Trump Admits Asking Ukraine to Investigate Biden’s Son-Now this stinks

Jump to Last Post 1-20 of 20 discussions (289 posts)
  1. Credence2 profile image80
    Credence2posted 8 weeks ago
    1. promisem profile image97
      promisemposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      Trump is daring the Democrats to start the impeachment process now. He wants it now because the country is split on the idea (about 50% in favor).

      By doing it now, he can rile up his supporters and have them pound on the Senate to reject the House.

      If the economy declines into recession next year as many predict, Trump's support will plunge and impeachment becomes more likely.

      So he has better chances with impeachment now than later.

      1. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

        Promisem, I really would like to avoid the impeachment process for political reasons. But this guy, Trump, with his temerity of thinking he won't get caught while brazenly rummaging through the cookie jar, is asking for it.

        The problem is that the GOP dominated Senate mesmerized by the allure of this clown would never remove Trump from office even if he had shot the Pope.

      2. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Make sense, but who knows what is next...

        1. promisem profile image97
          promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          Then again, Shar, maybe I'm wrong, or maybe he is overconfident. The Republicans in Congress are being awfully quiet instead of defending him.

          EDIT: This article does a good job of explaning how he went "from wishing for impeachment to dreading it."

          https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/2 … ine-004984

        2. peoplepower73 profile image94
          peoplepower73posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          Pelosi said she is starting an impeachment inquiry, not drafting articles of impeachment.  She said we will let the facts determine our time line. I think her strategy is to continue with hearings and investigations to bring out more facts and possibly more people like Guiliani and Trump's other lawyers and white house aids who may be involved in a cover up.

          This will give Pelosi the time to get more people on board who are not there yet.  It could also bring out the worst in Trump that we haven't seen yet.

          As a sitting president, Trump can't be indicted, but he is fair game as soon as he leaves office.  They will be able to nail him for obstruction of justice as AG Barr and Mueller have said.  Whether that will happen or not, who knows?

          From what I have read right now, Trump's damage control people are in a state of anxiety and chaos and they are afraid of what he may say or do next. 

          With Trump it is all about survival and winning.  He does it by lying and making up stories that fit his agenda for the moment. Fox News is his state run propaganda machine that can reach more people than the MSM. His supporters will support him come hell or high water. It will be a tough sell to get them to see reality.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            I agree with almost all you said and respect your right to express your view. Lot's of games going on,  on both sides. Who knows what will come of all this?

    2. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      This isn't very credible.  Read this sentence and tell me where there is any admission.

      "an apparent reference" to efforts to dig up dirt on the role Joe Biden and his son Hunter are alleged to have played in Ukraine several years back.

      This is called an unsubstantiated assumption.  This is actually a pretty sad allegation.

    3. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Lot's of smoke accumulating around Biden and his son... This matter needs to be investigated.  This kind of accusation needs to be clarified to put it to rest.  "Several officials in Ukraine have indicated that the government is likely to reopen investigations into corruption, including the gas company that employed Hunter Biden, the son of President Trump’s potential 2020 challenger Joe Biden."

      https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … en-company

    4. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Interesting fact
      "On 18 April 2014, Hunter Biden, the son of then-US vice president Joe Biden, was appointed to the board of Burisma Holdings.[15] He left the company in April 2019.[4] At the same time, one of the board members was Devon Archer, a former senior adviser to John Kerry 2004 presidential campaign.[16]"

      Joe Biden announced he was running for President on April 25, 2019.

      A bit odd... This is odorous.

  2. Live to Learn profile image81
    Live to Learnposted 8 weeks ago

    Keep it up.  You know if Biden gets in office this behavior will flip to the other side and we'll see calls for impeachment for Biden's interference on behalf of his son when he was previously in office.

    The wheel goes round and round and round.

    1. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      Perhaps L to L, but IF is NOT IS , and IS is what we are seeing right now.

      Totally an unprecedented abuse of power and authority, is this man so dumb as not to learn anything from the Russian affair where he just barely dodged a bullet?

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

        Unprecedented? Seems like business as usual in Washington,  to me.  It obviously just irritates you because you dislike this particular person.

        Biden even bragged about getting someone fired who was investigating. Wasn't even a peep then.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

          You apparently are ignorant of what happened during Biden's conflict with the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor. Biden and other world leaders wanted the corrupt prosecutor gone because his past behavior. The Ukrainian govt reports there is absolutely no indication neither Biden nor his son did anything wrong during that time.

          This is completely different from what Trump admitted to doing. He was asking the Ukraine's president to gather dirt on a political opponent, an impeachable offense at the very least.

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Oh. So the fact that his son benefited is completely irrelevant.

            Interesting.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image93
              Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              Benefitted in what manner? Do you know something the reporters and investigators don't? Do tell! Or are you simply "Trumping" it?

              1. Readmikenow profile image94
                Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                Hunter Biden was put on the board of Burisma Holdings bringing down $50,000 a month.  Hunter Biden neither speaks nor can he read or write Ukrainian.  He has absolutely NO experience in the natural-gas industry, which is what this company did for the Ukraine.  So, what was his purpose on the board?  What could he bring to the company other than access to his father who was the vice president at the time while making $50,000 a month?  Oh, yeah, Hunter financially benefited in a big way.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                  Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Okay, what political experience does Ivanka and Jarrod bring to the table, Mike? If you want to discuss children of high office holders lets start at the top.

                  1. Readmikenow profile image94
                    Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I challenge you to show what boards of companies in foreign countries they have been put on AFTER their father has negotiated a deal with the country as president. 

                    So, I am looking for being placed on the boards of companies in foreign countries where they didn't speak, read or write the language AND had no experience in the company's industry.

                    THAT is unique to Biden.

        2. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

          I have ALWays disliked him even before his so called television show. I will admit that, he is arrogant, corrupt and cowardly at his core. But, that is just my opinion, of course.

          So you say that I cannot judge him objectively because I don't like him?

          So, Trump has boasted and admitted to many discusting things. But as President of the United States, the bar is raised higher. Your circumventing the appropriation functions of Congress to pursue a personal political vendetta would be a crime for any one taking the time to look, and I will be damned if he gets away with it again.

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

            I never watched the show.  There was nothing appealing about the premise or the man.

            1. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              That is OK, you did not miss much. Just a bully making fools of washed up actors and entertainers.

      2. Ken Burgess profile image91
        Ken Burgessposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

        Totally unprecedented abuse of power and authority?

        Wait, isn't what Trump is being accused of EXACTLY what was done to Trump when he was a candidate?

        Credence, the hysterics I have seen from you, Scott, and others on here is astounding, or sad, or both.

        Scott has over 20 articles bashing Trump (I stopped counting at 20) that is kind of fanatical IMO.

        All the talk that he was going to be impeached before his first year was up, then his second year, now his third.... he's going to be there for four years folks (I said this 3 years ago) and if the lunacy and hysterics keeps up it will only help ensure he will be there for 8.

        Disconnect from the News Media's BS... and get on with your lives, save your energy for the election, volunteer to drive people to vote, put up signs, do something that will make an impact, ranting online won't do it.

        1. crankalicious profile image91
          crankaliciousposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

          What is the point of this forum at all, really? Why would anyone waste their energy bashing Trump when they know full well that the usual suspects will appear to oppose the view and the usual suspect will appear to support the view.

          Why not try to discuss things we can agree on, rather than things we're just all going to scream about?

          It would seem to me that corporate America and politics-as-usual politicians just love watching us little people scream at each other on the internet because it keeps us from doing anything productive or useful in terms of changing things that obviously need to be changed.

          Trump was an effort (a poor one, IMO) by people in this country to send Washington a message. Are Democrats really going to respond to that message by nominating and then possibly electing Joe Biden?

          That would seem to miss the point.

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

            Nice hope,  but I think online participation is, for some,  mostly about venting in ways they can't in real life.

            I will add,  in relation to your last comment,  that the DNC has too much power to allow the people to decide who their candidate will be.

            1. crankalicious profile image91
              crankaliciousposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

              I hate the DNC.

          2. Readmikenow profile image94
            Readmikenowposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

            "It would seem to me that corporate America and politics-as-usual politicians just love watching us little people scream at each other on the internet because it keeps us from doing anything productive or useful in terms of changing things that obviously need to be changed."

            Okay, I agree with you.  I just have not had conversations with Democrats/Liberals where we agree on much more than humans need oxygen to live. 

            My question to you is...where do we start?  I just don't see common ground on politics.  If there is, please let me know.  I just don't see it.

            1. crankalicious profile image91
              crankaliciousposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

              I think getting big money out of politics or at least making big money transparent is a start. I think it benefits the people to know who donates to which candidate and to limit contributions and to end PACs.

