No…
Deflections incoming…
maybe nothing. that is a purely desperate democrat narrative
The former vice president’s threat to withhold a loan guarantee from Ukraine involved financing that was entirely at the executive’s discretion. And his threat was made in the service of the unified, official public policy of the United States. It did not involve legally mandated federal appropriations. Trump’s withholding of military assistance from Ukraine involved improper delay of congressionally authorized federal appropriations that were not at his discretion, and it contradicted unified, public, official policy of the United States.
It’s not a narrative. Trump claims he didn’t withhold aid based on biden investigation. How does bringing evidence for an investigation show he didnt withhold the aid?
Because if the President suspects that an American politician is being bought by a foreign country, many people including me believe that he is obligated to ask for details. The fact that nearly every liberal opposes Hunter testifying, is enough for me to think he should.
1 Like
What does that have to do with whether or not he withheld aid? Isn’t there a DOJ for that?
there was no pressure on ukraine to do anything to get the aid
and they got the aid
if he improperly held it, thats another matter
but not a major one for people who know better than to watch msnbc
Of course…but go through the proper channels…DOJ etc. The President doesn’t send his personal attorney to do the work.
And how can Hunter Biden prove that?
The GAO said he improperly held it.
That all appears very nice and is a small element of the salient argument which is the Quid that Biden bragged about.
WE are now looking into it.
No worry if all is proper.
Hunter can demonstrate his lawyerly prowess and value of the work he did for Burisma.
How does any of this show that Trump didn’t pressure Ukraine with military aid?
What work of value has Guilliani’s son done to justify his salary we are paying him?
What pressure?
Ask him.
I’m referring to the abuse of power charges. How does Hunter Buden’s testimony provide a defense?
Absolutely nothing. I would do it simply because the libs don’t want him up there. That’s enough for me. If the republicans believe that they can score some political points with Hunter, then they should not let the opportunity pass. Remember, this is also about the 2020 election. So hell yes, call Hunter.
At least you are honest. That’s all I can get out of it.
1 Like
The oroblem though is that Senators swore an oath to be impartial. If they admit it’s all for 2020 points, then they broke their oath
1 Like
