Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options

Trump’s communications with foreign leader are part of whistleblower complaint that spurred standoff

1678911

Comments

  • Options
    UW_Doog_BotUW_Doog_Bot Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 14,471
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes
    Swaye's Wigwam

    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    Mr. Trump didn’t mention a provision of foreign aid to Ukraine on the call, said this person, who didn’t believe Mr. Trump offered the Ukrainian president any quid-pro-quo for his cooperation on an investigation…

    So it appears that O'Keefed is upset because he doesn't want Biden investigated.

    Yet Daddy’s coverup continues. How odd.
    Yeah, I like to call exercising EP a "cover-up"

    What law requires a President to release the details of private conversations they've had with other foreign leaders.

    Asked you that question yesterday, of course you dodged it like the Kunt you are.

    C'mon Bob, are you really this stupid or just being a bitchass partisan kunt as usual? whynotboth.gif

    The coverup is the Trump administration and the DOJ are blocking Congress from getting ahold of the whisteblower's report. If there's nothing to hide and he did nothing wrong, why are they afraid of?
    Would love to see all the records of every Dem in Congress' bank accounts for idk, the last 20 years. If there's nothing to hide and they did nothing wrong, what are they afraid of?
    That's a terrible analogy
    It was a terrible fucking argument to begin with.
  • Options
    HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 19,352
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment

    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    Mr. Trump didn’t mention a provision of foreign aid to Ukraine on the call, said this person, who didn’t believe Mr. Trump offered the Ukrainian president any quid-pro-quo for his cooperation on an investigation…

    So it appears that O'Keefed is upset because he doesn't want Biden investigated.

    Yet Daddy’s coverup continues. How odd.
    Yeah, I like to call exercising EP a "cover-up"

    What law requires a President to release the details of private conversations they've had with other foreign leaders.

    Asked you that question yesterday, of course you dodged it like the Kunt you are.

    C'mon Bob, are you really this stupid or just being a bitchass partisan kunt as usual? whynotboth.gif

    The coverup is the Trump administration and the DOJ are blocking Congress from getting ahold of the whisteblower's report. If there's nothing to hide and he did nothing wrong, why are they afraid of?
    Would love to see all the records of every Dem in Congress' bank accounts for idk, the last 20 years. If there's nothing to hide and they did nothing wrong, what are they afraid of?
    Did an IG find a credible and serious allegation of wrongdoing against every Dem in Congress? Please link that.
  • Options
    SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 31,922
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes
    Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    GDS said:

    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    Removal of the corrupt government, including the prosecutor, was US policy, blob. Meanwhile, Rudy says there’s nothing wrong with conditioning US aid on the Ukraine’s willingness to investigate Daddy’s political opponents. Your crocodile tears over self-dealing are super convincing.


    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/11/06/ivanka-trump-gets-initial-approval-from-china-for-16-trademarks.html


    Removal of the prosecutor was US policy but Biden's son having shady business dealings that wasn't US policy and you didn't give a fuck about that O'Keefed.

    Do you think Biden's son would have been able to secure that deal if he was the son of a plumber or do you think his daddy's position might of had something to do with it?

    I don't care what Rudy says, I care what has actually been done.
    Blob what exactly was Biden's son's "shady business dealings"? He's been a very prominent lawyer and hedge fund manager for some time. Being named as a member of the board of directors was consistent with his career. Did he do something in his role as a member of the board that was corrupt or illegal? Let's hear the evidence.
    Yeah, a prominent lawyer and hedge fund manager who's business has been helped greatly by his daddy's connections.
    So “shady” is blob’s way of saying connected people have advantages. What a snowflake!
    Gosh weren't you the Kunt who just a few short hours ago was complaining about Trump's self-dealing and profiteering? What's it like being a hypocritical piece of shit O'Keefed. So now, using your daddy's connections to enrich yourself is okay. Oh yeah, Biden's business partner on this deal was none other than the Secretary of State's son. Weird how we didn't hears any completes "profiteering" then.

