(11-27-2019 06:05 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The Whistleblowers claims have been backed by testimony, under oath. So far, no one has been willing to do the same for the President.
Surely Rudy, Pompeo, Pence, McGahn or Mulvaney would be willing to testify on his behalf?

(11-28-2019 09:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 06:05 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The Whistleblowers claims have been backed by testimony, under oath. So far, no one has been willing to do the same for the President.
Surely Rudy, Pompeo, Pence, McGahn or Mulvaney would be willing to testify on his behalf?

As I understand it, the whistleblower basically said that he/she had heard rumors, and what has been supported is that they heard similar rumors. So in that sense, yes those claims have been confirmed.

Are the rumors true? We don’t know. We know that it’s true there we rumors.

(11-28-2019 06:45 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 09:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 06:05 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The Whistleblowers claims have been backed by testimony, under oath. So far, no one has been willing to do the same for the President.
Surely Rudy, Pompeo, Pence, McGahn or Mulvaney would be willing to testify on his behalf?

As I understand it, the whistleblower basically said that he/she had heard rumors, and what has been supported is that they heard similar rumors. So in that sense, yes those claims have been confirmed.

Are the rumors true? We don’t know. We know that it’s true there we rumors.

Rudy, Pompeo and Mulvaney can exonerate the President by coming forth and testifying on his behalf. Surely, they will help to exonerate him instead of obstructing?

(11-28-2019 07:57 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 06:45 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 09:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 06:05 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The Whistleblowers claims have been backed by testimony, under oath. So far, no one has been willing to do the same for the President.
Surely Rudy, Pompeo, Pence, McGahn or Mulvaney would be willing to testify on his behalf?

As I understand it, the whistleblower basically said that he/she had heard rumors, and what has been supported is that they heard similar rumors. So in that sense, yes those claims have been confirmed.

Are the rumors true? We don’t know. We know that it’s true there we rumors.

Rudy, Pompeo and Mulvaney can exonerate the President by coming forth and testifying on his behalf. Surely, they will help to exonerate him instead of obstructing?

Exonerate him of what? No crime has been claimed as being committed.

(11-28-2019 08:08 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 07:57 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 06:45 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 09:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 06:05 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The Whistleblowers claims have been backed by testimony, under oath. So far, no one has been willing to do the same for the President.
Surely Rudy, Pompeo, Pence, McGahn or Mulvaney would be willing to testify on his behalf?

As I understand it, the whistleblower basically said that he/she had heard rumors, and what has been supported is that they heard similar rumors. So in that sense, yes those claims have been confirmed.

Are the rumors true? We don’t know. We know that it’s true there we rumors.

Rudy, Pompeo and Mulvaney can exonerate the President by coming forth and testifying on his behalf. Surely, they will help to exonerate him instead of obstructing?

Exonerate him of what? No crime has been claimed as being committed.

Withholding congressionally appropriated taxpayer funds for personal political or economic gain is a crime and it is what is being claimed.

(11-28-2019 08:08 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 07:57 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 06:45 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 09:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 06:05 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The Whistleblowers claims have been backed by testimony, under oath. So far, no one has been willing to do the same for the President.
Surely Rudy, Pompeo, Pence, McGahn or Mulvaney would be willing to testify on his behalf?

As I understand it, the whistleblower basically said that he/she had heard rumors, and what has been supported is that they heard similar rumors. So in that sense, yes those claims have been confirmed.

Are the rumors true? We don’t know. We know that it’s true there we rumors.

Rudy, Pompeo and Mulvaney can exonerate the President by coming forth and testifying on his behalf. Surely, they will help to exonerate him instead of obstructing?

Exonerate him of what? No crime has been claimed as being committed.

Withholding congressionally appropriated taxpayer funds for personal political or economic gain is a crime and it is what is being claimed.

(11-28-2019 08:16 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 08:08 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 07:57 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 06:45 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 09:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As I understand it, the whistleblower basically said that he/she had heard rumors, and what has been supported is that they heard similar rumors. So in that sense, yes those claims have been confirmed.

Are the rumors true? We don’t know. We know that it’s true there we rumors.

Rudy, Pompeo and Mulvaney can exonerate the President by coming forth and testifying on his behalf. Surely, they will help to exonerate him instead of obstructing?

Exonerate him of what? No crime has been claimed as being committed.

Withholding congressionally appropriated taxpayer funds for personal political or economic gain is a crime and it is what is being claimed.

They have no defense. Just deflection. SAD.

