Something Weird Is Going on in Fulton County, Where Trump Is Expected to Be Indicted

Cool story, but maybe you can answer that scary question you've quoted me already asking.

Here it is:

Is it apropriate for United States to presure a notoriously corrupt country to fire a corrupt prosecutor as a condition of our aid?

Yes or no?

Yeah. You copy and paste that across multiple threads.

Is it appropriate for a notoriously corrupt vice President to pressure a country for favors that would benefit himself and his family?

Yes or no? <—- note my use of bolded text for that added sense of urgency and melodrama.
 
I have no evidence of criminality. Only your goofy suggestions of such. :uhoh3:
That’s because you’re a moron. If you were a Bidumb you’d be a useful idiot just like Hunter. The retard the family sends out to collect the grift. And you would still not understand what an expendable moron you are. You won’t ever get to be like that though because your father isn’t worth someone paying you millions to get his favor. Which is all Hunter has to sell. The retard is worth nothing until he can call his dad during business meetings. Which is the only job skill he has.
 
Man, Brian Kemp better get his state in order.

This bullshit is beyond the pale.

Him allowing this circus is ridiculous.

I just read an NBC article, and it's lies.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. You copy and paste that across multiple threads.

Is it appropriate for a notoriously corrupt vice President to pressure a country for favors that would benefit himself and his family?

Yes or no? <—- note my use of bolded text for that added sense of urgency and melodrama.

So yes, you admit that it would be APROPRIATE for Biden to pressure Ukraine to remove Shokin as part of conduct of good foreign policy.

His public bragging about doing it for that reason would be well deserved.

So given that clear possibility, why would one strongly believe that it was done for INAPROPRIATE reason, aside of course from political bias? And how would a prosecutor prove it in a court of law?

Well, you have to prove an act of Quid Pro Quo. You have to prove an explicit agreement that so far there is not serious evidence of.

Facts don't even establish that Burisma was interested in removing Shokin, that he really was their big problem, nevermind Biden getting asked and agreeing to do it for personal gain.

Archers testimony was that he never heard about Shokin being a problem and from what he was told, Burisma had Shokin under control. This supports earlier statements by Ukranian official saying that Shokin had shelved Burisma investigation for two years. He also never witnessed Biden getting asked or discussing ANYTHING business related.

So you have right about NOTHING at this point except partisan noise on Joe Biden. I'm just not sure you dupe rightwingers have the gray matter to understand that clearly.
 
Last edited:
50%+ of the country votes for this mess.
When all you have is hope that the dems come to their senses...all is lost, bub.

Exactly.
That's ALL the Right has. False "hope" and false bravado.

They have no need to actually do anything because they have a Constitution that will fight for and defend their rights for them.
And to back that up....they know Jesus will have their backs anyway.

Therefore they are happy to continue to do nothing but complain.
(Completely ignoring the wise advice of the Founding Fathers)
 
Meanwhile, just as in any other Authoritarian Communist controlled shit hole, they now use their "Justice" system to eliminate any challengers or objections and call it "fair" and "Just".
Anyone who thinks things will magically get better or that elections have a chance to fix things is insane.

Wait'll they pass edicts that enforce asset seizures, pension forfeitures and loss of SS for anyone on their list of gun owners unless they turn them in immediately to local authorities under their control. And after they've all been turned in,. they'll seize the assets anyway.
Coming very soon now.
 
Last edited:
So yes, you admit that it would be APROPRIATE for Biden to pressure Ukraine to remove Shokin as part of conduct of good foreign policy.

So how exactly can you prove that it was done for INAPROPRIATE reason?

Well, you have to prove an act of Quid Pro Quo. You have to prove an explicit agreement that so far there is not serious evidence of.

Facts don't even establish that Burisma was interested in removing Shokin, nevermind Biden hearing about and it and agreeing to it.

You have NOTHING at this point except partisan noise on Joe Biden.
So yes, you admit that absent a coherent argument, you simply invent a nonsense claim you attribute to someone else. That's poor cricket, laddie.

I can admit that Sloppy Joe is a career loser. He's been a less than mediocre Dem / Marxist hack. His time in politics is marked by serial plagiarism, associations with KKK figures such as Robert Byrd and a long history of making the wrong decisions.

Don't expect me to make excuses for Sloppy Joe and his dope addled kid. The facts are clear from bank records that the Biden Crime Family Syndicate received $millions from Ukraine and other countries as well as the politically connected with those countries. Neither you nor the Dem / Marxist apologists for the Biden Crime Syndicate can offer a single, rational explanation for the services provided by the Biden Crime Syndicate for those $millions.