    Why it's almost as if you're nothing more than a shitty lawyer and a shameless hack.
    You’re gonna have a great argument as soon as Hunter runs for President. Daddy’s afraid of Joe, not Hunter.
    Got it, it's okay for the Biden's son to profit from his daddy's position.


    Did Joe give him the position?

    Don Jr is an Executive VP in Daddy’s company. Now you’re making me question whether that is solely due to his business acumen.
    No, he just gave him connections that all came from his position in Government.
    He “gave” him his connections? How’d he do that blob? Is there a connection ceremony?
    Work the balls O'Keefed, work the balls.

    Trump made his kid an Exec in a business he started long before he ever was in public office.


    Biden used his connections, along with John Kerry's connections to enrich himself. All of these connections were due to Biden's position in public office. Trump didn't use the government to give his son that job.

    Why are you so upset about Biden being investigated O'Keefed?
  • Options
    SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 31,922
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes
    Standard Supporter
    If Biden has nothing to hide why did he try to stop the investigation?
  • Options
    HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 19,352
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment
    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    GDS said:

    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    Removal of the corrupt government, including the prosecutor, was US policy, blob. Meanwhile, Rudy says there’s nothing wrong with conditioning US aid on the Ukraine’s willingness to investigate Daddy’s political opponents. Your crocodile tears over self-dealing are super convincing.


    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/11/06/ivanka-trump-gets-initial-approval-from-china-for-16-trademarks.html


    Removal of the prosecutor was US policy but Biden's son having shady business dealings that wasn't US policy and you didn't give a fuck about that O'Keefed.

    Do you think Biden's son would have been able to secure that deal if he was the son of a plumber or do you think his daddy's position might of had something to do with it?

    I don't care what Rudy says, I care what has actually been done.
    Blob what exactly was Biden's son's "shady business dealings"? He's been a very prominent lawyer and hedge fund manager for some time. Being named as a member of the board of directors was consistent with his career. Did he do something in his role as a member of the board that was corrupt or illegal? Let's hear the evidence.
    Yeah, a prominent lawyer and hedge fund manager who's business has been helped greatly by his daddy's connections.
    So “shady” is blob’s way of saying connected people have advantages. What a snowflake!
    Gosh weren't you the Kunt who just a few short hours ago was complaining about Trump's self-dealing and profiteering? What's it like being a hypocritical piece of shit O'Keefed. So now, using your daddy's connections to enrich yourself is okay. Oh yeah, Biden's business partner on this deal was none other than the Secretary of State's son. Weird how we didn't hears any completes "profiteering" then.

    Why it's almost as if you're nothing more than a shitty lawyer and a shameless hack.
    You’re gonna have a great argument as soon as Hunter runs for President. Daddy’s afraid of Joe, not Hunter.
    Got it, it's okay for the Biden's son to profit from his daddy's position.


    Did Joe give him the position?

    Don Jr is an Executive VP in Daddy’s company. Now you’re making me question whether that is solely due to his business acumen.
    No, he just gave him connections that all came from his position in Government.
    He “gave” him his connections? How’d he do that blob? Is there a connection ceremony?
    Work the balls O'Keefed, work the balls.

    Trump made his kid an Exec in a business he started long before he ever was in public office.


    Biden used his connections, along with John Kerry's connections to enrich himself. All of these connections were due to Biden's position in public office. Trump didn't use the government to give his son that job.

    Why are you so upset about Biden being investigated O'Keefed?
    The real question is why Daddy’s administration is covering this whistleblower complaint up. That’s the immediate issue. The law required the information to be turned over days and days ago.

    If you want to investigate something, knock yourself out. Stop using your desire for a fishing expedition as an excuse for Daddy’s obstruction.
  • Options
    UW_Doog_BotUW_Doog_Bot Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 14,471
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    GDS said:

    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    Removal of the corrupt government, including the prosecutor, was US policy, blob. Meanwhile, Rudy says there’s nothing wrong with conditioning US aid on the Ukraine’s willingness to investigate Daddy’s political opponents. Your crocodile tears over self-dealing are super convincing.


