Four Hours At The Capitol

I urge everyone to define for themselves what comprises racism, and then actually read up on CRT. I am afraid I find it difficult to believe that any real research has been done by anyone.

You are not going to budge my opinion on it, any more than I am going to persuade you that Conservatism isn’t far right wing politics.

So I am going to describe it as I see it. If someone came back with some real commentary on it that showed an understanding, I would be more inclined to take it seriously. But until then, CRT is 21st Century Nazism that employs their doctrines and defines, as they did, people as subject to the characteristics of their race, and that they should be judged by the characteristics of their race.

Someone do some reading, please.

And I am not so sure that some have not advocated it, and seem to remember comments that if left wing groups are using it, then it cannot be a bad thing, but people have certainly defended it. That is OK, but it does open them up to criticism, just like I would be criticised for saying that Trump has a point with some of the defences he is putting up against his indictments. And, as ETG’s post showed, I am being associated with Hitler and nazism for having such a view.

So, from my point of view, it is a bit rum being compared to very bad people, when there is absolutely no evidence other than people don’t like my politics, and it being justified by my describing why I consider something to be fascistic, and then people, who don’t seem to know the first thing about CRT (and whom declare they have nothing to do with it) getting upset about it; why would anyone get upset if they were not advocating it?

 

??

Serious?

A certain poster accusing people of being fascists? You have openly accused me of doing so in the past and have never delivered the evidence despite being repeatedly asked.

Pretty obvious who you are referring to, given your previous posts…

You insult me by making such a suggestion.

So please justify it, or consider withdrawing it.

 

So you claim that people have advocated it, but not read about it? Hmmm.

 

I claim that I seem to remember people advocating for it without understanding what it is, manifesting as justifying its application solely on the basis that if BLM and others (left wing organisations claiming to be for equity) were using it, then it must be OK. I’m not accusing anybody of being a fascist, just saying, quite fairly, that such assumptions, defaulting your judgement to an extremist political organisation (which has now lost all credibility) is putting yourself at risk of unwittingly supporting some pretty grim ideologies.

Have you done any more reading on CRT? Can you now make a good argument to say that it does not epitomise racism? Would you defend it?

Most people who criticise my concerns seem to do so by first claiming ignorance of CRT (see above) and then saying they can’t imagine it is as bad as I say. That, to me, is pretty poor logic, and I hope that people will start to gen up on the subject, either to support it with greater understanding, or to condemn it as racist.

Fair enough if you feel you can, and perhaps others will find it convincing. But the moment people understand that “blacks are blacks” and “whites are whites” and we are no longer considered individuals, defined by our character, I think people will become more awkward with CRT.

I just think that viewing human beings through a racist lens is not the best way to tackle racism. I would also say that since CRT started gaining traction, things have gotten worse, rather than better.

 

Speaking of fascism...

 

If he knew what he knows now.

But unfortunately, for him and Dems, he only knew what he knew then, and did it anyway.

It would be interesting to know if any pressure was put upon this seemingly week individual by the Establishment, or if the IRS or DOJ were sniffing round him soon before this interview/hostage video

This is BS spin from the gentleman and Anderson Cooper. He is perfectly entitled to refer to himself as a fake elector, but that doesn't change the fact that it was entirely legal to present himself, at the time, as an alternative elector. Which is how the law would recognise him.

 

Moose has already explained how you tend to label people as effectively ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ by via false equivalence.
You have regularly expounded upon how ‘the left’ is the repository of modern-day fascist ideology and action; you then call people ‘middle-class lefties’ or whatever. The inference is clear: left wingers pursue and support ‘fascist’ ideology and action, so those arguing for things you consider ‘left wing’ are obviously supporting ‘fascist’ ideology.
The reason I referenced the ‘Third World’ discussion is that you decided to use your personal interpretation of what the originator really meant when coining it to accuse people who said that they did not accept that interpretation as effectively defending a term that was from its outset ‘racist’. Again, the direction of travel is clear: not accepting your interpretation of the ‘racist’ origin of the term equates to a defence of racism.
False equivalence; your arguments are laced with instances, even if you are not consciously aware of it.
I will restate my position: I can visualise no circumstance where I would be driven to report any post you make; I certainly would not want you to stop posting anything you wish; I will certainly not be issuing an apology for something I have not done, no matter what you may manage to persuade yourself.

