As of now this is “allegations of …”. That won’t move anyone who wasn’t moved already.
Solid proof would move a marginal few more.
It is barely hyperbolic to claim as he did that he could shoot someone in broad daylight and his core supporters would find a way to either disbelieve the fake news or support his murdering someone as the right thing to do.
Getting them to drop support to the level that two thirds of the Senate would vote to convict to impeach? I don’t know what could accomplish that. There’s more than a third of the states that have enough of those core supporters to make that not happen.
It’s important to keep in mind that most facts and semi-facts presented by the Left are a result of malfeasance of the Trump administration and the complicit Republicans who obstruct investigations in order to keep semi-facts from being fully established. This is not the case of “alternative facts” being manufactured from whole cloth; Birtherism, for example. The game, as is evidenced in this discussion, is for the Right to maximize and maintain the veneer of implausible deniability for their base, which will see and hear no evil coming from this White House.
Quick take: Because this one is more “real”. Remember the details of the McGahn obstruction of justice possibility that Mueller put in his report? Neither do I. Something about Trump telling McGahn to get rid of Rosenstein. It’s all very murky, unless you read the report. This on the other hand is straightforward. The president is essentially trying to bribe a foreign government to do dirty work for him against an American citizen and possible opponent in the next election. Why Trump should or should not be able to get rid of someone in the DoJ isn’t so cut in dried in the minds of the American people, I would imagine. No cut against them, it just isn’t. We all understand what a bribe is.
Its always the same thing. The Democrats wanted him removed when he picked someone’s pocket on first avenue, stole a car on second avenue, mugged someone on third avenue, and robbed a bank on 4th avenue. So why should I pay attention to them now that he’s shot someone on 5th avenue.
Biden in and of himself had no power to do anything. He was not the president. So answer me this: why would Obama authorize Biden to make such a threat just to protect Biden’s son? Why risk his reputation for such a thing? It makes no sense. And also, please explain, with facts and evidence, what Hunter’s “wrongdoing” was, other than making an absolutely indefensible decision to put himself into such a conflict of interest in the first place?
First let me say that I did not read the whole thread before my above response to you and I should have.
As for this, it goes to what I said earlier. Indeed, there is no ambiguity about what Biden said, since you quoted it. But just because he made a threat does not mean he had the power to come to that decision on his own. Unless Obama had just turned the whole of Ukraine foreign policy over to him. I see no evidence this was the case. So again, what was Obama’s motive?
Just ask Barack Hussein Obama himself, who’s had his U.S. passport revoked for fraudulently claiming to be born in Hawaii.
We could ask Crooked Hillary Clinton, but all her time is taken up with all those investigations and criminal trials Trump’s Attorney General began against her the day the President was inaugurated.
For another example of Trump’s commitment to uncovering evil and righting wrongs, ask the humiliated Ted Cruz, who resigned from the Senate after Trump’s investigation showed Cruz’s father was involved in the JFK assassination, which also put an end to all those “who killed JFK?” conspiracy theories.
As a New Yorker, I cannot let this go unaddressed in my own thread. There is, indeed, a 4th Avenue in Manhattan – it runs from around 6th street to the south side of Union Square. The Simpsons even visited it on their visit to NYC, I believe.
Just being frank, I don’t know how much autonomy Biden had with Ukraine. In his CFR comments, he said “I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine.” He’s been described as “the administration’s point-man on Ukraine” and “in charge of U.S. policy toward” Ukraine. I don’t know the exact degree of personal latitude Biden was given to fulfill the Obama administration’s broader objectives. For example, it looks one way if Obama ordered Biden to specifically withhold the $1B until Shokin was removed, or do whatever is necessary to get him fired. It’s a bit different situation if Obama wanted Biden to fight corruption generally, and was prepared to support his decisions on the matter, and Biden chose to pursue that mandate by going to the mat for the firing of Shokin. I just don’t know how hands-on Obama was with the decision(s) regarding Ukraine. This is another one of those things about which I think there’s some uncertainty still.
And look how much we’re talking about Biden in a thread about an urgent and credible IG complaint against Trump that the administration is illegally blocking from congress. Well done, Ditka, you’ve completely hoodwinked everyone into playing your game.
Yes, no doubt. He did not have to authority to do it on his own. Obama gave him the authority. It makes sense then that Obama/Biden would want the prosecutor fired because he wasn’t doing his job, and for the record, other officials from other countries did. It does not make sense that Obama would want to do this merely to protect Hunter Biden. Therefore, there was nothing wrong here. No scandal. Obama/Biden were acting in the interest of the US, not themselves.
Okay, I too am not aware of the intricate details about Biden regarding Ukraine. My point though, is that I find it highly unlikely that Obama would just give him carte blanche to do as he pleased there, therefore Bidens’ actions would have been subject to the president’s approval. Trump wants to make out that Biden did something unethical. All evidence points to the fact that getting that prosecutor fired was the important thing, that other countries also supported it, and Hunter Biden had nothing to do with it. If other facts come out to the contrary, so be it.
shrug the OP specifically asked me for my opinion. I shared it. People asked follow-up questions and this is the direction the conversation went. This wasn’t me hoodwinking everyone or playing games. I answered what I perceived to be a few sincere questions with sincere answers.
No, trust me, you hoodwinked everyone. You were asked about your feelings on Trump’s actions and you immediately pivoted to Biden’s. And the OP and others (but not everyone) took the bait. Bravo.
Did I take the bait? Was I hoodwinked? Whatever you want to call it, I responded to HD. I said what I wanted to in direct response to the OP, had nothing particularly pressing to say about other’s posts, so I addressed what I think was his erroneous idea that Biden was trying to help his son rather than do his regular duties as vice president. Fighting ignorance, and all of that.
Here’s the thing about the “Biden got the prosecutor fired because he wanted to protect his son’s company” theory: it’s bass-ackwards. The reason so many international organizations wanted Shokin ousted was that he was viewed as an enabler of corruption, and among his alleged wrongdoings was burying the Burisma investigation in return for bribes. This is a point obscured by Trump allies, and it’s a complicated one, so grab a sandwich and open up some coverage from back in May, before the now-infamous phone call/whistleblower complaint:
Here’s a excerpt, but you really should read the entire piece, because it touches on so many more aspects of the Ukraine/Biden/Shokin narrative(s):
Sorry for the wall of text, but there’s a lot to unpack.
TL;DR: That prosecutor Joe Biden got fired? Sure looks like he got fired for NOT investigating Burisma (Hunter Biden’s employer) and other companies, in an extortion racket. But don’t take my word for it; read and judge for yourself.
But just because he made a threat does not mean he had the power to come to that decision on his own. Unless Obama had just turned the whole of Ukraine foreign policy over to him. I see no evidence this was the case. So again, what was Obama’s motive?