    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/11/06/ivanka-trump-gets-initial-approval-from-china-for-16-trademarks.html


    Removal of the prosecutor was US policy but Biden's son having shady business dealings that wasn't US policy and you didn't give a fuck about that O'Keefed.

    Do you think Biden's son would have been able to secure that deal if he was the son of a plumber or do you think his daddy's position might of had something to do with it?

    I don't care what Rudy says, I care what has actually been done.
    Blob what exactly was Biden's son's "shady business dealings"? He's been a very prominent lawyer and hedge fund manager for some time. Being named as a member of the board of directors was consistent with his career. Did he do something in his role as a member of the board that was corrupt or illegal? Let's hear the evidence.
    Yeah, a prominent lawyer and hedge fund manager who's business has been helped greatly by his daddy's connections.
    So “shady” is blob’s way of saying connected people have advantages. What a snowflake!
    Gosh weren't you the Kunt who just a few short hours ago was complaining about Trump's self-dealing and profiteering? What's it like being a hypocritical piece of shit O'Keefed. So now, using your daddy's connections to enrich yourself is okay. Oh yeah, Biden's business partner on this deal was none other than the Secretary of State's son. Weird how we didn't hears any completes "profiteering" then.

    Why it's almost as if you're nothing more than a shitty lawyer and a shameless hack.
    You’re gonna have a great argument as soon as Hunter runs for President. Daddy’s afraid of Joe, not Hunter.
    Got it, it's okay for the Biden's son to profit from his daddy's position.


    Did Joe give him the position?

    Don Jr is an Executive VP in Daddy’s company. Now you’re making me question whether that is solely due to his business acumen.
    No, he just gave him connections that all came from his position in Government.
    He “gave” him his connections? How’d he do that blob? Is there a connection ceremony?
    Work the balls O'Keefed, work the balls.

    Trump made his kid an Exec in a business he started long before he ever was in public office.


    Biden used his connections, along with John Kerry's connections to enrich himself. All of these connections were due to Biden's position in public office. Trump didn't use the government to give his son that job.

    Why are you so upset about Biden being investigated O'Keefed?
    The real question is why Daddy’s administration is covering this whistleblower complaint up. That’s the immediate issue. The law required the information to be turned over days and days ago.

    If you want to investigate something, knock yourself out. Stop using your desire for a fishing expedition as an excuse for Daddy’s obstruction.
    Sure, it should come out then right? Can't obstruct forever. All you gotta do is sit back and wait for those chickens to hatch then right?
  • Options
    PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 42,218
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    edited September 2019
    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    Other than dad threatening the Ukraine if they investigate his sons billion dollar deal sure nothing

    It was a coincidence

    Joe’s stance appears to have been consistent with US policy. Hunter was a board member in the company we’re talking about. You’re going to have to produce a lot more facts if you want to make this interesting. It’s hard to take you seriously when your Daddy is proposing to host the G7 at one of his properties and you don’t give a shit.
    Here's the difference - it's about disclosure. Trump may be offering to host a G7 event at one of his resorts...because they are the biggest and best resorts evah, you know.

    But he's actually DISCLOSING that. He's not skulking around in the shadows and backrooms. Christ, who knows, maybe he's comping it. Whatever. They're going to have have a G7 somewhere and pay for it. Maybe Epstein's estate can host it on sex island....

    Hunter Biden is a backroom money launderer. His shenanigans are coming out after the fact. It wasn't like Crazy Joe was disclosing to everybody and his dog that his boy Hunter was out making billion dollar deals in China and Ukraine. Because Crazy Joe wasn't. And neither was Hunter.

    And, sorry, based on genetics, Hunter ain't smart enough on his own to gain access to the most powerful people in the world. He's either name dropping and Crazy Joe was giving the backdoor A-OK/wink wink signal or he's bribing his way in through other means.

