Trump is an idiot

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 365
#241
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,752
3
3
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
3
2
-->
@Double_R
Again, Biden pushed Porshenko to fire Shokin and Shokin got fired. So we know that Shokin would play the victim, and that Biden was the likely scapegoat. The only coincidence at that point is that Hunter worked for Burisma, which everyone acknowledges is a problem.

The reason your version of the story sounds ridiculous is because you pretend that everything that happened after that is a seperate coincidence and not all part of one plot by Shokin to save face by pretending he was the good guy and his scapegoat was the bad guy.
Wrong, if Biden was not running a money laundering scheme then it wouldn't be a coincidence that someone started investigating it for revenge.

Since he was, that was a major coincidence. It cannot be expected with any significant confidence that when you want revenge on a politician your fabricated scandal happens to be true. Or if that can be expected then it can also be expected that politicians do most of what they do to cover their corruption.

Probabilities are related, given X what is the probability of Y when Y causes X. Whatever the probability that an investigation was not honest may be on first glance, once you know the crime was actually committed it is far less likely that the investigation was dishonest. In this case far less likely that the investigation started solely out of revenge and was non-existent before the motivate for revenge appeared.

So, for the last time (and I mean it): If you're claiming that shouting "fire" was a lie for revenge, it's an enormous coincidence that a house burned down.


I told you already that at worst, Biden's interests aligned with US interests, so my argument doesn't hinge on ruling out his personal interests.
I do not believe that accurately represents your claims, but even if it did that would mean you've been wasting a lot of time then because investigating Hunter Biden in connection to Burisma was also in US interests.

4 + 6 = 10

When someone tells you that you are not doing good on the job, you have to count the whole tenure.
You dodge the point.

The simplest explanation is that when Biden-
Pure counter-assertion.


#242
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Public-Choice
In the FBI investigation documents, Mueller literally states that when the Russian lawyer approached them with dirt on Clinton, after Trump Jr. And others heard the dirt and approached Trump, then-candidate Trump declined the deal.
  • This is false.  Mueller said nothing like this.
  • Trump told Reuter's on July 12, 2017 (more than a year after the meeting when the NY Times got hold of emails confirming the meeting) that the first time he had heard of the meeting was a couple days before, so July 10, 2017.  Trump has never contradicted this obvious lie so his official story  remains that he was that he was totally out of it, start to finish.
  • Trump's official testimony to Mueller regarding knowledge of the meeting is:
    •  "I have no recollection of learning at the time that Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner was considering participating in a meeting in June 2016 concerning potentially negative information about Hillary Clinton. Nor do I recall learning during the campaign that the June 9, 2016 meeting had taken place, that the referenced emails existed, or that Donald J. Trump Jr., had other communications with Emin Agalarov or Robert Goldstone between June 3, 2016 and June 9, 2016."
  • The Mueller report never states that Trump declined anything.
    • The Mueller report states that while the subject of the Jun 9th meeting is unknown, 
      • Team Trump was extremely excited about the meeting, with Trump himself promising major revelations on Clinton at a Jun 7th rally.
      • Team Trump seemed unhappy and ended the meeting in under 20 mins after Kushner left abruptly.  Goldman later apologized profusely to Team Trump by email for ever setting up the meeting.
      • Everybody lied about the meeting ever happening until the NY Times got Trump Jr's "I love it" email.
      • Everybody told different, contradictory  stories for the first few days after the NYT story until Trump Jr's lawyer, Alan Futerfas sent out a timeline of the meeting and the subjects discussed to all participants.  Then everybody but Veselnitskaya told the same story.
  • Veselnitskaya misrepresented herself to several US investigators as  a private lawyer in town representing a friend and doing a little lobbying on the side. Investigators later determined that Veselnitskaya was a longtime Federal prosecutor in regular contact with Putin's Chief Prosecutor .  Veselnitskaya had hired Fusion GPS, perhaps to investigate Browder's donations to Clinton, and met with Fusion GPS immediately before and after the Trump Tower meeting.
    • Fusion GPS also assembled the Steele Dossier
    • This is purely speculative but The Agalarovs' primary connection to Trump was the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, the golden showers show in Vegas and the alleged golden showers show at Ritz-Carlton Moscow that the Steele Dossier claims was recorded for the purpose of extorting Trump.  Why the Agalorovs would be represented at a meeting about Russian adoptions or the Magnitsky Act or Clinton campaign donations, etc.  has never been made any sense  but their presence might help  explain why everybody is lying about that meeting.

