The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Was that okay?

I think so; no crime.

And also fine for Trump to ask Ukraine to look into the corruption of the Bidens.

johnforbes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 5:22 pm Was that okay?

I think so; no crime.

And also fine for Trump to ask Ukraine to look into the corruption of the Bidens.

Of course Johnnie it was OK what the democrats did because nowhere in their request did they ever imply that Ukraine must reopen cases or risk losing economic aid from the US. If anything, the letter looks like a reasonable request to get the Ukranians to work with Mueller. There is nothing wrong with this because the Mueller investigation was officially sanctioned by the government.

However, I suspect that the Ukrainians believed that a Biden investigation was a condition for Trump to discuss with Zelenskiy. This fucking Zelenskiy is no angel. He knew the price of admission.

However what Trump was doing was different. Trump was leveraging the guns because he knew that the Zelenskiy was in a bad situation because the Russians were breathing down his back. And Trump figured he could extract some info. about his political rival (Biden) and benefit PERSONALLY from this. Personally in terms that it would benefit him in the upcoming elections.

It's that simple Johnnie. So the next time around try not to step in your own pile of steaming bullshit...

Of course Johnnie it was OK what the democrats did because nowhere in their request did they ever imply that Ukraine must reopen cases or risk losing economic aid from the US

Neither did Trump, but Biden did threaten Ukraine with loss of economic aid if they didn't fire the prosecutor investigating his son. That's a fact and is on record, he even bragged about it.

Trump will be running against a white woman who took a native set aside affirmative action position milking the system through deceit, just as Biden did. MAGA

"Trump will be running against a white woman who took a native set aside affirmative action position..."-RealTool

There was no "native set aside affirmative action position" she took, dimwit.

It's JustMoreMadeUpStupidShit from The Tool. It's all the desperate Trump supporters have any more.

Yes, there was.

Harvard bragged that she was the first minority female to be a prof there.

They were looking for just such a person, and this sort of reverse racism is practiced constantly in colleges and in business too.

Ever heard of all the EEO jobs? Equal employment = reverse discrimination.

No, there wasn't, dimwit. Why are you posting nothing but lies any more, johnny? You used to mix in some truth occasionally.

The position she took was not a "native set aside affirmative action" position. They may have been 'looking' for a Native American to improve diversity in their faculty as a general goal, but there was no requirement that a Native American get the job she was hired to do.

What I can't believe is that Republicans are such assholes that they fault a person for believing the stories of an elderly family member, especially at a time when there was no such thing as DNA testing to verify what she had been told.

Only dishonest partisan scumbags would pretend that understandable childhood gullibility toward and Aunt disqualifies someone to be President-- or anything else for that matter. But I guess you must pick on something because you can't argue with her positions on anything else.

The 3 Dem senators were making a reasonable request of Ukraine, nothing illegal.

Ditto Trump.

"...but Biden did threaten Ukraine with loss of economic aid if they didn't fire the prosecutor investigating his son."-RealStool

No, Biden's son was never being investigated by the guy that Biden wanted fired. You made it up, as always.

RealJustme wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:13 pm

Of course Johnnie it was OK what the democrats did because nowhere in their request did they ever imply that Ukraine must reopen cases or risk losing economic aid from the US

Neither did Trump, but Biden did threaten Ukraine with loss of economic aid if they didn't fire the prosecutor investigating his son. That's a fact and is on record, he even bragged about it.

Whoever said Biden's son was even under investigation? There was no evidence he was under investigation.

Three steaming piles of bullshit for you Justme!!!

Here's some evidence that Hunter Biden did nothing wrong and wasn't being investigated as Republicans keep claiming--right from the horse's mouth, you horses' asses.

“From the perspective of Ukrainian legislation, he did not violate anything,” former Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuri Lutsenko told The Washington Post in his first interview since the disclosure of a whistleblower complaint alleging pressure by President Trump on Ukraine’s president, Volodymr Zelensky.

Lutsenko’s comments about Hunter Biden — which echo what he told Bloomberg News in May — were significant, because Trump and his personal attorney Giuliani have sought to stir up suspicions about both Hunter and former vice president Joe Biden’s conduct in Ukraine in recent weeks."-msn

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ailsignout

That is interesting, even though Clown does resemble the southern end of a northbound horse.

