing the narrative to the road it desires. Those entities can leave out what they want to control the narrative. He has made a claim, quite a damaging claim, and as far as I know that claim has not resulted in a lawsuit filed against him. He was able to know a lot and you would think the FBI would be breaking down doors to talk to him and yet that isn’t happening (and no lawsuits against him I’m aware?), and we know Merrick isn’t political.

The other thing that is puzzling a bit Bob is your defense of Joe and Hunter. You claimed in the past you were a republican and your vote was against Trump. This has nothing to do with Trump and yet it appears you lean to the Biden’s side and gives the impression you voted for Biden for Biden and not against Trump which seems odd being the Republican you say you are or were prior to Trump. There are some people that wouldn’t vote for Trump, but would also see a lot of red flags and smoke and would like to see a thorough investigation without the political interference if possible.

 

[Riveting-]

Say, this business partner guy says he met with Hunter and Joe, and they talked about paying gazillion of dollars to Hunter based on Joe’s influence. That is still not evidence of a crime. You need someone who is actually involved in potential illicit payments to testify.

Tony has emails from Hunter saying who would get what percentage, including the big guy (at a measly 10%, no less). Does that not constitute a potential illicit payment?

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Tony has emails from Hunter saying who would get what percentage, including the big guy (at a measly 10%, no less). Does that not constitute a potential illicit payment?

It’s hearsay as it relates to “the Big Guy.”

A quick working definition:

• Hearsay is any statement made by the declarant at a time or place other than while he or she is testifying at the trial or hearing that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
• Hearsay is not admissible in evidence unless it is specifically allowed by an exception in the rules of evidence or another statute.

 

[Riveting-]

It’s hearsay as it relates to “the Big Guy.”

A quick working definition:

• Hearsay is any statement made by the declarant at a time or place other than while he or she is testifying at the trial or hearing that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
• Hearsay is not admissible in evidence unless it is specifically allowed by an exception in the rules of evidence or another statute.

I don't follow this, but do not have a legal background so I trust what you are saying. In any event, I don't expect the DOJ to ever make any true effort to investigate Joe - nor for voters to remember or care that Joe blatantly lied about the laptop in the first Trump debate, and was enabled to do so by a corrupt faction in the FBI (which, accordingly to Zuck, essentially 'warned' Facebook and no doubt all the others to cover it up).

Not that they didn't want to cover it up - other than the NY Post and a few others.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Hearsay. - "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Tony cannot testify as to what Hunter said about Joe; Hunter has to do that.

Tony could testify about a conversation he had with Joe about what he and Joe were doing, and he can testify about a convo with Hunter to prove an assertion about Hunter.

 

[tjreese]

It’s hearsay as it relates to “the Big Guy.”

A quick working definition:

• Hearsay is any statement made by the declarant at a time or place other than while he or she is testifying at the trial or hearing that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
• Hearsay is not admissible in evidence unless it is specifically allowed by an exception in the rules of evidence or another statute.

so are you saying that if Tony was in a trial and said the same thing again it would be allowed?

 

[Riveting-]

Hearsay. - "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Tony cannot testify as to what Hunter said about Joe; Hunter has to do that.

Tony could testify about a conversation he had with Joe about what he and Joe were doing, and he can testify about a convo with Hunter to prove an assertion about Hunter.

Tony can testify about emails he received from Hunter (which appear to have been sent from Hunter's laptop that the FBI is covering up) that refer to the Big Guy's cut, right?

And the feds, if they were doing a real investigation, could look at all of Hunter's bank transactions to see where the money came from and where it went (not just to hookers and meth, but also to Joe), right?

There are no doubt other bits and pieces, such as the touching recording from Joe to Hunter about the NYT piece looking safe - not that they could have possibly had any reason to expect otherwise.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

so are you saying that if Tony was in a trial and said the same thing again it would be allowed?

I’m saying that if Hunter was the defendant he could testify about his convos with Hunter, and if Joe was the defendant he could testify about his convos with Joe.

Those convos could be direct or written in emails.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Tony can testify about emails he received from Hunter (which appear to have been sent from Hunter's laptop that the FBI is covering up) that refer to the Big Guy's cut, right?

And the feds, if they were doing a real investigation, could look at all of Hunter's bank transactions to see where the money came from and where it went (not just to hookers and meth, but also to Joe), right?

There are no doubt other bits and pieces, such as the touching recording from Joe to Hunter about the NYT piece looking safe - not that they could have possibly had any reason to expect otherwise.

Your paragraph one: yes, but only if it was directly relevant to proving an assertion relevant to a charges against Hunter. For instance, if the charge against Hunter was that he was an unregistered foreign agent, the fact that he got paid by foreign group would be relevant evidence, not what he did with the money once he got it.

Your paragraph two: yes.

