Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Quin_Dub

Christy42 wrote: »

Didn't we have the letter mentioning Guiliani was working on behalf of Trump personally?

And we have Mulvaney claiming anything Guiliani did was as Trump's personal lawyer. Otherwise he wouldn't need to leave the room every time.

Given all of this. Surely any deal Guiliani worked out was on behalf of Trump and not the US and therefore was a quid pro quo?!?

We know Guiliani didn't go rogue. That would be an instant firing offense. I am at a loss as to why Bolton is even needed here.

More importantly all of that detail makes it very very hard for anyone to try and block Guiliani from testifying if they vote to allow witnesses.

Executive privilege cannot apply here based on all the above.

Having said that - I don't know the situation regarding a lawyer testifying in a trial of their client.

Clearly , the lawyer can't be made to reveal what the client said in one to one meetings , but not sure how much a lawyer can withhold about things they themselves did either independently or under instruction from their client?

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/VanityFair/status/1221934436847099904?s=19

For those Trump supporters in favour of witnesses, are you still 100% sure Trump had nothing to hide?

I reckon that JB, knowing Don as he does and how Don reacts to bad news, is enjoying turning the knife in the wounded beast while getting publicity for his book, the tail wagging the dog as it were.

@Christy42: I'm surprised that his fellow lawyers haven't brought Rudy before the ethics committee/s of whichever city or state bar association/s he & they belong to in order to practice as a lawyer, heading off abroad to other countries while a personal lawyer only and acting as if one was an official representative of the US state engaged on official US Govt business of state. This also applies to the GOP members in the senate.

aloyisious

Quin_Dub wrote: »

More importantly all of that detail makes it very very hard for anyone to try and block Guiliani from testifying if they vote to allow witnesses.

Executive privilege cannot apply here based on all the above.

Having said that - I don't know the situation regarding a lawyer testifying in a trial of their client.

Clearly , the lawyer can't be made to reveal what the client said in one to one meetings , but not sure how much a lawyer can withhold about things they themselves did either independently or under instruction from their client?

Giving legal advice to a client is OK but after the lawyer becomes aware that the clients activities are not fully legal and are for the purpose of covering up an illegality, if the lawyer then continues to represent that client knowing the client is continuing with illegal activities in furtherance of the original illegality, the lawyer is acting outside the bounds of an agent of the [law] court and is also committing a criminal act.

AFAIK, that [law] court agent obligation gives the lawyer all the out he/she might want to tell all and breaks the bond of lawyer/client privilege. I reckon the client misleading the judicial system by way of lying to obstruct the same system would count as sufficient grounds for the lawyer to take a pace to the rear and tell his client by letter/Email "I no longer represent you in your legal affairs and have informed the courts of that".

Stallingrad

Was watching the Impeachment last night and while the subject of nepotism issue is not what this trial is about (plenty of that on all sides), the evidence on Hunter Biden was pretty damning. If you are a T supporter you would love to hear Hunter (and Joe) being exposed like this. Why on earth he was being paid $80,000 a month with zero expertise? It has to be Dad.

You have to assume a quid pro quo there too with the Bidens and the Ukrainians. It may be materially irrelevant to this impeachment but it sure paints the Bidens as hypocrites. It also succeeds in muddying the waters with the public and makes it very easy for them to rally around their guy, quid pro quo? Sure they all do it.

I see Joe being quite damaged by this.

everlast75

This is the problem with all of Trump's arguments.

Most of them can be dismissed immediately with any semblance of critical thinking.

However, those that pass this first test appear to have merit, but once you get past the headline, they make zero sense. They are arguments best vented on Twitter, as most read the tweet and accept it at face value.

There are plenty of reasons why this is nonsense - but even if they weren't (which they are) how exactly are Trump's kids any different than Biden's kid? Or to put it another way, why is it okay for Trump and his kids to grift off his presidency, when its not for Biden?

Outlaw Pete

The reason why Trump's kids making money off his name in no way compares to the allegations against Hunter, is because Trump's kids have not sat on the board of a company run by a corrupt oligarch and then lobbied the US government in an effort to have that company seen as not being corrupt so as to benefit financially. I'm also unaware of Trump withholding $1billion in aid until a prosecutor was fired that had been involved in investigating a company one of his kids was involved in.

