I disagree. One, he's really bad at defending himself. He does the old man "point finger at reporter" shtick and just states that Trump is the guilty one with no nuance. He's really bad at defending himself. Second, even if Biden didn't do anything explicitly illegal, his son being a beneficiary of blatant nepotism joining the board of a oil company when he has no excpet in such endeavors is just going to convince many voters that he's just more of the same establishment politicians who just try to benefit personally from their political office. Politicians like Warren, Bernie and Yang don't have that cloud over them. This is going to hurt Biden and the right wing propaganda machine is going to spam this narrative.
Except he didn't.... there was no quid pro quo. And so what if he did? I would rather him investigate to see if there is corruption. The voters deserve to know about such things anyways. Of course yall are scared cause there is definitely some muck to be raked.
You talk about voters deserving to know about corruption. But corruption is breaking the law to have a foreign govt. look into getting dirt on your political opponent. That in itself is corruption. Like I've said, I am fine looking into anything about Biden. If he's found guilty of anything, then hold him accountable. It's what I would hope to happen if he's corrupt. So far there is no evidence Biden did anything wrong. The company was investigated already. The corruption happened years before Hunter Biden was at the company. If you are truly bothered by corruption then you should be bothered by Trump asking foreign govts. to help dig up dirt on political rivals. That is definitively corrupt. It is ongoing corruption and his being carried out by the leader of the United States.
But according to his own staff, there was It would be a grave violation of the principles of any democracy - so much so that even Republicans are standing up to it. Then he should start by investigating himself. All Americans deserve better than Trump Trust me, the liberals are not the ones scared right now...
Why are you circling the wagons on Biden's potential corruption? I say investigate everyone. Including Trump. There is no reason to care if Trump asked Ukraine to look into corruption. You should be happy to know if he is cleared or charged with something. Maybe you're just too partisan to see that. And evidence? Are you kidding me? 50k a month to someone not in the industry? That's dirty access money son. Yeah there is financial evidence, and photographic evidence of Biden lying about being removed from the situation with his son's dealings. It needs to be looked into, election or not. Even if it was for an election, I fail to care. I want Trump and Biden, or whoever runs, investigated on any wrong doings or potential ones. Put them under a microscope. This is why again, I'm not a Trump supporter. Go ahead and impeach him. lol. Investigate. But don't act like you care about corruption if you think Biden deserves your time and help spinning for him.
Investigations get reopened all the time. If you know anything about Ukraine, you'll know there is good reason to doubt the previous admin there.
Circling the wagons on Biden? I said that I'm fine with in investigating him. If he's guilty he needs to be held accountable. While you claim that you are against corruption, you don't support Trump, and want him to be investigated, you ignore evidence presented against Trump and then say even if he did break the law it was a good thing because you supposedly believe that it will uncover corruption of the already investigated Biden.
Correct, when there is new information, which there isn't. How many bullshit stories do you need to be fed by the propaganda machine (that end up being laughably false) before you learn your lesson?
Scott Adams with some advice in the WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-ukraine-what-we-know-11570389569?mod=hp_opin_pos_2 Trump and Ukraine: What We Know As Americans watch two different movies, here’s a way to discern what’s happening off the screen. By Scott Adams Oct. 6, 2019 3:19 pm ET If you’ve followed the Ukraine phone-call news, you might have noticed reality branching into two completely different movies. In one, President Trump was doing his job of protecting the republic by asking an allied country to help out on an important legal investigation. The other movie involves Orange Hitler bullying a foreign country into meddling in our elections by “digging up dirt” on a political opponent. Which movie is the real one, if such a thing exists? I’d like to offer a rule of thumb for evaluating political news: If a fact is reported the same by both the left-leaning and the right-leaning press, it’s probably a fact. If not, wait and see. It’s also smart to wait a week or two before you make up your mind, as the fog of war often makes early reporting unreliable. But after the fog clears, if all sides agree on a fact, it’s probably a fact. Or at least it’s credible, even if future reporting debunks it. In the case of Mr. Trump’s Ukraine phone call, all sides agree a whistleblower exists, at least in the minimal sense of using the whistleblower process. We also agree a phone call was made, and the transcript seems to capture what was said. We also know a few other facts: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was on the call, and the whistleblower contacted Rep. Adam Schiff’s office before filing the complaint, and some other details. But that’s where the agreement stops. One side says the quid