#243
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Public-Choice
IWantRooseveltAgain: Trump is guilty!!! He colluded with them dirty Ruskis!!!

FBI: No.
CIA: No.
NSA: No.
CID: No.
State Department: No.
CISA: No.
U.S. Army Cyber Command: No.
Senate Intelligence Committee: No.
Reality: No.
  • This is false.  Not one of these organizations have denied Trump collusion with Russia.  "Collusion" is not a legal term or Federal standard, that is the word Trump uses to avoid legal standards.  "No collusion" is Trump's strawman argument
Mueller Report:

  • In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.”
  • while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.
    • Because
  • the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.
  • The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”
  • we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.”
  • Consistent with our jurisdiction to investigate federal obstruction crimes, we gathered evidence that is relevant to the elements of those crimes and analyzed them within an elements framework—while refraining from reaching ultimate conclusions about whether crimes were committed, for the reasons explained above.
    • Mueller then goes on provide the evidence that Trump committed 11 felony acts of Obstruction of Justice and refers that evidence to BIll Barr who then wrote the 4 page "nothing to see here" memo
      • Mueller replied to Barr that he "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions" and that this led to "public confusion"
      • Mueller also made 14 criminal referrals redacted for reasons of National Security or ongoing investigation.  We still don't know what 12 of these were about.
    • On May 29th, Mueller testified before Congress "there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American".
      • Mueller recommended that Senate take up impeachment proceedings
      • Mueller advised that he thought Presidents generally could be charged with theses crimes once they are out of office.
FBI: No.
  • Mueller advised that he handed the counterintelligence half of the investigation back to the FBI early into his investigations.
  • Rod Rosenstein quickly quashed any counterintelligence investigation into Trump
  • No counterintelligence (spying) investigation was ever started on Trump or his lackies until after Trump left office.
CIA: No.
  • "Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations. We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.  We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him
  • The CIA did not investigate Trump's involvement in Russia's campaign but did increasingly withhold assessments specific to Russia as Trump's conduct increasingly undermined counterintelligence programs.
  • The CIA halted Trump's daily intelligence briefings after Jan 6.   
NSA: No
  • The NSA does not investigate the President
  • Here's one of Trump's NSA Director's  assessment of Trump on Russia:
    • During an interview with Bolton, Newsmax host Rob Schmitt said that “there is something to be said, though, about the simple fact that there was not aggression during the four years” Trump was in office, noting a list of actions that the Washington think tank Brookings Institution said the Trump administration took against Russia. “I mean, he took a very tough stance against Russia. I’m surprised you don’t think that he would have handled it better than Joe Biden,” Schmitt told Bolton.
    • “He did not,” Bolton replied. “We didn’t sanction Nord Stream 2. We should have. We should have brought the project to an end. We did impose sanctions on Russian oligarchs and several others because of their sales of S-400 anti-aircraft systems to other countries. But in almost every case, the sanctions were imposed with Trump complaining about it, saying we were being too hard.”
    • “The fact is that he barely knew where Ukraine was. He once asked John Kelly, his second chief of staff, if Finland were a part of Russia. It’s just not accurate to say that Trump’s behavior somehow deterred the Russians,” Bolton said.
CID: No.
  • Never investigated the Commander in Chief, obviously.  The Army CID did find that Flynn illegally accepted $40,000 in bribes from Russia.
State Department: No.
  • Did not investigate the President, made no report
CISA: No.
  • Founded by Trump Admin in 2018
U.S. Army Cyber Command: No.
  • Did not investigate the President made no report
Senate Intelligence Committee: No.
  • Agrees with Mueller Report and Intelligence committee reports with some additional findings:
    • The (Republican-led) Committee report found that the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Donald Trump, which included assistance from some members of Trump's own advisers (i.e., collusion)
      • Paul Manafort is a  "a grave counterintelligence threat" directly connected to the Russian theft of Clinton-campaign email
        • In fact, Manafort now confesses to working with Kilimnik in interviews over the past few weeks.
      • "Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his Campaign about Stone's access to WikiLeaks on multiple occasions"
        • Trump denied this in his testimony to Mueller
Reality: No.
  • Mueller documents 170 contacts between Trump and 18 of his insiders with Russian operatives.  That is, just from what we know happened, Trump's inner circle was averaging almost daily contact with Russian operatives, many with direct links to Putin.  Based on the super covert conduct of the meetings we know about, we should assume many, many more meetings were missed.  Almost every single contact was denied by Trump's  insiders and the purposes of all these many meeting is either never explained or generally lied about.
    • Why that is not sufficient evidence of a conspiracy to get you convicted in a court of law, it is nevertheless fairly compelling evidence of a conspiracy generally.
COLLUSION is not a legal standard but it is also not a particularly high bar:  A secret agreement for an illegal purpose.  Trump's secrecy and frequency of contact with Russia is well established.  If we can infer from all that secrecy some concealment of an illegal purpose, then collusion seems as nice as any word to put on all that whispering in the dark with foreign enemies.


