U.S. House to launch Trump impeachment inquiry over Ukraine controversy

[candide]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

False.

 

Per the New York Post:

 

Sorry, Dems: It’s OK to ask for foreign help in a criminal justice investigation

False equivalence.

The article is about the inquiry by US Attorney John Durham into the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. There is an official investigation (whatever one may think about its true motives).

In the case of Biden, there is no official investigation, just Trump pressuring a foreign government to get dirt on Biden.

BTW, it's clearly explained in the article. One may wonder wether you read it or not.

[Tippaporn]

16 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Appearances are right, it was not the full transcript.

According to who?  Nothing on Google search comes up to confirm that it was not the full transcript.

 

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

According to who?  Nothing on Google search comes up to confirm that it was not the full transcript.

 

You really are funny. First you complain 3 different media state the transcript was not the full one, as was said as well by e.g. the white house, when pointed out to you that it was not the full transcript you ask 'according to who?'.

[walt1953]

I have to write this. Democrats are delusional in their attempts to remove Trump and this will never happen. All your  witch hunting is hopeless.

Trump is getting more support even from people who in 2016 did not vote for him

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-never-trump-coalition-that-decided-eh-nevermind-hes-fine/ar-AAIjNMw

 People see what democrats want to do with country and majority will never accept left ideology.

 

Trump won in 2016 and will win in 2020. That is what majority people want. MAGA and go TRUMP

 

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Did you actually read the link?

 

It does not say asking the ukraine govt was legal. It talks about an investigation into the mueller probe. Completely different thing.

 

You really are clutching at straws. Even the great defender tucker carlson says its illegal. His only argument now is that its not bad enough tonget him impeached.

No, I did not read the link.  My mistake.  The article draws a distinction between the investigation being conducted by Barr involving foreign governments and "the investigation by Trump’s private lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, into Hunter Biden’s business dealings".  I believe the New York Post's article is highly inaccurate in it's description as quoted.

 

I had searched Google and that article came up.  I read perhaps the first few lines to see the the Post confirmed the it's legal and posted it.  I will say that Googling for that specific question does not turn up any information for me.  Results are all MSM articles blowing their horn.

 

Whether Trump has authority to request aid in an investigation has been poured over extensively, though, and the best answer I've found was from Joe diGenova in a guest appearance with Tucker Carlson (the vid was posted a few pages back).  There is also the existence of a Clinton era treaty which confirms that the President does have that authority.  Also, it would seem inconceivable to me that Trump would request legal aid from the Ukraine without knowing what his legal status would be for such a request.  He knows damn well how that request would be perceived by the MSM.

 

Given all of that I have yet to see anyone come up with conclusive proof in black and white which denies the president that authority.  Until someone produces that indisputable proof I will stick with my above paragraph.

[Tippaporn]

49 minutes ago, candide said:

False equivalence.

The article is about the inquiry by US Attorney John Durham into the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. There is an official investigation (whatever one may think about its true motives).

In the case of Biden, there is no official investigation, just Trump pressuring a foreign government to get dirt on Biden.

BTW, it's clearly explained in the article. One may wonder wether you read it or not.

See my post above.

[GroveHillWanderer]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

No, I did not read the link.  My mistake.  The article draws a distinction between the investigation being conducted by Barr involving foreign governments and "the investigation by Trump’s private lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, into Hunter Biden’s business dealings".  I believe the New York Post's article is highly inaccurate in it's description as quoted.

 

I had searched Google and that article came up.  I read perhaps the first few lines to see the the Post confirmed the it's legal and posted it.  I will say that Googling for that specific question does not turn up any information for me.  Results are all MSM articles blowing their horn.

 

Whether Trump has authority to request aid in an investigation has been poured over extensively, though, and the best answer I've found was from Joe diGenova in a guest appearance with Tucker Carlson (the vid was posted a few pages back).  There is also the existence of a Clinton era treaty which confirms that the President does have that authority.  Also, it would seem inconceivable to me that Trump would request legal aid from the Ukraine without knowing what his legal status would be for such a request.  He knows damn well how that request would be perceived by the MSM.

 

Given all of that I have yet to see anyone come up with conclusive proof in black and white which denies the president that authority.  Until someone produces that indisputable proof I will stick with my above paragraph.

If you want something in black and white saying what Trump did is not allowed, try this from Ellen L. Weintraub, chair of the Federal Election Commission:

 

Quote

The law is pretty clear [...]: It is absolutely illegal for anyone to solicit, accept or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with any election in the United States

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/464363-fec-chairwoman-confirms-accepting-opposition-research-from-foreign-national

 

Weintraub's remarks make it clear that asking a foreign government head for dirt on your political rival, is against the law.