              Somehow, some way, a politician's job has to be serving the people and not soliciting donations for his/her next election.

              Do I think this is possible? I don't.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image91
                Ken Burgessposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                I think getting money out of politics is impossible.

                Worse I think much of our tax dollars go to funding the very issues Americans do not want happening, funneled to Non-Profits much the way the corporations funnel money to politicians, in ways that are under the table yet still gray-area legal.

                Another problem is those bedded firmly to a party like a religion, so when I post something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4eKJWBjYlw to prove a point I just made (above) they will go 'that is an alt-right site and therefore anything they say is worthless'.

                So since getting money out of politics is impossible. Try for something attainable.

                Get people to disconnect from MSM news.  It's ALL bad... Fox, CNN, doesn't matter... they are ALL feeding you mind rotting garbage.

                I'm not saying everything these channels put out is garbage... but the 10% worthwhile information is not worth the 90% of fabrication, falsehoods, and corporate based tripe they are feeding you.

                To be blunt if you are a hardcore supporter of CNN or FOX and think they are preaching the gospel truth, you are a damned fool.

                1. crankalicious profile image91
                  crankaliciousposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I completely agree, Ken. I'm waiting for some channel to put forth a news channel that just reports news... but maybe nobody would watch? We all want to be entertained too much.

                  I just watched a small bit of a segment on CNN about Fox & Friends. It was Anderson Cooper on the screen making fun of Stephanie Grisham and Fox like an 8-year-old might mock somebody who had a disability. Is that really what we've sunk to now?

                  I firmly believe what we see on CNN and Fox is a reflection of us. America is in a sad state in terms of its intellectual faculty.

              2. Readmikenow profile image94
                Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                As far as money in politics, I completely agree with you. 

                Every campaign I worked told everyone the same thing, "Fund raising is the mother's milk of politics."

                1. crankalicious profile image91
                  crankaliciousposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  So, to me, that means that perhaps the government needs to get involved by limiting campaign contributions or by providing a fund that candidates draw from equally or by some other method that basically limits large campaign contributions.

                  But then that limits free speech possibly because rich people have a right to express themselves.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image92
                    GA Andersonposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    It would also limit the free speech of us little folks and our grassroots efforts.

                    GA

          3. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            "It would seem to me that corporate America and politics-as-usual politicians just love watching us little people scream at each other on the internet because it keeps us from doing anything productive or useful in terms of changing things that obviously need to be change"

            That is why I support politics are politicians that are truly ready to move us to the next level. My idea of the "next level" may well not be shared.

            I am curious just how far the Right is willing to go and to what extent. But, unfortunately, I agree with Mike, I have to struggle hard to find little if any positions that I and hard core rightwingers agree on. So, yes, we are all in trouble.

        2. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          Well, Ken being a candidate and being the President of the United States are two different things.

          I can accuse Mr. Trump of using bad judgement and have that if not anything else apply at the minimum. Are you always joined with Trump at the hip?

          You suck up to Trump, you would be among the last from whom I would expect an impartial evaluation of this issue.

          Trump deserves most of the attacks that he receives.

          Dirty Republicans, mitch (the turtle) McConnell threatened Obama with their determination to make him a one term President, so I have no sympathy for Trump nor his supporters.

          As for his ability to gain other term, we will see.....

          What are your sources, the Drudge Report or Brietbart,
          how do I know that YOUR sources are any more impartial?


          Trump deserves more of the negative attention he receives in the press.

          1. promisem profile image97
            promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Credence, I agree with Ken. Stop being an hysterical and fanatical lunatic (his words). I'm the only one who deserves that label.  wink

            1. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              Scott, I don't know, but it seems like more than a coincidence that Trump focuses on corruption in a country to support withholding Congressionally appropriated funding which is very same one that he browbeats for information that is self serving and beneath the dignity of the office for solely political purposes.

              If people cannot not see the brazen nature of this then I am more than happy to be defined as hysterical and lunatic by those guys.

        3. promisem profile image97
          promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          Scott who?

          Some people on here defend a corrupt, racist and law-breaking President simply because he represents their party.

          It's especially sad when they are fine with Trump begging or blackmailing other countries into helping him win an election.

          Actually, it's scary more than sad.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            They're called "enablers," Scott.

          2. lobobrandon profile image88
            lobobrandonposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            It's more than just party politics, many here support him because they believe he is doing the right things.

          3. Ken Burgess profile image91
            Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this





            My comment wasn't exactly in support of Trump.  My comment was meant to point out the hypocrisy, or at the very least, the fact that both sides have accused one another of the same.

            Which, if you weren't buried knee deep in your loathing for Trump, or were capable of seeing the BS the media keeps spinning for what it is (so much garbage and triggering), you might have taken for how I intended it.

            You can stand firm in your beliefs and debate an issue, or you can sink to being a name calling, labeling, embodiment of indignation online... but that type of interacting with others convinces no one your side has the better argument or position.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image93
              Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              Are you stating Biden's withholding money from the Ukraine was equal to Trump's blackmailing them? As far as I can tell, there was nothing to the claim and other world leaders felt the same as Biden about the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor.

              Of course, if one is zany enough to believe Faux News, it's another "Deep State conspiracy. Do you thinks so, Ken?

            2. Readmikenow profile image94
              Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              Ken,

              I'm sure we can agree they have NOTHING.  An allegation made by an alleged whistle blower who did not hear the phone conversation with the Ukrainian president and based it on information someone told them.  Wow...I don't know if the other side realizes this, but that is NOT proof of ANYTHING.  I wonder if the charge by the alleged whistle blower could be discarded based on "Hearsay" laws.  Maybe the legal definition of hearsay is beyond their ability to comprehend?  That's possible. 
              I believe once the transcript is released, the Democrats will look like they always look...pathetic.

            3. promisem profile image97
              promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              Name calling? Out of the blue, you posted a comment calling Credence, myself and others fanatical, lunatic and hysterical.

              Do you deny it?

              No one attacked you. No one called you names. You simply started lashing out. You are blind to your own Trump and Fox-fueled hatred.

              Of course your post was in support of Trump. All of them are.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                If one is not an active member of the "Beat up on Trump" at every opportunity bandwagon, one is firmly in support, is that it?  Does it never occur to you that there ARE other considerations in our world than to destroy the President?

                1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                  Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  And you'll consider them all before admitting Trump is a crook.

                2. Live to Learn profile image81
                  Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Single minded hatred of Trump doesn't allow for reason.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                    Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Single minded loyalty to Trump doesn't either.

                  2. Valeant profile image95
                    Valeantposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    You say hatred, but we can document multiple instances of Trump committing crimes, including his latest public confession to solicitation of foreign interference to further his re-election campaign.  What we see is a criminal occupying the highest office in the land.  Why that doesn't also make you angry stuns the rest of us.  What else are you willing to accept if it benefits your policy views?

                3. promisem profile image97
                  promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  What does your comment have to do with my reply about his name calling?

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    "Of course your post was in support of Trump. All of them are." 

                    Which was in reply to LTLs post of "My comment wasn't exactly in support of Trump.  My comment was meant to point out the hypocrisy..."

                    You seem to have an inability to distinguish between supporting Trump and making any comment that does not trash him.  Thus my own comment.

  3. GA Anderson profile image92
    GA Andersonposted 7 weeks ago

    I understand what you are saying about "grassroots" movements hard sun, so let me put it differently.

    Suppose you really supported a candidate and wanted to help--beyond just a campaign donation of money--by doing anything you could to convince folks to vote for your candidate.

    Suppose you decided to host a backyard BBQ to convince your neighbors to vote for your candidate. Any money you spend on that BBQ could be called a campaign contribution.

    Suppose you are a professional musician and you offered to play for free at a rally for that candidate. Your donated services could be called a campaign donation.

    etc. etc. etc.

    Would you feel your free speech Rights were violated if you were not allowed to do any of those things because of campaign finance laws?

    I am not against campaign finance caps or reform, but I think they must be structured so that examples like those given aren't prohibited.

    GA

    1. hard sun profile image89
      hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      If we have privately financed campaigns, as we do now, then I understand your point. Especially as your examples don't have much to do with the amount of cash any particular person has

      I think the limits are there for one good reason. To keep any one entity, potentially selfish interests, from having too much influence. Agreed that reform should not outlaw your referenced activities and reform must be nuanced.

  4. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 7 weeks ago

    If this was an official inquiry into corruption, why was Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Guiliani, someone with no government position, referred as a point-person to the Ukraine President?  If some Trump supporter could explain this, that'd be great.

  5. Onusonus profile image77
    Onusonusposted 7 weeks ago

    Both Trump and Biden should be probed. Relentlessly, With probes.