pro quo—in the form of Mr. Trump’s asking his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Crowdstrike and Joe Biden at the risk of losing military funds already approved by Congress—was so obvious it didn’t need to be stated in direct language. The other side says every conversation among world leaders carries some kind of implied quid pro quo, and in this case the request for investigation was entirely appropriate. You might even say it was one of Mr. Trump’s highest priorities, given the risk that a potential future President Biden might be compromised in his dealings with a foreign government. I see conflicting reporting on the biggest fact about Mr. Biden and Ukraine: Did the then vice president want the prosecutor fired because his son Hunter was on the board of Burisma, which was at some point under investigation by Ukrainian authorities? The press on the left says no, the right says yes. My rule of thumb says we shouldn’t treat either version as true—for now. Did Hunter Biden accept the Burisma board seat, which paid $50,000 a month, while Ukraine was part of his father’s official portfolio? Yes, all sides report that to be a fact. Was Hunter qualified for such a role? Both sides say not so much. Both sides also agree that Hunter’s taking that position wasn’t illegal but sure looks swampy. Both sides further agree that Joe Biden is on video bragging about getting a Ukraine prosecutor fired by using the threat of withholding U.S. aid in the amount of $1 billion. But there is disagreement on why he did it. Was it because the prosecutor was ineffective and suspected of corruption himself or because the prosecutor was fighting corruption at Burisma? We see opposing press reports on the left and the right, so my rule says wait for all of that to sort out. If you strip out the parts of the Ukraine story we can’t yet know to be true, you still know enough to have a responsible opinion. Vice President Biden was handling the Ukraine portfolio while his son had a financial interest in Ukraine, and that is enough of a conflict to merit an investigation. We all agree that the sitting president is responsible for protecting the integrity of American elections and generally keeping foreign interference in U.S. politics to a minimum. That’s what Mr. Trump was doing on the Ukraine phone call. (For those of you who say such matters should be handled at lower levels of government, my experience in corporate America tells me nothing much gets done until the bosses talk and agree. I assume government is similar.) All sides can also agree that Mr. Trump was serving his own re-election interests by asking Ukraine to investigate Mr. Biden. But we also agree our political system allows that—even encourages it—so long as the president is also clearly pursuing the national interest. Before the Democratic primary, would it be good for the country to know more about Joe Biden’s relationship with Ukraine? Democrats should appreciate finding out soon if there is anything of concern, because I assume they don’t want to go into the general election with a candidate who has some surprises in his Ukrainian closet. What we all agree to be true about Joe and Hunter Biden is that they had the types of interactions with Ukraine that raise eyebrows and invite a closer look. We also all agree that protecting the integrity of American elections should be a top priority for a president. I won’t try to convince you that my rule of thumb works every time. I assume there are times when one side is simply right and the other is wrong. But keep an eye out for how often the rule does prove reliable. And remember to wait a week or two for the fog to clear before you make any decisions about what is fact and what is not. Mr. Adams is creator of Dilbert and author of “Loserthink: How Untrained Brains are Ruining America.”
How is that bad at defending himself? What should he do rant and rave like Trump? Nothing he can do prevent the spamming why would he keep talking about something when it does not benefit him? From where I sit there is no cloud but it looks like Trump has won again because you Never Bidens are eating it up. What exactly is this cloud ? Biden son got paid because of his name, that is the story of america. This political purity has got to go.
I'm precisely telling you that is exactly what he is doing. He provides no nuance and just screams platitudes about how Trump is the one who is bad without going into nuance. He sucks at defending himself. Who says I'm a never Biden? That would imply I would not support him over Trump if he is the nominee which is absurd. I'm stating he has the most baggage out of the current crop of DNC nominees who have a shot. You don't have to defend nepotism because you feel that Biden is preferable to Trump. He is, but his son joining a oil and gas company in Ukraine as a executive with no experience is a bad look.
Why does there need to be nuance? You think he sucks at defending himself that's totally your opinion. I am talking never Biden in the primary but with these types are arguments against Biden there are plenty of your kind that can and will talk themselves out of voting when it most counts. I am not defending nepotism I just realize it happens every freaking day and now somehow its a bad look for Biden? You don't think 75% of these candidates families have not benefited from nepotism? Every body has got baggage there are no pure candidates. What I don't understand is if you are so sure that Biden and his son did something wrong, how do you think he should defend himself?
