Leftists, you AGREE that it's good for govt. officials to lie and commit crime to get Trump...

[K9Buck]

No idea. I do know he had no less knowledge about the business than the other members of the board did.

Then an investigation would, presumably, demonstrate Hunter and Joe's innocence. An investigation would clear their "good" name, right?

 

[AntonToo]

moron did you actually read my post? Of course there is substance

More insults because you have no argument. You're wrong about Cohen.

Stop posting like a moron and I'll stop calling you a moron. Deal?

You keep saying I posted no substance or argument...but are now also saying I'm wrong in my substance and argument about Cohen....stupid much?

So now then, on to Cohen

The campaign finance laws that he plead guilty to violating involved FINANCIAL transactions. I asked you for a link to give you an opportunity to substantiate your erroneous statement.

How Michael Cohen broke campaign finance law

As I said before, Cohen did not actually give money to the campaign, what he did was contribute to the campaign the SILENCE of Trump's fuck dolls.

The quid was the money, the quo was the silence, which was in itself the non-financial contribution.

For Ukraine, the quid was hundereds of millions in military aid, the quo was White House meeting with Trump and public declaration by Ukraine's president of investigation of Biddens. The political contribution is fairly clear.

 

[K9Buck]

moron did you actually read my post? Of course there is substance

More insults because you have no argument. You're wrong about Cohen.

Stop posting like a moron and I'll stop calling you a moron. Deal?

You keep saying I posted no substance or argument...but are now also saying I'm wrong in my substance and argument about Cohen....I think it's because you are a moron and so I tell you.

You are repeatedly wrong. Furthermore, you don't back your claims with any corroboration because you have none. All you have are hysterical, emotional outbursts. Frankly, you're too fucking stupid and dishonest to engage further. You're a waste of time. Welcome to "ignore".

 

[AntonToo]

moron did you actually read my post? Of course there is substance

More insults because you have no argument. You're wrong about Cohen.

Stop posting like a moron and I'll stop calling you a moron. Deal?

You keep saying I posted no substance or argument...but are now also saying I'm wrong in my substance and argument about Cohen....I think it's because you are a moron and so I tell you.

You are repeatedly wrong. Furthermore, you don't back your claims with any corroboration because you have none. All you have are hysterical, emotional outbursts. Frankly, you're too fucking stupid and dishonest to engage further. You're a waste of time. Welcome to "ignore".

Run along now dummy.

 

[Crepitus]

You mean the crap you make up about Democrats?

Clinton's email server in the Ukraine? Bullshit conspiricy theory.

What did I say with regard to "Clinton's email server in the Ukraine"?

Kinda dishonest of you to alter a quote like that. I was just picking examples for clarity.

 

[Coyote]

...right? You support it, right?

No, but ...

Should government employees that lie and engage in crime be fired and/or prosecuted?

It depends doesn't it?

Lying in and of itself is no crime (look at our president).

If they commit what is thought to be an actual crime, as deemed by law enforcement - they should be charged, put on trial and, pending the results of that - fired.

There is a process.

 

[Coyote]

...right? You support it, right?

Who are the "leftist"?

Democrats, communists, fascists and so-called "liberals".

Fascists are rightists.

 

[william the wie]

Andrew Jackson invented the big lie a century before the foreign wing of the Democratic party claimed that for their own

 

[Coyote]

No idea. I do know he had no less knowledge about the business than the other members of the board did.

Then an investigation would, presumably, demonstrate Hunter and Joe's innocence. An investigation would clear their "good" name, right?

You need a good reason to investigate a person. Reasonable cause which is usually backed by evidence.

 

[K9Buck]

You mean the crap you make up about Democrats?

Clinton's email server in the Ukraine? Bullshit conspiricy theory.

What did I say with regard to "Clinton's email server in the Ukraine"?

Kinda dishonest of you to alter a quote like that. I was just picking examples for clarity.

I didn't alter anything. I copied your exact words.

 

[K9Buck]

No idea. I do know he had no less knowledge about the business than the other members of the board did.

Then an investigation would, presumably, demonstrate Hunter and Joe's innocence. An investigation would clear their "good" name, right?

You need a good reason to investigate a person. Reasonable cause which is usually backed by evidence.

You didn't feel that way when a special counsel was appointed to investigate potential Trump-Russia "collusion".

 

[Coyote]

No idea. I do know he had no less knowledge about the business than the other members of the board did.

Then an investigation would, presumably, demonstrate Hunter and Joe's innocence. An investigation would clear their "good" name, right?

You need a good reason to investigate a person. Reasonable cause which is usually backed by evidence.

You didn't feel that way when a special counsel was appointed to investigate potential Trump-Russia "collusion".

Sure I did. There was reasonable cause. There were multiple instances of Trump/Russia interactions and conflicting accounts of why, there were questionable financial dealings, the fact that, per all of our intelligence agencies, and those of other countries - Russia was attempting to interfere in our election (and others), there were Russian attempts at hacking, some successful, the timely release of hacked information - a lot of stuff pointing to a need to investigate. It would have been a dereliction of duty to not investigate something that could so profoundly impact our electoral process and the trust in that process.