 

There is a lot more nuance to the Wisconsin situation than it may seem. The Wisconsin fake electors claimed they were tricked by the Trump team, and they have various text messages etc. backing it up.

They go into some detail of this in the 60 minutes interview. It's an interesting watch.

 

No. You said it meant something completely different to what the originator said, and then I quoted the original text to demonstrate that you were incorrect; saying it originally referred to non-communist, non-capatalist aligned countries. That was just elitist cope to excuse the use of the condescending phrase, and it certainly wasn't the orginal intention.

It wasn't me saying 'third world' referred to unloved and unwanted members of the world community, but the man who coined the phrase. You are making out that I made up the orginal phrase and its explained meaning, when all I am doing is recognising that the phrase ALWAYS held condescending and elitest white supremacists conotations, now universally accepted by everyone except yourself, according to its originator. That is not me implying you are a fascist. That is you choosing to defend it, in the face of copious articles, including the original, that have been cited to demonstrate the way the term is viewed, and has always been viewed.

I pointed out the originator's intent with the phrase. And you interpreted that as calling people fascists.

Clearly you are still having trouble coming to terms with that, despite my having quoted his orginal words to you, I would guess, around ten times.

You have still not provided any evidence that I accused anyone of being a fascist. I'm not looking for an apology, but I do think you should consider withdrawing it...

Cue someone chipping in with the gotacha moment: "Yeah, but what about the band Third World?" The irony of that being that the irony of their name is missed by people who, presumably, think that West Indian singing artists know their place in the Third World, rather than that they are owning the insult and saying F-You first and second worlds.

 

Its OK, the OP has apologised and expressed his surprise that anyone was offended at being described as nazi Ajacent.

 

It always baffled me why Jewish immigrant Eric Weisz took such an obvious hateful name (albeit this was before Hitler came to power, but he must have known what he was doing!).

 

I am unable to let this pass with no comment.
You have outlined an extremely selective and unsurprisingly one-sided version of the whole exchange.

Your claim that the coining of the term 'Third World' was not made with the intent of defining a group of countries that were neither 'Western-style capitalist democracies' nor 'Communist states, primarily aligned with the USSR ' is simply not correct. As ever, context is fundamental; it was coined at a time when it became clear that the existing 2-part division was simply inadequate to define current conditions. It is also impossible to attempt to understand the reason why Sauvy made such direct allusion to Ancien Regime France without appreciating the academic and social context within which he operated. It is true he used the terms you listed, but the idea he did so as some form of elitist, white supremacist trope is incorrect. It is salient that he used the archaic term 'tiers' rather than the modern 'troisieme'. He was highlighting how that 'third estate' was viewed by the 'first and second estates' prior to the Revolution & the inference was clear to contemporaries; those 'unloved and unwanted' members overthrew the first and second estates and took control. A warning from history, perhaps?

Whilst the term 'Third World' may have always held potential connotations of elitist and white supremacist attitudes (even if a non-white country such as Japan was included EDIT: should have stated 'was included in the First World grouping'), that is not the same as claiming it was viewed that way from the outset, much less that it was always the intention of the originator. In this way, your claim to have 'explained [its] meaning' does not carry. You have certainly explained your interpretation of its meaning, which is, once again, another matter.

You cannot claim with absolute certainty to have 'pointed out the originator's intent' because in my view and that of others, you have misunderstood that intent.