And so if you're dismissing that argument immediately, and still maintain they both compare, I'd suggest that's far from critical thinking.

Dytalus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I'm also unaware of Trump withholding $1billion in aid until a prosecutor was fired that had been involved in investigating a company one of his kids was involved in.

The move to have Shokin fired was because he was actively obstructing corruption investigations, up to and including refusing to investigate corruption within his own office. Both the US State Department and the Ukrainian Government have verified this. Biden was also far form the only world leader calling for his removal. Investigations into Burisma since his firing have shown no wrong doing on the part of Hunter Biden.

But you know this. You've been told it a dozen times. You either don't care, won't admit it to yourself, or are intentionally spreading a false narrative in favour of a narcissistic, compulsively lying, coward of a President.

Igotadose

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The reason why Trump's kids making money off his name in no way compares to the allegations against Hunter, is because Trump's kids have not sat on the board of a company run by a corrupt oligarch and then lobbied the US government in an effort to have that company seen as not being corrupt so as to benefit financiall.

And you know they haven't done this yet, how?

Lest we forget the ties with Azerbaijan, the IRGB and Ivanka. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/13/donald-trumps-worst-deal

"Ivanka has overseen the development of Trump International Hotel & Tower Baku since its inception, and she recently returned from a trip to the fascinating city in Azerbaijan to check in on the project’s progress.”

One drop in the vast sea of Trump family dubious dealings.

Outlaw Pete

Dytalus wrote: »

But you know this.

I am fully aware of the narrative yes..

You either don't care, won't admit it to yourself, or are intentionally spreading a false narrative in favour of a narcissistic, compulsively lying, coward of a President.

Trump is not as you suggest and to say he is just reveals your bias here.

What you're failing to appreciate is that many of those that the US has backed in Ukraine were also corrupt and the allegations made about Shokin were made by corrupt individuals. Hence Zelensky being elected over those that the US has previously supported.

There is also evidence to contradict the narrative that Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma, as pointed out in the Senate yesterday. The following seizure for example took place when Shokin was said to be refusing to target Zlochevsky:

https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/322395.html

However, even if it were all true, and Biden was whiter than white, Hunter was still working for a corrupt oligarch while his father was Vice President of the US and point man on Ukraine, with a specific interest in ending corruption there. That alone stinks to high heavens before you get to the fact that Hunter was lobbying the US to try and get Burisma seen in a better light, and not as being a corrupt company. Something that was ramped up within days of Shokin's firing.

Therefore, comparing him to Trump's kids is still preposterous.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I am fully aware of the narrative yes..

Trump is not as you suggest and to say he is just reveals your bias here.

What you're failing to appreciate is that many of those that the US has backed in Ukraine were also corrupt and the allegations made about Shokin were made by corrupt individuals. Hence Zelensky being elected over those that the US has previously supported.

There is also evidence to contradict the narrative that Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma, as pointed out in the Senate yesterday. The following seizure for example took place when Shokin was said to be refusing to target Zlochevsky:

https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/322395.html

However, even if it were all true, and Biden was whiter than white, Hunter was still working for a corrupt oligarch while his father was Vice President of the US and point man on Ukraine, with a specific interest in ending corruption there. That alone stinks to high heavens before you get to the fact that Hunter was lobbying the US to try and get Burisma seen in a better light, and not as being a corrupt company. Something that was ramped up within days of Shokin's firing.

Therefore, comparing him to Trump's kids is still preposterous.

Good, I'm glad you brought that up as its another of my question only too recently that you neglected to answer.

Do you believe Trump when he says he doesn't know Parnas?

ECO_Mental

quote="Outlaw Pete;112377215"]. I'm also unaware of Trump withholding $1billion in aid until a prosecutor was fired that had been involved in investigating a company one of his kids was involved in.

.[/quote]

Jeeze....how many times were you told....where do you get your info from. Even a most basic search will tell you

A. They wanted to fire the investigator because he WASNT (WAS NOT) investigating Barisma or other entities....the investigator was himself corrupt..
B. It was US EU IMF policy to fire this dude, for being corrupt. It was not Biden on a solo run getting his buddies to do it.
C. The investigation was 2 years before Biden joined the Board....
D. Burisma had a clear out of their board and appointed international people to get better governance. That's when Biden got the Job.