(11-28-2019 08:19 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 08:08 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 07:57 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 06:45 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 09:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As I understand it, the whistleblower basically said that he/she had heard rumors, and what has been supported is that they heard similar rumors. So in that sense, yes those claims have been confirmed.

Are the rumors true? We don’t know. We know that it’s true there we rumors.

Rudy, Pompeo and Mulvaney can exonerate the President by coming forth and testifying on his behalf. Surely, they will help to exonerate him instead of obstructing?

Exonerate him of what? No crime has been claimed as being committed.

Withholding congressionally appropriated taxpayer funds for personal political or economic gain is a crime and it is what is being claimed.

Prove it was for political gain. The Bidens just happen to be part of the corruption in the Ukraine. That happened before Trump came around. Dems are just trying to cover for Uncle Joe. But now everyone knows how corrupt he was.

(11-28-2019 09:27 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  When did the Ukrainians announce investigations so they could get their aide from the US and other countries? Seem to have missed that part of the testimomy. Oh, and while we are at it, when did Zelensky find out aide was being held up and who told him? Missed that in testimony also. But by all means I hope that doesn't keep the Dems from voting on Articles. I'm sure the ads are already cut to run in the Trump Dem Congressional districts.

(11-28-2019 09:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 06:05 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The Whistleblowers claims have been backed by testimony, under oath. So far, no one has been willing to do the same for the President.
Surely Rudy, Pompeo, Pence, McGahn or Mulvaney would be willing to testify on his behalf?

As I understand it, the whistleblower basically said that he/she had heard rumors, and what has been supported is that they heard similar rumors. So in that sense, yes those claims have been confirmed.

Are the rumors true? We don’t know. We know that it’s true there we rumors.

(12-02-2019 10:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 09:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 06:05 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The Whistleblowers claims have been backed by testimony, under oath. So far, no one has been willing to do the same for the President.
Surely Rudy, Pompeo, Pence, McGahn or Mulvaney would be willing to testify on his behalf?

As I understand it, the whistleblower basically said that he/she had heard rumors, and what has been supported is that they heard similar rumors. So in that sense, yes those claims have been confirmed.

Are the rumors true? We don’t know. We know that it’s true there we rumors.

What "rumors"? Did you not listen to testimony the last two weeks, UNDER OATH, that backed up what was in the WB report?

These are not rumors. We know fairly certain what happened on the call and what happened with the aid being held up. What we don't know yet is whether the acts by the president will get him removed from office by the senate. Aid was withheld, fact. Investigations into the Bidens were requested, fact. The White House is withholding evidence from Congress, fact. Now, we can argue legalities and whether these actions are justified or not, but you're not entitled to call these facts "rumors".

(12-02-2019 10:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What "rumors"? Did you not listen to testimony the last two weeks, UNDER OATH, that backed up what was in the WB report?
These are not rumors. We know fairly certain what happened on the call and what happened with the aid being held up. What we don't know yet is whether the acts by the president will get him removed from office by the senate. Aid was withheld, fact. Investigations into the Bidens were requested, fact. The White House is withholding evidence from Congress, fact. Now, we can argue legalities and whether these actions are justified or not, but you're not entitled to call these facts "rumors".

(12-02-2019 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 10:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What "rumors"? Did you not listen to testimony the last two weeks, UNDER OATH, that backed up what was in the WB report?
These are not rumors. We know fairly certain what happened on the call and what happened with the aid being held up. What we don't know yet is whether the acts by the president will get him removed from office by the senate. Aid was withheld, fact. Investigations into the Bidens were requested, fact. The White House is withholding evidence from Congress, fact. Now, we can argue legalities and whether these actions are justified or not, but you're not entitled to call these facts "rumors".

Aid was delayed, fact. And investigations into corruption, with which the Bidens were legitimately linked, were requested, fact. The white house has constitutional authority to withhold information from congress, fact.

That's nowhere near enough to get a jaywalking conviction, much less conviction and removal from office in an impeachment proceeding.

Let's look at the basic elements of a crime. You must have a act that breaks a law, that was committed while the defendant was in a criminal state of mind. You have secondhand recitations of actions. But assuming the actions took place, what law or laws did they break? And if Trump believed legitimately that there was corruption going on in Ukraine, then where is the criminal state of mind? If he legitimately believed the Bidens may have been involved in such corruption, then why should he have left any stone unturned in getting to the bottom of it? And paying Hunter Biden gobs of money for something that he knew absolutely nothing about is clearly a sufficient red flag to support a reasonable belief that the Bidens may have been in on something corrupt. I said a reasonable belief, not absolute crystal clarity, and that's why you investigate things.