The original context, and thus intent, was to define a group of countries that did not align themselves with either of the pre-existing groupings termed 'First' and 'Second' Worlds. It was a political artifice that also took on some aspects of economic development considerations. It was, I agree, not an ideal term; nor were the terms it was coined to differentiate from. But it was not elitist (and your implied racist) in origin or intent.

The usefulness of the definition, if not the term itself, was swiftly recognised by verious countries, noticeably Jugoslavia, India & Indonesia at a 1955 conference in Indonesia, where clear statements were made as to the participants' determination to be viewed and treated as 'non-aligned' states. This led to a more formalised positioning of more countries within the 'Non-Aligned Movement' from 1961. 'Non-Aligned Countries' would have been a neutral term less prone to unpleasant misuse in the future, to be sure; whether it would have carried the same 'differentiation impact' as 'Third World' in 1952 is doubtful, and it was this differentiation that was, in the view of many, Sauvy's main intent.

I had already agreed with you in the previous discussion that the subsequent MISUSE of the term brought into full light the potential for such misuse creating indefensible connotations, and that the move to more neutral terms was welcome. That does not mean that the originator intended such connotations nor accept its misuse.

On the issue of 'calling anyone a fascist'. I outlined the way in which you slyly do so in the part of the post describing your practice of 'false equivalence'.

 

I think I'll agree to differ, with the intention of avoiding any description of this post that may come across as condescending or insulting.

Anyone want to read yhe original text that coined the phrase, here it is. The context of the article is tha it was the term's first usage, and the author describes its meaning himself, long before anyone else placed their own caveats upon it....

"...because at the end, this ignored, exploited, scorned Third World, like the Third Estate, wants also, to become something" Alfred Sauvy, 1952

But don't listen to its author. Ask yourselves. How many of you thought that Third World meant non aligned with the West or the Soviet Union? Such absurd cope to excuse elitists from dismissing the developing world. Did anyone expect them, after using the term openly, to say tje truth on the matter? The Soviet Union had been disbanded for over thirty years when I was criticised for calling it out as a derogatory term, and although people say they agree with me, they still want to argue that it was not so, when used to describe another country.

Yet if I say it is very revealing, I get accused of saying people are fascists. Rather than that they may be describing themselves as defenders of a term that is internationally recognised as racist and derogatory.

What is the more damaging to a person?

Me quoting the original source of a term? Or they themselves coming to its defense? Despite almost universal criticism of it.

 

Sorry. I read this again to see if I could garner your meaning from it. Basically, the post makes no sense that I can see. Your conclusions are non-sequitor to the argument, and would make just as much sense if you concluded the opposite. It comes across as attempting to baffle, with a salad of words, rather than explain. Much simpler to refer to the original source and world opinion on the subject, in my opinion.

Please, understand that the only thing now swaying anyone's opinion on your motivations, is your insistence on defending it.

 

Another instance of you accusing someone of something they did not do by selective misrepresentation. I have NEVER defended the term 'Third World' in the form it has come to be employed; in fact, I have stated numerous times the way it started to be used meant it became totally inappropriate, hence the need to find other descriptors. What I have said is that I do not agree with your contention that the originator INTENDED it to be derogatory, so please stop levelling a false accusation of defending a derogatory and racist term at me.

I was perfectly aware of the actual phrase employed by Sauvy before you posted it; I attempted to set his very specific reference to the French "tiers etat" in the context he meant it, a context he was totally convinced other 1952 academics would understand. He closes the sentence you have quoted noting that the 'Third World' wanted 'to become something', much as did that 'tiers etat' which actually took power. He was not denigrating; he was supporting. But you have chosen to totally ignore that aspect to the 'discussion'.

And then you go on to ask people on a forum in 2024 what they thought when Sauvy first used the phrase; no-one on here would even have known about it when he coined it in 1952 as they were either not alive, or were too young. Considering my whole point has been to dispute that Sauvy intended it to be derogatory from the outset, I can see no relevance in you stating it has subsequently been viewed as derogatory, because we agree on that point. Do you really believe a respected academic would have intentionally suggested a term that he KNEW was derogatory? You seem to be saying that because it later became to be used in a derogatory way, that Sauvy always intended that to be the case, which is not at all convincing.