    1. Valeant profile image95
      Valeantposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Finally, common ground.

      1. Onusonus profile image77
        Onusonusposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Valeant, if you don't recognize that both Democrats and Republicans are fighting for the same team, (and we the people aren't on it) then no we don't have any common ground.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image91
          Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          You know what I don't get, is how just because a person dislikes Trump, that makes Biden a great guy...

          Its fine if you dislike Trump, for whatever reason, that doesn't make the other option automatically better.

          You don't turn a blind eye to all of Biden's wrongdoings just because you despise Trump.  What you do is find someone else to support, and make sure Biden isn't the nominee.

          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            "Its fine if you dislike Trump, for whatever reason, that doesn't make the other option automatically better."

            That depends on your point of view, Ken. In my opinion, Trump is by far is worst example of any one that has held to office or is currently running for it.

            1. promisem profile image97
              promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              You aren't alone, Credence. Two surveys of Presidential scholars have him tied for last place as the worst President in all of American history.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica … idents?-26

              1. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                Got me kinda wondering who Trump was tied with for the bottom position. None of this stuff is set in stone but I can easily see him on the bottom 10 though.

                Buchanan was ineffective because he did nothing to even stave off events leading to Civil War. Trump reminds me more of Andrew Johnson, an abrasive, arrogant bull in the China shop,  quickly ready to undue all the carefully prepared post war plans of his truly great predecessor, Abraham Lincoln.

                1. promisem profile image97
                  promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Andrew Johnson averages 42 in the last two surveys. James Buchanan is tied with Trump at 43.

            2. Ken Burgess profile image91
              Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              Well, if you want to see Trump win both the electoral college AND the popular vote, Biden is the man to get behind.

              All those swing states Clinton barely lost, will now be clear cut victories for him.  Of course, that's just my opinion, knowing the DNC they will bury the likes of Warren and Gabbard and go with the corrupt DC crony.

          2. Onusonus profile image77
            Onusonusposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Vote for a third party. Preferably one that is in favor of less government.

          3. crankalicious profile image91
            crankaliciousposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Ken, I like your question about Biden being a great guy just because somebody hates Trump. I always try to ask myself this question when getting behind a politician - am I just liking this person because I dislike the other person.

            I think it's only natural to think that way.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image91
              Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              The Democrats have the option to put up someone who is not corrupt to the core, and an absolute stooge for the corporate elite, and that is EXACTLY what Biden is.

              Put Warren out there, give America a REAL choice between two people who are not 100% beholden to the most criminal and harmful elements to have influence or power in D.C.

              The DNC won't do that, they don't want Warren... they want a frontman to give lip service to the concerns and needs of their supporters, not someone who will actually try and make the changes they campaign on.

              1. crankalicious profile image91
                crankaliciousposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                That's at least one reason I support Warren and not Biden. While I don't see Biden as the same destructive choice as Trump, I think Biden will eventually produce worse than Trump. It will move the Right further to the right because Biden is a career politician and it's exactly what America is screaming that it doesn't want. Even if Biden is the nominee and gets elected, it will end up being bad for the left in myriad ways.

                The Democrats need to give America an alternative to politics as usual. Warren is actually a candidate who has made her whole career on draining the swamp. She can beat Trump at his own game on that front. She can run on that issue alone and probably win.

                Do I think it will be easy? No. Trump has yet to apply full force on whatever smear campaign he's going to run against Warren.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  What has Warren done, in her lifetime on the Hill, to drain the swamp?  It's a massive job, as Trump found out, but she's had years and years to do something - what was it?

                  1. hard sun profile image89
                    hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Specifically, what is "the swamp."  Also, how do we measure any progress toward draining "the swamp?"

                  2. crankalicious profile image91
                    crankaliciousposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    You've got to be kidding. You want me to tell you what Warren has done? Even if I responded with a string of links, would you read them? Believe them? Of course you wouldn't.

                    What power does a single senator have to drain the swamp?

                    Warren has built her career on financial regulation - trying to make sure Wall St. doesn't destroy our lives and protects the little guy from being ripped off by huge financial institutions.

                    I bet you can find plenty of stuff on what she's done. You don't need somebody like me to tell you just so you can dismiss her out of hand.

                2. Ken Burgess profile image91
                  Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Biden and Clinton are prime examples of politicians that abuse their position, have no decency, making their millions betraying Americans.

                  Crankalicious, you seem to have a good mind, seem a decent person, you just base your 'facts' and 'perceptions' of the world on outright propaganda machines like CNN that spin their 'news' filling you full of bias, lies, BS.

                  CNN will try to destroy Warren just like they tried/try to destroy Trump.  For the very reason you claim her to be a good candidate... she wants change, she wants to help Americans... the DNC will never allow her to be the nominee.

                  It will be Biden, or some other loser who they know they can control.

                  1. promisem profile image97
                    promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Right. Only Democrats abuse their power. Never Republicans.

  6. Live to Learn profile image81
    Live to Learnposted 7 weeks ago

    When asked about his behavior, Biden says he acted in line with accepted ethical standards; later saying when he became president he would (something to the affect of) make such standards unacceptable.

    That, to me, is a clear message that Trump asking for a clearer understanding of what happened won't reflect well on Biden, if everything is exposed.

    I'm so sick of the bogus bs of the hypocritical attacks on Trump. The American public is not stupid, even if those on the left keep falling for ignorance.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image91
      Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      I don't think all on the Left "keep falling for it".  Though some are indeed easily duped.

      I think a large portion of the 'Left' believe in open borders and globalism, believe in socialism (the teaching of which has taken over many college campuses) or hold beliefs equally detrimental to the best interests of the Nation and its citizens.

      The ACLU's founding members wanted to bring down America and its institutions.  The OCF (Open Society Foundation) funds dozens of 'non-profits' that work against the interests of America from within America.  Even the UN with its Global Compact for Migration and other agendas now works against America's sovereignty and economic wellbeing.

      And most of the MSM works in support of these organizations and causes, no surprise, as they were indoctrinated with socialism and progressive ideology in the universities they attended.

      I believe many want Trump removed because he stands in the way of these goals and agendas, many want to transform America, and just like in Venezuela, or China, or any nation which its people bring Socialism to control, there are many in America that work towards that goal.

      1. Valeant profile image95
        Valeantposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        And that, folks, is how conservative media brainwashes their followers.  Getting them to see a whole population of people in their own view as opposed to reality.  And you wonder why we think you guys are cult-like?

        You do realize the term open borders was taken from a speech Clinton gave to some Brazilian bankers?  She was discussing the flow of goods between countries.

        As for socialism, when using government funds for healthcare or education, those things are socialist to conservatives.  When using them to bail out farmers for horrible trade policies, that is not.  Instilling tariffs to force businesses where to produce goods and services is not exactly free market enterprise by the way.  That's about the biggest example of government controlling the means of production you can find.  Both parties have examples of socialist policies.  Let's at least be honest that it's solely about fearmongering.  Somehow you have to undermine the fact that under the past two democratic presidents the economy has improved tremendously and deficits grew smaller.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          "And that, folks, is how conservative media brainwashes their followers.  Getting them to see a whole population of people in their own view as opposed to reality.  And you wonder why we think you guys are cult-like?"

          I trust you see the irony in complaining how a whole group of people see a whole group of people as one?

          "You do realize the term open borders was taken from a speech Clinton gave to some Brazilian bankers?  She was discussing the flow of goods between countries."

          Do you think that is how it is used today?  Or is this just a deflection from the left wanting virtually unlimited immigration?

          "As for socialism, when using government funds for healthcare or education..."

          What would you call forcing people to pay for what others want?  It certainly isn't capitalism - would the term "Marxism" fit better in your opinion?  "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"?

          1. Valeant profile image95
            Valeantposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            I'll start at the end.  I was just forced to pay for farmers because of bad policies.  Was I not?  I am forced to pay more for goods and services because of tariffs, tariffs that aim to control the manufacturing of goods.  None of your arguments apply to the point, that there are socialist policies currently within both parties.

            I do believe that open borders is misused.  Yes, there are those on the left that would favor unlimited immigration.  But they are definitely in the minority of the Democratic party.  Many believe in a pathway to citizenship, but not illegal immigration.

            Yes, I stereotyped those who subscribe to conservative media sources.  Guilty of irony.

      2. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Geez, Ken for someone who always appear to be above the fray, you sound like a perfect parrot regarding the  standard rightwing playbook.

        Standard erroneous viewpoints and stereotypes, just because much of our side questions the cost effectiveness of a border wall does not mean they are for open borders. What it is that you consider detrimental to a nation and its citizens is in actuality, just your opinion, because it is not mine.

        ACLU has been linchpin in protecting my civil rights and liberties, concepts that has always been something the  Right naturally resists. I have more reasons to support their existence over otherwise.