#244
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,752
3
3
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
3
2
What the hell is election interference that is not election fraud?
#245
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,957
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You are correct.

States Most Dependent on the Federal Government
3. Mississippi
For every $1 paid in income tax in Mississippi, the state takes in $2.53 in federal funding. That’s the second-largest ratio of federal funding to income taxes paid in our study. Meanwhile, 47.31% of state revenues come from federal funding, which is the seventh-highest percentage of all 50 states. Additionally, Mississippi has the 11th-largest percentage of workers employed by the federal government (3.23%).
#246
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,855
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
For every $1 paid in income tax in Mississippi, the state takes in $2.53 in federal funding. 

That's a disingenuous conclusion wherever you got that info. I posted the Federal taxes received from Mississippi and the amount Mississippi gets in Federal aid for their state budget is also easily googled.

It's not even close to a 1 to 2.53 ratio. Not even nearly close.
I looked at the source stats and your posted source only looks at State income taxes and ignores revenue from federal tax income. There is absolutely no value of a study that excludes federal tax income to the government especially when the focus is on "Federal aid to the state budget" except to push a narrative of "red state bad"

None of you guys even have remotely the basic academic  skills to push past obvious confirmation bias.

Guess it's a side affect of "the fun years"
#247
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,387
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Ah the internet, everyone's source for the truth. Yet inexplicably no one believes anyone's source. Yet they all come from the same place.  LOL
#248
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,855
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@sadolite
I actually checked the source to find out the confirmation biased methodology required to arrive at the "correct" result.

Until someone can post a source for Federal Income tax revenue for Mississippi and also the Federal aid for the state budget of Mississippi, anything else is pure unadulterated Bullshit and will be considered misinformation.

Mississippi undeniably pays more in Federal taxes than it receives in Federal aid to the state budget. Period.
#249
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,387
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
But your sources are BS just like everyone else's.  The truth is out there, but it ain't on the internet because no one believes anyone's sources from the internet.  Your source could be accurate and true but that means nothing because the other guys source is accurate and true. Who are you to tell anyone their internet source isn't true.
#250
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,855
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@sadolite
Maybe.

I mean, I guess you really can't trust the IRS to correctly report Federal Tax Revenue from Mississippi. How could you possibly prove it?