There has to be some sanction of posters who are deliberately posting verifiable false conspiracy theories. Once is ok everybody makes a mistake but I'm sure this conspiracy theory has been highlighted to you before

Outlaw Pete

duploelabs wrote: »

Do you believe Trump when he says he doesn't know Parnas?

Define 'know'.

ECO_Mental wrote: »

There has to be some sanction of posters who are deliberately posting verifiable false conspiracy theories.

My sentiments exactly during the Russia-Collusion hoax, sure the whole thread should have been banned

Seriously though, there is contradictory information on the matter ...

From a John Solomon article:

Myth: Ukraine’s investigation into Burisma Holdings was no longer active when Joe Biden forced Shokin’s firing in March 2016.

The Facts: This is one of the most egregiously false statements spread by the media. Ukraine’s official case file for Burisma Holdings, provided to me by prosecutors, shows there were two active investigations into the gas firm and its founder Mykola Zlochevsky in early 2016, one involving corruption allegations and the other involving unpaid taxes.

In fact, Shokin told me in an interview he was making plans to interview Burisma board members, including Hunter Biden, at the time he was fired. And it was publicly reported that in February 2016, a month before Shokin was fired, that Ukrainian prosecutors raided one of Zlochevsky’s homes and seized expensive items like a luxury car as part of the corruption probe. You can read a contemporaneous news report about the seizure here.

Burisma’s own legal activities also clearly show the investigations were active at the time Shokin was fired. Internal emails I obtained from the American legal team representing Burisma show that on March 29, 2016 – the very day Shokin was fired – Burisma lawyer John Buretta was seeking a meeting with Shokin’s temporary replacement in hopes of settling the open cases.

In May 2016 when new Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko was appointed, Buretta then sent a letter to the new prosecutor seeking to resolve the investigations of Burisma and Zlochevsky. You can read that letter here.

Buretta eventually gave a February 2017 interview to the Kiev Post in which he divulged that the corruption probe was resolved in fall 2016 and the tax case by early January 2017. You can read Buretta’s interview here.

In another words, the Burisma investigations were active at the time Vice President Biden forced Shokin’s firing, and any suggestion to the contrary is pure misinformation

Which makes it even more understandable why Trump would ask Zelensky to get to the bottom of it all.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

From a John Solomon article:

john Solomon was working with Parnas and Firtash on these conspiracy theories.

This is like claiming that US forces weren't entering Baghdad in 2003 and citing the infamous clip from Comical Ali as a source.

If you don't see anything wrong with that, I can't help you but you'll need to understand that you might have a credibility problem when your sources of information are people who are directly involved in what Bolton described as the drug deal.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Define 'know'.

When trump said about Parnas

"I don't know him at all, don't know what he's about, don't know where he comes from, know nothing about him. I can only tell you this thing is a big hoax," he said, adding, "He's probably trying to make a deal for himself."

Do you believe Trump when he said that?

everlast75

Pete - do you honestly think that this all spawned from Trump wishing to utilise all available sources to target corruption in the Ukraine, and this was nothing at all to do with hurting Biden's chances?

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

...your sources of information are people who are directly involved in what Bolton described as the drug deal.

John Solomon was part of the "drug deal" ?? How so?? B

Because he interviewed these people? About as illogical as it gets.

duploelabs wrote: »

When trump said about Parnas

"I don't know him at all, don't know what he's about, don't know where he comes from, know nothing about him. I can only tell you this thing is a big hoax," he said, adding, "He's probably trying to make a deal for himself."

Do you believe Trump when he said that?

Yeah, sounds fair enough. What I meant was would 'know of' count as 'knowing' someone to you. To me it wouldn't and fundraisers and the like would be full of people that politicians might be vaguely aware of but not beyond that. I note that before that dinner you could hear someone telling people not to photograph anyone as they might not want to be and that sounded like something that would be said when someone famous is going to be around relative nobodies, as opposed to an intimate dinner they are about to have with friends.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

John Solomon was part of the "drug deal" ?? How so?? B

Because he interviewed these people? About as illogical as it gets.