    Your faux outrage on Trump is noted, yet once again.

    TDS! TDS! TDS!


    Daddy is sometimes willing to dare you to call him on his profiteering. You’re a little naive to think you know full extent of it however.
    And Hunter/Crazy Joe? You good with their skulduggery profiteering?

    Or just selective disclosed profiteering?

    So far you have a few scattered dots. Connect them and we have something to discuss.
    So you selectively choose who to investigate/sentence based on political ideololgy? Or is it personality that decides?

    Shouldn't all illegal/unethical profiteering be ferreted out?

    Those are three very easy questions to answer. Take the individuals out of it.

    Go.

  • Options
    RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 102,286
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    Mr. Trump didn’t mention a provision of foreign aid to Ukraine on the call, said this person, who didn’t believe Mr. Trump offered the Ukrainian president any quid-pro-quo for his cooperation on an investigation…

    So it appears that O'Keefed is upset because he doesn't want Biden investigated.

    Yet Daddy’s coverup continues. How odd.
    Yeah, I like to call exercising EP a "cover-up"

    What law requires a President to release the details of private conversations they've had with other foreign leaders.

    Asked you that question yesterday, of course you dodged it like the Kunt you are.

    Daddy has no legal power to have any input on this.
    Bullshit
    Your legal scholarship is legendary.
    Better than yours

    Not bad for a contractor
  • Options
    RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 102,286
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    Biden story now front page news


    You all got played again
  • Options
    HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 19,352
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    Other than dad threatening the Ukraine if they investigate his sons billion dollar deal sure nothing

    It was a coincidence

    Joe’s stance appears to have been consistent with US policy. Hunter was a board member in the company we’re talking about. You’re going to have to produce a lot more facts if you want to make this interesting. It’s hard to take you seriously when your Daddy is proposing to host the G7 at one of his properties and you don’t give a shit.
    Here's the difference - it's about disclosure. Trump may be offering to host a G7 event at one of his resorts...because they are the biggest and best resorts evah, you know.

    But he's actually DISCLOSING that. He's not skulking around in the shadows and backrooms. Christ, who knows, maybe he's comping it. Whatever. They're going to have have a G7 somewhere and pay for it. Maybe Epstein's estate can host it on sex island....

    Hunter Biden is a backroom money launderer. His shenanigans are coming out after the fact. It wasn't like Crazy Joe was disclosing to everybody and his dog that his boy Hunter was out making billion dollar deals in China and Ukraine. Because Crazy Joe wasn't. And neither was Hunter.

    And, sorry, based on genetics, Hunter ain't smart enough on his own to gain access to the most powerful people in the world. He's either name dropping and Crazy Joe was giving the backdoor A-OK/wink wink signal or he's bribing his way in through other means.

    Your faux outrage on Trump is noted, yet once again.

    TDS! TDS! TDS!


    Daddy is sometimes willing to dare you to call him on his profiteering. You’re a little naive to think you know full extent of it however.
    And Hunter/Crazy Joe? You good with their skulduggery profiteering?

    Or just selective disclosed profiteering?

    So far you have a few scattered dots. Connect them and we have something to discuss.
    So you selectively choose who to investigate/sentence based on political ideololgy? Or is it personality that decides?

    Shouldn't all illegal/unethical profiteering be ferreted out?

    Those are three very easy questions to answer. Take the individuals out of it.

    Go.

    You’re over complicating things. The complaint should be turned over. You can investigate anything you choose to.
  • Options
    HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 19,352
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment

    Biden story now front page news


    You all got played again


    Contractor journalism too?
  • Options
    PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 42,218
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    Other than dad threatening the Ukraine if they investigate his sons billion dollar deal sure nothing

    It was a coincidence

    Joe’s stance appears to have been consistent with US policy. Hunter was a board member in the company we’re talking about. You’re going to have to produce a lot more facts if you want to make this interesting. It’s hard to take you seriously when your Daddy is proposing to host the G7 at one of his properties and you don’t give a shit.
    Here's the difference - it's about disclosure. Trump may be offering to host a G7 event at one of his resorts...because they are the biggest and best resorts evah, you know.