        It is always the usual stuff, blame the press, blame higher education when people develop adverse attitudes to rightwing ideas. Why do right wingers always believe that those having adverse opinions against them have been indoctrinated or brainwashed in some way? Does anybody ever get credit for thinking for themselves?

        If by being "globalist", I accept a balance between what can be considered national sovereignty and the reality of existing as one among a family of nations where cooperation is necessary to keep the peace, then I am a globalist.

        What would happen if either China or Russia were free to act in the sole interests of its national sovereignty?

        Trump is being removed because he is an idiot. While I find his agenda anathema, his continue tendency to walk the fine line between illegal and highly unethical will be the ultimate cause of his own undoing.

        And yes, I want to make structural changes to the current system, but advocating for the Right as you usually do, you are compelled to resist it. That is completely natural and expected.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image91
          Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          I was just stating facts.

          I recognize from the 'progressive socialist' playbook doing so makes me the enemy, makes what I say offensive, or makes me a 'right-winger'.

          But no, stating fact is just stating fact, and nothing more.

          1. Valeant profile image95
            Valeantposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            And you have data to back up how many Democrats are 'progressive' to back up your claim?  What percentage believes in this mysterious open borders idea?  How supportive Democrats are of free tuition and single-payer healthcare?

          2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image96
            Wesman Todd Shawposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Have you ever used Twitter? I'd say not to bother. Literally, facts are 'hate speech' on Twitter, whenever they fly in the face of the 'progressive' agenda.

        2. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          "Standard erroneous viewpoints and stereotypes, just because much of our side questions the cost effectiveness of a border wall does not mean they are for open borders."

          What about the proliferation of "sanctuary" cities and states, refusing to acknowledge the laws of the country about immigration?  What about demands that people entering illegally be immediately released if they but parrot the word "sanctuary"?  What about the demands to do away with ICE?  What about using citizen resources (tax money) to educate foreign citizens in our country illegally?  What about aiding people to form caravans to intentionally overwhelm our resources and gain entry that way?  What about state governors that refuse to allow the national guard to aid in patrolling the border, then demand federal resources to care for illegal aliens entering that same unguarded border? 

          Credence, it isn't just about a difference of opinion over the effectiveness of a wall (although everywhere there IS one illegal crossings drop dramatically, all over the world) - it is that virtually every action from the left that concerns illegal aliens entering or already in the country is to hamper or deny efforts to stop the influx or to protect those already here from the law.  The left won't even deport those that commit criminal acts here - sometimes very egregious ones - and instead take action to protect them from ICE!

          Given all this, what other conclusion is possible?  Regardless of what your personal opinion as to what should be done, the overwhelming rhetoric and action from the left is to encourage and aid it.  That can only indicate a desire for open borders.

          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            "What about the proliferation of "sanctuary" cities and states, refusing to acknowledge the laws of the country about immigration?  What about demands that people entering illegally be immediately released if they but parrot the word "sanctuary"?  What about the demands to do away with ICE?  What about using citizen resources (tax money) to educate foreign citizens in our country illegally?  What about aiding people to form caravans to intentionally overwhelm our resources and gain entry that way?  What about state governors that refuse to allow the national guard to aid in patrolling the border, then demand federal resources to care for illegal aliens entering that same unguarded border? "

            Your points are well taken, Wilderness. This is one Democrat that remains against the concept of wide open borders, and unjustified taxpayers funds doled out to non citizens, etc. but I still would take the  conservative stance on this issue much more seriously if there were as much zeal prosecuting those that hire them.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              Actually, I think the conservative stance is to do something about it all, and I think they are on board with stopping the work potential.  Unfortunately, the conservative "leadership" is not with them on this; there is far too much money involved (and donations) to be on board with the concept. 

              But are you on board with closing the border (as tightly as reasonably possible) against any illegal crossing, or just criminals and other such "undesirables"?  I think there are very few liberals that are happy with drugs, criminals, human trafficking and such coming across, but are quite happy to let anyone else in to feed at the American trough.  And that does not begin to address the millions already here...

  7. ginosblog profile image65
    ginosblogposted 7 weeks ago

    You mean give Schiff time to write another fiticious piece of crap like all the others. How long are these losers going to not do what they were elected to do, and that was not impeach a sitting president. So childish and beneath them. Obvious the voter's thought they were better than that when they voted for them.

  8. Onusonus profile image77
    Onusonusposted 7 weeks ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/71067391_2368838156708755_7562134736085188608_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_oc=AQk7C28S6tBPCWIsibxz0NEAUzZKKKhloIElBXRj2Ne9eO0jDbdutz-FHekuKY6Wt7E&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=305a6f8510e48863184397efe66053f8&oe=5E30E3DF

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Sadly, that appears to about sum it up.

      1. Onusonus profile image77
        Onusonusposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Then there's this:
        https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/71870901_2367185393540698_7092424167563198464_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_oc=AQk4m_CwwWBw5ERQcoNe71tg6lGl15pjNaptTbmSmnX_fKh9OKoQt3LRpz1LfJnedJ4&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=9a612f5605c4f9ef584d6b1df1a269d4&oe=5E28D7AA

        I'm sure they will proceed so they can waste a bunch of tax dollars playing political theater.

    2. crankalicious profile image91
      crankaliciousposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Why was Biden's action with Ukraine only an issue once he became a candidate for President?

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Now why would you say it isn't an issue for an American politician to threaten a foreign country if they don't let his son bypass the law?  Because he was a Democrat?

        1. crankalicious profile image91
          crankaliciousposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          Now this is a fantastic statement. You have just done exactly what Trump wants you to do even though there's no evidence to support it. Biden was demanding that the Ukraine fire a corrupt prosecutor like about a dozen other people. Where is your evidence that Biden made that statement, acting as Vice President, in order to benefit his son? If that's what he did, he should be put in jail, wouldn't you agree?

          And what should we do to Trump given he asked for a favor in exchange for releasing aid? What should we do to Trump given he posed the idea that the foreign aid was tied to the favor? What should we do to Trump given that he asked for this favor?

          Personally, I would really like to know what the hell that company got for $50k/month and what they thought they were going to get. I don't want to be that naive. Was that Ukraine's favor? Hey, we give the VP's kid a position on the company board and we'll get favorable decisions or influence?

          If that's what is happening in Washington all the time, we're all in a lot more trouble than arguing whether or not Trump or Biden should be President. If that's the case, none of us have a chance.

        2. crankalicious profile image91
          crankaliciousposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          Also, why hasn’t anyone heard about this Biden issue until now? Why weren’t you outraged until now?

          1. Readmikenow profile image94
            Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            So, since this involves the Ukraine, I will try and spread some light on it. 

            Why hasn’t anyone heard about this Biden issue until now?

            The simple answer is this was minor compared to all of the scandals of Hillary Clinton and the DNC. ALSO, at the time this happened Petro Poroshenko was president of the Ukraine.  He was a typical corrupt Ukrainian president who turned people off during his time in office by keeping and maintaining his companies in Russia and other things.  What Biden and his son did was nothing new. That type of corruption was standard.

            Biden overstepped his authority by making a condition of getting funding based on the firing of a Ukrainian official.  Ukraine is a free country and should be able to handle their own internal affairs.  I wonder if the United States would like it if Germany made it a condition that Hillary Clinton be in jail before they cut a new trade deal for cars.  Think about it.  It was none of the business of the United States.

            Volodymyr Zelensky in the new president of the Ukraine and has only been on the job since May of 2019.  One of his selling points to get him elected was how he was going to eliminate the corruption in government. 

            So, the new president of the Ukraine promising to do away with corruption is asked by the current president of the United States about corruption including Biden. 

            It was an honest question.  Zelensky has been asked to investigate such allegations of corruption including the situation with Biden. 

            What did the Ukrainian company get for giving Hunter Biden $50,000 a month? Obviously access to his father and the White House.  Biden and his son had other sweetheart deals with other countries.  Yes, that is corruption.

          2. promisem profile image97
            promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            It has been all over the news since 2014. Trumpians are making a big deal about it now to distract people from Trump.

            Even more laughable, now the Trump administration is investigating the Clinton email server AGAIN.

            Don't be surprised if they start shrieking about Bill Clinton pretty soon. Or maybe Benghazi.

  9. Live to Learn profile image81
    Live to Learnposted 7 weeks ago
    1. Ken Burgess profile image91
      Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Imagine if that had been Don Jr. who went to the Ukraine and helped make 1.8 Billion dollars of U.S. funds disappear.

      Imagine if it was Don Jr. who went to China, got a 1.5 Billion dollar business deal, and then Don Sr. met with some Chinese officials on a private plane right afterwards with Don Jr.