[Tippaporn]

34 minutes ago, stevenl said:

You really are funny. First you complain 3 different media state the transcript was not the full one, as was said as well by e.g. the white house, when pointed out to you that it was not the full transcript you ask 'according to who?'.

. . . as was said as well by e.g. the white house . . .

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-81/

 

The transcript released includes:

 

CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty "Officers and-NSC policy staff assigned t_o listen.and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A numper of factors can affect 'the accuracy of the reco�d, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation. The word "inaudible" is used to indifate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear

 

They quit taping the conversations after the Nixon era.  So as the caution states it is not a verbatim transcript.

 

So, there are those who make the unverified claim that what Trump via the White House released was not the complete transcript and further claim there must be more.  In any case, the full transcript was released and therefore to term the transcript as reconstituted or reconstructed or rough is false as, again, the adjectives refer to the transcript itself.  The proper, and truthful, way to term it is to say the transcript is a summary of the call.  And that is what it is, a summary.

 

To conclude.  The released transcript was the full one.  There ain't no more.  Unless you want to call Trump a liar . . . 

 

 

[TopDeadSenter]

29 minutes ago, walt1953 said:

I have to write this. Democrats are delusional in their attempts to remove Trump and this will never happen. All your  witch hunting is hopeless.

Trump is getting more support even from people who in 2016 did not vote for him

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-never-trump-coalition-that-decided-eh-nevermind-hes-fine/ar-AAIjNMw

 People see what democrats want to do with country and majority will never accept left ideology.

 

Trump won in 2016 and will win in 2020. That is what majority people want. MAGA and go TRUMP

 

Great post, and so true. I am actually grateful the desperate democrats did the Russia collusion hoax, the Kavanaugh sex crime hoax, and all the other ridiculous hoaxes that crumbled under the slightest scrutiny. Now, if Trump really does have illegal activities he's trying to hide, who will believe a word the democrats say. Their credibility is 100% shot.

 What does this mean? Well for starters it means 4 more years of more minorities in work, cleaning up corruption in politics, spreading peace and love throughout the countries that 44 and 43 bombed and droned into oblivion. More records on the stock markets. It's a great time to be alive. Thanks Donald Trump!!!

[Tippaporn]

14 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

If you want something in black and white saying what Trump did is not allowed, try this from Ellen L. Weintraub, chair of the Federal Election Commission:

 

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/464363-fec-chairwoman-confirms-accepting-opposition-research-from-foreign-national

 

Weintraub's remarks make it clear that asking a foreign government head for dirt on your political rival, is against the law.

That's her opinion.  Granted, she is an attorney.  But legal opinions by attorneys vary on this.  You can provide her opinion and say, there's your proof.  I can provide diGenova's opinion and say, there's the proof.  Stalemate.

 

BTW, Weintraub is a Democratic and diGenova supports Trump.

 

No one that I am aware of has yet provided proof in black and white that neither a Democrat or Republican can argue with.  If and when you finally find that proof go ahead and post it.  I'll accept it.  Until then I'll stick with my conclusions.

[Tippaporn]

35 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

No, I did not read the link.  My mistake.  The article draws a distinction between the investigation being conducted by Barr involving foreign governments and "the investigation by Trump’s private lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, into Hunter Biden’s business dealings".  I believe the New York Post's article is highly inaccurate in it's description as quoted.

 

I had searched Google and that article came up.  I read perhaps the first few lines to see that the Post confirmed that it's legal and posted it.  I will say that Googling for that specific question does not turn up any information for me.  Results are all MSM articles blowing their horn.

 

Whether Trump has authority to request aid in an investigation has been poured over extensively, though, and the best answer I've found was from Joe diGenova in a guest appearance with Tucker Carlson (the vid was posted a few pages back).  There is also the existence of a Clinton era treaty which confirms that the President does have that authority.  Also, it would seem inconceivable to me that Trump would request aid in an investigation from the Ukraine without knowing what his legal status would be for such a request.  He knows damn well how that request would be perceived by the MSM.

 

Given all of that I have yet to see anyone come up with conclusive proof in black and white which denies the president that authority.  Until someone produces that indisputable proof I will stick with my above paragraph.

 

 

Edited October 6, 2019 by Tippaporn

[GroveHillWanderer]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

According to who?  Nothing on Google search comes up to confirm that it was not the full transcript.

 

How about the fact that the document itself, as released by the White House, says it's not a full transcript? The actual document (and you can find it plenty of places online) has the following at the bottom:

 

Quote

CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place.