    But he's actually DISCLOSING that. He's not skulking around in the shadows and backrooms. Christ, who knows, maybe he's comping it. Whatever. They're going to have have a G7 somewhere and pay for it. Maybe Epstein's estate can host it on sex island....

    Hunter Biden is a backroom money launderer. His shenanigans are coming out after the fact. It wasn't like Crazy Joe was disclosing to everybody and his dog that his boy Hunter was out making billion dollar deals in China and Ukraine. Because Crazy Joe wasn't. And neither was Hunter.

    And, sorry, based on genetics, Hunter ain't smart enough on his own to gain access to the most powerful people in the world. He's either name dropping and Crazy Joe was giving the backdoor A-OK/wink wink signal or he's bribing his way in through other means.

    Your faux outrage on Trump is noted, yet once again.

    TDS! TDS! TDS!


    Daddy is sometimes willing to dare you to call him on his profiteering. You’re a little naive to think you know full extent of it however.
    And Hunter/Crazy Joe? You good with their skulduggery profiteering?

    Or just selective disclosed profiteering?

    So far you have a few scattered dots. Connect them and we have something to discuss.
    So you selectively choose who to investigate/sentence based on political ideololgy? Or is it personality that decides?

    Shouldn't all illegal/unethical profiteering be ferreted out?

    Those are three very easy questions to answer. Take the individuals out of it.

    Go.

    You’re over complicating things. The complaint should be turned over. You can investigate anything you choose to.
    So your answer is no answer.

    Or is your answer that you are fine with not investigating allegations based on political ideology and personalities?

  • Options
    HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 19,352
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    Other than dad threatening the Ukraine if they investigate his sons billion dollar deal sure nothing

    It was a coincidence

    Joe’s stance appears to have been consistent with US policy. Hunter was a board member in the company we’re talking about. You’re going to have to produce a lot more facts if you want to make this interesting. It’s hard to take you seriously when your Daddy is proposing to host the G7 at one of his properties and you don’t give a shit.
    Here's the difference - it's about disclosure. Trump may be offering to host a G7 event at one of his resorts...because they are the biggest and best resorts evah, you know.

    But he's actually DISCLOSING that. He's not skulking around in the shadows and backrooms. Christ, who knows, maybe he's comping it. Whatever. They're going to have have a G7 somewhere and pay for it. Maybe Epstein's estate can host it on sex island....

    Hunter Biden is a backroom money launderer. His shenanigans are coming out after the fact. It wasn't like Crazy Joe was disclosing to everybody and his dog that his boy Hunter was out making billion dollar deals in China and Ukraine. Because Crazy Joe wasn't. And neither was Hunter.

    And, sorry, based on genetics, Hunter ain't smart enough on his own to gain access to the most powerful people in the world. He's either name dropping and Crazy Joe was giving the backdoor A-OK/wink wink signal or he's bribing his way in through other means.

    Your faux outrage on Trump is noted, yet once again.

    TDS! TDS! TDS!


    Daddy is sometimes willing to dare you to call him on his profiteering. You’re a little naive to think you know full extent of it however.
    And Hunter/Crazy Joe? You good with their skulduggery profiteering?

    Or just selective disclosed profiteering?

    So far you have a few scattered dots. Connect them and we have something to discuss.
    So you selectively choose who to investigate/sentence based on political ideololgy? Or is it personality that decides?

    Shouldn't all illegal/unethical profiteering be ferreted out?

    Those are three very easy questions to answer. Take the individuals out of it.

    Go.

    You’re over complicating things. The complaint should be turned over. You can investigate anything you choose to.
    So your answer is no answer.

    Or is your answer that you are fine with not investigating allegations based on political ideology and personalities?

