FriscoKid said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Post it 2 more times.

---

Still waiting for you to provide evidence my 10 sources are wrong.

---

You are assuming motive. How do you impeach on that?

---

Liberals want us to take them seriously, but they can't even understand this very simple concept. They have no case, it's a partisan lynch mob. Can a single liberal prove factually that Trump's intent was to sway the election versus fulfilling his legally obligated duty to root out corruption? If you can't do that with certainty then you have no case. Assumptions don't count.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

In fact, I've only seen one Dem, the FISA judge Strozk liked to defraud, recuse themselves due to conflicts of interest.

---

Contreras did not recuse himself. He was recused by the presiding judge, after he took Flynn's guilty plea.

---

Wow!

My inclination is to assume the worst, such as he wasn't going to recuse himself anyway, but since I don't know, I'll just "recsue" my comment saying something nice about Democrats.

aggieforester05 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Post it 2 more times.

---

Still waiting for you to provide evidence my 10 sources are wrong.

---

You are assuming motive. How do you impeach on that?

---

Liberals want us to take them seriously, but they can't even understand this very simple concept. They have no case, it's a partisan lynch mob. Can a single liberal prove factually that Trump's intent was to sway the election versus fulfilling his legally obligated duty to root out corruption? If you can't do that with certainty then you have no case. Assumptions don't count.

---

Guilty until proven innocent. I even heard Nancy say almost that very thing by stating "if Trump wants to prove his innocence he can..."

It was the same with the dossier....libs kept beating the "nothing has been disproven" drum.

It's a farce and everyone but the far left shills know it.

FriscoKid said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Post it 2 more times.

---

Still waiting for you to provide evidence my 10 sources are wrong.

---

You are assuming motive. How do you impeach on that?

---

Shokin was fired for not investigating corruption. If he wasn't investigating corruption, then Joe Biden could not have gotten him fired for investigating corruption at Burisma.

I've provided 10 international sources to back this up. You've provided nothing.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Post it 2 more times.

---

Still waiting for you to provide evidence my 10 sources are wrong.

---

You are assuming motive. How do you impeach on that?

---

Shokin was fired for not investigating corruption. If he wasn't investigating corruption, then Joe Biden could not have gotten him fired for investigating corruption at Burisma.

I've provided 10 international sources to back this up. You've provided nothing.

---

Forgetting and Rewriting history is a liberals favorite pastime.

Deats said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Post it 2 more times.

---

Still waiting for you to provide evidence my 10 sources are wrong.

---

You are assuming motive. How do you impeach on that?

---

Shokin was fired for not investigating corruption. If he wasn't investigating corruption, then Joe Biden could not have gotten him fired for investigating corruption at Burisma.

I've provided 10 international sources to back this up. You've provided nothing.

---

Forgetting and Rewriting history is a liberals favorite pastime.

---

Nothing

We're still doing this?

Shokin killed the Burisma/Zlochevsky investigation as deputy protector in 2014-2015.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/timeline-in-ukraine-probe-casts-doubt-on-giuliani-s-biden-claim

He was the most hated man in Ukraine. This wasn't even Biden's directive, he was just one of the messengers.

After 4 years of intense scrutiny, I'm sure the "bombshell" to break this thing open is right around the corner.

Here's what the people there that actually followed it in real time think about all this.

https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/editorial/the-tragedy-of-trump.html

The Kiev oped blamed Russian collusion with Trump.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Deats said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Post it 2 more times.

---

Still waiting for you to provide evidence my 10 sources are wrong.

---

You are assuming motive. How do you impeach on that?

---

Shokin was fired for not investigating corruption. If he wasn't investigating corruption, then Joe Biden could not have gotten him fired for investigating corruption at Burisma.

I've provided 10 international sources to back this up. You've provided nothing.

---

Forgetting and Rewriting history is a liberals favorite pastime.

---

Nothing

---

You continue to ignore the video where Biden said he got him fired him and like it was just because.

There are two separate issues with Biden.
1) is this claim of quid quo pro with the Burisma investigation. If this is nothing more than a conspiracy theory, WTH was Biden boasting about with regard to holding up aid?

2) why in the world was his son ever in a position at Burisma in the first place? He had no executive or relevant work experience.

Is anyone disputing the claim that Hunter held the post? The old man was boasting on film.

So why is this shady business being carefully labeled a "conspiracy theory"?

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

We're still doing this?