Am I defending the term 'Third World' in the manner it has come to be understood & used? No.
Do I agree with your insistence that it was intended to be used in that manner by its originator? No.

I'm not sure if that's clear enough to you.

 

I accept it makes no sense TO YOU, but that is not surprising because you seem to be arguing a different issue than I am. My point is clearly that the originator coined a phrase he hoped would be useful, but over a period of time that phrase came to be misused with the effect of attaching to it negative connotations, so it became necessary to find other terms to replace it, ones (hopefully) without the accretion of such negative connotations. Was that always Sauvy's intention, as you seem determined to 'prove'? I'd say not. Is the subsequent misuse of a term or idea the fault of its originator? I'd suggest, definitely not.

You seem to have a little difficulty in distinguishing between 'original intent' and 'subsequent use/misuse'.

 

He coined a phrase, as you say. But inherent in its creation was to recognise that when a person described a country as "Third World", they identified it as "ignored, exploited and scorned".

The meaning you ascertain to it is when the term is used to describe the way a country is viewed by other parties. As in, "they are a country that many consider to be part of the third world." When used like that, unless the speaker agrees with such views, it is not a derogatory term on the countries being referred to. A bit like me saying that people using the term are being derogatory, only when I say it, you tell people I am calling tjem fascists. Very ironic that your latest argument actually exonerates me.

But, when you describe a country AS third world, say, Malaysia, you describe it as ignored, exploited and scorned, regardless of how it sees itself. And those countries, no matter how politely it is put to them, have not always liked being described in those terms.

It is like describing someone as pathetic, when they themselves do not consider themselves as such.

"It's OK. The first and second worlds have already decided."

That is how sauvy wrote it, and he knew that it was an elitist derogatory term from the start. How do I know? Because he explicitlty described it as analogous to the French Third estate, who revoluted against government and church because of those attitudes.

But you know better.

Well. You have fully described your position now. People can make up their own minds.

Are you really expecting people to believe that Sauvy coined the term to be used without invoking his description of those described by it as ignored, exploited and scorned? There are better ways of doing that. He didn't mean it as an insult, but he new well that countries that may be considered in those terms did not like being labelled as such by the first and second worlds.

 

Trump continues to insist the election was rigged, even to Fox News, who after $747m in fines, finally tell him he is wrong.

https://x.com/mmpadellan/status/1761722713855373697?s=46&t=oqOMSJXE_g7J5C7kNPG9LA

 

Fair enough. They don't want to lose another 3/4 of a billion. But finally tell him he is wrong? That interview must be nearly a year old and not long after Fox settled the case.

 

Fair enough, hadn’t clocked that.

I presume Trump has therefore had time, in the interim, to reconsider his untenable position? What is his view of the election now?

 

Same as it has been. That there were peculiarities that needed investigating but weren't.

Fox are stating the bleeding obvious, that Biden won the election. That is beyond doubt, and Trump stood down and made way for Biden, despite the best efforts of twenty guys with sticks and a few thousand sight seers (yeah, I'm taking the mick, but the vast majority of charges are for non-violent tresspass), because he recognised that fact.

But, EXACTLY like Clinton and Biden and almost the entire leadership of the Democrat party (since 2016) he has expressed concerns about an election, which remain largely without independant investigation. Whereas the Russia hoax was thoroughly investigated by Muller with very little to show for it. Yes, people will tell you it proved 'something', but the DOJ, that has gone after Trump on every other charge, has left it alone, showing the truth of it, whilst preserving the talking point.

The question he is asking, though he pitches it poorly (his lawyers won't) is, was it won fairly? Which is fair to ask, and is not proven incorrect by Fox quoting 'investigations' (which their legal team likely insists they do) which were very limited and directed by Trump's political enemies. And yes, UEA, many Republicans are as scared of Trump as the rest of the establishment.

