Jump to content

Putin’s got his boy’s back


UT alum

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Big girl said:

The Biden's were cleared of any wrongdoing.  This occurred before Trump asked for an investigation.

Cleared by who, Shifty Schiff. The Biden's are dirty, and everybody knows it.  More on their deals will come to light. Democrats are digging for any charge they think will stick to get Trump out of office.  He has done so much better for the country than your previous golden boy did, and not one Dimocrat can handle that fact.  Trump in 2020, don't you love it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Big girl said:

The Biden's were cleared of any wrongdoing.  This occurred before Trump asked for an investigation.

This is the hidden content, please

This is the hidden content, please

From the Youtube clip:  "And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.  So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I (Biden) said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b-tch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time." 

If I'm not mistaken, this prosecutor was looking into his crooked son's dealings in the Ukraine concerning Burisma!  Looks like "Quid Pro Quo" to me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Reagan said:

This is the hidden content, please

This is the hidden content, please

From the Youtube clip:  "And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.  So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I (Biden) said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b-tch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time." 

If I'm not mistaken, this prosecutor was looking into his crooked son's dealings in the Ukraine concerning Burisma!  Looks like "Quid Pro Quo" to me!

Dimocrats are blind to facts.  You can tell that by the sound of crickets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2019 at 7:52 PM, BS Wildcats said:

The problem is the Dims say nothing about Biden and Hussein Obama strong arming Ukraine, but get all beside themselves if they think Trump did the same.  Free pass from the Demoncrats.  It all boils down to them knowing they can't beat him at the polls, plain and simple.

 

The problem is, if Vice President Biden and President Obama did any strong arming, it was done trying to support official US foreign policy of seeking to reduce corruption in Ukraine. Trump’s strong arming was to support his own personal agenda, not stated US foreign policy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BS Wildcats said:

Dimocrats are blind to facts.  You can tell that by the sound of crickets.

You are mistaken. Prosecutor was supposedly doing these things, but really wasn’t. US wanted to see someone in the position who would really stand up to the oligarchs. Again, trying to further US policy, not their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, UT alum said:

The problem is, if Vice President Biden and President Obama did any strong arming, it was done trying to support official US foreign policy of seeking to reduce corruption in Ukraine. Trump’s strong arming was to support his own personal agenda, not stated US foreign policy. 

Hunter Biden’s company was being investigated for corruption. Daddy Biden called and told them he was withholding $ billions unless they fired the investigator. Daddy Biden even admitted he did just that. Was that for US foreign policy or Daddy protecting his crooked son? How does anyone get that confused? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, baddog said:

Hunter Biden’s company was being investigated for corruption. Daddy Biden called and told them he was withholding $ billions unless they fired the investigator. Daddy Biden even admitted he did just that. Was that for US foreign policy or Daddy protecting his crooked son? How does anyone get that confused? 

What is your source for that? Alex Jones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Hmmm Looks like whenever someone offers a point of contention that might incriminate a lefty, you simply discredit the source.  Pretty convenient.

Jeez, dude, the right’s whole agenda rests on the premise that every source that does not follow its narrative is fake news. That discredits many sources. How can you make a point that is at odds with itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, UT alum said:

The problem is, if Vice President Biden and President Obama did any strong arming, it was done trying to support official US foreign policy of seeking to reduce corruption in Ukraine. Trump’s strong arming was to support his own personal agenda, not stated US foreign policy. 

Crazy Joe trying to help his son is not a personal agenda?  Wake up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2019 at 8:35 AM, stevenash said:

According to you, this is not credible because it is not under oath.

That is so weak. My statement about under oath was whether a statement of fact is more believable made by someone under oath, or someone not. When no one is under oath, I judge for myself what I believe to be credible. The way you twist logic, man, you should open a pretzel shop.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stevenash said:

I guess that would mean that you honestly believe that the circumstances, as presented by the vast majority of the media, are presented without bias?

No, both sides manipulate it to keep us at  odds to sell advertising. I believe good reporting exists, one just must be vigilant of one’s sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,202
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    CHSFalcon
    Newest Member
    CHSFalcon
    Joined



×
×
  • Create New...