Impeachment hearings

[_Markk]

Its even more hilarious to watch him parrot right wing media about how the bidens are "dirty" without actually pointing to any crimes they committed .

LOL...You might actually go back and read the conversions with Honor and myself, on this thread, about the specific crimes the Biden may be guilty of. This current conversation is a diversion from talking about the actual issue, whether or not the Biden are dirty.

This is one reason why the left is losing at most all points...it is just identity politics, it really is, that is all they have. Folks here duck most every question I have asked...and when they get to the point they are stuck...the ad homs take over.

While I don't see eye to eye with Honor or EA...they at least know why they believe what they write and, can actually articulate it, right or wrong, which I respect. The rest just parrot talking points and get flustered and run from one talking point to another, and from being even the slightest bit objective . But, I understand that is the SOP of most here, so ...carry on...

[_Markk]

Trump did ask then-AG Jeff Sessions why the DOJ wasn't investigating the conspiracy theory regarding Ukrainian attempts to help Clinton and hurt him in 2016. Of course, he did it via Twitter and Sessions seems to have known the whole Black Ledger incident wasn't a cooked up scheme to smear Manefort and Trump...so they didn't. So it was on to his personal lawyer Giuliani followed by partisans like Nunes who took it on themselves to agitate for dirt on the Bidens and shift focus onto the Ukraine instead of Russia for trying to interfere with the US election.

Anyway, here's a better version of the timeline, prepared by actual journalists. It's long but informative.

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/time ... rainegate/

I'll read this tonight when I get a chance...but it does boil down to whether or not the Biden's are dirty, especially that Trump was acquitted of any wrong doing.

When you are ready we can certainly pick up her ewe left off on the Bidens. I am about done reading about their Ukraine adventures and am starting to ponder the China dirt.

Let me know

[_Markk]

Who was in charge of investigating the Ukraine under Obama?

Bump for canpakes

[_canpakes]

Who was in charge of investigating the Ukraine under Obama?

Bump for canpakes

Was it someone who asked a foreign country to publicly announce investigations into a political rival?

Are you asking because you’re trying to figure out why Trump didn’t ask his own DoJ to investigate ‘corruption’?

Or is this just another example of you doing the “just parrot talking points and get flustered and run from one talking point to another” thing? : D

[_Res Ipsa]

Trump did ask then-AG Jeff Sessions why the DOJ wasn't investigating the conspiracy theory regarding Ukrainian attempts to help Clinton and hurt him in 2016. Of course, he did it via Twitter and Sessions seems to have known the whole Black Ledger incident wasn't a cooked up scheme to smear Manefort and Trump...so they didn't. So it was on to his personal lawyer Giuliani followed by partisans like Nunes who took it on themselves to agitate for dirt on the Bidens and shift focus onto the Ukraine instead of Russia for trying to interfere with the US election.

Anyway, here's a better version of the timeline, prepared by actual journalists. It's long but informative.

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/time ... rainegate/

I'd been wondering if there was a definitive timeline on the Ukraine scandal. It's both long and excellent. It should be required reading for anyone interested in exactly what has gone on.

[_Jersey Girl]

What's funny is that you think I've spent any time at all following your exchanges with any other poster besides myself. I've seen some of canpakes and other's replies to you. I have not followed your line of discussion with them.
.

LOL...Not actually...I called you a parrot, and it appears by this admission a parroting troll. So you didn't follow my posts, but just followed people replying to me, again not following my responses? By definition I believe that is a internet troll of sorts.

Jersey Girl wrote...If you recall (and I know you don't because you don't recall what you or anyone else said 5 minutes ago), I posed a simple question to you. Why? Because I saw that Tish posed the question to you, you never replied to it so I decided to take a crack at you myself.

So...How can that possibly be true (knowing I never replied to the answer), when you just said you didn't follow my discussion with them? So...again, by definition you are trolling...and admittedly parroting Tish's question...thus your new name is "Jersey Girl, the self admitted Parroting Troll."

I have also asked you for your answer to the mystery question...and you refuse to give it...again another trait of troll.

So here once again is the answer to "the question"... I believe, honestly, right or wrong, it is because there is so much evidence existing (which I have expounded on) that would warrant an investigation of goverment misuse of funds and power, that as president, he has every right to ask anyone he feels that might have information of the alleged crime to provide information in regards to that alleged crime.


I have answered the question several times in several different ways...and it boils down to ..."because he did not have to."

So unless you are going to continue trolling, please tell me why my answer is wrong, show me my error, and tell me the correct answer to this question.