It's just a guess.
#251
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,752
3
3
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
3
2
-->
@Greyparrot
I looked at the source stats and your posted source only looks at State income taxes and ignores revenue from federal tax income.
But Alaska is on their list and Alaska doesn't have state income taxes.

#252
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,855
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty


State welfare is actually a tiny part of the Federal pie chart.


No state gets more back than they put in.
#253
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
Oh, yes, for sure...

Trump is such an idiot that after becoming a very wealthy man and celebrity, one who many loved and adored (before his run for presidency), that he never knew what he was doing. 

Even Oprah asked if he would ever run and why. His answers were loved by the audience. 

But the dems today, well, the left and their antics speak for themselves. 

Even the FBI raid on Trump's home may seal the fate not of Trump, but the left and Democrats. 

HINT: Clinton and his tapes spying on Trump, among others. 
#254
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
lol look at GP suddenly giving a shit about facts and valid sources.   It's like watching a trout operate a backhoe

#255
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,855
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TWS1405
Self inflicted wounds. The fate of every leftist.
#256
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,752
3
3
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
3
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes I suppose that could have been said from the start... The methodology of smartasset remains a mystery.
Topic's author
#257
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No state gets more back than they put in.
That is a ridiculous, ludicrous statement. Are you a dummy?
Topic's author
#258
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
No state gets more back than they put in.
Hey dummy

Money to the Federal treasury includes incomes taxes, SS tax, Medicare tax gasoline taxes, etc…

Money from the Federal treasury to the states AND THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE STATES includes Federal aid, money for roads, money for education, SS payments, Medicare, Medicaid, federal pensions, federal salaries, etc…

Most red states get way more from the treasury than they send. A net benefit for those states. 

The largest contributors to the Federal Treasury are California and New York. Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Florida and Texas are also big contributors.

#259
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11

2014 Federal Aid only- not including grants, contracts, salaries, discretionary
#260
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,855
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
You obviously ignored the pie chart.
#261
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
No state gets more back than they put in.
and that's why there's never any deficit or debt!
#262
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,855
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Ukraine got 20 times more federal money than Alaska and Ukraine isn't even a state.
#263
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,387
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
"Ukraine got 20 times more federal money than Alaska and Ukraine isn't even a state." Enough said on this subject . LOL


#264
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,812
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Wrong, if Biden was not running a money laundering scheme then it wouldn't be a coincidence that someone started investigating it for revenge.
I've been ignoring you're money laundering scheme assertion because that's a whole other conversation. Clearly, since it has gone uncontested you continue to pretend it's a given. Do you have any actual evidence for this claim?

And I've already explained the scenario where Shokin concocts defense and followed it through. It wasn't about revenge, if you were being honest you would know this and adjust your argument accordingly. Not surprising that you haven't.

investigating Hunter Biden in connection to Burisma was also in US interests.
Please enlighten me as to why.

4 + 6 = 10

When someone tells you that you are not doing good on the job, you have to count the whole tenure.
You dodge the point.
The point is that it's disingenuous to pretend his tenure started over because he was sent a good job letter. 

What point do you think you made?
#265
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,812
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405
Even the FBI raid on Trump's home may seal the fate not of Trump, but the left and Democrats. 
Imagine how deluded one has to be to learn that the FBI executed a search warrant on a politician's home which was approved by a federal judge resulting in the removal of multiple sets of classified documents that were not authorized to be stored there, and for this to be viewed not as a reason to abandon that politician, but as a reason to vote against the party challenging him.

It really is a cartoonish narrative that the people taking this position would have sworn would never be them less than a decade ago.

America really is a frog in slow boiling water, and it's starting to bubble.
#266
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,957
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

― H.L. Mencken

#267
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,855
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Well I guess we aint there yet since I am not a fellow soul enjoying the Fun Years with Biden.

(yet dagnabbit)
#268
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Double_R
#269
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,855
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TWS1405
“Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,” Judge Jackson wrote.

“Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records,”
#270
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,752
3
3
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
3
2
-->
@sadolite
@Double_R
IwantRooseveltagain: Money from the Federal treasury to the states AND THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE STATES includes Federal aid, ... , money for education, SS payments, Medicare, Medicaid, federal pensions, federal salaries, etc…
So useless waste.


sadolite: "Ukraine got 20 times more federal money than Alaska and Ukraine isn't even a state." Enough said on this subject . LOL
Indeed, even if you presume that every dollar spent counts as a benefit (which again is fallacy #2); the fact that money is sent overseas proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the net disbursement to or in the states must be less than the collections (no inflation cheating allowed).


Wrong, if Biden was not running a money laundering scheme then it wouldn't be a coincidence that someone started investigating it for revenge.
Double_R: I've been ignoring you're money laundering scheme assertion because that's a whole other conversation. Clearly, since it has gone uncontested you continue to pretend it's a given. Do you have any actual evidence for this claim?
The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Hunter had no skills that were of any value to burisma. Hunter did not speak Ukrainian. The only possible reason to pay Hunter a single dollar much less how much he was paid was his connections. We know from the laptop, emails, and the whistle-blowing partner that Hunter was financially entangled with his father to the point of sharing bank accounts. The "Big guy" has been fingered as Biden and contextual evidence of texts strongly supports this.

Biden was the "policy maker" in Ukraine.

What Hunter was selling to burisma could only be doubted by the most prejudiced observer.


Double_R: And I've already explained the scenario where Shokin concocts defense and followed it through. It wasn't about revenge, if you were being honest you would know this and adjust your argument accordingly. Not surprising that you haven't.
You're stubbornly sticking to an absurdity, I said I had explained it for the last time (fourth attempt) and I meant it. If someone else besides you has questions I'll return to the subject.


investigating Hunter Biden in connection to Burisma was also in US interests.
Double_R: Please enlighten me as to why.
It is in US interests to not have its foreign policy sold for personal enrichment, it is also in US interests to know when a candidate for public office does things like that.

The point is that it's disingenuous to pretend his tenure started over because he was sent a good job letter. 
I said nothing about "starting over" but a "good job letter" does indicate that there was not at that time an international consensus that Shokin must go.

What point do you think you made?
1.) You twist the perception of relative time as it suits you. Three months is plenty of time when it comes to revenge, but four months is "just the start" as if he walked in the door and couldn't have accomplished or corrupted anything yet. One day is enough time to plot revenge or show yourself to be corrupt.

2.) The push by the US executive branch to remove Shokin cannot be separated in time with what can only very generously be called international angst against him. Biden was the "policy maker" in Ukraine and it is therefore reasonable to believe that despite what may be written in your civics power point Biden was the US executive branch when it came to Ukraine. As such his personal motivations could very well have steered focus and his orders led to US officials (like ambassadors) pushing a narrative against Shokin. Finding those people in EU and Ukraine who were annoyed with him and amplifying their voices. Using the drummed up complaints in reports to the US Senate.


TWS1405: Even the FBI raid on Trump's home may seal the fate not of Trump, but the left and Democrats. 
Double_R: Imagine how deluded one has to be to learn that the FBI executed a search warrant on a politician's home which was approved by a federal judge resulting in the removal of multiple sets of classified documents that were not authorized to be stored there, and for this to be viewed not as a reason to abandon that politician, but as a reason to vote against the party challenging him.
Imagine if the said federal judge was associated with a global black-mailing pimp and the brownshirts who raided their political opponents were the same unit that conspired to frame that same political opponent and may well have been seeking to remove evidence against themselves.

Imagine if people in 1930s Germany had the courage to see something like that and instead of cowering and voicing support for the nazi party voted against it even harder while stockpiling weapons and muttering that it would be better for Germany to disintegrate than be unified under those terms.

I think maybe we have learned from the past. We'll see.