Vid of Biden admit bribe of Ukrainian Pres. to fire prosecutor investigating son

[TECSHARE]

You were saying something about how I was making this personal?

You made it personal from the first page in this thread. That's pretty much all you do when you know you don't have an argument.

You mean like your very first subject heading post in this thread?

"Conspiratard Media Waves Poop Stick At Biden"

P.S. I don't consider being exceptionally more informed than you a difficult bar to meet.

You also think that sitting on your ass reading websites like ZeroHedge is the same thing as "going to the gym every day."    You inform yourself with the intellectual equivalent of Cheetos while convincing yourself they are protein bars. But do whatever satiates your incessant craving to feel superior to others, I suppose...

Zerohedge is largely what is called an aggregator site, meaning they largely post articles from other sources, many of them mainstream. If the information presented was so bad you should easily be able to argue against it rather than taking the intellectually lazy fallacious route of attacking the source. There is no such thing as bad information, only useless interpretations of it. You probably think CNN is more reliable than Zero Hedge even though they are documented as regularly and overtly publishing false information and refusing to issue retractions. It is a simple task to say "source X" is invalid because I say so, and conveniently absolves you of any responsibility of addressing any of the content of the presented information.

Regarding your rigged Fox poll...

"FOX NEWS POLL WAS ACTUALLY DEMOCRAT 48 REPUBLICAN 34 (D+14)"

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/fox-news-poll-was-actually-democrat-48-republican-34-d14/

You didn't even bother to fact check this claim for yourself. If you would have, you would know that the information being quoted is from another poll. Looks like you need to switch your workout regimen, because whatever you are doing now isn't paying off.

Yes, a different poll.. because it is comparing the previous Democrat sample size with the latest one with an increased Democrat sample size. At least I can read stick boy.

[TwitchySeal]

Not gonna quote and continue a lengthy quote chain

So the whole argument comes down to.... payment wasn't reported in accordance with campaign finance laws, right?

Who says it was campaign money? Who says it was done to further his campaign?  

When it comes to legal argument, I think that's the part that they can't prove.

I've seen that it was his own money. No issue with trading cash for an NDA.  It happens all the time. What I think the splitting hairs parts comes down to, is.... prove it was done to further his campaign.  You can't.  You can guess, assume, and reckon.  But there no way to prove that payment was related to influencing the campaign.  It is just as likely is was done to protect his marriage, family, reputation, etc...       easy to argue either side regarding intent. Very little way to prove it.  

Akin to criminal law, you arrest a burglar with a crowbar in his trunk.  Is that crowbar evidence in a "possessing instruments of a crime" charge?    Dude works construction too.    Well, we can assume the crowbar was used in the burglaries, but there's just as much assumption it's a room for work.

His lawyer at the time testified that it was to influence the election.

He made the payment weeks before the election.  The affair happened years ago.

Does this prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he made the payment because of the election?  Maybe.
Could you argue it was just a coincidence that he the election just happened to be a couple weeks after the payments?  Yes.
Does the evidence show probable cause that he committed a crime?  Absolutely.  There's more than enough to indict him and let a jury decide based on the facts.

At the end of the day, I still don't care who fucked who.  Bill did it.  I probably would too if I was offered a blowie under the desk.

This isn't about who Trump fucked.  Banging porn stars isn't illegal.  Paying them to stay quiet isn't illegal.  Nobody is saying either of those things are illegal.

Zerohedge is largely what is called an aggregator site, meaning they largely post articles from other sources, many of them mainstream.

Eh - Stick with Drudge.  Aside from their finance stuff Zerohedge is borderline propaganda at best. 

In November 2014, Dr. Craig Pirrong, Professor of Finance at the University of Houston, stated: "I have frequently written that Zero Hedge has the MO of a Soviet agitprop operation, that it reliably peddles Russian propaganda: my first post on this, almost exactly three years ago, noted the parallels between Zero Hedge and Russia Today."[59][60] In December 2013, Zero Hedge accused Dr. Pirrong of being a "paid-for-Professor", who had "made a living of collecting "expert academic" fees by simply signing off on [wall street] memoranda", quoting a New York Times expose by David Kocieniewski into Dr. Pirrong.[61]

In September 2015, Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman described Zero Hedge as a scaremongering outlet that promotes fears of hyperinflation and an "obviously ridiculous" form of "monetary permahawkery."[63] In November 2012, Krugman had noted that Bill McBride of Calculated Risk, an economics blog, has treated Zero Hedge with "appropriate contempt".[64] Krugman has been one of the most vilified individuals on Zero Hedge, and the subject of over 703 articles (almost all negative) since inception,[47] due to Krugman's advocacy of Keynesian economics.[h][33]

[TECSHARE]

Eh - Stick with Drudge.  Zerohedge is borderline propaganda at best.