 

[rabas]

49 minutes ago, stevenl said:

You really are funny. First you complain 3 different media state the transcript was not the full one, as was said as well by e.g. the white house, when pointed out to you that it was not the full transcript you ask 'according to who?'.

There is a big difference between "it is not the full one" and "it is not a full one". It appears there is usually no full verbatim recording either on tape or written down.

 

When the story broke, I read a description of how such official calls are monitored. In addition to the call team (president, others attending the meeting) there are usually 2 or 3 intelligence officers whose job it is to listen and take notes. After the call they discuss their notes and make a joint record of what was said of importance, this is the official summary, record, or whatever. It is not necessarily compete. It is to record the meaning of the call for future executive purpose. They may exclude misspoken words, embarrassing but otherwise unimportant comments, laughter, etc. It's not a document for prosecutional  or political purpose. 

 

That does not mean what the WH released is this version, but it may be.

[GroveHillWanderer]

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

That's her opinion.  Granted, she is an attorney.  But legal opinions by attorneys vary on this.  You can provide her opinion and say, there's your proof.  I can provide diGenova's opinion and say, there's the proof.  Stalemate.

 

She's not just "an attorney" she's head of the Federal Election Commission - and it's not just her opinion, it's the wording (albeit slightly paraphrased) of the Federal Election Law itself.

 

Here's the full wording:

 

Quote

a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

 

[Tippaporn]

9 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

How about the fact that the document itself, as released by the White House, says it's not a full transcript? The actual document (and you can find it plenty of places online) has the following at the bottom:

 

 

See my post above.

[Tippaporn]

13 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

She's not just "an attorney" she's head of the Federal Election Commission - and it's not just her opinion, it's the wording (albeit slightly paraphrased) of the Federal Election Law itself.

 

Here's the full wording:

 

 

You have to understand, GroveHillWanderer, that the Federal Election law does not apply to a legitimate request for aid in a criminal investigation from a foreign country.  It perhaps would apply if Trump was indeed requesting aid in the investigation of a political opponent for the sole purpose of causing harm to him.

 

As long as the assumption, I repeat assumption, is that this was the case then your argument might be valid.  But, as has been pointed out before, running for office does not protect one from being criminally investigated.  Remember, Hitlery was being investigated during her campaign as well.  Joe Biden is not protected simply because he is running for President.  Therefore, if the criminal investigation is legit then Trump would be within his rights, as well as within his constitutional duty, despite the fact that Biden is his political opponent.

 

You are making an unfounded assumption at this point.  So are a lot of other people, including lawyers, and especially if they're Democratic lawyers.

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2019 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

54 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

If you want something in black and white saying what Trump did is not allowed, try this from Ellen L. Weintraub, chair of the Federal Election Commission:

 

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/464363-fec-chairwoman-confirms-accepting-opposition-research-from-foreign-national

 

Weintraub's remarks make it clear that asking a foreign government head for dirt on your political rival, is against the law.

Again, you are making the assumption, assumption, assumption, as is Weintraub, that Trump is digging up dirt against Biden.  That's a false assumption.  And we are all going through this because of that false assumption.

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You have to understand, GroveHillWanderer, that the Federal Election law does not apply to a legitimate request for aid in a criminal investigation from a foreign country.  It perhaps would apply if Trump was indeed requesting aid in the investigation of a political opponent for the sole purpose of causing harm to him.

 

As long as the assumption, I repeat assumption, is that this was the case then your argument might be valid.  But, as has been pointed out before, running for office does not protect one from being criminally investigated.  Remember, Hitlery was being investigated during her campaign as well.  Joe Biden is not protected simply because he is running for President.  Therefore, if the criminal investigation is legit then Trump would be within his rights, as well as within his constitutional duty, despite the fact that Biden is his political opponent.

 

You are making an unfounded assumption at this point.  So are a lot of other people, including lawyers, and especially if they're Democratic lawyers.

 

 

 

What part of this do u not understand.

 

There is no criminal investigation into biden. But trump was asking a foreign govt to do one.

 

Guliano is a private lawyer. He even stated trump didnt know about it until after he tried investigating. So that doesnt count.

 

Digenova is a lawyer generally thought to be working with guliano on that investigation.

 

Try finding things from people with no bias. Like chairwoman of federal election commission. Heck even nutter tucker carlson concedes.

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Again, you are making the assumption, assumption, assumption, as is Weintraub, that Trump is digging up dirt against Biden.  That's a false assumption.  And we are all going through this because of that false assumption.

Its not an assumption. Trump stated he did ask.

[Opl]

39 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Again, you are making the assumption, assumption, assumption, as is Weintraub, that Trump is digging up dirt against Biden.  That's a false assumption.  And we are all going through this because of that false assumption.