Yeah, sounds fair enough. What I meant was would 'know of' count as 'knowing' someone to you. To me it wouldn't and fundraisers and the like would be full of people that politicians might be vaguely aware of but not beyond that. I note that before that dinner you could hear someone telling people not to photograph anyone as they might not want to be and that sounded like something that would be said when someone famous is going to be around relative nobodies, as opposed to an intimate dinner they are about to have with friends.

So is that yes you believe him?

Leroy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The reason why Trump's kids making money off his name in no way compares to the allegations against Hunter, is because Trump's kids have not sat on the board of a company run by a corrupt oligarch and then lobbied the US government in an effort to have that company seen as not being corrupt so as to benefit financially.

But you do remember that his son in laws family tried to use their connection to POTUS to sell apartments

Kushner Companies Said to Be Under Investigation Over Visa Program

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/03/business/kushner-eb-5-china-green-cards.html

Trump never came out against that, and we know the KAC was rebuked for crossing the line in shilling for Ivanka's brand whilst representing POTUS, and that Trump used his platform (twitter) as POTUS to publicly threaten a retailer when they stopped stocking Ivanka brand (Nordstrom).

We also know that Trump has used his properties to gain financially both from the state use of Mar-A-Lago and also foreign visits. HE also tried to flog his own property for the next G7 summit.

Yet you seem to think that he is beyond using his position to help his sons gain financially? Really?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I'm also unaware of Trump withholding $1billion in aid until a prosecutor was fired that had been involved in investigating a company one of his kids was involved in.

You are also unaware of Biden doing it because it never happened.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And so if you're dismissing that argument immediately, and still maintain they both compare, I'd suggest that's far from critical thinking.

There is nothing, and Barr has shown repeatedly that he is more than happy to get the DOJ to work on Trumps behalf, stopping Trump, the USA or anyone for starting a proper investigation into the allegations. Ask yourself why, without the full power of the state at his disposal, Trump has nothing more than innuendo and allegations, whilst DNC, working against a stacked DOJ, stacked Senate, has been able to get the evidence to date that there is a case to be answered.

Lets look at some of the evidence.

Mulvaney said it was a QPQ
Trump said in an interview he was open to getting intelligence from foreign countries against political rivals.
We have Parnas, Bolton.
Giuliani has admitted to being in the Ukraine as the personal lawyer of Trump, not POTUS, we have all the letter.
We know the aid was held up.

Dytalus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Trump is not as you suggest and to say he is just reveals your bias here.

That you think my bias needs revealing is amusing. I openly admit to loathing the man - he is emblematic of everything wrong with the United States, while simultaneously he derides everything good about it. He is utterly undeserving of the office he holds. I do not make any qualms about hiding it.

I do not think he is those things because I dislike him, I dislike him because he is those things.

Narcissistic

Signs and symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder and the severity of symptoms vary. People with the disorder can:

+Have a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admiration (this one should be obvious)
+Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it (wanting people to talk about an accomplishment he never achieved)
+Exaggerate achievements and talents [His Inauguration crowd, his "largest trade deals in history", "nobody's better at military"]
+Be envious of others and believe others envy them (he's jealous of a teenager)
+Behave in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious (he boasts, on Twitter, all the time)
+Insist on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or office ("the best words")

At the same time, people with narcissistic personality disorder have trouble handling anything they perceive as criticism, and they can:

+Become impatient or angry when they don't receive special treatment (jesus, just look at his Twitter and his constant ALL CAPS MEANS SRS BSNS posting)
+Have significant interpersonal problems and easily feel slighted (again, Twitter)
+React with rage or contempt and try to belittle the other person to make themselves appear superior (y'know what, I'm just gonna say 'look at twitter' and end this here)

Can you honestly say that Trump doesn't fit the majority of those symptoms - by his Twitter feed alone never mind his speeches and actions? Those are just the ones I could find evidence for with a two minute Google spree. There's more at the link - and if he fits 5 or more then ta-da: he has NPD.

Liar
Well duh.