I get it. The Dem/ Marxist politburo consisting the pretend-Biden presidency and the various branches of the DOJ will protect their interests. That's why a heap of potential charges against Hunter Biden were allowed to extend past the statute of limitations and his sweetheart deal was so favorable.

I can admit the Dem / Marxist party of greed, corruption and illegality is little more than a reflection of 20th century Russia. The Dem / Marxist devotion to the socialist cause has shown the Dems in the House and Senate to be what Leon Trotsky called “the Voting Herd,” becoming unthinking automatons of the Dem / Socialist Congress approving every one of the Communist Party’s programs.

Thomas Sankara: “he who feeds you, controls you”. The Leninist / Stalinist ideal of an all-controlling government is precisely the goal of the neo-Bolshevik dems.
 
So yes, you admit that absent a coherent argument, you simply invent a nonsense claim you attribute to someone else. That's poor cricket, laddie.

? What "nonsense claim you attribute to someone else"?
 
I can admit that Sloppy Joe is a career loser. He's been a less than mediocre Dem / Marxist hack. His time in politics is marked by serial plagiarism, associations with KKK figures such as Robert Byrd and a long history of making the wrong decisions.

Don't expect me to make excuses for Sloppy Joe and his dope addled kid. The facts are clear from bank records that the Biden Crime Family Syndicate received $millions from Ukraine and other countries as well as the politically connected with those countries. Neither you nor the Dem / Marxist apologists for the Biden Crime Syndicate can offer a single, rational explanation for the services provided by the Biden Crime Syndicate for those $millions.

I get it. The Dem/ Marxist politburo consisting the pretend-Biden presidency and the various branches of the DOJ will protect their interests. That's why a heap of potential charges against Hunter Biden were allowed to extend past the statute of limitations and his sweetheart deal was so favorable.

I can admit the Dem / Marxist party of greed, corruption and illegality is little more than a reflection of 20th century Russia. The Dem / Marxist devotion to the socialist cause has shown the Dems in the House and Senate to be what Leon Trotsky called “the Voting Herd,” becoming unthinking automatons of the Dem / Socialist Congress approving every one of the Communist Party’s programs.

Thomas Sankara: “he who feeds you, controls you”. The Leninist / Stalinist ideal of an all-controlling government is precisely the goal of the neo-Bolshevik dems.

Heads up, you sound kind of insane with all that cliche wingnut drivel.

I suggest you get off whatever Kool-Aid party bus that got you so inebriated.
 
Last edited:
Oh, dear. I hurt your feelings.

My feelings? Okay, let's talk about my feelings.

The feeling that I have is that of profound pity for dupes like you, that get pumped with all this insane politico rhetoric and then go on public forum like this to beclown themselves.
 
Last edited:
My feelings? Okay, let's talk about my feelings.

The feeling that I have is that of profound pity for dupes like you, that get pumped with all this insane politico rhetoric and then go on public forum like this to beclown themselves.

I'm embarrassed for you I hope you can grow out of this stage of your intellectual development.
You're angry and emotive. Maybe a nice hot cup of tea and a short coma?
 
You're angry and emotive. Maybe a nice hot cup of tea and a short coma?

What would I be angry about?

You posting crazy nonsense?

Angry and emotive are your vast grievances with political opposition that you feel the need to vent as a response to specific discussion about a specific topic.
 
So yes, you admit that it would be APROPRIATE for Biden to pressure Ukraine to remove Shokin as part of conduct of good foreign policy.

His public bragging about doing it for that reason would be well deserved.

So given that clear possibility, why would one strongly believe that it was done for INAPROPRIATE reason, aside of course from political bias? And how would a prosecutor prove it in a court of law?

Well, you have to prove an act of Quid Pro Quo. You have to prove an explicit agreement that so far there is not serious evidence of.

Facts don't even establish that Burisma was interested in removing Shokin, that he really was their big problem, nevermind Biden getting asked and agreeing to do it for personal gain.

Archers testimony was that he never heard about Shokin being a problem and from what he was told, Burisma had Shokin under control. This supports earlier statements by Ukranian official saying that Shokin had shelved Burisma investigation for two years. He also never witnessed Biden getting asked or discussing ANYTHING business related.

So you have right about NOTHING at this point except partisan noise on Joe Biden. I'm just not sure you dupe rightwingers have the gray matter to understand that clearly.
You're still omitting some of his testimony that Burisma wanted Hunter to call Washington DC and get some pressure off. What was that all about?
 
What would I be angry about?

You posting crazy nonsense?

Angry and emotive are your vast grievances with political opposition that you feel the need to vent as a response to specific discussion about a specific topic.
When people deliberately avoid the truth it can be frustrating. Why do you keep lying for political hacks? Archer testified that Burisma wanted Hunter to call Washington DC. What was that all about?
 

Forum List

Back
Top