If it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that Donald Trump illegally withheld funds from Ukraine for the express purpose of digging up dirt on Joe Biden, then you might have a case. But you don't have that, and quite frankly I don't see how you get that.

(12-02-2019 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 10:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What "rumors"? Did you not listen to testimony the last two weeks, UNDER OATH, that backed up what was in the WB report?
These are not rumors. We know fairly certain what happened on the call and what happened with the aid being held up. What we don't know yet is whether the acts by the president will get him removed from office by the senate. Aid was withheld, fact. Investigations into the Bidens were requested, fact. The White House is withholding evidence from Congress, fact. Now, we can argue legalities and whether these actions are justified or not, but you're not entitled to call these facts "rumors".

Aid was delayed, fact. And investigations into corruption, with which the Bidens were legitimately linked, were requested, fact. The white house has constitutional authority to withhold information from congress, fact.

That's nowhere near enough to get a jaywalking conviction, much less conviction and removal from office in an impeachment proceeding.

Let's look at the basic elements of a crime. You must have a act that breaks a law, that was committed while the defendant was in a criminal state of mind. You have secondhand recitations of actions. But assuming the actions took place, what law or laws did they break? And if Trump believed legitimately that there was corruption going on in Ukraine, then where is the criminal state of mind? If he legitimately believed the Bidens may have been involved in such corruption, then why should he have left any stone unturned in getting to the bottom of it? And paying Hunter Biden gobs of money for something that he knew absolutely nothing about is clearly a sufficient red flag to support a reasonable belief that the Bidens may have been in on something corrupt. I said a reasonable belief, not absolute crystal clarity, and that's why you investigate things.

If it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that Donald Trump illegally withheld funds from Ukraine for the express purpose of digging up dirt on Joe Biden, then you might have a case. But you don't have that, and quite frankly I don't see how you get that.

(12-02-2019 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The white house has constitutional authority to withhold information from congress, fact.

(12-03-2019 09:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 10:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What "rumors"? Did you not listen to testimony the last two weeks, UNDER OATH, that backed up what was in the WB report?
These are not rumors. We know fairly certain what happened on the call and what happened with the aid being held up. What we don't know yet is whether the acts by the president will get him removed from office by the senate. Aid was withheld, fact. Investigations into the Bidens were requested, fact. The White House is withholding evidence from Congress, fact. Now, we can argue legalities and whether these actions are justified or not, but you're not entitled to call these facts "rumors".

Aid was delayed, fact. And investigations into corruption, with which the Bidens were legitimately linked, were requested, fact. The white house has constitutional authority to withhold information from congress, fact.

That's nowhere near enough to get a jaywalking conviction, much less conviction and removal from office in an impeachment proceeding.

Let's look at the basic elements of a crime. You must have a act that breaks a law, that was committed while the defendant was in a criminal state of mind. You have secondhand recitations of actions. But assuming the actions took place, what law or laws did they break? And if Trump believed legitimately that there was corruption going on in Ukraine, then where is the criminal state of mind? If he legitimately believed the Bidens may have been involved in such corruption, then why should he have left any stone unturned in getting to the bottom of it? And paying Hunter Biden gobs of money for something that he knew absolutely nothing about is clearly a sufficient red flag to support a reasonable belief that the Bidens may have been in on something corrupt. I said a reasonable belief, not absolute crystal clarity, and that's why you investigate things.

If it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that Donald Trump illegally withheld funds from Ukraine for the express purpose of digging up dirt on Joe Biden, then you might have a case. But you don't have that, and quite frankly I don't see how you get that.

Are you treating this like a regular crime in a regular court that you and I are subject to, or a matter clearly spelled out in the Constitution that applies to the president and other elected officials?

Regardless, I have N O doubt trump held up the funds for the sole purpose of having Ukraine announce an investigation. They have yet to provide any just basis as to why the funds were held up, and then they just released them anyway as soon as they were caught when no further corruption in Ukraine was being investigated. So they're saying Ukraine just magically became un-corrupt?

Additionally, if they claim fund were held because Ukraine is/was corrupt, that just doesn't hold water since trump is asking them to also launch an investigation into Biden. If they are corrupt, why would you have them investigate a US citizen...and your likely presidential opponent in 2020?

Doesn't pass the smell test and I think you know that.

