Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
So now denying your bullshit that doesn't stand up as true is unfair.
Typical trumpy post.
1. "Bidens"? No mention of Joe getting money. That's your uneducated addition. The thread title contains info the link doesn't support.
2. Where does it show those payments were to Hunter B.? It doesn't. The posted link (that you obviously didn't read) said the payment we're made to Biden's company. Not to H Biden himself. That's your trumpy world take on things.
3. The cd media article offers up documents in a foreign language.
And the big number 4.
Like all Biden charges you make, and ignoring the fact there is no proof of anything illegal, your desperate claims have nothing to do with the trump impeachment.
You play fast and loose with the facts. Plus you reference another thread as flawed as this one. It contains no proof of illegal activities either.
The only thing you got right is yes, the trump impeachment is all about trump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oeb11
Denial - and changing the thread subject.
Bidens got 3 million bucks - but it is all about trump to the DPST's.
None so blind - per the other thread on this subject of Biden corruption!
Wrong.
Up to 47 repubs could listen to every word of testimony. They all had as much time to ask questions as they wanted.
The testimony transcripts are being released.
And of course it's one sided. trump won't let anybody testify.
You're right. The Senate holds the trial. Who ever said otherwise?
Your refusal to read credible sources is your problem.
Everything you complained about has the spin of ignorance on it.
We can cover it point by point but you would never admit any of the trumpy talking points are diversions.
You keep lying and I'll try to point out the facts you change.
And you, like trump, lie a lot more than I can keep up with. So don't expect me to catch them all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oeb11
Well, CT - I would like to se the Bidens investigated, and if good evidence obtained, tried in a court of law.
Regardinig Trump - Schiff has run a smoke and mirrors McCarthyite "evidence show" - and carefully orchestrated and one sided.
If real evidence of high crimes/misdeameanors comes to the light of day - I agree with proceeding.
The BS of russian collusion, and this Ukraine made up charges of "bribery" for what every american POTUS does in the course of politics is ridiculous.
Where's the Beef ! - Show some real evidence - other than DPST biased "Evidence in hand" from Schif f and nadler.
Let's have the proof - and let the Senate decide - I think impeachment is inevitable - and Trump should embrace the opportunity to shed light on the DPST shit show.
Let's have open - non-slanted hearings to both sides - which Schiff is NOT Holding today.
This thread is about you claiming the Bidens are corrupt. The link provided doesn't support that claim.
Why don't you give it your best shot to prove they did something illegal.
And while you're at it, maybe show what the Bidens have to do with trump's impeachment.
For anybody reading this twisted narrative, this isn't about overturning an election. It's about gathering evidence to see if a trial is warranted to remove a corrupt and public trust abuser from a position of trust.
If only trump could provide witnesses to back up his version....instead of trying to keep everyone with first hand knowledge from testifying.
How bizarre. You have no proof Bidens are corrupt and ignore all proof the president has admitted to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnadfly
We keep asking you for specifics and you constantly say "we been through it."
So? Make your best case.
BTW, we are talking about overturning the 2016 election. Make it good.
This thread is about Hunter and Joe Biden's corruption and President Trump's sworn oath to enforce laws.
He already gave it his "best case". He wants trumpy impeached for "fucking the Constitution" lol!
I can't wait to see the dim-retards put that one in an Article of Impeachment.
BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
and he refused to wear a condom!
you know what, though? (I put the "though" at the end, as Trump is fond of doing ).. Trump can come to the hearings, and give a truthful account of what went on.. why doesn't he?
because he truth is savage.. he won't let Mulvaney, Barr, or the other minions do so. he has Jim Jordan calling "hearsay", then Jordan immediately goes into hearsay..
Because no POTUS does that. Not part of the job description. Know your history. And your constitutional separation of powers.
this POTUS can, though (there I go again ). he brags that he doesn't do anything by the book. so what that it is not part of his job description. it is not part of Taylor's, he showed up.
what does separation of powers have to do with it? please read the constitution.
This thread is about you claiming the Bidens are corrupt. The link provided doesn't support that claim.
Why don't you give it your best shot to prove they did something illegal.
And while you're at it, maybe show what the Bidens have to do with trump's impeachment.
Gawd are you stupid!
You can be stone-cold corrupt like the Bidens are without technically doing something illegal. Did you ever hear the phrase "it doesn't pass the smell test"? How about the old adage that public officials should "avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest"? What the fuck do you think the term "influence peddling" means?
But if you stupidly want to insist on a specific law that was violated, for starters here's one from another thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levianon17
Biden violated a Federal Criminal Statute."Foreign Corrupt Practices Act" ( 15 USC 78dd-1), States: It is illegal for a United States Citizen to coerce or influence, through bribery or extortion, a foreign nation into taking action that might financially benefit that person, his family or business. Joe Biden violated this Statute when he demanded the Ukrainian Government fire a criminal prosecutor or they wouldn't receive 1.5 Billion dollars of American Tax Payer money.
Only a blind clueless moron would ask what do the Bidens have to do with the impeachment clownshow! The need to investigate their stone-cold corruption is at the heart of this dim-retard stunt. If it wasn't for Quid Pro Quo Joe, none of this would be happening.
Anybody want to point out to me the investigation that proved the Biden's weren't corrupt? I keep hearing there is no proof they did anything wrong but isn't that what an investigation is for? Was any Democrat convinced when Trump said he didn't do anything wrong? No, they called for an investigation. Remember how many times you heard Democrats say "if you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about from the Mueller investigation". We know at the very least from the NYT, State Dept, Obama and today from Kent that lots of people were concerned about the "appearance of impropriety" of Biden's son working for a corrupt gas company in Ukraine and Joe Biden would be sent there to fire the prosecutor responsible for the investigation? Now I agree that there is no "hard evidence" that Biden fired the prosecutor a quid pro quo if ever there was one "you have 6 hours to fire the guy or I won't be giving you a billion dollars". "Son of a bitch, they fired him" yuk, yuk. But I guess if everybody in the world agreed that the prosecutor should be fired, the quid pro quo argument goes out the window. I don't think that's the way the law works. If it did, there are plenty of people who agree that the Bidens should be investigated which I guess negates any argument that there was a quid pro quo from Trump. Oh wait, the Dems dropped that argument because Latin is too confusing for the little people.
).. Trump can come to the hearings, and give a truthful account of what went on.. why doesn't he?
). he brags that he doesn't do anything by the book. so what that it is not part of his job description. it is not part of Taylor's, he showed up.