    I’m fine with investigating anything that meets some nominal threshold of seriousness. Say a complaint deemed credible by an IG, for instance.
  • Options
    RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 102,286
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    HHusky said:

    Biden story now front page news


    You all got played again


    Contractor journalism too?
    I'm a somewhat famous journalist in my spare time

    DFI has been peddling fake news for the better part of two decades
  • Options
    RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 102,286
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    Other than dad threatening the Ukraine if they investigate his sons billion dollar deal sure nothing

    It was a coincidence

    Joe’s stance appears to have been consistent with US policy. Hunter was a board member in the company we’re talking about. You’re going to have to produce a lot more facts if you want to make this interesting. It’s hard to take you seriously when your Daddy is proposing to host the G7 at one of his properties and you don’t give a shit.
    Here's the difference - it's about disclosure. Trump may be offering to host a G7 event at one of his resorts...because they are the biggest and best resorts evah, you know.

    But he's actually DISCLOSING that. He's not skulking around in the shadows and backrooms. Christ, who knows, maybe he's comping it. Whatever. They're going to have have a G7 somewhere and pay for it. Maybe Epstein's estate can host it on sex island....

    Hunter Biden is a backroom money launderer. His shenanigans are coming out after the fact. It wasn't like Crazy Joe was disclosing to everybody and his dog that his boy Hunter was out making billion dollar deals in China and Ukraine. Because Crazy Joe wasn't. And neither was Hunter.

    And, sorry, based on genetics, Hunter ain't smart enough on his own to gain access to the most powerful people in the world. He's either name dropping and Crazy Joe was giving the backdoor A-OK/wink wink signal or he's bribing his way in through other means.

    Your faux outrage on Trump is noted, yet once again.

    TDS! TDS! TDS!


    Daddy is sometimes willing to dare you to call him on his profiteering. You’re a little naive to think you know full extent of it however.
    And Hunter/Crazy Joe? You good with their skulduggery profiteering?

    Or just selective disclosed profiteering?

    So far you have a few scattered dots. Connect them and we have something to discuss.
    So you selectively choose who to investigate/sentence based on political ideololgy? Or is it personality that decides?

    Shouldn't all illegal/unethical profiteering be ferreted out?

    Those are three very easy questions to answer. Take the individuals out of it.

    Go.

    You’re over complicating things. The complaint should be turned over. You can investigate anything you choose to.
    So your answer is no answer.

    Or is your answer that you are fine with not investigating allegations based on political ideology and personalities?

    I’m fine with investigating anything that meets some nominal threshold of seriousness. Say a complaint deemed credible by an IG, for instance.
    It's being investigated

    Sleep well
  • Options
    HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 19,352
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    Other than dad threatening the Ukraine if they investigate his sons billion dollar deal sure nothing

    It was a coincidence

    Joe’s stance appears to have been consistent with US policy. Hunter was a board member in the company we’re talking about. You’re going to have to produce a lot more facts if you want to make this interesting. It’s hard to take you seriously when your Daddy is proposing to host the G7 at one of his properties and you don’t give a shit.
    Here's the difference - it's about disclosure. Trump may be offering to host a G7 event at one of his resorts...because they are the biggest and best resorts evah, you know.

    But he's actually DISCLOSING that. He's not skulking around in the shadows and backrooms. Christ, who knows, maybe he's comping it. Whatever. They're going to have have a G7 somewhere and pay for it. Maybe Epstein's estate can host it on sex island....

    Hunter Biden is a backroom money launderer. His shenanigans are coming out after the fact. It wasn't like Crazy Joe was disclosing to everybody and his dog that his boy Hunter was out making billion dollar deals in China and Ukraine. Because Crazy Joe wasn't. And neither was Hunter.

    And, sorry, based on genetics, Hunter ain't smart enough on his own to gain access to the most powerful people in the world. He's either name dropping and Crazy Joe was giving the backdoor A-OK/wink wink signal or he's bribing his way in through other means.

    Your faux outrage on Trump is noted, yet once again.