#ETTD

(12-03-2019 09:31 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 09:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 10:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What "rumors"? Did you not listen to testimony the last two weeks, UNDER OATH, that backed up what was in the WB report?
These are not rumors. We know fairly certain what happened on the call and what happened with the aid being held up. What we don't know yet is whether the acts by the president will get him removed from office by the senate. Aid was withheld, fact. Investigations into the Bidens were requested, fact. The White House is withholding evidence from Congress, fact. Now, we can argue legalities and whether these actions are justified or not, but you're not entitled to call these facts "rumors".

Aid was delayed, fact. And investigations into corruption, with which the Bidens were legitimately linked, were requested, fact. The white house has constitutional authority to withhold information from congress, fact.

That's nowhere near enough to get a jaywalking conviction, much less conviction and removal from office in an impeachment proceeding.

Let's look at the basic elements of a crime. You must have a act that breaks a law, that was committed while the defendant was in a criminal state of mind. You have secondhand recitations of actions. But assuming the actions took place, what law or laws did they break? And if Trump believed legitimately that there was corruption going on in Ukraine, then where is the criminal state of mind? If he legitimately believed the Bidens may have been involved in such corruption, then why should he have left any stone unturned in getting to the bottom of it? And paying Hunter Biden gobs of money for something that he knew absolutely nothing about is clearly a sufficient red flag to support a reasonable belief that the Bidens may have been in on something corrupt. I said a reasonable belief, not absolute crystal clarity, and that's why you investigate things.

If it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that Donald Trump illegally withheld funds from Ukraine for the express purpose of digging up dirt on Joe Biden, then you might have a case. But you don't have that, and quite frankly I don't see how you get that.

Are you treating this like a regular crime in a regular court that you and I are subject to, or a matter clearly spelled out in the Constitution that applies to the president and other elected officials?

Regardless, I have N O doubt trump held up the funds for the sole purpose of having Ukraine announce an investigation. They have yet to provide any just basis as to why the funds were held up, and then they just released them anyway as soon as they were caught when no further corruption in Ukraine was being investigated. So they're saying Ukraine just magically became un-corrupt?

Additionally, if they claim fund were held because Ukraine is/was corrupt, that just doesn't hold water since trump is asking them to also launch an investigation into Biden. If they are corrupt, why would you have them investigate a US citizen...and your likely presidential opponent in 2020?

Doesn't pass the smell test and I think you know that.

#ETTD

Why no concern for Biden’s corruption.

If Biden is going to be Trump’s opponent in the 2020 election I can see why the democrats want to take Trump out. Biden is a disaster.

(12-03-2019 09:34 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 09:31 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 09:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 10:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What "rumors"? Did you not listen to testimony the last two weeks, UNDER OATH, that backed up what was in the WB report?
These are not rumors. We know fairly certain what happened on the call and what happened with the aid being held up. What we don't know yet is whether the acts by the president will get him removed from office by the senate. Aid was withheld, fact. Investigations into the Bidens were requested, fact. The White House is withholding evidence from Congress, fact. Now, we can argue legalities and whether these actions are justified or not, but you're not entitled to call these facts "rumors".

Aid was delayed, fact. And investigations into corruption, with which the Bidens were legitimately linked, were requested, fact. The white house has constitutional authority to withhold information from congress, fact.

That's nowhere near enough to get a jaywalking conviction, much less conviction and removal from office in an impeachment proceeding.

Let's look at the basic elements of a crime. You must have a act that breaks a law, that was committed while the defendant was in a criminal state of mind. You have secondhand recitations of actions. But assuming the actions took place, what law or laws did they break? And if Trump believed legitimately that there was corruption going on in Ukraine, then where is the criminal state of mind? If he legitimately believed the Bidens may have been involved in such corruption, then why should he have left any stone unturned in getting to the bottom of it? And paying Hunter Biden gobs of money for something that he knew absolutely nothing about is clearly a sufficient red flag to support a reasonable belief that the Bidens may have been in on something corrupt. I said a reasonable belief, not absolute crystal clarity, and that's why you investigate things.

If it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that Donald Trump illegally withheld funds from Ukraine for the express purpose of digging up dirt on Joe Biden, then you might have a case. But you don't have that, and quite frankly I don't see how you get that.

Are you treating this like a regular crime in a regular court that you and I are subject to, or a matter clearly spelled out in the Constitution that applies to the president and other elected officials?