Johnnie throwing all of that steaming bullshit at the wall doesn't seem to be working.....

“From the perspective of Ukrainian legislation, he did not violate anything,” former Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuri Lutsenko told The Washington Post in his first interview since the disclosure of a whistleblower complaint alleging pressure by President Trump on Ukraine’s president, Volodymr Zelensky.

The Ukrainian president said there was no pressure...
Yet the Demos choose to believe the whistleblower instead, ...Why is that Clown?

Silly....so why did Trump order the taped conversations between him and Comrade Putin, Bonesaw Prince of Saudi Arabia and the Ukrainian president stored on a top secret server.

Now this is from the guy who says he had a "perfect call"........

"The Ukrainian president said there was no pressure...
Yet the Demos choose to believe the whistleblower instead, ...Why is that Clown?"-sillydummy

I don't know, silly. Why would anyone believe a foreigner whose country relies desperately on Trump's whims and largess over a longtime career U.S. Intelligence operative and someone whom Maguire told both you and Congress had done the right thing?

Are you saying Maguire doesn't know a good man when he sees one, or that Maguire is a liar, silly? I dare you to say that to his face.

Bok-bok-bok..... you disloyal, ignorant, conservative chickenshit....

"...the right thing..""
That's because the questions were all about procedures...

This was just this week's attempt to unseat Trump.

The so-called whistleblower had a "partisan bias" according to the IG.

The attorney for this person donated to Biden's campaign.

So it is very easy to see what was attempted -- some Democrat wanted to corrupt the whistleblower process by taking a rumor and getting press with it.

Criminy, johnny, READ the seven page whistle blower document and THEN tell us how frivolous it is, dimwit. It was a Trump cover up, fer cripes sake. That's what took down Nixon, for good reason.

And as we all know, guys intentionally ruin their entire future careers every day over some guy that might not even be the Democrat candidate in twelve months, right?

Yes, it was very silly.

When 3 Dem senators wanted Ukraine to investigate Trump, it was the same thing.

They had a perfect right to do that, and there was nothing illegal.

Here, we have an obvious Democrat who was perhaps working with Brennan or some other person dedicated to undoing Trump's presidency, but lacking the courage and honesty to do that openly by running for office.

So what is the name, what is the background, of this person who spread a rumor?

Not a whistleblower at all, but a gossip monger.

"Not a whistleblower at all, but a gossip monger."-johnfibs

johnny, I'm really shocked at your contempt for Maguire, a Navy Admiral and a SEAL for 21 years.

He said what the whistle blower did was correct and followed the letter of the law.
"I want to stress I believe the whistle blower and the inspector general have acted in good faith throughout. I have every reason to believe that they have done everything by the book and followed the law."-Maguire

Why you think you are better able to judge the whistle blower (about whom you know almost nothing relevant) than the Acting Director of National Intelligence is truly mind boggling. Your partisan inflated ego is embarrassing and horrifying.

Read the seven page complaint, johnny, then get back to us.

I know nothing about the admiral, but would assume he is a decent fellow.

Clearly, the issue was not that the whistleblower was not following the law, but instead actually using a technicality to push out partisan gossip.

This guy had NO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE, merely gossip.

Sure, the law was in place, and his lawyer (who donated to Biden) helped him use it.

Just as with prior efforts since 2016, it was an attempt to undo the 2016 election.

It failed miserably because there was nothing wrong in what Trump said, and it was good that Trump was seeking to limit the corruption of the Bidens.

As we see, johnforbes hates illegal coverups.....unless they are perpetrated by his own party.

It's the standard Republican position on everything---hypocrisy.

Well it's actually a double cover up.

Cover up number 1 is the fact that the Trump administration did not report the whistle blower report to congress as required by law....and as a matter of fact...nobody would have ever known about the whistle blower report if it was not leaked to the media.

Cover up number two is the fact that Trump had the transcripts stored on a top - top secret server to hide this political indiscretions from any scrutiny.