Also keep in mind that Trump took the lead, with Giuliani spear heading it so to speak, and Barr (the DOJ) is currently doing investigation on Biden and Ukraine corruption.

So once again..."Why didn't Trump use the DOJ'...what in your opinion is the correct answer?

Love ya

Markk you're a stupid idiot and that's all there is to it. I said in my above (that's right in front of your stupid face because you reposted it!) that I had read other replies to YOU. So yes, I read Tish's question, saw that you hadn't responded and I posed the same question to you.

I check back in here in a day or so to see what stupid BS Markk has written in reply and damn, you never disappoint! You arrogantly call people names like parrot or tools or whatever, tell them to focus when you can read and interpret what's in front of your stupid eyes even when you posted a copy of it!

Can I answer the question? Yes, of course I can. Remember it's a two-part question and to date, you have NOT supplied an answer to the second part because you're too damned stupid to connect the dots between Trump not asking HIS OWN DOJ to investigate the Bidens and INSTEAD asking Ukraine to do it and ANNOUNCE PUBLICLY that they were going to initiate an investigation against Trump's own POLITICAL RIVAL.

I mean how stupid can someone possibly get?

Yes, I can answer the question in one freaking sentence using the words gaslight and smear in that one sentence which is something you've been unable to do in probably 14 pages ongoing by now!

Perhaps unlike others who may think that you are avoiding the obvious, I don't think you have the ability to even SEE the obvious because you have no insight at all! Instead you approach this topic and discussion here as if it were drunken BS session where anything goes including references to old television shows and hurling ad homs at everyone in sight to cover your own deficiencies up to and including accusing others of drinking while posting here. Then you repeatedly condescend to them by telling them to focus and whatnot, do their homework, when YOU can't engage in a two way question and answer exchange even to the level that a FOUR YEAR OLD could.

That anyone here would spend their personal time to attempt to engage you is something you should be humbly thankful for but instead you behave like an arrogant smart mouth adolescent who's frontal lobe is still under construction.

[_Jersey Girl]

Yep. {the DoJ investigating the Ukraine and Biden}He needs to protect his boss. Gotta edit the facts carefully. ; )

Ahhh LOL what a tool.

Spoken like a complete idiot who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

[_canpakes]

Yep. {the DoJ investigating the Ukraine and Biden}He needs to protect his boss. Gotta edit the facts carefully. ; )

Ahhh LOL what a tool.

Spoken like a complete idiot who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

Markk also edited it to change the meaning of what I said. Here’s how the conversation actually occurred:

Barr is apparently going slow on all this, and one can see why...

Yep. He needs to protect his boss. Gotta edit the facts carefully. ; )

Barr isn’t ‘the DoJ’. Barr is Barr, and he can have a very different agenda than the agency itself.

[_honorentheos]

Trump did ask then-AG Jeff Sessions why the DOJ wasn't investigating the conspiracy theory regarding Ukrainian attempts to help Clinton and hurt him in 2016. Of course, he did it via Twitter and Sessions seems to have known the whole Black Ledger incident wasn't a cooked up scheme to smear Manefort and Trump...so they didn't. So it was on to his personal lawyer Giuliani followed by partisans like Nunes who took it on themselves to agitate for dirt on the Bidens and shift focus onto the Ukraine instead of Russia for trying to interfere with the US election.

Anyway, here's a better version of the timeline, prepared by actual journalists. It's long but informative.

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/time ... rainegate/

I'll read this tonight when I get a chance...but it does boil down to whether or not the Biden's are dirty, especially that Trump was acquitted of any wrong doing.

By dirty, do you mean it comes down to the Bidens being guilty of trying to withhold US loan guarantees to protect the president of Burisma? Because if so, that's been answered and the answer is no Joe didn't do that. Quite the opposite. Shokin's removal was needed because he was stonewalling investigations and was corrupt himself. That's an established fact that has been presented multiple times over.

When you are ready we can certainly pick up her ewe left off on the Bidens. I am about done reading about their Ukraine adventures and am starting to ponder the China dirt.

Let me know

If you mean you want to talk more about if Hunter Biden profited off of his last name, feel free.

[_Res Ipsa]

Either he won't read it or he won't try to reconcile it with the Russian propaganda he parrots. He has no understanding of the context -- what the owner of Burisma was actually accused of, when that conduct occurred, the nature of the corruption that existed in the prosecutor's office, and when the prosecutor's office was investigating -- or not investigating -- Burisma's owner. But now, without actually understanding the facts, he's going to skip off to the next bright, shiny object...