Regardless, I have N O doubt trump held up the funds for the sole purpose of having Ukraine announce an investigation. They have yet to provide any just basis as to why the funds were held up, and then they just released them anyway as soon as they were caught when no further corruption in Ukraine was being investigated. So they're saying Ukraine just magically became un-corrupt?

Additionally, if they claim fund were held because Ukraine is/was corrupt, that just doesn't hold water since trump is asking them to also launch an investigation into Biden. If they are corrupt, why would you have them investigate a US citizen...and your likely presidential opponent in 2020?

Doesn't pass the smell test and I think you know that.

#ETTD

Why no concern for Biden’s corruption.

If Biden is going to be Trump’s opponent in the 2020 election I can see why the democrats want to take Trump out. Biden is a disaster.

What corruption? The evidence is just not there. And no, nothing from journalistic hack fox news contributor John Solomon is credible.

(11-28-2019 09:47 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 08:19 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 08:08 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 07:57 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 06:45 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Rudy, Pompeo and Mulvaney can exonerate the President by coming forth and testifying on his behalf. Surely, they will help to exonerate him instead of obstructing?

Exonerate him of what? No crime has been claimed as being committed.

Withholding congressionally appropriated taxpayer funds for personal political or economic gain is a crime and it is what is being claimed.

Prove it was for political gain. The Bidens just happen to be part of the corruption in the Ukraine. That happened before Trump came around. Dems are just trying to cover for Uncle Joe. But now everyone knows how corrupt he was.

The president was asking for these investigation long before quid pro Joe announced his candidacy. The only one guilty of extortion is Joe Biden. The democrats don’t care at all. Sad.
BTW, the only time anything was done by the Ukraine to satisfy a demand was the firing of the prosecutor quid pro Joe demanded be fired for the delivery of a billion dollars. And we don’t need hearings or hearsay to determine that is fact.

(12-03-2019 09:34 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 09:31 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 09:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 10:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What "rumors"? Did you not listen to testimony the last two weeks, UNDER OATH, that backed up what was in the WB report?
These are not rumors. We know fairly certain what happened on the call and what happened with the aid being held up. What we don't know yet is whether the acts by the president will get him removed from office by the senate. Aid was withheld, fact. Investigations into the Bidens were requested, fact. The White House is withholding evidence from Congress, fact. Now, we can argue legalities and whether these actions are justified or not, but you're not entitled to call these facts "rumors".

Aid was delayed, fact. And investigations into corruption, with which the Bidens were legitimately linked, were requested, fact. The white house has constitutional authority to withhold information from congress, fact.

That's nowhere near enough to get a jaywalking conviction, much less conviction and removal from office in an impeachment proceeding.

Let's look at the basic elements of a crime. You must have a act that breaks a law, that was committed while the defendant was in a criminal state of mind. You have secondhand recitations of actions. But assuming the actions took place, what law or laws did they break? And if Trump believed legitimately that there was corruption going on in Ukraine, then where is the criminal state of mind? If he legitimately believed the Bidens may have been involved in such corruption, then why should he have left any stone unturned in getting to the bottom of it? And paying Hunter Biden gobs of money for something that he knew absolutely nothing about is clearly a sufficient red flag to support a reasonable belief that the Bidens may have been in on something corrupt. I said a reasonable belief, not absolute crystal clarity, and that's why you investigate things.

If it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that Donald Trump illegally withheld funds from Ukraine for the express purpose of digging up dirt on Joe Biden, then you might have a case. But you don't have that, and quite frankly I don't see how you get that.

Are you treating this like a regular crime in a regular court that you and I are subject to, or a matter clearly spelled out in the Constitution that applies to the president and other elected officials?

Regardless, I have N O doubt trump held up the funds for the sole purpose of having Ukraine announce an investigation. They have yet to provide any just basis as to why the funds were held up, and then they just released them anyway as soon as they were caught when no further corruption in Ukraine was being investigated. So they're saying Ukraine just magically became un-corrupt?

Additionally, if they claim fund were held because Ukraine is/was corrupt, that just doesn't hold water since trump is asking them to also launch an investigation into Biden. If they are corrupt, why would you have them investigate a US citizen...and your likely presidential opponent in 2020?

Doesn't pass the smell test and I think you know that.

#ETTD

Why no concern for Biden’s corruption.

If Biden is going to be Trump’s opponent in the 2020 election I can see why the democrats want to take Trump out. Biden is a disaster.

What corruption? The evidence is just not there. And no, nothing from journalistic hack fox news contributor John Solomon is credible.