Shokin killed the Burisma/Zlochevsky investigation as deputy protector in 2014-2015.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/timeline-in-ukraine-probe-casts-doubt-on-giuliani-s-biden-claim

He was the most hated man in Ukraine. This wasn't even Biden's directive, he was just one of the messengers.

After 4 years of intense scrutiny, I'm sure the "bombshell" to break this thing open is right around the corner.

Here's what the people there that actually followed it in real time think about all this.

https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/editorial/the-tragedy-of-trump.html

---

You quoted bloomberg?
The admitted bias source?
The newspaper not allowed to investigate democrats?

President Z also replaced that prosecutor when he took over and now the former Bursima CEO is on the run and has been indicted. One can assume why, but at least those are some hard facts.

(Is the left going to claim that Z is a corrupt president now?)

Wildcat said:

---

There are two separate issues with Biden.
1) is this claim of quid quo pro with the Burisma investigation. If this is nothing more than a conspiracy theory, WTH was Biden boasting about with regard to holding up aid?

2) why in the world was his son ever in a position at Burisma in the first place? He had no executive or relevant work experience.

Is anyone disputing the claim that Hunter held the post? The old man was boasting on film.

So why is this shady business being carefully labeled a "conspiracy theory"?

---

1. Biden was boasting about carrying out official US & international policy.

2. Hunter Biden definitely received his position because of who his Dad is.

We also have speech transcripts from 2015 where Obama's state department criticized Shokin for hampering the Zlochevsky investigation.

This is widely known public knowledge, my dude.

www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Remarks-by-US-Ambassador-Geoffrey-Pyatt-at-the-Odesa-Financial-Forum-on-September-24-2015-ukraine.pdf

You are splitting hairs on 1 and you know it. The transcript of the call does not support your position. And what's the point of giving Hunter that position if you aren't going to use the leverage?

FriscoKid said:

---

President Z also replaced that prosecutor when he took over and now the former Bursima CEO is on the run and has been indicted. One can assume why, but at least those are some hard facts.

(Is the left going to claim that Z is a corrupt president now?)

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-09-27/ukraine-prosecutor-says-no-probe-into-biden%3f_amp=true

"Asked if Ukrainian prosecutors could question Biden or his son, Kholodnitskiy said that to do so they would need to see information that would signal wrongdoing on their part."

aggieforester05 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Post it 2 more times.

---

Still waiting for you to provide evidence my 10 sources are wrong.

---

You are assuming motive. How do you impeach on that?

---

Liberals want us to take them seriously, but they can't even understand this very simple concept. They have no case, it's a partisan lynch mob. Can a single liberal prove factually that Trump's intent was to sway the election versus fulfilling his legally obligated duty to root out corruption? If you can't do that with certainty then you have no case. Assumptions don't count.

---

That in particular is the weakest part of their claim. There is no evidence that Trump would need, or is the kind of man who would thought he needed, "help" beating Biden of all people. Biden has probably been nearly over with the center vote since the first Democrat debate when he raised hands with the others on all the same `craycray lefty' stances as the board calls them. It was his moment to stand against open borders and handouts toward illegals and he didn't. And that first debate was before all this.

It doesn't make sense. Whereas Trump not wanting to send money into known corruption does.

Wildcat said:

---

You are splitting hairs on 1 and you know it. The transcript of the call does not support your position. And what's the point of giving Hunter that position if you aren't going to use the leverage?

---

Unqualified, connected people are on boards of companies all over the world. John Sharp is on the board of American Momentum Bank.

Polls last summer showed Biden beating Trump by double digits. Trump noticed. He didn't care about any of this when aid was released without a hitch in '17 and '18.

https://nypost.com/2018/07/25/trumps-biggest-fear-in-2020-may-be-joe-biden/

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

We also have speech transcripts from 2015 where Obama's state department criticized Shokin for hampering the Zlochevsky investigation.

This is widely known public knowledge, my dude.

www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Remarks-by-US-Ambassador-Geoffrey-Pyatt-at-the-Odesa-Financial-Forum-on-September-24-2015-ukraine.pdf

---

So that confirms Biden used Quid Pro Quo to stop the Burisma investigation? Do what we want or no money?


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/documents-heighten-scrutiny-on-biden-ukraine-dealings-indicate-hunter-may-have-made-millions

Quote:

---

In that interview, Shokin also claimed that former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko told him he should not investigate Burisma, "as it was not in the interest of Joe and/or Hunter Biden." Shokin claimed Poroshenko told him that due to his investigation, Joe Biden held "up to one billion dollars in U.S. aid to Ukraine." Poroshenko eventually removed Shokin.