In November 2014, Dr. Craig Pirrong, Professor of Finance at the University of Houston, stated: "I have frequently written that Zero Hedge has the MO of a Soviet agitprop operation, that it reliably peddles Russian propaganda: my first post on this, almost exactly three years ago, noted the parallels between Zero Hedge and Russia Today."[59][60] In December 2013, Zero Hedge accused Dr. Pirrong of being a "paid-for-Professor", who had "made a living of collecting "expert academic" fees by simply signing off on [wall street] memoranda", quoting a New York Times expose by David Kocieniewski into Dr. Pirrong.[61]

In September 2015, Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman described Zero Hedge as a scaremongering outlet that promotes fears of hyperinflation and an "obviously ridiculous" form of "monetary permahawkery."[63] In November 2012, Krugman had noted that Bill McBride of Calculated Risk, an economics blog, has treated Zero Hedge with "appropriate contempt".[64] Krugman has been one of the most vilified individuals on Zero Hedge, and the subject of over 703 articles (almost all negative) since inception,[47] due to Krugman's advocacy of Keynesian economics.[h][33]

Ah yes, the Russians are coming, as always. The same things have been said about Drudge. Funny you support Drudge now that it has taken a decidedly leftist and establishment turn of late. I am willing to bet you were not a fan until very recently. Zero Hedge to a large degree focuses on financial issues including financial crimes, corruption, and over all exposing disruptive trends in the sector. Now why would leaders in the financial sector have any motive to slander people who are exposing financial crimes and cons? Maybe perhaps the things Zero Hedge regularly is critical of threatens their own investments? Hmm...

[TwitchySeal]

Ah yes, the Russians are coming, as always.

Yeah.  They kind of are.

It's scary how many Trump fans have "muh Russia" and "orange man bad!" engrained into their thought process. 

[PopoJeff]

Not gonna quote and continue a lengthy quote chain

So the whole argument comes down to.... payment wasn't reported in accordance with campaign finance laws, right?

Who says it was campaign money? Who says it was done to further his campaign?  

When it comes to legal argument, I think that's the part that they can't prove.

I've seen that it was his own money. No issue with trading cash for an NDA.  It happens all the time. What I think the splitting hairs parts comes down to, is.... prove it was done to further his campaign.  You can't.  You can guess, assume, and reckon.  But there no way to prove that payment was related to influencing the campaign.  It is just as likely is was done to protect his marriage, family, reputation, etc...       easy to argue either side regarding intent. Very little way to prove it.  

Akin to criminal law, you arrest a burglar with a crowbar in his trunk.  Is that crowbar evidence in a "possessing instruments of a crime" charge?    Dude works construction too.    Well, we can assume the crowbar was used in the burglaries, but there's just as much assumption it's a room for work.

His lawyer at the time testified that it was to influence the election.

He made the payment weeks before the election.  The affair happened years ago.

Does this prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he made the payment because of the election?  Maybe.
Could you argue it was just a coincidence that he the election just happened to be a couple weeks after the payments?  Yes.
Does the evidence show probable cause that he committed a crime?  Absolutely.  There's more than enough to indict him and let a jury decide based on the facts.

At the end of the day, I still don't care who fucked who.  Bill did it.  I probably would too if I was offered a blowie under the desk.

This isn't about who Trump fucked.  Banging porn stars isn't illegal.  Paying them to stay quiet isn't illegal.  Nobody is saying either of those things are illegal.

Zerohedge is largely what is called an aggregator site, meaning they largely post articles from other sources, many of them mainstream.

Eh - Stick with Drudge.  Aside from their finance stuff Zerohedge is borderline propaganda at best.  