Coward
He has no problem insulting other world leaders on Twitter. He has regularly lambasted Europe, other politicians, leaders of political movements, from behind the safety of a podium or his personal phone. The instant he's in a room with Macron, or Merkel, or Putin he goes quiet and polite and "oh no we're best buddies I swear", only to roll back any commitments or promises he made the moment he's back on Air Force One. He hasn't held a proper press-conference in months, preferring to hold a drive-by Q&A session in front of Marine One so he can hop on board when the press gets too mean for his fragile ego. He refuses to call out human rights atrocities (either out of cowardice or because he likes to make nice with tyrants - neither option is good), refuses to debate his opponents....

Cowardice is, unlike NPD, not a diagnosis. There are no strict criteria that must be met. It's largely a matter of opinion - and in my opinion he is a coward.

Igotadose

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

John Solomon was part of the "drug deal" ?? How so?? B

Because he interviewed these people? About as illogical as it gets.

Parnas basically claimed he was their publicist in those messages to Devin Nunes assistant, Derek Harvey. Parnas fed him smears against Yovanovitch, which he duly published as 'opinion pieces' on TheHill.
https://www.mediamatters.org/john-solomon/evidence-giuliani-associate-lev-parnas-reveals-context-john-solomons-involvement

So, no, more than just 'he interviewed them.' He actively worked with them and published their accusations. Solomon seems like the quintessence of 'useful idiot,' swallowing what they say and regurgitating it without critical thinking.

Yeah, sounds fair enough. What I meant was would 'know of' count as 'knowing' someone to you. To me it wouldn't and fundraisers and the like would be full of people that politicians might be vaguely aware of but not beyond that. I note that before that dinner you could hear someone telling people not to photograph anyone as they might not want to be and that sounded like something that would be said when someone famous is going to be around relative nobodies, as opposed to an intimate dinner they are about to have with friends.

The one where Trump said 'take her out?' That dinner? 90 minutes (that we know about) where Trump and Parnas talked about strategic interests of the US Government?

TRS30

Every time I see a Pete post, I sigh, as I know the next few pages will be filled with rabbit holes.

Outlaw Pete

everlast75 wrote: »

Pete - do you honestly think that this all spawned from Trump wishing to utilise all available sources to target corruption in the Ukraine, and this was nothing at all to do with hurting Biden's chances?

Nothing whatsoever to do with hurting Biden's chances. As I have said before, Biden running against Trump would have been his wet dream, are you kidding me? It's on record from Rudy's remarks that the Biden stuff had come up during his investigations. They weren't the separate things like they are now. Rudy was looking into Chalupa, Leshchenko, the Washington Meetings etc and so the Biden stuff became part of that. I can't honestly believe someone would think Trump would fear Biden.

Try and park your hatred from Trump for two minutes, maybe then you'll be able to see that Trump raised the Burisma-Biden controversy after speaking about Ukraine's alleged election meddling with Zelensky, because they simply should be brought up. Your hatred for Donald Trump is preventing you from being objective. How many times do I have to point out that the media was full of articles about this matter, networks had reports on it, and Ukraine had launched investigations into it.

As Trump said, there's a lot of talk of Biden's son and it sounded horrible to him:

So why not just accept that at face value? Why not just give him the benefit of the doubt?

Imagine he's Obama, and Dick Cheney has just been bragging on camera about withholding a billion in aid unless some prosecutor was fired who happened to have investigated Cheney's kid's boss at a corrupt gas company. You all telling me that you'd be asking for him to be impeached, saying Obama was afraid oc Cheney? Course you wouldn't. This is all about your dislike of Trump, nothing more, nothing less and is just a lead on from the Russia-Collusion attempt at a coup and everything that went before and after which was a clear attempt at trying to get him removed from office. There is an irrational hatred of Donald Trump and people speak about him as if he is the devil incarnate, it's absurd.

DrumSteve

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nothing whatsoever to do with hurting Biden's chances. As I have said before, Biden running against Trump would have been his wet dream, are you kidding me? It's on record from Rudy's remarks that the Biden stuff had come up during his investigations. They weren't the separate things like they are now. Rudy was looking into Chalupa, Leshchenko, the Washington Meetings etc and so the Biden stuff became part of that. I can't honestly believe someone would think Trump would fear Biden.

