canpakes wrote:Markk wrote:I will touch on this later after work.
I’m not sure that anyone needs your
touches, but I, for one, would welcome some
facts. Got any of
those, instead?
Tell me details of Burisma's supposed connection to the US assistance effort for Ukraine. What is the cash connection?
Then, tell me why Trump didn’t ask the DoJ to investigate anything.
Have you read anything I have written? The connection for one is Hunter, Archer, and even Kerry's son, receiving monies from a company that was stated and owned by a once corrupt goverment officail that funneled monies to his company, and is now on the run...suspected to be living off monies he laundered from his years as both a minister for the goverment of the Ukraine and owner of Burisma.
You are going t have to focus, the reason Trump and others want an investigation, is to find outjust how deep this goes...and this is only in the Ukraine...the Doj is investigating this currently, as are a few senators.
Nobody know how deep the corruption goes, but do just a little homework and go back an read the time line and connection between Joe, Hunter, Archer and others that I pasted in the beginning of this thread.
Focus..."Is there enough evidence to demand a investigation" start here
viewtopic.php?p=1214966#p1214966As far as answering your question..
You can address my answer at anytime...
I will use doc' opinion of the question... as a lead to my answer...while I encourage you to answer the questions (see bold) in my answers to the question below, and also ask for you to expound on why my answer in wrong IYO, that is beyond your typical "nuh uh" answer.
I also ask this..."Have you read my answer at all?"
wHY. DIdN't. Trump Ask. The. DoJ. tO. iNvEsTigaTe. tHe. BidENs?
Because he did not need to? (rhetorical), as I wrote in the beginning of this circle, "why is there air in a basketball?" It is equally a stupid but obvious question with a equally obvious answer. There is air in a basketball so it can bounce, and Trump did not ask the DoJ, because he did not have to, he is President and it is his job to make sure we, our country, are not giving money away to a corrupt Ukraine, and he acted accordingly, legally, and has been acquitted for any wrong doing, as accused by his politically enemies.
He had Rudy looking into the corruption before Biden announced his run for President. He then asked the President (Z.) of the Ukraine, in a transcribed phone call, who FYI, was recently elected by the the Ukrainian people to root out the corruption (see Sondland testimony) that had taken place under the Biden and Obama watch. Trump then asked Z. to look into it on "our " behalf, and told President Z. that both Rudy and the DoJ would look into it more, as the whistle blower testified. And as you are most likely unaware of (or refuse to acknowledge), today, the DoJ and others are looking into the corruption that occurred under Obama's and Biden's watch, which President Trump took the lead on, per his legal right.
In other words he did his job, and has no legal or constitutional requirement to ask the DOJ to first look into goverment corruption, but he did anyway after setting the table. There are other likely reasons I did not discuss much, like inheriting a "Washington" that has more leaks than Swiss cheese has holes. He obviously trusted Rudy enough to start the ball rolling, who is obviously more than qualified as a prosecutor...that is not even debatable given his record.
I understand you don't like my answer. I understand you can't refute my answer with factual evidence, logic or reason. I understand you can't defend and expound on your answer to your own question...but maybe you will go for it sooner than later.
A President has every right to have folks other than the DoJ investigate corruption, again as Biden did for Obama (which you refuse to even slightly acknowledge and discuss). Joe was either investigating and acting on the corruption there, or he is guilty of most everything you are accusing Trump of...which is it Canpakes? (another question you won't answer if you have even read this far)
Please acknowledge or expound on Biden's quid pro quo, which is on tape, it is not even debatable? He was acting as both judge and jury against the Ukrainian prosecutor, threatening a foreign goverment with holding back congress approved monies, unless they did what he told them to do. And he admitted that they bowed to his threat. That is by definition a quid pro quo.
What he told them to do was fire a prosecutor that was involved in an investigation of a company that was without any doubts corrupt. That his son was an attorney for. If the reason was valid or not is not really a question, what the question is "does it raise enough concern for a investigation? " And as we know the answer is yes it does, and the DoJ is currently investigating it.
To set precedence to my answer, who was Obama's point man for Obama's investigation of corruption in the Ukraine? The answer is obviously Biden, so I could ask the same question; "Why didn't Trump Obama ask the DOJ to investigate corruption in the Ukraine." It is equally a dumb question, that can be answered generally "because he did not need to." There was corruption in the Ukraine, and Obama "assigned" Biden to root out the corruption.
Joe dealt with and "advised" both Poroshenko, and Yanukovych, two Ukrainian Presidents that were accused of corruption, and the latter convicted and is in exile in Russia. Biden had Yankovych's personal cell phone and called him privately often, whichis important to note given his son's involvement with a corrupt Ukrainian Company.
At any rate...Biden took the lead from Obama on rooting out corruption, Obama did not ask the DoJ to do this, it was his executive privilege, and as with Trump, his duty to do so as President, and given the fact Biden was also given the charge to give out Billions to both China and the Ukraine.
When you are ready to defend or expound beyond the talking points you parrot, let me know, in th emean while I will just keep answering the question with more data, as I did int this...which is really interesting.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"