 

[BULLDOG]

There was no appearance of impropriety. That claim wasn't even considered until Biden Became Trump's political opponent. Can you show a single reference to that claim before Trump started whining about it?

There's a shitload appearance of "impropriety". It just came up recently because a new president was elected in Ukraine, a president that has promised to root out corruption.

Just be honest. Admit it. You don't want an investigation because you're afraid that it might demonstrate that Joe Biden and son Hunter were engaged in corruption.

Bullshit.

 

[Coyote]

There was no appearance of impropriety. That claim wasn't even considered until Biden Became Trump's political opponent. Can you show a single reference to that claim before Trump started whining about it?

There's a shitload appearance of "impropriety". It just came up recently because a new president was elected in Ukraine, a president that has promised to root out corruption.

Just be honest. Admit it. You don't want an investigation because you're afraid that it might demonstrate that Joe Biden and son Hunter were engaged in corruption.

But the new president had no focus on Biden what so ever until Trump pressured him.

 

[BULLDOG]

No idea. I do know he had no less knowledge about the business than the other members of the board did.

Then an investigation would, presumably, demonstrate Hunter and Joe's innocence. An investigation would clear their "good" name, right?

You need a good reason to investigate a person. Reasonable cause which is usually backed by evidence.

You didn't feel that way when a special counsel was appointed to investigate potential Trump-Russia "collusion".

There was plenty of reason.

 

[ranfunck]

There was plenty of reason.

Because he is orange

 

[K9Buck]

There was no appearance of impropriety. That claim wasn't even considered until Biden Became Trump's political opponent. Can you show a single reference to that claim before Trump started whining about it?

There's a shitload appearance of "impropriety". It just came up recently because a new president was elected in Ukraine, a president that has promised to root out corruption.

Just be honest. Admit it. You don't want an investigation because you're afraid that it might demonstrate that Joe Biden and son Hunter were engaged in corruption.

But the new president had no focus on Biden what so ever until Trump pressured him.

He had only been in office 2 months when Trump asked him to look into it. There are also reports that Ukraine officials were contacting American officials and encouraging them to look into Biden.

You oppose an investigation because you want to protect corrupt Democrats.

 

[K9Buck]

No idea. I do know he had no less knowledge about the business than the other members of the board did.

Then an investigation would, presumably, demonstrate Hunter and Joe's innocence. An investigation would clear their "good" name, right?

You need a good reason to investigate a person. Reasonable cause which is usually backed by evidence.

You didn't feel that way when a special counsel was appointed to investigate potential Trump-Russia "collusion".

Sure I did. There was reasonable cause. There were multiple instances of Trump/Russia interactions and conflicting accounts of why, there were questionable financial dealings, the fact that, per all of our intelligence agencies, and those of other countries - Russia was attempting to interfere in our election (and others), there were Russian attempts at hacking, some successful, the timely release of hacked information - a lot of stuff pointing to a need to investigate. It would have been a dereliction of duty to not investigate something that could so profoundly impact our electoral process and the trust in that process.

The only "probable cause" was what Democrats and their goons fabricated. Barr is looking into that as we speak. No doubt, you will continue to support Democratic lies and corruption. Thanks.

 

[BULLDOG]

There was no appearance of impropriety. That claim wasn't even considered until Biden Became Trump's political opponent. Can you show a single reference to that claim before Trump started whining about it?

There's a shitload appearance of "impropriety". It just came up recently because a new president was elected in Ukraine, a president that has promised to root out corruption.

Just be honest. Admit it. You don't want an investigation because you're afraid that it might demonstrate that Joe Biden and son Hunter were engaged in corruption.

But the new president had no focus on Biden what so ever until Trump pressured him.

He had only been in office 2 months when Trump asked him to look into it. There are also reports that Ukraine officials were contacting American officials and encouraging them to look into Biden.

You oppose an investigation because you want to protect corrupt Democrats.

At that time, Giuliani had already been there pushing them to get involved in the fake investigation.

 

[AntonToo]

There was no appearance of impropriety. That claim wasn't even considered until Biden Became Trump's political opponent. Can you show a single reference to that claim before Trump started whining about it?

There's a shitload appearance of "impropriety". It just came up recently because a new president was elected in Ukraine, a president that has promised to root out corruption.

Just be honest. Admit it. You don't want an investigation because you're afraid that it might demonstrate that Joe Biden and son Hunter were engaged in corruption.

But the new president had no focus on Biden what so ever until Trump pressured him.

He had only been in office 2 months when Trump asked him to look into it. There are also reports that Ukraine officials were contacting American officials and encouraging them to look into Biden.

You oppose an investigation because you want to protect corrupt Democrats.

What reports? Even according to disgruntled Sholkin Hunter himself was never under any investigation or suspicion.