In November 2014, Dr. Craig Pirrong, Professor of Finance at the University of Houston, stated: "I have frequently written that Zero Hedge has the MO of a Soviet agitprop operation, that it reliably peddles Russian propaganda: my first post on this, almost exactly three years ago, noted the parallels between Zero Hedge and Russia Today."[59][60] In December 2013, Zero Hedge accused Dr. Pirrong of being a "paid-for-Professor", who had "made a living of collecting "expert academic" fees by simply signing off on [wall street] memoranda", quoting a New York Times expose by David Kocieniewski into Dr. Pirrong.[61]

In September 2015, Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman described Zero Hedge as a scaremongering outlet that promotes fears of hyperinflation and an "obviously ridiculous" form of "monetary permahawkery."[63] In November 2012, Krugman had noted that Bill McBride of Calculated Risk, an economics blog, has treated Zero Hedge with "appropriate contempt".[64] Krugman has been one of the most vilified individuals on Zero Hedge, and the subject of over 703 articles (almost all negative) since inception,[47] due to Krugman's advocacy of Keynesian economics.[h][33]

I get it, I get it.  Anyone who supports or is indifferent to Trump is wrong and you'll come up with some counter-point to anything they say.  Cool

But, if you are so correct .... why hasn't he been charged (or, impeached) for these crimes he is so guilty of?

You may claim it was influential to the election.  But, I seriously doubt anyone who voted for him gave a crap who he boned, when, or why. Knowing he had three marriages, a penchant for models, and tons of cash.... I'm sure they all expected, and any confirmation of such would have no effect on their vote.

[TwitchySeal]

I get it, I get it.  Anyone who supports or is indifferent to Trump is wrong and you'll come up with some hair brained counter-point to anything they say.  Cool, keep spending your time complaining about something you can't change.

This is absolutely not true about me.  I doubt you'll believe that, just had to say it.

But, if you are so correct .... why hasn't he been charged (or, impeached) for these crimes he is so guilty of?

The simple answer is because Robert Mueller decided to respect the OLC opinion that a sitting president can not be indicted.  If Trump was not the president, or the OLC opinion said you could indict a sitting president, it's pretty clear he would've been indicted more than a year ago.  He's openly threatened witnesses the night before they were set to publicly testify in front of congress, while he was the president ffs.

You may claim it was influential to the election.  But, I seriously doubt anyone who voted for him gave a crap who he boned, when, or why. Knowing he had three marriages, a penchant for models, and tons of cash.... I'm sure they all expected, and any confirmation of such would have no effect on their vote.

Do you truly believe that Trump didn't think that anyone would care if a pornstar shared all the details of their affair the week before the election, and the hush money payment was just a coincidence that he would've paid whether he was running for president or not?

If not, you're making a straw man argument.

This isn't about who Trump fucked.  Banging porn stars isn't illegal.  Paying them to stay quiet isn't illegal.  Nobody is saying either of those things are illegal.

[PopoJeff]

I know about the issue regarding charging a President, thats why impeachment was in brackets.  Why wasn't he impeached for that?   Certainly more 'evidence' or P.C. there than this Ukraine phone call

And I don't know what he was thinking.  I'm sure he didn't want it coming out at election time.  But you, what do you think?  Would this freshly revealed info really have any effect on the election?   

Trump voters knew what he was, they're not changing their vote because of this.   He'll there was evidence Hillary willfully mishandled and destroyed email evidence, her supporters didn't care 


Btw, cant wait to hear these CNN tapes this week.  I'm sure it's nothing we dint already know.... insane media bias with an agenda 

[TwitchySeal]

I know about the issue regarding charging a President, thats why impeachment was in brackets.  Why wasn't he impeached for that?   Certainly more 'evidence' or P.C. there than this Ukraine phone call

Trump said 'No Collusion No Obstruction' a million times and it worked, but Barr wins the mvp award for his 'summary' + wait a month to release the 500 page legal document.

Pelosi was convinced it would've been a bad move politically. 

And I don't know what he was thinking.  I'm sure he didn't want it coming out at election time.  But you, what do you think?  Would this freshly revealed info really have any effect on the election?   

He paid them off because not paying them could only ever cost him votes.

Would this freshly revealed info really have any effect on the election?   

Trump voters knew what he was, they're not changing their vote because of this.   He'll there was evidence Hillary willfully mishandled and destroyed email evidence, her supporters didn't care 

It's irrelevant whether or not it actually affected the election, but I'm sure it would have swayed some subset of the 130 million voters.  And that subset could include the 80k voters that in total won PA, MI and WI for Trump.  It also wouldn't be totally shocking if the fact he was out banging pornstars actually got him more votes - especially with his spin skills.

