ewsieg

Everything you said up until this statement was correct, with the caveat that it wasn't just Burisma. Shokin was doing this to everyone he could, Burisma was just one of the many. The message the US and other western allies sent was not an issue, who sent it was. Biden had no business being involved. I'm not sure what you do for a living, but today you arrive to work to learn your boss, who you know hasn't been the most ethical person, has just been fired and you're given his position. They tell you that you're trustworthy and they installed you to change the culture. Soon after, you learn a vendor was tired of dealing with your boss which soured that relationship, a VP from that vendor basically told your CEO that it's your old boss or them and your CEO chose them. Oh, by the way, that VP's son works for one of the groups you oversee and is one of groups which led to your old boss being fired. Maybe you don't care and would march right down to the group and tell them it's time to shape up or ship out, but that situation, forced upon you from an outside force, could definitely change the outcome of how others deal with it. Hey now, what's your proof that Joe Biden was 'the big guy' that Hunter referred to? Just because he regularly calls him that doesn't mean that's what he meant here. It was probably Shaq, he's big. That a much more logical jump.

If true, good for the world. Imagine the leadership the US could have exuded if we made moves to do this with vaccines we know are effective.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/1/24/a-new-international-health-order-is-within-reach If their vaccines are as effective as their studies show, or even close, this is great news for the World.

That is painful, hopefully a learning experience for the young reporter. That said, instead of having 'thee' Jen Psaki use more specific generalizations to batter this reporters question, maybe the person she represents could bring the democratic party to Manchin, who is one of the many people that has concerns about exactly what this reporter asked and is in much more of a power position the 'thee' Jen Psaki's boss.

Kamala, black women, has a D next to her, Biden doesn't have to worry about her dragging him down further. check check and check. 🙂

It's clearly going to be Kamala, right?

Kind of glad Bonds and Clemens didn't get in. They HoF doesn't deserve to have them if they were going to string it out this long anyway. The writers want to make a point, fine don't let them in year 1, but 10 years, what a complete joke. Bonds should be celebrated for what he gave baseball. I'm sure I'll miss a few memorable periods of baseball, and i'm referring to long periods rather than some of the big time plays/games. But in terms of memorable periods of baseball, as a person in their mid 40's, I think the summer of McGuire/Sosa, Bonds 2001-2004, Verlander's 2011 season, and Ohtani from this year. As a baseball junkie, if I had a chance to watch Pujol's, Trout, Kershaw, etc, I'd watch them if I could, but I would go out of my way to follow those I mentioned first. Baseball needs that, Bonds gave it to them for years.

It was a joke.

Trust me, it was just a joke.

This would be politically smart. Remember the leader of the party lives down in Florida though.

One thing I do know, I like Christmas Jesus the best. Just a sweet tiny baby Jesus wearing golden fleece diaper's.

It's not so much stonewalling, but simply letting the people decide.

I don't think that's relevant. If you're a candidate, you're trying to prove your worthy of sitting behind that seal so it seems just as bad (if it's really that bad at all). I was listening to Breaking Points yesterday (highly recommend) and the only issue they had with Biden on this is that he called Doocy to apologize. Their point, issue a statement, move past it, but own the comment. Overall, not a big deal.

I wasn't saying that you have to account for opinions you don't hold, nor the message. But, likely, you'll be more tolerant of the message, even if you don't agree with how it's delivered, if it's from a person you tend to agree with or it's an opinion you agree with. I just think that's natural for everyone, regardless if you lean to the left or right.

You probably shouldn't use LeBron as an example when you're talking about hypocrisy. I pulled up his response when asked about the GM Morey/China story. In his response, replace "Daryl Morey" with whoever you personally don't like the opinion of, and even if you aren't the one screaming at them to stay silent, someone on your side definitely is.

What? People get mad at people for having opposing viewpoints, but don't get mad at people with viewpoints that match theirs? Since when?

Can you expand on that?

exactly. Add in there is no legitimate comparison to Biden/Ukraine. I know we sparred over Biden/Ukraine but even we both agreed nothing illegal happened there. Biden was carrying out the orders of his POTUS (who was also working with a coalition of multiple nations).

Yes, I said that. I should have clarified better apparently as I was trying to say that was the entire focus of the media/left. It was overpromised by the media and the left as collusion/conspiracy and when Mueller's report, that focused on Russian interference came out and said he absolutely saw Russian interference, but didn't see Trump colluding (despite some unethical behavior) it fell flat. It was still grounds for impeachment based on the obstruction that was identified by Mueller as he was investigating. editing to add this as I went back to see how bad I butchered my initial post and it seems to be on target with what I have been saying.

I have no idea how you could read that from what I said. My argument was that the media and the left wanted/hoped for a conspiracy/collusion/RICO/something that's illegal in regards to Trump and Russia. So when the report came back with stating that was not found, it fell flat. A symptom of overpromising. The initial focus of the investigation was not obstruction. Obviously as the investigation went on, it became a major focus (because Trump obstructed) which as pfife points out, it was a large focus of the report. I simply said it was not a focus. Maybe it would be better to say it was not the original focus, which I think I was pointing out above, not that you just get to get away with something if you obstruct. A cop may clock you at 10mph over the speed limit. He now has a reason to pull you over. If you refuse to show legally required documentation when he comes to the door, now he has a different issue that requires more work to deal with. It could escalate to the point that very little in the cops report mentions speeding. Still, the initial focus was speeding, despite other issues possibly dominating the report.

Please note that i'm not saying he shouldn't have been found guilty. What i'm saying is at the time, I don't think the evidence that we had in hand, justified it. I think it was mostly emotional. I know I wanted him voted out. I'll also will admit that part of justification for wanting him out was 1) he should have been gone for obstruction which he wasn't even impeached for and 2) he should have been found guilty for the interference for the Ukraine.

I'm not trying to play legal jargon word games like Giuliani. To the legal lay person like me, there isn't much difference between collusion and conspiracy. Looking up the definitions, they seem pretty close to me. From Oxford: collusion - secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others. conspiracy - a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. So while Mueller was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, the media was focused on Trump/Russia collusion/conspiracy. When that didn't pan out, the result was a dud, because again, everyone expected Mueller (through all the 'leaks') to be focusing in on collusion. I stand by my statement that the focus of the investigation was not on obstruction even if 1/2 of the report is about obstruction. In fact, if Mueller went into the investigation with a focus on obstruction, to me that would nullify the report any further. Any investigator that plans to just keep investigating until they can put an obstruction charge in place is abusing their authority.

I don't want to go into the whole collusion thing again. In terms of the collusion that folks believe Trump did, there were crimes there, regardless if the collusion portion was or not or collusion is even the right word for it. Nearly all the claims that the left touted and believed for so many years turned out to be untrue or simply not to the degree they believed them to be. If the report showed what the left believed it would, Barr's redirection would not have lasted long. Still though, it's valuable to the left to play with the idea that Trump was the first to steal an election, without actually saying it.

Barr helped changed the narrative, no doubt. The report was not flattering to Trump, but again, it didn't show collusion either.