    TDS! TDS! TDS!


    Daddy is sometimes willing to dare you to call him on his profiteering. You’re a little naive to think you know full extent of it however.
    And Hunter/Crazy Joe? You good with their skulduggery profiteering?

    Or just selective disclosed profiteering?

    So far you have a few scattered dots. Connect them and we have something to discuss.
    So you selectively choose who to investigate/sentence based on political ideololgy? Or is it personality that decides?

    Shouldn't all illegal/unethical profiteering be ferreted out?

    Those are three very easy questions to answer. Take the individuals out of it.

    Go.

    You’re over complicating things. The complaint should be turned over. You can investigate anything you choose to.
    So your answer is no answer.

    Or is your answer that you are fine with not investigating allegations based on political ideology and personalities?

    I’m fine with investigating anything that meets some nominal threshold of seriousness. Say a complaint deemed credible by an IG, for instance.
    It's being investigated

    Sleep well
    How do you usually investigate a complaint that you don’t have possession of?
  • Options
    SledogSledog Member Posts: 31,458
    5 Up Votes First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes
    A lot of multi millionaires for earning 175K a year.......
  • Options
    KaepskneeKaepsknee Member Posts: 14,753
    5 Up Votes First Anniversary 5 Awesomes First Comment
    HHusky said:

    2001400ex said:

    GDS said:

    HHusky said:

    salemcoog said:

    HHusky said:

    salemcoog said:

    HHusky said:

    salemcoog said:

    HHusky said:

    Did he tell them to wait until he was reelected so he had more flexibility?

    The inevitable false equivalency. Thanks for not disappointing.
    So what is the context and which leader was Trump speaking with?
    Rudy’s denial/confirmation leads us to think it was a promise to release the Ukraine’s aid money to them just as soon as Ukraine starts digging up dirt on Biden.
    You believe anything that your sources qweef out of their slit. So another nothing burger and more Hondo Bros tears are the only things that have been proven to be fact
    Only the coverup is proven so far. I’ve not said anything to the contrary.
    Link to proof of a coverup please.
    I’m pretty sure the Intelligence Committees of the House and Senate are still waiting for the legally mandatory delivery of the whistleblower complaint. Coverup. Proven.
    Wondering if Coats departure is caught up in all this. The call in question happened on July 25th. Trump announced Coats departure on July 28th. If he hadn't been fired/asked to resign Coats would have been the one delivering the legally mandated report to congress that the Trump nominated IG felt was "urgent" and "serious". Could just be a coincidence?
    I don't know if that's true or not. But it's always the cover up they gets politicians in trouble. Not the actual action.
    In this case the coverup is entirely in the open and plainly illegal. Daddy counts on the deplorables to back him and dares the nutless wonders in his own party to give a damn. The reason Bart is on the Supreme Court despite not having been on Daddy’s original list of judges is because he thinks the President is also the King. Daddy needs to be above the law to get away with this.

    Whew! Easy turbo.

    Have you not learned a thing from burning up upon re-entry all of these other times?
  • Options
    HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 19,352
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment
    salemcoog said:

    HHusky said:

    2001400ex said:

    GDS said:

    HHusky said:

    salemcoog said:

    HHusky said:

    salemcoog said:

    HHusky said:

    salemcoog said:

    HHusky said:

    Did he tell them to wait until he was reelected so he had more flexibility?