      So if things were reversed wouldn't they be calling whoever was going after Don Jr and Don Sr for these crimes a hero?

      Bu it isn't Don Jr & Sr …. its Hunter and Joe Biden that did them.

    2. promisem profile image97
      promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Those are opinion pieces by conservative columnists.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Of course, Scott. They have nothing left to defend the cretin.

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          That's right. Orange man bad.

          1. hard sun profile image89
            hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Sure is. Horrible person. That much is clear.

            1. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              I just wonder why the left can't admit wrong doing by anyone on the left. It puts a heavy shadow on their protests.

      2. Ken Burgess profile image91
        Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        ALL "news" is opinion pieces these days... at best.

        Or its just biased propaganda and falsehoods (IE- CNN) at worst.

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          And there it is. I tried to make sure the majority were from left leaning sources. It doesn't matter. If they agree with the opinion, it's news. If they don't? It's not.

  10. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 7 weeks ago

    A lawyer friend point out something interesting I didn't realize.  By trying to impeach on the Ukrainian phone call, the Democrats have essentially stated there was nothing in the Mueller Report that was impeachable.

    IF Biden and his son hadn't had this history with the Ukraine prior to the phone call, it may have been an issue.  Given the fact that Biden has a history of getting his son money from countries the United States is dealing with in some way, makes the questions of President Donald Trump very legitimate.

    1. hard sun profile image89
      hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      So, if the Biden story has legs, then we shouldn't look into the possibility that our President is withholding funds in return for foreign governments to dig up dirt on a political opponent? This seems exactly how dictators in places such as Russia and South America operate. This is not how a functioning democracy allows its President to behave.

      If the Biden's son issue were a true criminal matter that needed to be dealt with, don't you think the wiser move would have been to let US intelligence officials deal with the matter? They could make contact with anyone in the Ukraine who may be able to provide info relevant to the investigation. Instead, Trump makes it a personal issue despite the clear implications of how it may look..which is why he tried to hide it.

      Oh yeah, the intelligence communities are part of the deep state, along with everyone except the President. This means we must believe ONLY the President, we must defer ONLY to the President's judgement, we must do ONLY what the President says. I see how this works.

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        "our President is withholding funds in return for foreign governments to dig up dirt on a political opponent"

        1. Ukraine got the funds promised by the United States.

        2. President Donald Trump didn't need to dig dirt on a political opponent.  He wanted to investigate corruption of a former vice president AND his son in foreign country. 

        3. The Ukraine president has only been in office a few months.  So, his predecessor was very corrupt.  This is the time to ask the new Ukrainian president who has dedicated himself to eliminating corruption for such an investigation.

        1. hard sun profile image89
          hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          1. Trump admitted he withheld funds and Kellyan Conway confirmed it, only stating that the reason was for "broader concerns." Whether they eventually got them, or not, may only be relevant as to the reason why they got them. Was it because the Ukranian President agreed to dig up dirt on Biden?

          2. He may not have needed to but he did attempt to anyway.

          3. You really think Trump was the best guy for this job, even if what you say is true?

          This really just confirms what I stated on how things play out with Trump supporters.

          We must believe ONLY the President, we must defer ONLY to the President's judgement, we must do ONLY what the President says.

          1. Readmikenow profile image94
            Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            I think this is more an example of a lack of objectivity from the left who suffer from TDS. 

            "Was it because the Ukranian President agreed to dig up dirt on Biden?"

            Do you know the difference between "digging up dirt" and investigating acts of corruption?  The left admits the Biden situation had been around since 2014.  So, there was NO digging involved.

            1. hard sun profile image89
              hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              I understand that not everything is the Presidents fault. That is not the issu.

              Digging up dirt is when the President takes it upon himself to personally take care of  a matter involving a political opponent with at least an implied quid pro quo. How could there not be a quid pro quo considering Trump's position as it pertain to Ukraine. Whether the situation has been around our not, he is still digging with the attempt to bring it back up just before an election year.

              I held out judgment on this. It is just not looking good for Trump here.

        2. Ken Burgess profile image91
          Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          Mike, I give you credit for at least trying to point out there were no funds withheld after that conversation, that Trump promised nothing, etc.

          But I doubt it matters, so long as there are "news sources" out there peddling falsehoods and inaccurate information, the people "devoted to the cause" will cling to such fabrications.

          1. Readmikenow profile image94
            Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            I agree with you.  I believe if given the opportunity to point out the truth, I feel obligated to point it out. 

            I'm sure we can agree the MSM will continue to peddle their falsehoods as facts, truth and reality no longer have a place in today's American journalism.

            1. hard sun profile image89
              hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              What truth? So far you haven't refuted any of the points I made. You simply pointed out that funds were eventually given to the Ukraine...which I never denied. And you added your opinion on the definition of digging up dirt, which is not a compelling argument IMO.

              You have nothing to defend Trump with here, but to sit back and state: "Oh yeah, I told them, but they just don't see it."

              I don't disagree with you on everything Mike, but clearly, on this matter we are not going to agree.

            2. Ken Burgess profile image91
              Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              This is the absolute truth of it, and where any debate on anything must begin.

              The understanding that the MSM is complicit in covering up the truth, and peddling falsehoods.  That the media protects the most criminal elements in D.C. rather than exposing them.

              What is the MSM... all is owned by a handful of corporations, in the 70s it was over 100 different owners, and this was before Cable News and Sirius radio.

              Control the media and you control the masses.

              “Control of thought is more important for governments that are free and popular than for despotic and military states. The logic is straightforward: a despotic state can control its domestic enemies by force, but as the state loses this weapon, other devices are required to prevent the ignorant masses from interfering with public affairs, which are none of their business…the public are to be observers, not participants, consumers of ideology as well as products.” - Noam Chomsky - "“It’s the primary function of the mass media in the United States to mobilize public support for the special interests that dominate the government and the private sector."

              Trump is the representation of a 'populist' uprising in the country against the corruption in D.C., against 3 decades of lies like NAFTA will be good jobs and the ACA will save you money and make things more affordable.

              The RNC didn't want him, they spent billions trying to stop him.  He certainly isn't a Democrat, they want to destroy him.  Trump is nothing more than a representation of tens of millions of Americans that are fed up.

              What did he run on? "Drain the Swamp"

              What is the Swamp?

              Just about everyone in D.C. that has been there for a quarter century or more.  That is a LOT of people, in Congress, in the halls of the Pentagon, CIA, FBI, etc... Presidents come and go, these people are there for 30, 40 years making policy, making law, they don't answer to, or really care what Americans think.

              And we see the Swamp in action right now, trying to cover up Hunter and Joe's criminal acts, if they don't lord knows how much Ol' Joe can spill, how much dirt he must have on a whole lot of people in D.C.

              1. hard sun profile image89
                hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                Of course the media has a lot of power. Trump wants to control the media so he can control our thoughts. Not me. If I gotta pick a poison, I'd rather have the power in the hands of groups like the State Department, etc., than in the hands of one ill-equipped con man.

                If draining the swamp is getting rid of Washington insiders, he's not doing a very good job. Then, he's introducing an entirely new level of public/private corruption with his businesses that he refuses to give up while President.

                "That is a LOT of people, in Congress, in the halls of the Pentagon, CIA, FBI, etc."

                This is called government, for better or worse. These institutions are made up of the people, real Americans. The sons and daughters of Americans that hail from all walks of life. Should we give it all up for Trump and his closest cronies?

                1. Live to Learn profile image81
                  Live to Learnposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Trump wants to control the media because he wants to control your thoughts?

                  Honestly, after going though a rigorous course to get you out of the cult the media on the left has already created, you'd probably have the tools you needed not to get hoodwinked again.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                    Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    lol pot.....kettle

                  2. hard sun profile image89
                    hard sunposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I'm not even sure what that means. But, I'll never be a Trump fan and have never been in love with the media. It didn't take a course for me not to like certain aspects of the left wing and the media. It's funny how, if you don't like Trump, people just lump you in with "the media" and "the left." America's main problem is these  dichotomies that create divisions. The media does serve a very vital purpose. I will say that. And, there's some great reporting from CNN, MSNBC, in between some of the garbage.

                2. GA Anderson profile image92
                  GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  "This is called government, for better or worse. These institutions are made up of the people, real Americans. The sons and daughters of Americans that hail from all walks of life."

                  Well damn! Nicely said. ^5

                  GA

                  1. hard sun profile image89
                    hard sunposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Well hell, I'll take that ^5 --Thanks --October has always been a month of outliers for me, positive and negative. It looks like Oct. 2019 is shaping up to be no different. I won't let it go to my head though, lol.