Btw, cant wait to hear these CNN tapes this week.  I'm sure it's nothing we dint already know.... insane media bias with an agenda 

James O'Keef's record is like 4-20 with 15 embarrassing losses in a row and his only wins being 10 years ago. There isn't a MSM journalist that isn't aware of him, so I wouldn't get your hopes up.

[TECSHARE]

I get it, I get it.  Anyone who supports or is indifferent to Trump is wrong and you'll come up with some hair brained counter-point to anything they say.  Cool, keep spending your time complaining about something you can't change.

This is absolutely not true about me.  I doubt you'll believe that, just had to say it.

But, if you are so correct .... why hasn't he been charged (or, impeached) for these crimes he is so guilty of?

The simple answer is because Robert Mueller decided to respect the OLC opinion that a sitting president can not be indicted.  If Trump was not the president, or the OLC opinion said you could indict a sitting president, it's pretty clear he would've been indicted more than a year ago.  He's openly threatened witnesses the night before they were set to publicly testify in front of congress, while he was the president ffs.

You may claim it was influential to the election.  But, I seriously doubt anyone who voted for him gave a crap who he boned, when, or why. Knowing he had three marriages, a penchant for models, and tons of cash.... I'm sure they all expected, and any confirmation of such would have no effect on their vote.

Do you truly believe that Trump didn't think that anyone would care if a pornstar shared all the details of their affair the week before the election, and the hush money payment was just a coincidence that he would've paid whether he was running for president or not?

If not, you're making a straw man argument.

This isn't about who Trump fucked.  Banging porn stars isn't illegal.  Paying them to stay quiet isn't illegal.  Nobody is saying either of those things are illegal.

It is rather convenient Muller didn't actually present any evidence of criminal activity on the part of Trump. Of course it is policy not to indict a sitting president, however that doesn't mean he has any evidence to do so regardless.

"Mueller Reminds Congress Report Doesn't Exonerate Trump From Assassination Of President Lincoln"

https://babylonbee.com/news/mueller-reminds-nation-report-doesnt-exonerate-trump-from-assassination-of-abraham-lincoln

Much like it would technically true if Muller had made this statement, it does't mean it is based in reality or make any sense. His words were intentionally designed to cast the appearance of guilt while technically not perjuring himself or providing any evidence of criminal activity.

It doesn't matter if people care about Trump fucking strippers. It matters if what he did was a crime. Last I checked that wasn't criminal.

James O'Keef's record is like 4-20 with 15 embarrassing losses in a row and his only wins being 10 years ago. There isn't a MSM journalist that isn't aware of him, so I wouldn't get your hopes up.

BWAHAHHAH!

Whatever you say sparky.

[TwitchySeal]

It is rather convenient Muller didn't actually present any evidence of criminal activity on the part of Trump. Of course it is policy not to indict a sitting president, however that doesn't mean he has any evidence to do so regardless.

Here's one of the 10 examples on Muellers Obstruction List.

A few days before Cohen was scheduled to testified publicly in front of congress, Trump talking shit about Cohens father in law on Fox News and Twitter.

"he should give information maybe on his father-in-law, because that’s the one that people want to look at."
"Watch father-in-law!"
"Because where does that money — that’s the money in the family. And I guess he didn’t want to talk about his father-in-law — he’s trying to get his sentence reduced. So it’s pretty sad. It’s weak and it’s very sad to watch a thing like that. I couldn’t care less,"


Do you think Trump wasn't trying to influence what Cohen said to congress?  Because if he was, that's a federal crime.

[TECSHARE]

It is rather convenient Muller didn't actually present any evidence of criminal activity on the part of Trump. Of course it is policy not to indict a sitting president, however that doesn't mean he has any evidence to do so regardless.

Here's one of the 10 examples on Muellers Obstruction List.

A few days before Cohen was scheduled to testified publicly in front of congress, Trump talking shit about Cohens father in law on Fox News and Twitter.

"he should give information maybe on his father-in-law, because that’s the one that people want to look at."
"Watch father-in-law!"
"Because where does that money — that’s the money in the family. And I guess he didn’t want to talk about his father-in-law — he’s trying to get his sentence reduced. So it’s pretty sad. It’s weak and it’s very sad to watch a thing like that. I couldn’t care less,"


Do you think Trump wasn't trying to influence what Cohen said to congress?  Because if he was, that's a federal crime.

