President Trump

[Bellyhungry]

UNGA next week. Look forwad to some fireworks.

[pudubny]

So when Pompeo and the current State Department lobby for an investigation into Hunter Biden then it is US policy and not Trump policy? Or does that reasoning not apply because orange man bad?

A few points.
One is that Biden was strong in helping get rid of a useless (or worse actual corrupt prosecutor) which all Ukraine watchers supported. He supported US policy and international efforts (EU, IMF, etc).
My other point is your assertion that Burisma was under investigation. That is highly disputable considering Shokin wasn't looking at former cronies or focused on them. Several insider reports are available saying Shokin did little or nothing to investigate Burisma. It's a story he invented after he was thrown out of office. So what Joe Biden did was lobby for a effective prosecutor which in turn increased the chances of his son's company being looked at. Trump is not supporting Ukraine to do something widely supported in his own gov't or the international community. Biden was part of an international lobbying effort to fire Shokin.
Next, it is not the job of a president or State department to lobby foreign gov't to investigate political opponents. Many would put that in the "abuse of power" or "banana republic" category.
Even if an investigation was to find Burisma was involved in illegal activities, their is no evidence Joe Biden was trying to protect his son's company. Everyone wanted Shokin fired. Ukraine was dragging their feet on fixing various forms of curruption and he was the gatekeeper.

[ace in the hazard]

It's not whataboutism.. it's the underlying issue and if Trump did ask the Ukrainians to investigate Biden (whether it be Joe or Hunter) that would be the reason behind it.

I would think a VP (who is now a primary candidate)3 blackmailing a foreign government to fire a prosecutor that was looking into corruption at a firm where his son was on the Board is worse than a President asking the same government to investigate that case.

Please explain how Biden "blackmailed" a foreign govt. Did he have pictures of hookers peeing on the president?

[SeanAvery2point0]

Please explain how Biden "blackmailed" a foreign govt. Did he have pictures of hookers peeing on the president?

Blackmail, extort, whatever

[SeanAvery2point0]

A few points.
One is that Biden was strong in helping get rid of a useless (or worse actual corrupt prosecutor) which all Ukraine watchers supported. He supported US policy and international efforts (EU, IMF, etc).
My other point is your assertion that Burisma was under investigation. That is highly disputable considering Shokin wasn't looking at former cronies or focused on them. Several insider reports are available saying Shokin did little or nothing to investigate Burisma. It's a story he invented after he was thrown out of office. So what Joe Biden did was lobby for a effective prosecutor which in turn increased the chances of his son's company being looked at. Trump is not supporting Ukraine to do something widely supported in his own gov't or the international community. Biden was part of an international lobbying effort to fire Shokin.
Next, it is not the job of a president or State department to lobby foreign gov't to investigate political opponents. Many would put that in the "abuse of power" or "banana republic" category.
Even if an investigation was to find Burisma was involved in illegal activities, their is no evidence Joe Biden was trying to protect his son's company. Everyone wanted Shokin fired. Ukraine was dragging their feet on fixing various forms of curruption and he was the gatekeeper.

I know all of this, I am being intentionally thick.

In the age of Trump it is on the accused to prove they didn't commit the crime/offence. Atleast that is the way some here seem to think.

no evidence, Trump is still guilty.
no evidence, therefore Biden is guilty.

[pudubny]

[QUOTE=SeanAvery2point0;n3041878]

I know all of this, I am being intentionally thick.

In the age of Trump it is on the accused to prove they didn't commit the crime/offence. Atleast that is the way some here seem to think.

no evidence, Trump is still guilty.
no evidence, therefore Biden is guilty.[/QUOTE
I prefer he just "take care that the law is faithfully executed" as required by the constitution. I interpret that to mean you don't ask for your enemies or political opponents to be targeted by law enforcement.

[ace in the hazard]

Blackmail, extort, whatever

Even if you amend to extort, just curious how you got to Biden "extorted" while Trump simply "asked". There is no proof (yet) that either tied compensation or punishment to their request yet you still opted for a very different word choice in the comparison.

I guess normal skin-toned man bad...

[SeanAvery2point0]

Even if you amend to extort, just curious how you got to Biden "extorted" while Trump simply "asked". There is no proof (yet) that either tied compensation or punishment to their request yet you still opted for a very different word choice in the comparison.

I guess normal skin-toned man bad...

Biden threatened that the U.S. would withhold hundreds of millions in aid if the Ukrainian government didn't meet their demands. He admitted to doing as much.

[Bellyhungry]

Trump pardonee and felon Dinesh D'Souza tweeted the below to attack progressive and the 16 YO climate activist:

[ace in the hazard]

Biden threatened that the U.S. would withhold hundreds of millions in aid if the Ukrainian government didn't meet their demands. He admitted to doing as much.

The US regularly uses this tactic. You have yet to show any proof that he did this for personal gain (see Pudubny's well-reasoned response above) rather than simply doing his job. But I guess you don't need proof when it's a democrat because normal skin-toned man bad.

[SeanAvery2point0]

The US regularly uses this tactic. You have yet to show any proof that he did this for personal gain (see Pudubny's well-reasoned response above) rather than simply doing his job. But I guess you don't need proof when it's a democrat because normal skin-toned man bad.

I'm just using the same standard that the lefties on here use towards Trump and most conservatives in general. An accusation on it's own, without evidence, is proof of wrongdoing.

I didn't write the rule book, I'm just following it.

[Gwelfgulfer]

I'm just using the same standard that the lefties on here use towards Trump and most conservatives in general. An accusation on it's own, without evidence, is proof of wrongdoing.

I didn't write the rule book, I'm just following it.

Not exactly a 'rule book' when its like 1 transgression here and there per person vs. drumpf… It's not even marginally equal. The US is at a turning point in its history with 1 moron and an ever dwindling pile of 'loyal' lackies at the center of it... But Obama, but Hillary, but the Media and now but Biden...

[ace in the hazard]

I'm just using the same standard that the lefties on here use towards Trump and most conservatives in general. An accusation on it's own, without evidence, is proof of wrongdoing.

I didn't write the rule book, I'm just following it.

The same standard would be saying they are both guilty without evidence or both innocent until proven not so. Instead, you said that Biden blackmailed/extorted a foreign power while Trump simply asked them. Don't accuse the left of unfair comparisons and then do the same yourself.

[SeanAvery2point0]

The same standard would be saying they are both guilty without evidence or both innocent until proven not so. Instead, you said that Biden blackmailed/extorted a foreign power while Trump simply asked them. Don't accuse the left of unfair comparisons and then do the same yourself.

The leftist playbook is no different than the playbook the right uses. "Our guy" is innocent until proven guilty, "your guy" is guilty until proven innocent.

[Gwelfgulfer]

The leftist playbook is no different than the playbook the right uses. "Our guy" is innocent until proven guilty, "your guy" is guilty until proven innocent.

Not sure anyone of stature on the Port side has said there is 'good people on both sides' yet. Or did I miss that chapter?

The 98% vs. 2% in the climate debate? The employing of illegal immigrants on private golf course/resorts while screaming they are ruining the world? Emolument Clause? Paying to sleep with a porn star just after wife gave birth to YOUR kid? Or am I just starting to write a different book?