Trump

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Because Trump is interested in rooting out corruption. Of course.

 

[nicko31]

It sounds like a comedy routine to me:

Trump introduced 7-time failed candidate for Westminster Farage as "one of the most powerful men in Europe."

Farage called 5-time draft dodger Trump "the bravest man he's ever met."

Laughed? I nearly shat.

I thought Nige was concentrating on his get rich quick scheme.

 

[dingodan]

Because Trump is interested in rooting out corruption. Of course.

Why not? He isn't a Washington insider, he's not connected like that, and that place is maybe the most corrupt place on earth. He ran on draining the swamp. People in the U.S. know that it's filthy up there. Why wouldn't he take some of that on if he could?

It's fair enough to question some of his business dealings but political corruption isn't his forte, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain from going after it, and the Biden/Ukraine question has been one of the less opaque examples, well known and questioned (on both sides) for a long time. It would be an obvious place to start.

My point is that it was presented as Trump trying to go after his political opponent, a fishing expedition without any merit or justification. Looks quite different now.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Why not?

Stevie Wonder can see the corruption in everything he touches. With Ukraine he was putting his personal interests above that of his country. And that goes for every word, and every action. There is no benefit of any doubt.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

If you think I am apologising to Spence, you can think again.

I think he's suggesting you apologise to Knob Cheese...

 

[Stato]

One thing which is interesting when you look at the Hunter Biden / Ukraine / Joe Biden situation, is that the President (Trump) was actually impeached for trying to make U.S. support for Ukraine conditional on them investigating allegations of corruption involving Hunder Biden. In hindsight, with what we know now, Trump was a) trying to have actual corruption investigated (and making U.S. support conditional on tackling corruption is perfectly legitimate) and b) he was doing so regardless of the fact that the individual suspected of corruption had Washington ties, was the son of a former VP no less.

I know people hate Trump, and in many ways they have good reasons. But it looks to me like Trump was impeached for legitimately trying to get real corruption in Ukraine investigated, regardless of the fact that in involved someone who would otherwise, by any other President, have been protected. Trump can be a right dickhead at times, but on the Ukraine investigation, he was actually being the good guy, his only "crime" (for which he was actually impeached) was going after corrupt activity which was being perpetrated by someone with high level connections in Washington, which is usually a no-no.

Your interpretation is wrong. Trump is in charge of the largest investigative agency in the world. Had he wished to investigate any serious allegations of corruption, he was perfectly placed to order an investigation, and this would have been completely legitimate. He didn't do that and still hasn't done that. Instead, he withheld military aid from an ally whilst asking it to open an investigation into a US citizen. Ukraine refused, partly because the allegations had already been debunked. His crime was not 'going after corrupt activity', it was blackmailing a foreign power to support, not America's interests, but his own political interests.

 

[KeithDublin]

Your interpretation is wrong. Trump is in charge of the largest investigative agency in the world. Had he wished to investigate any serious allegations of corruption, he was perfectly placed to order an investigation, and this would have been completely legitimate. He didn't do that and still hasn't done that. Instead, he withheld military aid from an ally whilst asking it to open an investigation into a US citizen. Ukraine refused, partly because the allegations had already been debunked. His crime was not 'going after corrupt activity', it was blackmailing a foreign power to support, not America's interests, but his own political interests.

Don't confuse the poor man with logic and reason, both those things are quite beyond him

 

[dingodan]

Your interpretation is wrong. Trump is in charge of the largest investigative agency in the world. Had he wished to investigate any serious allegations of corruption, he was perfectly placed to order an investigation, and this would have been completely legitimate. He didn't do that and still hasn't done that. Instead, he withheld military aid from an ally whilst asking it to open an investigation into a US citizen. Ukraine refused, partly because the allegations had already been debunked. His crime was not 'going after corrupt activity', it was blackmailing a foreign power to support, not America's interests, but his own political interests.

One of the official conditions the U.S. places on it's aid to foriegn nations is tackling corruption. The allegations can't have been "debunked" because they are now proven.