Try and park your hatred from Trump for two minutes, maybe then you'll be able to see that Trump raised the Burisma-Biden controversy after speaking about Ukraine's alleged election meddling with Zelensky, because they simply should be brought up. Your hatred for Donald Trump is preventing you from being objective. How many times do I have to point out that the media was full of articles about this matter, networks had reports on it, and Ukraine had launched investigations into it.

As Trump said, there's a lot of talk of Biden's son and it sounded horrible to him:




So why not just accept that at face value? Why not just give him the benefit of the doubt?

Imagine he's Obama, and Dick Cheney has just been bragging on camera about withholding a billion in aid unless some prosecutor was fired who happened to have investigated Cheney's kid's boss at a corrupt gas company. You all telling me that you'd be asking for him to be impeached, saying Obama was afraid oc Cheney? Course you wouldn't. This is all about your dislike of Trump, nothing more, nothing less and is just a lead on from the Russia-Collusion attempt at a coup and everything that went before and after which was a clear attempt at trying to get him removed from office. There is an irrational hatred of Donald Trump and people speak about him as if he is the devil incarnate, it's absurd.

Okay i'm gonna do that...

*Closes Eyes*

Now I'm imagining Obama, watching Fox and losing his damn mind cos Dick Cheney, fresh from shooting a guy, is on tv bragging about his daughter getting a job at a corrupt company (like lets say, Haliburton).

Okay, he's sending a tweet. Now he's on the phone to a competent member of his justice department.. actually, wait, he's on the phone to his personal lawyer... Dammit Barrack! Don't ring Rudy! What are you doing? Surely you would want to have an official investigation! Surely asking your personal lawyer to get get involved presents a conflict of interest?!

Whats that about a deep state?

*Opens Eyes*

Seems plausible, I'm sold. This guy who's told over 15,000 verifiable lies so far in his presidency is the one I should trust. Gotcha.

Igotadose

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nothing whatsoever to do with hurting Biden's chances. As I have said before, Biden running against Trump would have been his wet dream, are you kidding me?

First time I was glad not to be drinking coffee when I read something on boards. Nothing to do with Biden's chances. Get over yerself.

It's on record from Rudy's remarks that the Biden stuff had come up during his investigations.

Stop trying to sound legitimate. The record that matters, is the impeachment testimony. Rudy can yatter on on Faux news all he wants. Doesn't matter. Get him under oath.

Did you read what Trump said? Some people yadda yadda. Lutsenko was a great prosecutor yadda yadda. Do you agree with that? Was the rest of the world wrong to try & remove Lutsenko, and only Trump (post-hoc) knows he was a great prosecutor? Where did he get that info from? Mysterious 'some people,' maybe named Parnas and Fruman (and Manafort?)

They weren't the separate things like they are now. Rudy was looking into Chalupa, Leshchenko, the Washington Meetings etc and so the Biden stuff became part of that. I can't honestly believe someone would think Trump would fear Biden.

So, Rudy was an un-cleared spy doing special investigations at Trump's request? And that's o.k. because, well, because he wasn't investigating *you*? What next, Secret Police?

As Trump said, there's a lot of talk of Biden's son and it sounded horrible to him:

Did you read what you posted? Lots of talk - from who? Manafort? The CIA or FBI or NSA (hint: none of those)

So why not just accept that at face value? Why not just give him the benefit of the doubt?

I suppose it's the lying, the Russian Collusion that his campaign benefited from, but perhaps he was isolated from (though, those investigations could still be coming), the endless shady dealings, etc. Benefit of the doubt has to be earned - have a long history of stating and doing honest things, and you'll get the benefit of the doubt. Wrong guy for that though.

Christy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nothing whatsoever to do with hurting Biden's chances. As I have said before, Biden running against Trump would have been his wet dream, are you kidding me? It's on record from Rudy's remarks that the Biden stuff had come up during his investigations. They weren't the separate things like they are now. Rudy was looking into Chalupa, Leshchenko, the Washington Meetings etc and so the Biden stuff became part of that. I can't honestly believe someone would think Trump would fear Biden.