          2. hard sun profile image89
            hard sunposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            No one stated there were funds withheld AFTER that conversation. Not the news sources I read anyway. The fact that funds were not withheld after that conversation simply suggests that Trump thought the call went well. That the Ukrainian President would look into Biden.

            So?

  11. Onusonus profile image77
    Onusonusposted 6 weeks ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/70987803_2816566261735047_1108161468571844608_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_oc=AQkDrQSmIaRswLDAxz2eP4KOgNz45I51hOgLqm-lFa5gUDJ38QJEUTS-_OlPIVe0Kxw&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=3c97975f6e90f874d137bbeeceed81af&oe=5E24D470

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      So how much are Ivanka and Jerrod earning, aa? Or do you even care?

    2. promisem profile image97
      promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      No, he's just a lawyer, meaning law "expert", whose law firm was hired by the Ukrainian company to provide legal expertise, not energy expertise.

      Yes, it was a conflict of interest. No, it wasn't illegal according to a wide variety of sources.

      https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … d-ukraine/

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        This is funny.  Yeah, it is common for companies to put members on their boards with NO experience in their industry or are able to speak the foreign language.  Hunter Biden's firm didn't provide any legal services.  There is no records of billing for legal services provided. So, why what Hunter Biden on the board?  He provided access to his father the vice President.  Hunter Biden could provide nothing else and for this he got $50,000 a month.  Pretty corrupt.  It does need to be investigated.  I support President Donald Trump's asking for an investigation.

        1. promisem profile image97
          promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Horsepoop.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Interesting fact
            "On 18 April 2014, Hunter Biden, the son of then-US vice president Joe Biden, was appointed to the board of Burisma Holdings.[15] He left the company in April 2019.

            Joe Biden announced he was running for President on April 25, 2019.

            A bit odd... This is a bit odorous, smells like sulfur. Why would Huner leave such a lucrative job? This is smoke..

            https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN1W91UG

            https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine … ned-2019-9

            1. Readmikenow profile image94
              Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              I think it is interesting how Biden claims he had no idea what his son Hunter was doing with the Ukrainians, yet, there is a picture of Biden and the president of Burisma holdings together at a golf game.  Oooooh...the smoke is getting thicker.  I say we need to investigate this soon!

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Yes, it would seem odd a son would work for a company over 5 years, and old dad was not aware... Or as you pointed out playing golf with hunters boss. Yes, we certainly need an investigation. Poor Joe, he has both parties chasing him.

              2. crankalicious profile image91
                crankaliciousposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Look, we agree on something again, Mike. Unless you're not serious.

                Somebody should absolutely investigate how and why Hunter Biden got that job. And what he was expected to do.

                It certainly wouldn't be the first time a politician's kid got some kind of sweetheart job, would it?

                And imagine all the ways our stable genius President could have made this an issue other than the one he chose. I find the amount of stupidity in this particular path (asking the Ukraine for help) kind of confounding because I think this sort of patronage is worthy of investigation.

                1. Readmikenow profile image94
                  Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  In all honesty, the president of the United States has an obligation to investigate corruption.  A treaty to this agreement was signed during the Bill Clinton administration.  If Biden did nothing wrong, then he shouldn't worry about an investigation.  Any investigation would HAVE to involve the Ukraine, so, President Donald Trump asking makes perfect sense.

            2. promisem profile image97
              promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              He left because Trump was making it a political issue for his father, even though it has been plastered all over the media since 2014.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                It seems odd he would leave if one were to look at the optics one would think he should have stayed if he hd done nothing wrong. He certainly stuck it out for many years? Did Hunter put out a press release why he was leaving Burisma?

                I would almost think if I were to just want to create smoke, I would summarize Trump had him canned. Do you see where I am headed here? We have no idea why Hunter left his job, no facts just what we want to believe. Yes, to me it looks bad. Just as Trump's phone call looks bad to you. But in reality, it's all smoke.

        2. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Hi Mike. I am not intending to refute your statement, but only want to offer a possibility.

          I was listening to some NPR interview of an author that said he interviewed Hunter for a book; not sure if it was a biography or what, but, he says that Hunter says there were months when he received more than that $50k per month because of billings for legal services he provided that were other than his board seat duties.

          I haven't checked that out, but in the context of the interview subject, it sounded legit.

          If true, that would mean that Hunter Biden did sometimes provide legal services to the company.

          ps. If the numbers are available anywhere, I bet $50k per month isn't an outrageous sum for some major corp board seats for high profile names.

          GA

          1. crankalicious profile image91
            crankaliciousposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            I did some research. I just thought Hunter Biden was some dude with nothing to offer, but he was a lawyer, so a corporation would certainly want to pay a lawyer with international legal experience. That's still a lot.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              Could you offer a resource that indicates that Hunter Biden had experience in international law?  I have not been able to locate much on his business other than it is a small consulting firm? Rosemont Seneca Partners, an international consulting firm.

              1. crankalicious profile image91
                crankaliciousposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                This article does not address that, but it may be the single best piece I've read on this situation:

                https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … on/598804/

                Ken should read this. He'll love it.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                  Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Do you think it wise to wait until the Biden /son investigation is complete? I am very sure Hunter's firm will be well scrutinized. I am not willing to bash him or let him off the hook until real facts are presented.

                  1. crankalicious profile image91
                    crankaliciousposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    It's precisely that we're not all up-in-arms about this THAT is the problem. This is all about influence-peddling. And it's accepted. People making millions of dollars because they work for the government or worked for the government or have "influence". Cash in! It makes those who work for the people seem less like servants and more like vultures.

                  2. Ken Burgess profile image91
                    Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    In today's current political climate, one really has to do their own research and conclude for themselves what the truth is.

                    You cannot depend on CNN, you cannot depend on FOX, any article you read may be filled with bias, or omissions, you can't rely on any source.

                    What a person can do, is review multiple outlets that seem credible, and draw one's own conclusions.

                    Just because Comey declared Clinton innocent of any crime, did not make it so, it just meant that Comey was using his position to cover her and cover up major abuse of power and corruption.

                    Just because the House, now controlled by Democrats, wants to impeach Trump over a call to the Ukrainian President does not make him guilty of what they are accusing him of.

                    It might be that they are trying to cover up Biden's crimes, so that they in turn are not at risk of being exposed for theirs.  There is no greater collection of criminals and thieves than what currently sits in Congress.

                2. Ken Burgess profile image91
                  Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  An attempt to smooth it over, if they are acknowledging that this much  malfeasance went on, they must be trying to cover up some truly damning corruption.

                  Ukraine Gas Firm Burisma Made $1.8 Billion in U.S. Aid Go Missing

                  A subsidiary of the Bank of China named Bohai Capital signed an exclusive deal with Hunter Biden and Chris Heinz’s Rosemont to form a $1 billion joint-investment fund called Bohai Harvest RST. The deal was later increased to $1.5 billion.

        3. crankalicious profile image91
          crankaliciousposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          The thing about investigating Hunter Biden that is so unbelievably stupid is that Trump could and should investigate this type of influence-peddling, but he's only asking for one investigation against a political opponent.

          He could easily cover himself by asking for a wide-ranging investigation into this type of corruption, only his Republican supporters won't let him because it would bring so many people down, Trump's support in D.C. would evaporate.

          So we're all just going to pretend that one side does this crap more than the other and it will continue on because nobody is willing to buck the system and just investigate everyone.

          And oh, btw, the way Trump is going about this is definitely an impeachable offense - and one that he could have easily avoided were he truly interested in draining the swamp.

          1. Readmikenow profile image94
            Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            I would like to point out that we don't know what President Donald Trump is investigating.  We only know about Biden because of the conversation with the Ukraine.

            I believe from a legal standpoint, it will be difficult if not impossible to prove this conversation rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

            It's obvious Biden did worse.

            1. crankalicious profile image91
              crankaliciousposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              Asking a foreign government to investigate a political rival is a violation of the oath of office, particularly when the implication of withholding aid is involved. There's nothing legal that needs to be established, only what Congress deems impeachable.

              There's nothing I've read that suggests Biden did anything wrong or that any decisions he made had anything to do with Hunter. You seem to be forgetting that getting rid of Shokin was so that MORE corruption would be investigated, not less. Shokin was known as somebody who did not do anything vis a vis corruption.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                It's obvious Trump violated his oath of office...

              2. Readmikenow profile image94
                Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                This would be true if there wasn't the appearance of corruption by his political rival with the foreign country.  ALSO, there is the treaty between the Ukraine and the United States that was signed to fight corruption and share information. The Ukrainians believe it was pretty crooked.   

                Can we agree that if Biden did nothing wrong, he would welcome an investigation to clear his name.  That hasn't happened.  What we have seen if Biden denying he knew anything about the Ukrainian gas company and then there are pictures of him golfing with an executive of the company.  Oh, I wonder what an investigation would reveal.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  "Can we agree that if Biden did nothing wrong, he would welcome an investigation to clear his name.  That hasn't happened."