In what way would him Tweeting prevent the investigation from happening exactly? How exactly does "talking shit" prevent him from testifying? Furthermore, what crime are you suggesting Trump was guilty of and trying to hinder the investigation of exactly?

[TwitchySeal]

It is rather convenient Muller didn't actually present any evidence of criminal activity on the part of Trump. Of course it is policy not to indict a sitting president, however that doesn't mean he has any evidence to do so regardless.

Here's one of the 10 examples on Muellers Obstruction List.

A few days before Cohen was scheduled to testified publicly in front of congress, Trump talking shit about Cohens father in law on Fox News and Twitter.

"he should give information maybe on his father-in-law, because that’s the one that people want to look at."
"Watch father-in-law!"
"Because where does that money — that’s the money in the family. And I guess he didn’t want to talk about his father-in-law — he’s trying to get his sentence reduced. So it’s pretty sad. It’s weak and it’s very sad to watch a thing like that. I couldn’t care less,"


Do you think Trump wasn't trying to influence what Cohen said to congress?  Because if he was, that's a federal crime.

In what way would him Tweeting prevent the investigation from happening exactly? How exactly does "talking shit" prevent him from testifying? Furthermore, what crime are you suggesting Trump was guilty of and trying to hinder the investigation of exactly?

Witness tampering clearly. 

You think there's just nothing there though. Wow.

[TECSHARE]

It is rather convenient Muller didn't actually present any evidence of criminal activity on the part of Trump. Of course it is policy not to indict a sitting president, however that doesn't mean he has any evidence to do so regardless.

Here's one of the 10 examples on Muellers Obstruction List.

A few days before Cohen was scheduled to testified publicly in front of congress, Trump talking shit about Cohens father in law on Fox News and Twitter.

"he should give information maybe on his father-in-law, because that’s the one that people want to look at."
"Watch father-in-law!"
"Because where does that money — that’s the money in the family. And I guess he didn’t want to talk about his father-in-law — he’s trying to get his sentence reduced. So it’s pretty sad. It’s weak and it’s very sad to watch a thing like that. I couldn’t care less,"


Do you think Trump wasn't trying to influence what Cohen said to congress?  Because if he was, that's a federal crime.

In what way would him Tweeting prevent the investigation from happening exactly? How exactly does "talking shit" prevent him from testifying? Furthermore, what crime are you suggesting Trump was guilty of and trying to hinder the investigation of exactly?

Witness tampering clearly. 

You think there's just nothing there though. Wow.

You didn't answer any of my questions or substantiate your claims, you just repeated yourself.

[TwitchySeal]

It is rather convenient Muller didn't actually present any evidence of criminal activity on the part of Trump. Of course it is policy not to indict a sitting president, however that doesn't mean he has any evidence to do so regardless.

Here's one of the 10 examples on Muellers Obstruction List.

A few days before Cohen was scheduled to testified publicly in front of congress, Trump talking shit about Cohens father in law on Fox News and Twitter.

"he should give information maybe on his father-in-law, because that’s the one that people want to look at."
"Watch father-in-law!"
"Because where does that money — that’s the money in the family. And I guess he didn’t want to talk about his father-in-law — he’s trying to get his sentence reduced. So it’s pretty sad. It’s weak and it’s very sad to watch a thing like that. I couldn’t care less,"


Do you think Trump wasn't trying to influence what Cohen said to congress?  Because if he was, that's a federal crime.

In what way would him Tweeting prevent the investigation from happening exactly? How exactly does "talking shit" prevent him from testifying? Furthermore, what crime are you suggesting Trump was guilty of and trying to hinder the investigation of exactly?

Witness tampering clearly. 

You think there's just nothing there though. Wow.

You didn't answer any of my questions or substantiate your claims, you just repeated yourself.

"what crime are you suggesting Trump was guilty of and trying to hinder the investigation of exactly?"

"Witness tampering"

I mean, did you not bother even reading the Mueller report?  I feel like spelling it out for you would just be a waste of time. 

[TECSHARE]

You didn't answer any of my questions or substantiate your claims, you just repeated yourself.

"what crime are you suggesting Trump was guilty of and trying to hinder the investigation of exactly?"

"Witness tampering"

I mean, did you not bother even reading the Mueller report?  I feel like spelling it out for you would just be a waste of time.  

So... he was witness tampering in a witness tampering investigation against himself? Mmmkay.