---

Quote:

---

"On several occasions, President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the criminal case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company," he continued. "But I refused to close this investigation."

Shokin went on to state he was "forced to leave office, under direct and intense pressure from Joe Biden and the US administration."

---

Was the investigation closed? No
Was Hunter Biden on the board making huge amounts of money he wants qualified for? Yes
Did Joe Biden demand the man leading the office investigating that company be fired? Yes

Its pretty cut and dry.

Old senile Joe sold out your cause here.

Hi Jimmy and Gary!

Still waiting on PROOF

...do you understand what that is? Because you don't seem to understand what it is at all!

Here in America, proof has to be more than what we call "hearsay" and "conjecture" which you both seem to be really big fans of and keep citing as if that WAS evidence....but it's not!

So you need facts of something, not assumed motives

Can you provide this thing we call "evidence"?

Because nothing you've presented in this whole thread would be admissible in a real court of law

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

You are splitting hairs on 1 and you know it. The transcript of the call does not support your position. And what's the point of giving Hunter that position if you aren't going to use the leverage?

---

Unqualified, connected people are on boards of companies all over the world. John Sharp is on the board of American Momentum Bank.

---

Are you comparing the John Sharp(whom I loathe) to the cokehead Hunter Biden?

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

Polls last summer showed Biden beating Trump by double digits. Trump noticed. He didn't care about any of this when aid was released without a hitch in '17 and '18.

https://nypost.com/2018/07/25/trumps-biggest-fear-in-2020-may-be-joe-biden/

---

Good answer, will give it that. At least covers the objection.

titan said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Post it 2 more times.

---

Still waiting for you to provide evidence my 10 sources are wrong.

---

You are assuming motive. How do you impeach on that?

---

Liberals want us to take them seriously, but they can't even understand this very simple concept. They have no case, it's a partisan lynch mob. Can a single liberal prove factually that Trump's intent was to sway the election versus fulfilling his legally obligated duty to root out corruption? If you can't do that with certainty then you have no case. Assumptions don't count.

---

That in particular is the weakest part of their claim. There is no evidence that Trump would need, or is the kind of man who would thought he needed, "help" beating Biden of all people. Biden has probably been nearly over with the center vote since the first Democrat debate when he raised hands with the others on all the same `craycray lefty' stances as the board calls them. It was his moment to stand against open borders and handouts toward illegals and he didn't. And that first debate was before all this.

It doesn't make sense. Whereas Trump not wanting to send money into known corruption does.

---

The same Trump who lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton?

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

You are splitting hairs on 1 and you know it. The transcript of the call does not support your position. And what's the point of giving Hunter that position if you aren't going to use the leverage?

---

Unqualified, connected people are on boards of companies all over the world. John Sharp is on the board of American Momentum Bank.

---

Yes. Because they have various connections...like a Dad who is a VP and can influence policy.

At the very least it's a COI and then you need to add the old man's boasting.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

titan said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Post it 2 more times.

---

Still waiting for you to provide evidence my 10 sources are wrong.

---

You are assuming motive. How do you impeach on that?

---

Liberals want us to take them seriously, but they can't even understand this very simple concept. They have no case, it's a partisan lynch mob. Can a single liberal prove factually that Trump's intent was to sway the election versus fulfilling his legally obligated duty to root out corruption? If you can't do that with certainty then you have no case. Assumptions don't count.

---

That in particular is the weakest part of their claim. There is no evidence that Trump would need, or is the kind of man who would thought he needed, "help" beating Biden of all people. Biden has probably been nearly over with the center vote since the first Democrat debate when he raised hands with the others on all the same `craycray lefty' stances as the board calls them. It was his moment to stand against open borders and handouts toward illegals and he didn't. And that first debate was before all this.

It doesn't make sense. Whereas Trump not wanting to send money into known corruption does.

---

The same Trump who lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton?

---

That same myth from 2000. Have they stopped making clear since the 90's that the popular vote isn't what counts in the final tally? Have little doubt that Trump could win a popular vote if he had been campaigning in that direction in some of the other blue states in 2016.

Deats said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

You are splitting hairs on 1 and you know it. The transcript of the call does not support your position. And what's the point of giving Hunter that position if you aren't going to use the leverage?

---

Unqualified, connected people are on boards of companies all over the world. John Sharp is on the board of American Momentum Bank.

---

Are you comparing the John Sharp(whom I loathe) to the cokehead Hunter Biden?

---

Yeah, he spent most of his life in politics, and was given a board position at the bank of Don Adam.

titan said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

titan said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

Post it 2 more times.