So:

- Biden's son and Biden are corrupt because Trump says so

- but, Trump needs Ukraine, China , UK and Australia ( maybe others..) to investigate and find proofs

- but Trump did not ask foreign nations to investigate a political opponent

- even if Zelensky said he would do as asked, China not wanting to meddle into US internal affairs, ...

- even if Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer was sent as fixer,

This all makes sense, for Trump did not want to call Ukraine at the first place.. this must have been just Trump joking

 

"Forbes reported that Eric and Don Jr. have sold more than $100 million of the family’s real estate since the January 2017 inauguration — including a $3.2 million deal in the Dominican Republic last year that is “the clearest violation of their father’s pledge to do no new foreign deals while in office.” Foreign money has also poured into the Trump International Hotel, located just blocks from the White House, which the president’s most recent financial disclosure indicated made him $41 million last year alone. And last year, Ivanka’s husband, White House official Jared Kushner, received a massive cash infusion from Qatar."

as the New York Times detailed in August, a $1.7 billion Trump Organization project in Indonesia received a $500 billion infusion from a state-owned Chinese construction company.

 

Edited October 6, 2019 by Opl

[candide]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

See my post above.

Which includes fake arguments again.

For example, the treaty with Ukraine does not apply because the conditions set in the articles of the treaty are not met.

"Article 1(4) states explicitly that the Treaty is not intended to create rights in private parties to obtain, suppress, or exclude any evidence, or to impede the execution of a request. Article 2 provides for the establishment of Central Authorities and defines Central Authorities for purposes of the Treaty. For the United States, the Central Authority shall be the Attorney General or a person designated by the Attorney General.Article 4 prescribes the form and content of written requests under the Treaty, specifying in detail the information required in each request."

https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text

 

The text is unambiguous. In particular, if there is no official investigation by the AG, it cannot apply. The full text can be downloaded in pdf format in case you want to read it. I have posted this information before but I guess it will not prevent Trump's supporters to use this fake argument over and over.

 

You can try to twist it in any way you want, it will not alter the key issue: there is no official investigation about Biden.

 

[Tippaporn]

19 minutes ago, Sujo said:

What part of this do u not understand.

 

There is no criminal investigation into biden. But trump was asking a foreign govt to do one.

 

Guliano is a private lawyer. He even stated trump didnt know about it until after he tried investigating. So that doesnt count.

 

Digenova is a lawyer generally thought to be working with guliano on that investigation.

 

Try finding things from people with no bias. Like chairwoman of federal election commission. Heck even nutter tucker carlson concedes.

What part of this do u not understand.

 

There is no criminal investigation into biden. But trump was asking a foreign govt to do one.

 

So where's the problem?  Are you suggesting that because there is no criminal investigation Trump is then prohibited from starting one?  That makes no sense.  And what part of that would you not understand?

 

Try finding things from people with no bias. Like chairwoman of federal election commission. . . . 

 

She's a Democrat and you say she's unbiased?  Ask her if she's in favor of impeaching Trump and you'll find out just how biased she may be.  To be truthful, I have no idea whether she's in favor or not.  But she is a Democrat.  So even if she were to claim no bias I wouldn't be accepting of it at face value.  Same as I wouldn't expect that you accept diGenova's opinion.

 

I don't care about anyone's opinion.  What is the fact?  Does he or does he not have authority.  The closest I can come is the Clinton era treaty which states his authority in black and white. 

 

What's the old saying?  Opinions are like a_r-s_eholes.  Everyone has one.

[Tippaporn]

36 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Its not an assumption. Trump stated he did ask.

I won't reply to people when they pretend a lack of comprehension when what is written is abundantly clear.  I may as well be talking to the wall in that case.

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

What part of this do u not understand.

 

There is no criminal investigation into biden. But trump was asking a foreign govt to do one.

 

So where's the problem?  Are you suggesting that because there is no criminal investigation Trump is then prohibited from starting one?  That makes no sense.  And what part of that would you not understand?

 

That says it all.

 

The problem is that its illegal. You have been told this over and over  and now just trolling.

 

It is illegal for trump to ask a foreign govt to investigate a political rival. Qed.

 

If u prefer trump supporters who said he cant do it try fox pundits tucker carlson and judge napolitano.

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I won't reply to people when they pretend a lack of comprehension when what is written is abundantly clear.  I may as well be talking to the wall in that case.

Where did i say it was written. Trump went on tv and said he did it.

[Becker]

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I won't reply to people when they pretend a lack of comprehension when what is written is abundantly clear.  I may as well be talking to the wall in that case.

Is there no end to your deflections? I guess, if that's all you have....