I did read the report, it was full of lots of creative ways to cast baseless aspersions and insinuations while technically still being correct.

Just like...

"Mueller Reminds Congress Report Doesn't Exonerate Trump From Assassination Of President Lincoln"

https://babylonbee.com/news/mueller-reminds-nation-report-doesnt-exonerate-trump-from-assassination-of-abraham-lincoln

[nutildah]

Regarding your rigged Fox poll...

"FOX NEWS POLL WAS ACTUALLY DEMOCRAT 48 REPUBLICAN 34 (D+14)"

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/fox-news-poll-was-actually-democrat-48-republican-34-d14/

You didn't even bother to fact check this claim for yourself. If you would have, you would know that the information being quoted is from another poll. Looks like you need to switch your workout regimen, because whatever you are doing now isn't paying off.

Yes, a different poll.. because it is comparing the previous Democrat sample size with the latest one with an increased Democrat sample size. At least I can read stick boy.

 

That's not what's happening at all. The tweet that your entire "news article" is based around is showing numbers that correspond to a different poll, pretending they are the numbers corresponding to the latest poll.

The title of the article you linked is this:

FOX NEWS POLL WAS ACTUALLY DEMOCRAT 48 REPUBLICAN 34 (D+14)

These numbers are part of A DIFFERENT POLL:



https://www.scribd.com/document/426454752/Fox-News-Poll-September-15-17-2019

The numbers from your "news story" are from a mid September poll. The percentage identifying as Democrat actually dropped 1% since the last poll (the mid September one). The % identifying as Republican increased 1%.



https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-results-october-6-8-2019

Apparently it turns out you can't read.

Look man, correcting your relentless onslaught of bullshit is getting boring. Again, you were wrong, and you'll never admit it due to your psychopathology. Good luck with your crucifixion.

[Spendulus]

....

So... he was witness tampering in a witness tampering investigation against himself? Mmmkay. .....

Actually, yes, that was what they wanted to allege.

I was kind of curious how it would turn out.

[TECSHARE]

That's not what's happening at all. The tweet that your entire "news article" is based around is showing numbers that correspond to a different poll, pretending they are the numbers corresponding to the latest poll.

The title of the article you linked is this:

FOX NEWS POLL WAS ACTUALLY DEMOCRAT 48 REPUBLICAN 34 (D+14)

These numbers are part of A DIFFERENT POLL:

https://i.imgur.com/Fe4E3yw.png

https://www.scribd.com/document/426454752/Fox-News-Poll-September-15-17-2019

The numbers from your "news story" are from a mid September poll. The percentage identifying as Democrat actually dropped 1% since the last poll (the mid September one). The % identifying as Republican increased 1%.

https://i.imgur.com/dOwLt3i.png

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-results-october-6-8-2019

Apparently it turns out you can't read.

Look man, correcting your relentless onslaught of bullshit is getting boring. Again, you were wrong, and you'll never admit it due to your psychopathology. Good luck with your crucifixion.

"Princeton, New Jersey, pollster Braun Research, which conducted the survey, noted 48% of its respondents were Democrats. But the actual breakdown of party-affiliation is 31% Democrat, 29% Republican and 38% independent, according to Gallup.

A poll weighted for party affiliation would have concluded that 44.9% favored impeachment and 44.4% opposed it, a Post analysis has concluded."

https://nypost.com/2019/10/12/fox-news-pollster-braun-research-misrepresented-impeachment-poll-analysis/

[PopoJeff]

ANYHOO....... can we get back to Biden?  The topic of this thread.

See what happens anything you talk bad about, or try having a conversation about, a Democrat?  

Their loyal base cant talk about it, they have to change the narrative to throw in mud on Trump

And in this thread, we see how it worked.

Dont think I saw Biden's name in any of the last 4 pages.

So here..... Biden was personally paid $900,00 according to this article
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/joe-biden-personally-paid-900000-burisma-according-ukrainian-mp-bombshell-admission

[Spendulus]

ANYHOO....... can we get back to Biden?  The topic of this thread.
....

So here..... Biden was personally paid $900,00 according to this article
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/joe-biden-personally-paid-900000-burisma-according-ukrainian-mp-bombshell-admission

Looks like the 900 was paid to a firm he had links or, or associated with, some sort of blurred connection like that.

Much as I'd like for Biden to go away, that's not "personally paid."