---

Still waiting for you to provide evidence my 10 sources are wrong.

---

You are assuming motive. How do you impeach on that?

---

Liberals want us to take them seriously, but they can't even understand this very simple concept. They have no case, it's a partisan lynch mob. Can a single liberal prove factually that Trump's intent was to sway the election versus fulfilling his legally obligated duty to root out corruption? If you can't do that with certainty then you have no case. Assumptions don't count.

---

That in particular is the weakest part of their claim. There is no evidence that Trump would need, or is the kind of man who would thought he needed, "help" beating Biden of all people. Biden has probably been nearly over with the center vote since the first Democrat debate when he raised hands with the others on all the same `craycray lefty' stances as the board calls them. It was his moment to stand against open borders and handouts toward illegals and he didn't. And that first debate was before all this.

It doesn't make sense. Whereas Trump not wanting to send money into known corruption does.

---

The same Trump who lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton?

---

That same myth from 2000. Have they stopped making clear since the 90's that the popular vote isn't what counts in the final tally? Have little doubt that Trump could win a popular vote if he had been campaigning in that direction in some of the other blue states in 2016.

---

I'm aware of how the electoral college works.

Wildcat said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

You are splitting hairs on 1 and you know it. The transcript of the call does not support your position. And what's the point of giving Hunter that position if you aren't going to use the leverage?

---

Unqualified, connected people are on boards of companies all over the world. John Sharp is on the board of American Momentum Bank.

---

Yes. Because they have various connections...like a Dad who is a VP and can influence policy.

At the very least it's a COI and then you need to add the old man's boasting.

---

Certainly a conflict of interest, but when you examine the facts, they don't show that Biden did anything wrong by pressing for the firing of a prosecutor who wasn't investigating corruption.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Deats said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

You are splitting hairs on 1 and you know it. The transcript of the call does not support your position. And what's the point of giving Hunter that position if you aren't going to use the leverage?

---

Unqualified, connected people are on boards of companies all over the world. John Sharp is on the board of American Momentum Bank.

---

Are you comparing the John Sharp(whom I loathe) to the cokehead Hunter Biden?

---

Yeah, he spent most of his life in politics, and was given a board position at the bank of Don Adam.

---

Dons cute little regional bank?

This is turning into a tea party debate and it's getting ridiculous.

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

You are splitting hairs on 1 and you know it. The transcript of the call does not support your position. And what's the point of giving Hunter that position if you aren't going to use the leverage?

---

Unqualified, connected people are on boards of companies all over the world. John Sharp is on the board of American Momentum Bank.

---

Yes. Because they have various connections...like a Dad who is a VP and can influence policy.

At the very least it's a COI and then you need to add the old man's boasting.

---

Certainly a conflict of interest, but when you examine the facts, they don't show that Biden did anything wrong by pressing for the firing of a prosecutor who wasn't investigating corruption.

---

The facts certainly don't show Trump did wrong by pressing for the investigation of a US official who withheld aid to pressure the firing of a foreign prosecutor with ties to his son. Doesn't hurt to investigate, to get to the bottom of it. Democrats have pursued unending baseless investigations into Trump for political gain. To say Trump didn't have the right to investigate Biden here when there was a legitimate concern is the height of hypocrisy. What do you not understand about that?

Well if he says so, I must be mistaken.

aggieforester05 said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

Jimmy Valentine said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

You are splitting hairs on 1 and you know it. The transcript of the call does not support your position. And what's the point of giving Hunter that position if you aren't going to use the leverage?

---

Unqualified, connected people are on boards of companies all over the world. John Sharp is on the board of American Momentum Bank.

---

Yes. Because they have various connections...like a Dad who is a VP and can influence policy.

At the very least it's a COI and then you need to add the old man's boasting.

---

Certainly a conflict of interest, but when you examine the facts, they don't show that Biden did anything wrong by pressing for the firing of a prosecutor who wasn't investigating corruption.

---

The facts certainly don't show Trump did wrong by pressing for the investigation of a US official who withheld aid to pressure the firing of a foreign prosecutor with ties to his son. Doesn't hurt to investigate, to get to the bottom of it. Democrats have pursued unending baseless investigations into Trump for political gain. To say Trump didn't have the right to investigate Biden here when there was a legitimate concern is the height of hypocrisy. What do you not understand about that?

---

How could there be a legitimate concern to investigate if history shows that, for fact, Shokin was fired for NOT investigating corruption, which could not have provided any benefit to Burisma?