[Misty]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

According to who?  Nothing on Google search comes up to confirm that it was not the full transcript.

 

"Jack Sharman, who was special counsel to the House financial services committee for the Whitewater investigation involving Bill Clinton and is now a partner at Lightfoot, said that because the document was drawn from individual’s notes, it may have “slightly less . . . value” than a verbatim transcript. According to the memo, the conversation lasted 30 minutes. Noah Bookbinder, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said given the memo was “just a couple of pages . . . there may well be more”. "  Financial Times https://www.ft.com/content/57bcccf4-dfaa-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc

[Jingthing]

Is there no end to your deflections? I guess, if that's all you have....

Of course there is no end. There is no such thing as rational debate that is possible with people that are unconditionally loyal to charismatic authoritarian leaders. It's back to the its OK for 45 to shoot people on 5th Avenue brigade. They don't care about their leader's wrongdoing. Proving that wrongdoing and the seriousness of it is a waste of energy to that audience.  

 

The 45 Ukraine scandal is basically a version of 5th Avenue. As 45 himself predicted his loyalists never budge and simply don't care.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

26 minutes ago, Opl said:

So:

- Biden's son and Biden are corrupt because Trump says so

- but, Trump needs Ukraine, China , UK and Australia ( maybe others..) to investigate and find proofs

- but Trump did not ask foreign nations to investigate a political opponent

- even if Zelensky said he would do as asked, China not wanting to meddle into US internal affairs, ...

- even if Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer was sent as fixer,

This all makes sense, for Trump did not want to call Ukraine at the first place.. this must have been just Trump joking

 

"Forbes reported that Eric and Don Jr. have sold more than $100 million of the family’s real estate since the January 2017 inauguration — including a $3.2 million deal in the Dominican Republic last year that is “the clearest violation of their father’s pledge to do no new foreign deals while in office.” Foreign money has also poured into the Trump International Hotel, located just blocks from the White House, which the president’s most recent financial disclosure indicated made him $41 million last year alone. And last year, Ivanka’s husband, White House official Jared Kushner, received a massive cash infusion from Qatar."

as the New York Times detailed in August, a $1.7 billion Trump Organization project in Indonesia received a $500 billion infusion from a state-owned Chinese construction company.

 

- Biden's son and Biden are corrupted because Trump says so

 

Biden and his son are accused of corruption because of evidence that exists which points to corruption.  And not because Trump says so.  Do you understand now?

 

- but, Trump needs Ukraine, China , UK and Australia ( maybe others..) to investigate and find proofs

 

The investigations involving Barr's trip to the UK, Australia and Italy are related to the origins of the Russiagate hoax.  They have nothing to do with Biden.

 

- but Trump did not ask foreign nations to investigate a political opponent

 

This is getting silly.  I gave a full, crystal clear explanation in one of my posts above specifically addressing the question and you're reiterating the same point all over again.  I'll answer the question once, not a gadzillion times.  Read my earlier post or not but don't ask me that question again.

 

- even if Zelensky said he would do as asked, China not wanting to meddle into US internal affairs, ...

 

If China cooperates then they cooperate.  If not then not.

 

- even if Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer was sent as fixer,

 

He was sent as a fixer?  Maybe that how you interpret it because that's what you want to believe?  I think so.

 

. . . for Trump did not want to call Ukraine at the first place.. . . . 

 

According to a questionable news source.  I haven't heard anything official that verifies that gossip.  And Forbes won't do as an official source.

 

If there's crime there then go for it.  I'd be all for it.

 

[Tippaporn]

38 minutes ago, candide said:

Which includes fake arguments again.

For example, the treaty with Ukraine does not apply because the conditions set in the articles of the treaty are not met.

"Article 1(4) states explicitly that the Treaty is not intended to create rights in private parties to obtain, suppress, or exclude any evidence, or to impede the execution of a request. Article 2 provides for the establishment of Central Authorities and defines Central Authorities for purposes of the Treaty. For the United States, the Central Authority shall be the Attorney General or a person designated by the Attorney General.Article 4 prescribes the form and content of written requests under the Treaty, specifying in detail the information required in each request."

https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text

 

The text is unambiguous. In particular, if there is no official investigation by the AG, it cannot apply. The full text can be downloaded in pdf format in case you want to read it. I have posted this information before but I guess it will not prevent Trump's supporters to use this fake argument over and over.

 

You can try to twist it in any way you want, it will not alter the key issue: there is no official investigation about Biden.

 

Thanks for the link.  I will read it.

 

As to twisting anything, I never claimed that an official investigation into Biden by the U.S. exists.  So I have no idea why you would phrase it that way.