That’s why the state of Georgia investigation against Trump is so interesting. There is a recorded telephone call with Trump in his own voice soliciting votes to be overturned, and Rafsenberger and others can directly testify as to the authenticity of that phone call.

 

[Riveting-]

Why is he a highly credible witness?
You sound like trump. Every time he speaks the adjectives he uses for his enemies are the worst one can think of. The opposite for those that make him look good.

Bobulinski says he will go on any show anywhere anytime. Yet he only shows up on right wing media.
All this is based on one line in a text. That’s it. No other evidence. Ask the WSJ. Go ahead and investigate.

Hunter Biden’s Ex-Business Partner Alleges Father Knew About Venture

An ex-business partner of Hunter Biden said he consulted his father about a planned venture with a Chinese oil company. Joe Biden denied any involvement in the venture and corporate records reviewed by The Journal show no role for him.

www.wsj.com

Tony is a former Navy officer who produced emails that matched those sent to him from Hunter's laptop.

He said in the Carlson interview that he would do an interview with anyone if they agree not to edit it, which is a legit concern with the corrupt msn.

Do you have some reason to think he is not credible as a witness?

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Do you have some reason to think he is not credible as a witness?

Almost every interview worth a shit gets edited. It prevents “don’t edit me” filibustering. The only time someone doesn’t need editing is when they know it’s a complete softball interview.

He spent considerable time as a business partner of Hunter Biden. So that’s not an awesome resume item in my eyes! 😁

Anyway, it appears that he’s only be a witness in a case against Hunter, and the cross-examination of him would be super harsh I’d expect

 

[Riveting-]

Almost every interview worth a shit gets edited. It prevents “don’t edit me” filibustering. The only time someone doesn’t need editing is when they know it’s a complete softball interview.

He spent considerable time as a business partner of Hunter Biden. So that’s not an awesome resume item in my eyes! 😁

Anyway, it appears that he’s only be a witness in a case against Hunter, and the cross-examination of him would be super harsh I’d expect

Sure the interviews get edited, but msm's such as NBC, CBS, etc have proven themselves to be corrupt, so it makes sense that he would be cautious, especially given the serious nature of his accusations. He claims he told it all to the FBI and has not heard from them since.

I thought he was invited by Hunter to be a partner in the SinoHawk deal, which fell apart before it ever took off. He says he left when he realized they were using him to appear to be legit while they worked their crimes. So it looks like you are wrong in saying he spent considerable time as a business partner.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Perhaps Bob, but based upon what we know for the last couple of years there might be some pause on a recorded viewing. My deceased brother-in-law had 60 minutes interview him for a day and only showed 5 minutes. The rest was cut. Now in his case it didn't hurt him, but in any media controlling what is published, it can swing the narrative to the road it desires. Those entities can leave out what they want to control the narrative. He has made a claim, quite a damaging claim, and as far as I know that claim has not resulted in a lawsuit filed against him. He was able to know a lot and you would think the FBI would be breaking down doors to talk to him and yet that isn’t happening (and no lawsuits against him I’m aware?), and we know Merrick isn’t political.

The other thing that is puzzling a bit Bob is your defense of Joe and Hunter. You claimed in the past you were a republican and your vote was against Trump. This has nothing to do with Trump and yet it appears you lean to the Biden’s side and gives the impression you voted for Biden for Biden and not against Trump which seems odd being the Republican you say you are or were prior to Trump. There are some people that wouldn’t vote for Trump, but would also see a lot of red flags and smoke and would like to see a thorough investigation without the political interference if possible.

You’re saying because there are no lawsuits against him it means everything he’s saying is true? Seriously? I know in trump world lawsuits are the answer to everything, but why would Hunter sue when he’s being investigated by the FBI? Should Hunter go for more bad publicity, make even a bigger spectacle of himself? Why would the POTUS lend credence to Tony Bobulinski and his accusations by taking him to court?

I don’t know that the FBI hasn’t spoken to Bobulinski. Do you? They certainly would not tell us. Is it beneficial to him to tell us they have?

I never claimed I was a republican. I’ve said I have voted Republican many times, more than I’ve voted for a democrat.

I voted against trump from the beginning. I have added his enablers and groupies to the list I vote against……..and anyone who’s has adopted the trump version of the Republican Party. Doesn’t matter to me what you believe.

If you’ll look at the first few posts in the thread you’ll notice I said I have no problem with an investigation. Hell, I’d prefer a special council for Hunter Biden. Ordinarily that would send a signal that would be seen as an effort to take politics out of the matter and help the republicans feel like there was no interference and they could trust the results.

But given the Republican reaction to the special council just announced…….which should have made them feel better about the process……….it wouldn’t matter what Garland does. Everything is viewed through a lens of hatred and mistrust of the dems…….the facts be damned.