So, the latest thing that is definitely going to lead to impeachment according to Twitter is this story that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden’s son. I am pretty sure the real
corruption is the way Biden used his position and US money to derail the investigation in the first place. Am I missing something? It’s wrong to try to undo a corrupt act of a prior administration if it might benefit you politically?
It’s wrong to try to undo a corrupt act of a prior administration if it might benefit you politically?
ReplyDeleteYes, and no. Undoing the corrupt acts of prior administrations benefits all of us politically, not just the corrector. Which makes it wrong if it benefits those on the wrong side of the tracks.
Eric Hines
This strikes me as Trump doing what he's done so many time before. He knows how to make a story happen. If the media isn't covering the Biden/Ukraine story what do you do? You have someone file a meaningless 'whistleblower' allegation, then 'ignore' it, and they, conditioned by their TDS, jump at it and are now talking about the Biden/Ukraine story even though they wanted to ignore it. It's brilliant, really.
ReplyDelete+1 What Douglas said. Trump is a master at getting his detractors to make big things of small things, free of charge (or charges).
ReplyDeleteShout Out to Texan99, hope the flooding ain't bad.
Agreed. I can't imagine how they could be dumb enough to fall for this.
ReplyDelete"I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’" I realize his argument is that he was demanding that the prosecutor be fired for some completely different reason. Still, imagine the effect if a video this damning contained Trump at the microphone (scroll down to the imbedded Trump tweet):
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dailywire.com/news/52072/watch-biden-explodes-when-confronted-his-ukraine-ryan-saavedra
I can't figure out how to copy or embed the video in the tweet, which oddly enough isn't showing up on YouTube.
If a Progressive-Democrat mucky-muck does it, that means it's legal.
ReplyDeleteWith (not many) apologies to Richard Nixon.
Eric Hines
It gets more interesting. At least one Ukraine bank was owned (whole or part) by a fellow named Pinchuk. IMF threw a lot of money at that bank--and others in Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteWell, then, Mr. Pinchuk donated somewhere north of $20 million to the Clinton Foundation acting as a "steel magnate." He was also rather loud and obnoxious about getting the US to do certain favors for him, his bank, and his steel company.
Just co-incidence, of course.
I especially love that to make this a "scandal" one must completely ignore the fact that the President has the unilateral ability to make foreign policy (though treaties must be ratified) and communicate with foreign leaders. In other words, their "big scandal" is that the President negotiated with the government of Ukraine. Which is his job (along with being Commander in Chief).
ReplyDeleteThis is why foreigners don't like American policy and the CIA. Some of them also know that the American people are clueless about who really controls them.
ReplyDeleteIt's mostly about a superpower stomping on weaker nations. Americans think this is America First doctrine or promoting the interests of America... it really isn't though. It's just a hyperpower stomping on infants. It's not particularly something exceptional people should be proud of. But they are.
Why are Americans proud of that? Because Americans have tolerated policy that does far worse to their own population and children. How do you get a people calloused enough to totalitarian control the world and call it freedom+justice?
ReplyDeleteWhen they think Planned Parenthood and Gender equality is "social justice". Sighs.
Fight your war first at home, America, before you try to bring freedom to the lesser states under your boot heel. It would work better. Freedom could not be spread to Iraq and Afghanistan because the State Department is full of totalitarian traitors, period. And if Trum had the guts or resources, he would have fired the FBI too, but the FBI tried to fire your President instead and it worked in the past with Nixon.
Silly me; I thought it was the job of the nation's chief law enforcement officer to use leverage to uncover illegal actions of high government officials.
ReplyDelete