This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
stratosranger · M
Here’s a great example of the hypocrisy. Remember the quid pro quo nothing burger they wanted to impeach Trump for? Funny thing is Joe not only actually engaged in quid pro quo, but BRAGGED ABOUT IT! So where was all the outrage? Hypocritical silence. [media=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY]
@Majorsite
@Majorsite
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
stratosranger · M
What did he get in return? The investigation into his son’s doings with Burisma Holdings was ended. Yeah, he got something in return! The prosecutor investigating Hunter was fired. Once that happened a billion dollars of your tax money went to the Ukraine, Um, yeah that’s a MASSIVE quid pro quo @Lila15
Lila15 · 22-25, F
@stratosranger Hunter Biden was never under investigation. The investigation had been dormant for two years by that time anyway. And the prosecutor was fired at the request of the G7. So Biden got nothing that wouldn't have happened anyway.
Interesting that you ignore the clear quid pro quo Trump was after - weapons in exchange for announcing a fake investigation. Ukraine didn't have to actually investigate Biden; Trump just wanted Zelensky to announce one.
But to paraphrase the immortal Johnny Cochran,
"If the quid don't quo, you must let him go. But if the quo don't quid, no crime was did."
Interesting that you ignore the clear quid pro quo Trump was after - weapons in exchange for announcing a fake investigation. Ukraine didn't have to actually investigate Biden; Trump just wanted Zelensky to announce one.
But to paraphrase the immortal Johnny Cochran,
"If the quid don't quo, you must let him go. But if the quo don't quid, no crime was did."
stratosranger · M
In regards to Ukraine, Grassley said he had been provided potential evidence of criminality tied to Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma, which reportedly paid Hunter $50,000 a month to serve on its board for a period when his father was vice president.
Ukrainian oligarch and Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky is widely seen as corrupt and had $23 million frozen by British authorities in the time between the hiring of Hunter and his business associate Devon Archer.
“The FBI has within its possession a series of documents relating to information on Mykola Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma, and his business and financial associations with Hunter Biden,” Grassley wrote in his new letter. “The documents in the FBI’s possession include specific details with respect to conversations by non-government individuals relevant to potential criminal conduct by Hunter Biden.”
Whoops.
@Lila15
Ukrainian oligarch and Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky is widely seen as corrupt and had $23 million frozen by British authorities in the time between the hiring of Hunter and his business associate Devon Archer.
“The FBI has within its possession a series of documents relating to information on Mykola Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma, and his business and financial associations with Hunter Biden,” Grassley wrote in his new letter. “The documents in the FBI’s possession include specific details with respect to conversations by non-government individuals relevant to potential criminal conduct by Hunter Biden.”
Whoops.
@Lila15
Lila15 · 22-25, F
@stratosranger OK, great. So prosecute him. Unlike Republicans, I don't think people should be above the law just because they're in my party.
I am wondering how Grassley was able to see documents from an ongoing FBI investigation. Normally, executive branch agencies don't share information with legislators unless they're asked to. So by obtaining this information and blabbing about it, Grassley has both tipped off the investigation's target and possibly tainted the potential jury pool to the point that the DOJ might decide it's not worth pursuing. Keep in mind, the DOJ prefers cases that they're almost 100% certain to win. Thanks to Grassley, this one isn't anymore.
I am wondering how Grassley was able to see documents from an ongoing FBI investigation. Normally, executive branch agencies don't share information with legislators unless they're asked to. So by obtaining this information and blabbing about it, Grassley has both tipped off the investigation's target and possibly tainted the potential jury pool to the point that the DOJ might decide it's not worth pursuing. Keep in mind, the DOJ prefers cases that they're almost 100% certain to win. Thanks to Grassley, this one isn't anymore.
stratosranger · M
@Lila15 You mean the same thing that was done to Trump? Repeatedly? So what untainted jury is going to be found for Trump? Hmm? Hey, just using your logic here. Sad part is if they actually have anything concrete on Trump is a jury going to believe it? The story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf comes to mind. That and weaponizing law enforcement to push a political agenda….yeah no sorry. People see through those kind of kangaroo court tactics and stand against them. Once a precedent is set it’s very hard to undo. And the Democrats have set a great many precedents that may come back to haunt them in the near future
Lila15 · 22-25, F
@stratosranger It may be impossible to find a jury where the members haven't made up their minds already. There aren't too many people in the U.S. who don't have an opinion of him. If I was Trump's lawyer, that would be my argument, that it's impossible for him to have a fair trial either way. The DOJ isn't going to want to expend resources just for a hung jury.
Anyway, Trump apparently is going to announce his 2024 candidacy next week, and Garland isn't going to have time to file before then, and doesn't have the nerve to file afterwards.
Anyway, Trump apparently is going to announce his 2024 candidacy next week, and Garland isn't going to have time to file before then, and doesn't have the nerve to file afterwards.