If Hunter Biden was paid to get Joe to go to Ukraine and benefit his son's company, that is corruption, and it is compromising U.S. interests. Of course it's in America's interests to investigate that.

That isn't blackmail.

This is blackmail:

 

[Stato]

If Hunter Biden was paid to get Joe to go to Ukraine and benefit his son's company, that is corruption, and it is compromising U.S. interests. Of course it's in America's interests to investigate that.

Then why didn't America investigate it?

 

[Dick Swiveller]

I think he's suggesting you apologise to Knob Cheese...

Yeah - don't post whilst in a Teams meeting - you might miss subtlety!

 

[beorhthelm]

One of the official conditions the U.S. places on it's aid to foriegn nations is tackling corruption.

 

[dingodan]

Then why didn't America investigate it?

Because it involved a Ukrainian company and took place in Ukraine under Ukrainian jurisdiction?

 

[Medwayseagull]

One of the official conditions the U.S. places on it's aid to foriegn nations is tackling corruption. The allegations can't have been "debunked" because they are now proven.

If Hunter Biden was paid to get Joe to go to Ukraine and benefit his son's company, that is corruption, and it is compromising U.S. interests. Of course it's in America's interests to investigate that.

That isn't blackmail.

This is blackmail:

If you actually believe the crap you are spouting you should go and lie down in a darkened room with Spence and salivate about Trumps ethics together.

 

[dingodan]

I'm not saying that it's how they generally operate, under past Presidents it's been meaningless I'm sure. I'm saying it's not unusual and certainly not unlawful for the U.S. to place conditions, relating to corruption, on the aid they give the foreign governments. It's been implied that this was some kind of shady quid pro quo, it was part of what is considered a legitimate conditionality in international affairs.

 

[dingodan]

If you actually believe the crap you are spouting you should go and lie down in a darkened room with Spence and salivate about Trumps ethics together.

"I'm leaving in 6 hours, and you're not getting the billion dollars unless you fire the prosecutor. & son of a bitch, they fired him."

 

[Stato]

The allegations can't have been "debunked" because they are now proven.

Are you talking about the laptop that California resident Hunter Biden apparently dropped off at his local IT repair shop 2,800 miles away in Delaware as 'proof'? The shop where the avowedly Trump supporting owner cannot identify Biden, because he is blind, but is sure it was him, but has lost the security footage? Proof that he sent to Rudy Guiliani, who, last year Intelligence Services warned the White House was being targeted by Russia to feed misinformation to Donald Trump? Proof that is so obviously manufactured that the New York Post reporters refused to put their names on the report of it, and even Fox News laughed Giuliani off air?

'Proven' beyond doubt. (If you choose not to doubt what you want to be true.)

 

[Stato]

Because it involved a Ukrainian company and took place in Ukraine under Ukrainian jurisdiction?

Remind me again, who investigated Fifa?

 

[Stato]

"I'm leaving in 6 hours, and you're not getting the billion dollars unless you fire the prosecutor. & son of a bitch, they fired him."

An action that was completely in line with US policy of the time. Who was it said "making U.S. support conditional on tackling corruption is perfectly legitimate"?

Oh yes, it's coming back to me. It was you in Post #9486.

 

[Mellotron]

Are you talking about the laptop that California resident Hunter Biden apparently dropped off at his local IT repair shop 2,800 miles away in Delaware as 'proof'? The shop where the avowedly Trump supporting owner cannot identify Biden, because he is blind, but is sure it was him, but has lost the security footage? Proof that he sent to Rudy Guiliani, who, last year Intelligence Services warned the White House was being targeted by Russia to feed misinformation to Donald Trump? Proof that is so obviously manufactured that the New York Post reporters refused to put their names on the report of it, and even Fox News laughed Giuliani off air?

'Proven' beyond doubt. (If you choose not to doubt what you want to be true.)

It's like "my dog ate my homework" times a THOUSAND.

 

[Mellotron]

"I'm leaving in 6 hours, and you're not getting the billion dollars unless you fire the prosecutor. & son of a bitch, they fired him."

You literally just said a few posts ago that that is how US Foreign Policy works?!