|
Post by DDNYjets on Sept 27, 2019 8:24:36 GMT -5
Someone should get the Bernstein on and ask him if he thinks this is "shades of Watergate". Because apparently every time Trump farts he says it reminds him of Watergate. The known corrupt Prosecutor is now the victim. If this a sworn affidavit what court will hold him responsible if he lied? The European court will laugh at this, IF it ever gets filed. If we are using equal standards that we used for Trump then this at the very least warrant an interview with the prosecutor. Who am I kidding. Biden's entire campaign would be wired if we were using the same standards. But I would settle for an interview and I would accept the results of any investigation that may or may not arise based on that interview.
|
|
|
Post by bxjetfan on Sept 27, 2019 8:32:34 GMT -5
So you can't investigate corruption if the person is running for president. Yeah Hillary is getting back in.
When Biden drops out she will say she is the only one that can beat Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Sept 27, 2019 8:35:59 GMT -5
So you can't investigate corruption if the person is a democrat running for president. Yeah Hillary is getting back in. When Biden drops out she will say she is the only one that can beat Trump. Fixed
|
|
|
Post by Jetworks on Sept 27, 2019 8:41:52 GMT -5
You think someone should be looking into this? If authentic of course they should be investigated, but what exactly are confidential foreign documents? Who, what, when and where, simple facts. Foreign as in country? Who conducted the interview and for what purpose. Biden was for foreperson for the US govt in the Ukraine, it has been established. If you were saying all this about the "whistleblower" report as well, maybe you wouldn't catch so much partisan flack for being so....partisan. As I understand it, this "whistleblower" is recounting what largely amounts to heresay, but is trying to shore that up with media accounts and the supposed integrity of the people they heard it from. Do I have that about right? But now you're gonna go on about "simple facts?" How convenient. Biden is dirty and should be held accountable. It's obvious to a duck. Oh, and let me take away the tool you'd like go to here; yes, the Epstein thing is still unsettled, there was gross corruption, nee conspiracy, where his death is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Sept 27, 2019 8:55:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 2foolish on Sept 27, 2019 9:29:54 GMT -5
Managing Editor of the Washington Examiner just call Rep Nunes a joke, specifically pointing out Nunes yesterday. If he thinks Nunes is a joke what would he think about the rightwing nerds in here who spout out the same tired bullshit. Yes, I know Trump is the victim and it is all Hillary and Obama’s fault. there you go...now you're done here...
|
|
|
Post by 2foolish on Sept 27, 2019 9:30:49 GMT -5
Someone should get the Bernstein on and ask him if he thinks this is "shades of Watergate". Because apparently every time Trump farts he says it reminds him of Watergate. The known corrupt Prosecutor is now the victim. If this a sworn affidavit what court will hold him responsible if he lied? The European court will laugh at this, IF it ever gets filed. what site to you get this from?...
|
|
|
Post by bxjetfan on Sept 27, 2019 9:35:07 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2019 10:23:50 GMT -5
If authentic of course they should be investigated, but what exactly are confidential foreign documents? Who, what, when and where, simple facts. Foreign as in country? Who conducted the interview and for what purpose. Biden was for foreperson for the US govt in the Ukraine, it has been established. If you were saying all this about the "whistleblower" report as well, maybe you wouldn't catch so much partisan flack for being so....partisan. As I understand it, this "whistleblower" is recounting what largely amounts to heresay, but is trying to shore that up with media accounts and the supposed integrity of the people they heard it from. Do I have that about right? But now you're gonna go on about "simple facts?" How convenient. Biden is dirty and should be held accountable. It's obvious to a duck. Oh, and let me take away the tool you'd like go to here; yes, the Epstein thing is still unsettled, there was gross corruption, nee conspiracy, where his death is concerned. The whistleblower’s report was corroborated by the Trump picked OIG, hence why he pushed it to be given to the Congress as the law states. i have zero issue with Biden being held accountable if there is evidence showing Biden acted for personal gain and to protect his son. Hunter Biden being on the board is ridiculous enough for me to believe the gas company was looking for favors from our govt.
|
|
|
Post by bxjetfan on Sept 27, 2019 10:38:01 GMT -5
SOMETHiNG WiCKËD (@som3thingwicked) Tweeted: Could switching to Republican really save you 15% or more on health insurance? Did the liberal cry REE REE REE all the way home??? *REPOST* t.co/n1Qzv2VPos
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Sept 27, 2019 10:55:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Sept 27, 2019 12:10:05 GMT -5
They moved it to a secure server! They were hiding something!!!
or
|
|
|
Post by bxjetfan on Sept 27, 2019 13:24:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bxjetfan on Sept 27, 2019 13:28:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nyahaybus on Sept 27, 2019 13:44:25 GMT -5
False: Biden pushed out a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating his son Trump has falsely claimed that Biden in 2015 pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Viktor Shokin, the top Ukrainian prosecutor, because he was investigating Ukraine’s largest private gas company, Burisma, which had added Biden’s son, Hunter, to its board in 2014. There are two big problems with this claim: One, Shokin was not investigating Burisma or Hunter Biden, and two, Shokin’s ouster was considered a diplomatic victory. Biden was among the many Western officials who pressed for the removal of Shokin because he actually was not investigating the corruption endemic to the country. Indeed, he was not investigating Burisma at the time. In September 2015, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt publicly criticized Shokin’s office for thwarting a British money-laundering probe into Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. “Shokin was not investigating. He didn’t want to investigate Burisma,” Daria Kaleniuk, of the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center, told The Washington Post in July. “And Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation.” In a 2018 appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations, Biden bragged about his role in Shokin’s removal, saying he had withheld $1 billion in loan guarantees as leverage to force action. But Biden was carrying out a policy developed at the State Department and coordinated with the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. The Ukrainian prosecutor was regarded as a failure, and “Joe Biden’s efforts to oust Shokin were universally praised,” said Anders Aslund, a Swedish economist heavily involved in Eastern European market reforms. Getting rid of Shokin was considered the linchpin of reform efforts, but U.S. officials had a list of changes the government needed to make before it could obtain another loan guarantee. In December 2015, Biden traveled to Kiev and decried the “cancer of corruption” in the country in a speech to the parliament. “The Office of the General Prosecutor desperately needs reform,” he noted. Shokin was removed from office three months later, and Biden announced April 15 that the loan guarantee would go forward; the agreement between the United States and Ukraine was signed June 3. One can certainly raise questions about Hunter Biden’s judgment in joining Burisma’s board at a time his father had a high-profile role in working with Ukraine’s government. But by continuing to claim that Biden “did” something for his son, Trump persists in spreading a false narrative about a diplomatic maneuver hailed at the time as a step toward reducing corruption in Ukraine.
|
|