                  Dems have demanded Trump's tax returns a hundred times, with the assumption that if he doesn't provide them it's because there is something to hide.

                  Is there a difference here?  Not that I can see. Guilty until proven innocent according to Democrats - Biden must be guilty.

                  1. Readmikenow profile image94
                    Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Yes, Trump is being audited by the IRS.  Should there be something wrong with his taxes, the financial experts at the IRS will be the ones giving the fines, etc.  So, that is a BIG difference.  His tax returns are being investigated by the government agency tasked with investigating tax issues.

                2. Ken Burgess profile image91
                  Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this



                  This, exactly, was what I was thinking just moments before I read it.

                  If they weren't worried about what would be exposed, this would never have become an issue.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                    Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Oh, you mean like Trump is welcoming an investigation into his taxes, the violations of the Emolument Clause, his asking foreign leaders to investigate his political enemies?

                    What's Trump's excuse for refusing to obey lawful subpoenas, Ken?

  12. GA Anderson profile image92
    GA Andersonposted 6 weeks ago

    Allow me to grab your comment about the Crowdstrike thing to add another, important, (I think), detail Mike.

    I wasn't familiar with the Crowdstrike issue. So I took a quick walk-about. Multiple sources that I looked at offer this clarification: There never was a single DNC Server to be turned over to the FBI. The "server" was actually cloud-based email and communications software stored and accessed via cloud services supported by 140 servers.

    Crowdstrike did supply the FBI with an electronic image of the data on all 140 of those servers, which is the same as if they had given the FBI all 140 associated servers. Of course, that explanation demands that we accept Crowstrike's word that the electronic images were as good as the physical servers. I think I will.

    GA

  13. Credence2 profile image80
    Credence2posted 6 weeks ago

    Just thought that I should bring this in. The "pressure" employed by Trump on the Ukrainian government is deserving of Censure by Congress at the minimum.

    If it is proven that he tied the "pressure" with the withholding of Congressionally directed appropriations for the Ukraine for solely personal gain or political advantage in some sort of shakedown, then impeachment is in order.
    -----------------

    But that is equally true for Trump’s children. Ivanka Trump, for instance, has been awarded 34 trademarks from the Chinese government since her father took office. Some of the trademarks, which include wedding dresses, art valuation services, child care centers, sunglasses and more, extend through 2028, meaning the president’s daughter could well cash in on them once Trump departs the White House.

    Moreover, Trump’s insistence that Biden pressured Ukrainian officials so as to aid his son glosses over the fact that Trump, by his own admission, pressured Ukraine’s president to investigate Biden, and that pressure can certainly be seen as aiding his own reelection bid. Now it could lead to his impeachment.

    “They did it too” is not exactly a robust defense, whether by the president, his Republican defenders or Democrats. As former Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein noted on CNN, examining the perks received by the children of powerful politicians may be a sideshow, but it’s one that shouldn’t be overlooked.

    “Hunter Biden is a legitimate story to be looked at in terms of his role in this Ukrainian gas company. There is nothing that I’m seeing that substantiates Mr. Giuliani’s or the president’s allegations about crooked prosecutors dropping charges because it was Biden,” Bernstein said, adding, “But if anybody has a history of terrible conflict of interest by his children, it is this president of the United States. And we ought to be looking at all of these questions about the children and presidents and vice presidents of the United States in conflicts of interest.”

    1. Ken Burgess profile image91
      Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Just so long as they are all held accountable equally, and all removed from D.C. I have no problem with it.

      If its OK for Hunter to make billion dollar deals with China and Ukraine, its fine for Ivanka, right?

      Or is this just one more double standard?

      If its wrong for one, its wrong for all.

      1. promisem profile image97
        promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        More false equivalence.

        An unethical act by a private citizen is not the same as an illegal act by a U.S. President.

  14. hard sun profile image89
    hard sunposted 6 weeks ago

    Those texts messages released by the House Intelligence Committee are revealing to say the least.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Whatever they say, the right will defend Trump's right to do wrong....

  15. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 6 weeks ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14705442.jpg

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      I like this.  Right now the bar is set at "politically useful" and it's long past time to raise it to the standard used for all other suspected criminal activities: "beyond a reasonable doubt".  With the caveat that "reasonable" does not mean "anything assumption I can use to get what I want".

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        So now you're doubting Trump's own words? That is an improvement...

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          I will always doubt the word of anyone on Capital Hill.  How about yourself, Randy - do you doubt the word of politicians standing to gain political power when they claim Trump has done something wrong?  Or do you take their word for it simply because you hate the man?

          1. Valeant profile image95
            Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Simple rebuttal to that question...
            https://hubstatic.com/14705949.jpg

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              I believe you answered the question this time, with a resounding "No!".  You do NOT doubt the word of politicians making claims that will lead to gaining political power for themselves or their party.  Unless that politician is Donald Trump or other Republican, of course - that remains unstated, but then it doesn't need to be, does it?

              Your choice, of course, but not one I will agree with.

              1. Valeant profile image95
                Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                You always do try to put words in other people's mouths, falsely I might add.  My pointing out the hypocrisy of someone that thinks Trump speaks truths as a credible source of logical reasoning was my point.

  16. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 5 weeks ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14709585.png

    1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image96
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      So nepotism is fine with you so long as it involves corruption, the hypocrisy of being against fossil fuels, while also supporting them, and provided the person is a democrat. Thanks for clearing things up for us all.

      Nice Twitter meme. Like all things progressive, the substance of it is...where, exactly?

      1. Valeant profile image95
        Valeantposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Shocking that you missed the point of the meme that the right is accusing Hunter Biden of taking a position in fossil fuels with no experience, but are hypocritically silent when Trump gives his kids positions in government with that same level of experience.  Why is one corrupt in your eyes and you're not screaming corruption about Jared or Ivanka?

        1. Readmikenow profile image94
          Readmikenowposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          Here is a BIG difference.  President Donald Trump's children are not paid.  We all know that Hunter Biden was getting $50,000 a month for nothing.

          "President Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, who serves as Advisor to the President, and her husband, Jared Kushner, who serves as Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor, each forgo their White House salaries."

          https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/01/the-hig … -2019.html

          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            Then tell us how you know what Hunter Biden is doing or has done in the Ukraine, Mr. Knowledge.  I want the particulars as to what his job description was and how you know so much about his personal ability. This should be enlightening....

            And naturally Ivanka and Jared are foregoing their salaries. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the deals they've made using the POTUS as a connection. Perhaps you can also tell me how many trademarks Ivanka has in China since Daddy was elected? I seriously doubt it though...

          2. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            Latest From Zelenskiy  --- No Blackmail, and he will investigate the Bidens for any wrongdoing. Facts are beginning to surface. The fact is Zelenshy was on the other end of this call, his description of the call is a very important fact.

            https://nypost.com/2019/10/10/ukraine-p … joe-biden/

            https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukra … SKBN1WP0XL



            https://hubstatic.com/14710867.jpg

            1. promisem profile image97
              promisemposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              Shar, I think we're going to start bumping heads again in a serious way.

              You are making a false claim and posting links that you imply back up that false claim but don't.

              Zelensky DID NOT say he was investigating "the Bidens". He said nothing at all about it in the first article and only said he was "open" to investigating Hunter Biden in the second article.

              Furthermore, as the first article said at the end, "There is no evidence that the Bidens did anything wrong in Ukraine."

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                Yes, you are correct there is no evidence thus far. that the Biden's broke the law. I stand corrected. Zelensky did not in these articles make any claims in regards to investigating the Bidens. I read articles last week with statements from that new prosecutor Ruslan Ryaboshapka claiming he was investigating the Gas company Burisma.

                "Ukraine's prosecutor general, Ruslan Ryaboshapka, announced Friday that he will review cases involving Hunter Biden but that he isn't aware of any evidence of wrongdoing by Biden."

                October 4, 2019
                https://www.npr.org/2019/10/04/76738670 … er-employe

                Oct 4 2019
                https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/worl … risma.html

                1. promisem profile image97
                  promisemposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Thanks, Shar, for such a reasonable reply.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I appreciate your open calm conversation... Do not want to bump heads.LOL

            2. Randy Godwin profile image93
              Randy Godwinposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              Yes they are! The entire conversation lasted about 40 minutes. The "perfect" transcript of the "beautiful" call is only 10 minutes or so.  Hmmmmm...perhaps you can solve this mystery, Shar?

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                I will leave that to Congress...  I think they will discover that discrepancy, and get to the bottom of it. Although I think the statement from Zelinsky is very important. I mean it's all about the phone call. So far the to involved are claiming it was a simple phone call, without any feelings that blackmail was involved.