Try and park your hatred from Trump for two minutes, maybe then you'll be able to see that Trump raised the Burisma-Biden controversy after speaking about Ukraine's alleged election meddling with Zelensky, because they simply should be brought up. Your hatred for Donald Trump is preventing you from being objective. How many times do I have to point out that the media was full of articles about this matter, networks had reports on it, and Ukraine had launched investigations into it.

As Trump said, there's a lot of talk of Biden's son and it sounded horrible to him:




So why not just accept that at face value? Why not just give him the benefit of the doubt?

Imagine he's Obama, and Dick Cheney has just been bragging on camera about withholding a billion in aid unless some prosecutor was fired who happened to have investigated Cheney's kid's boss at a corrupt gas company. You all telling me that you'd be asking for him to be impeached, saying Obama was afraid oc Cheney? Course you wouldn't. This is all about your dislike of Trump, nothing more, nothing less and is just a lead on from the Russia-Collusion attempt at a coup and everything that went before and after which was a clear attempt at trying to get him removed from office. There is an irrational hatred of Donald Trump and people speak about him as if he is the devil incarnate, it's absurd.

How many lies does someone have to tell to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. How many unfit people does he have to hire? How many are in jail, or have since been accused of being liars as soon as they left?

Also what was Rudi doing? He was Trump's personal lawyer, as Mulvaney has stated, so anything he did was on behalf of Trump personally. If US aid was attached to this he either went rogue or Trump wanted a quid pro quo. Since he has not been fired we can remove the possibility of Rudi going rogue

kowloon

Stallingrad wrote: »

I see Joe being quite damaged by this.

I'd be fine with Biden getting hit by this, but Trump wins if he still gets back into the WH despite the hypocracy of it all.

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I can't honestly believe someone would think Trump would fear Biden.

Taking the above as a single issue in the upcoming election, who do you think Don fears as an opponent this year?

Taking the issue of Burisma and the corruption linked to it, you wrote that the Biden link came up during the investigation of said company which Rudy was involved with [It's on record from Rudy's remarks that the Biden stuff had come up during his investigations. They weren't the separate things like they are now. Rudy was looking into Chalupa, Leshchenko, the Washington Meetings etc and so the Biden stuff became part of that]. A question for you from that: why do you think or know Rudy was investigating Burisma for as Don's personal lawyer in the first place as neither knew of the Bidens involvement with the company?

I am looking at the fact that Don sent his energy secretary to Ukraine as part of Rudy's team during Rudy's investigation. Do you think there may have been another US body interested in Burisma as an Energy Co?

peddlelies

Biden imo is certainly the candidate Trump fears most, I think that's been obvious from the outset given his behaviour and the polls etc. He'd much prefer Bernie or Warren.

Leroy42

I think how they campaign and how on message the DNC are is the crucial factor, not who the actual candidate is.

By any unbiased measure any of them are miles better than Trump. But then so was HC, but she ran a terrible campaign and Sanders supporters refused to get fully behind her.

The GOP showed that once the candidate is chosen it is essential that everyone rows behind them as the prize is so big. If the DNC did not learn the lessons from last time then they don't deserve to win it regardless of whom they pick.

RobertKK

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think how they campaign and how on message the DNC are is the crucial factor, not who the actual candidate is.

By any unbiased measure any of them are miles better than Trump. But then so was HC, but she ran a terrible campaign and Sanders supporters refused to get fully behind her.

The GOP showed that once the candidate is chosen it is essential that everyone rows behind them as the prize is so big. If the DNC did not learn the lessons from last time then they don't deserve to win it regardless of whom they pick.

Hillary was not miles better, both Trump and Hillary were really bad candidates so bad the DNC tried to rig their nomination process by having a pro-Hillary bias.
She had a terrible record of always voting for war, her reset with Russia was worse relations and was the person who pushed for the removal of Gaddafi.
She was a dream opponent for anyone due to her terrible record, doubt people liked the idea of a no fly zone in Syria, as we all know where that was to lead to, the failed regime change model.
The world won when she lost.
The DNC should have went for Sanders then as he didn't have this record.