    The inevitable false equivalency. Thanks for not disappointing.
    So what is the context and which leader was Trump speaking with?
    Rudy’s denial/confirmation leads us to think it was a promise to release the Ukraine’s aid money to them just as soon as Ukraine starts digging up dirt on Biden.
    You believe anything that your sources qweef out of their slit. So another nothing burger and more Hondo Bros tears are the only things that have been proven to be fact
    Only the coverup is proven so far. I’ve not said anything to the contrary.
    Link to proof of a coverup please.
    I’m pretty sure the Intelligence Committees of the House and Senate are still waiting for the legally mandatory delivery of the whistleblower complaint. Coverup. Proven.
    Wondering if Coats departure is caught up in all this. The call in question happened on July 25th. Trump announced Coats departure on July 28th. If he hadn't been fired/asked to resign Coats would have been the one delivering the legally mandated report to congress that the Trump nominated IG felt was "urgent" and "serious". Could just be a coincidence?
    I don't know if that's true or not. But it's always the cover up they gets politicians in trouble. Not the actual action.
    In this case the coverup is entirely in the open and plainly illegal. Daddy counts on the deplorables to back him and dares the nutless wonders in his own party to give a damn. The reason Bart is on the Supreme Court despite not having been on Daddy’s original list of judges is because he thinks the President is also the King. Daddy needs to be above the law to get away with this.

    Whew! Easy turbo.

    Have you not learned a thing from burning up upon re-entry all of these other times?
    LA Times:

    "The whistleblower complaint was filed on Aug. 12 with the intelligence community’s inspector general, Michael Atkinson, who notified the House Intelligence Committee on Sept. 9 because he considered the complaint 'urgent' and 'credible.'

    Atkinson, a former federal prosecutor who was appointed to his current position by Trump, stressed the urgency of the matter in a second letter on Sept. 17, saying it 'relates to one of the most significant and important of the [director of national intelligence’s] responsibilities to the American people.'" (emphasis mine)



    You girls are remarkably lacking in curiosity. Tribalism.
  • Options
    CirrhosisDawgCirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes First Anniversary
    HHusky said:

    salemcoog said:

    HHusky said:

    2001400ex said:

    GDS said:

    HHusky said:

    salemcoog said:

    HHusky said:

    salemcoog said:

    HHusky said:

    salemcoog said:

    HHusky said:

    Did he tell them to wait until he was reelected so he had more flexibility?

    The inevitable false equivalency. Thanks for not disappointing.
    So what is the context and which leader was Trump speaking with?
    Rudy’s denial/confirmation leads us to think it was a promise to release the Ukraine’s aid money to them just as soon as Ukraine starts digging up dirt on Biden.
    You believe anything that your sources qweef out of their slit. So another nothing burger and more Hondo Bros tears are the only things that have been proven to be fact
    Only the coverup is proven so far. I’ve not said anything to the contrary.
    Link to proof of a coverup please.
    I’m pretty sure the Intelligence Committees of the House and Senate are still waiting for the legally mandatory delivery of the whistleblower complaint. Coverup. Proven.
    Wondering if Coats departure is caught up in all this. The call in question happened on July 25th. Trump announced Coats departure on July 28th. If he hadn't been fired/asked to resign Coats would have been the one delivering the legally mandated report to congress that the Trump nominated IG felt was "urgent" and "serious". Could just be a coincidence?
    I don't know if that's true or not. But it's always the cover up they gets politicians in trouble. Not the actual action.
    In this case the coverup is entirely in the open and plainly illegal. Daddy counts on the deplorables to back him and dares the nutless wonders in his own party to give a damn. The reason Bart is on the Supreme Court despite not having been on Daddy’s original list of judges is because he thinks the President is also the King. Daddy needs to be above the law to get away with this.

    Whew! Easy turbo.

    Have you not learned a thing from burning up upon re-entry all of these other times?
    LA Times:

    "The whistleblower complaint was filed on Aug. 12 with the intelligence community’s inspector general, Michael Atkinson, who notified the House Intelligence Committee on Sept. 9 because he considered the complaint 'urgent' and 'credible.'

    Atkinson, a former federal prosecutor who was appointed to his current position by Trump, stressed the urgency of the matter in a second letter on Sept. 17, saying it 'relates to one of the most significant and important of the [director of national intelligence’s] responsibilities to the American people.'" (emphasis mine)



    You girls are remarkably lacking in curiosity. Tribalism.
    They’re in panic mode and furiously lashing out with whatever comes into their feeble minds. Please don’t take them seriously.
Sign In or Register to comment.