      2. Don W profile image84
        Don Wposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        "So nepotism is fine with you so long as it involves corruption"

        And nepotism is fine with you so long as it involves the Trump family.

  17. IslandBites profile image88
    IslandBitesposted 5 weeks ago

    Yes, "Facts are beginning to surface.".

    Giuliani associates who aided Ukraine investigation arrested on campaign finance charges

    Two associates of Rudy Giuliani who have been linked to his investigations in Ukraine have been indicted for campaign finance violations.

    Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman are accused of using a limited liability company to make political contributions related to American elections, in violation of FEC prohibitions against contributions from foreign nationals. Both men have been linked to Giuliani’s efforts to conduct investigations in Ukraine.

    “Parnas and Fruman, who had no significant prior history of political donations, sought to advance their personal financial interests and the political interests of at least one Ukrainian government official with whom they were working,” the indictment says.

    Parnas and Fruman created Global Energy Producers (GEP), and allegedly funneled money through the company. This included contributions of $325,000 and $15,000 to committees in May 2018, “to obtain access to exclusive policital events and gain influence with politicians,” the indictment says. They allegedly incorporated GEP around the time the contributions were made.

    The indictment also charges that Fruman and Parnas schemed to donate money to an unidentified U.S. congressman, at the same time they were asking that congressman to get the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine removed from her job.

    According to FEC records, GEP contributed $325,000 in May 2018 to pro-Trump super PAC American First Action.

    The two men allegedly dined with Trump himself in 2018 and later met with his eldest son Donald Trump Jr. at a Beverly Hills, Calif., fundraiser, according to reporting in the Wall Street Journal.

    Earlier this week, John Dowd, a former attorney for Trump who represents the two men, told the Miami Herald they would not cooperate with House requests for documents as part of the investigation.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/giulia … ce-charges
    https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … rrested-on

    1. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      This well appears to be factual information. It certainly will be interesting to see this unfold.  It is very damming...

      1. tsadjatko profile image56
        tsadjatkoposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Sharlee, if you read the link to Fox News you get a more balanced report than the “facts” Island bites posted other than the link. For example

        Attorney General Bill Barr has been "aware and supportive" of SDNY officials and knew that both men would be arrested and charged Wednesday, a senior Justice Department official told Fox News.

        And

        Giuliani told Fox News that he represents Parnas and Fruman on a separate matter and called their arrest and indictment "timing suspect." He stated that he "will reveal relevant facts very very shortly."

        Giuliani, an attorney for President Trump, said he finds it "extremely suspicious" that the arrest was made in connection with an FEC matter that has yet to be resolved, and which Giuliani said is a civil matter.
        ————————————

        So let’s leave out Giuliani said:

        “indictment ’timing suspect.’ He stated that he ’will reveal relevant facts very very shortly.’”

        if ”Facts are beginning to surface” try not spinning them by not getting all the facts.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image94
          peoplepower73posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          T:  Fox News is not  news; it is entertainer's opinions and Trump's propaganda machine.  They leave out just enough to be able to spin what the real facts are. Yes, I do my research and analysis.  Here is the actual indictment document with the Grand Jury charges:

          https://www.npr.org/2019/10/10/76889479 … violations

          1. Ken Burgess profile image91
            Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            I suppose the irony of you showing an NPR link, while saying Fox is a Trump propaganda machine is lost on you.

            NPR couldn't shift any further left if they wanted it to.

            1. peoplepower73 profile image94
              peoplepower73posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              Ken: Did you even look at the document?  Here it is by itself without being embedded in the NPR article. So you don't think that Trump tweeting advice from Hannity is propaganda?

              https://apps.npr.org/documents/document … Indictment

              1. Ken Burgess profile image91
                Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                Mike, unfortunately we live in a world where news agencies are biased, where people will stand up and lie under oath for their political beliefs or agendas, and where 'evidence' will be manufactured (IE: dossier for the Russian collusion query).

                I have no problem admitting Trump is uncouth, unprofessional in how he handles information and in conversation, and that he may even be a crook.

                But I recognize there is a BIGGER problem, and that bigger problem is why Trump is there in the first place.

                That bigger problem is embodied in the likes of Biden & Clinton, lifelong D.C. politicians that have learned how to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars through their kids, non-profits, investment scams, etc.

                These politicians sell their political favor for financial gain and are not concerned in the least with the long term interests of Americans or America, if they were, we would be living in a far better country than what we have today.

                Trump is nothing more than a tool of the people that are tired of being ignored by a corrupt political system.

                What difference do all of Trumps "crimes" and "disrespectful" actions  make if the alternative to Trump is another corrupt D.C. crony like Biden or Clinton?  Given the choice between those two options, I'd place my money on Trump being re-elected.  But for one thing...

                China is going to ensure America is in economic recession by November 2020, and the media will make sure the American people hear nothing about what really caused it, putting the blame on Trump.

                Trump will be out, Biden (or Clinton), who has sold out to China, will be in, and the progression of America's decline and China's ascension to global domination will get back on track.

                The script is already written, you just have to sit back and watch it unfold.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                  Randy Godwinposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  You had your shot with the criminal Trump, Ken. Stop trying to blame others for your mistake.

                  1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image96
                    Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Because you know Trump is a criminal, it shouldn't be much to ask a man as intelligent as yourself what crimes it is Trump has been convicted of.

                2. Don W profile image84
                  Don Wposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  "That bigger problem is embodied in the likes of Biden & Clinton, lifelong D.C. politicians that have learned how to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars through their kids, non-profits, investment scams, etc."

                  And you think the best answer to that issue is Trump? Come on Ken.

                  Politics was broken even before Trump. We all know that. But trying to blow up the system to make fix that is idiotic, because you can't blow up the system without also ripping up the Constitution.

                  The Constitution simply does not allow there to be a dictator in the White House. The only way to do that is to violate the Constitution. And that is we're seeing right now. The White House is literally refusing to recognize the authority of Congress. It's not just a specific legal question around a particular request. It's a blanket refusal to recognize the authority of Congress. That authority derives from the Constitution itself.

                  I'm sorry Ken, but however bad politics was broken before, it doesn't warrant the trashing of the Constitution that's taking place by the White House right now.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          Yes, I see more has come out on the story. It will be interesting to see what comes out by tonight. The arrests seem to have an opportune timeline.

    2. IslandBites profile image88
      IslandBitesposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani had lunch with two associates just hours before their arrests, according to a report by The Wall Street Journal.

      Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman were detained at Dulles airport outside of Washington last night. They had recently purchased one-way tickets, according to a law enforcement source.

      US prosecutors did not intend on unsealing the indictment against the Giuliani associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, according to two US officials.

      Their hand was forced when Parnas and Fruman attempted to leave the country, according to officials.

      US attorney Geoffrey Berman said during a press conference today that the $325,000 donation Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman — two Giuliani associates charged with federal campaign finance violations — made to "committee-1" in spring 2018 was "one of the largest" donations it had received.

      CNN has identified that committee as America First Action. It's now chaired by Linda McMahon, the former head of the Small Business Administration who left the White House to join the super PAC this spring.

      Multiple other former administration officials also work there, including Sean Spicer and Kelly Sadler.

      1. Don W profile image84
        Don Wposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas (second and third from left respectively)
        https://hubstatic.com/14711153.jpg

        Parnas and Trump
        https://hubstatic.com/14711165.jpg

        Fruman and Trump
        https://hubstatic.com/14711168_f1024.jpg

        Parnas (left) and Fruman (right) as of this week
        https://hubstatic.com/14711156.jpg

        Apparently "draining the swamp" simply means no longer talking to people when they get charged or convicted of crimes that benefit you.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          Don Jr has a history with these guys as well. I hope they put Rudy and Jr. in the same cell. Of course, their cell won't be near as nice as Sr's.  lol

  18. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 5 weeks ago

    It appears that not ONLY did the alleged whistle blower speak with Adam Schiff and his committee prior to filing a complaint, they has also previously worked with Joe Biden.  This entire thing the Democrats have done really stinks.

    "a new report in The Washington Examiner that the whistleblower at the center of Democrats' impeachment push had worked with Biden. The whistleblower's anti-Trump attorney, Mark Zaid, acknowledged earlier in the week that his client had "contact" with current presidential contenders "from both parties."

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … als-reveal

  19. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image96
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 weeks ago

    Which Democratic party and mass media hoax has been your favorite in 2019? Myself, I've gone from knowing I could never vote for a Democrat, to knowing I could NEVER EVER vote for a Democrat.


    https://hubstatic.com/14712202.png

  20. emge profile image68
    emgeposted 5 weeks ago

    I wonder if he is sane. Looks loony to me.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)