Trump is no different to Clinton, et al, who have openly encouraged rioting and violent protest, far more overtly than Trump' supposed coded message to violence, "go peacefully and patriotically".

The mainstream media in America, including Fox, is made up of pathetic partisan click bate. Trump should no more shape his narative for them than should Hunter Biden regarding his woes. No one trusts the media, particularly when they don't agree with them. That is why I try to extract the facts from the spin and look to source evidence as much as possible.

Fox is much like the rest, but marginally better perhaps, in my limited experience. Nothing can be trusted now its election season. But thankfully broader views now seem to be getting into the media as a whole. There's a long way to go, and it'll probably swing back long before it gets there, but here's hoping.

 

No one believes the election was ‘stolen’ anymore, I suspect least of all you. This guff about ‘peculiarities’ is simply performative support.

Move on, we’ve got the fun of another soon.

 

I would actually say that the belief in it being stolen is growing, but I don't imagine you listen to the same US Conservaties that I do, among others. They are reluctant to move on because the believe it will happen again.

And given the way they have prosecuted J6 and indicted Trump, and covered up things that were known to be real by calling them Russian interference, I don't blame them.

 

Yeah, I for one cannot wait to see pickups full of people flying literal Nazi flags in public once again. That'll be a riot.

 

For it to have happened you have to believe that thousands of Americans, including some Republicans, working across public services and the judiciary are ***** who would cheat their fellow Americans, because it’s certainly beyond Biden and his cohort to pull it off.

So no, they who believe it is stolen are not growing in number and yes, they should be blamed for their silly ‘belief.’

 

Call me paranoid, but I don't think it is any worse, indeed I find it far more credible, than Democrat/establishment fantasies about Trump and the 'twenty stick' insurrection, which you and others take very seriously.

Just hearing Trump's haters talk about him indicates that there are likely millions of people who would be willing to act improperly, on an individually small scale, to prevent him from being President, and the blanket provision of mailing ballots in some places, under COVID emergency laws, made it possible for them to cast votes other than their own. If 1% of Democrats felt it was justified, to use only mailing ballots to act against Trump, it would have been enough to affect the outcome of the election. So, despite your trust in the American people, there is a potential there for election interferance.

It's beyond Biden? All he has to do is tell people it is justified, and he has openly stated that his administration will do everything it can to prevent a Trump return. And his DOJ only has to show that they will avoid prosecution as much as possible; see the BLM and fa riots, Hunter Biden's prosecution that has avoided every opportunity to meaningfully go after him, etc..

Add, on top of that, every senior Democrat, from Pelosi down, telling people that Trump must be stopped, and that even violent protest is understandable (Pelosi's 'People will do what they will do' comments)

They have been enabling, encouraging and, with the indictments, allowing the administration and the White House, to become directly involved, despite Biden stating he has not. Trump was exonerated by the DOJ until the J6 Committee, and Biden directly instructed the DOJ to go after him, both political interventions impinging on a legal process, which, up until then, had denied any direct connection between Trump and any insurrection.

Covering up the Hunter Biden laptop was election interference that surveys show would have potentially affected the election outcome.

Personally, I think it is naiive and damaging to believe that the concerns of nearly half the country are unjustified. Even more naiive to believe that it couldn't happen that way.

But I don't believe that people are that naiive. So, to me, it is more a case of using plausible deniability to avoid doing anything that may lift the rug off of a rather grubby mess.

 

Hunter Biden. Jeez. 'Avoided every opportunity to go meaningfully go after him...', yet there he is charged in two federal courts with crimes that most people never get prosecuted for. He's got a pretty good claim for selective prosecution, which is ironically what Trump is claiming too. Seems very much like the DOJ is only going after Hunter because of who his dad is. The tax stuff is said by various experts to be a technical infringement at best, usually settled though civil fines with the tax man, and the gun/drugs declaration thing is another crime you'll have to work very hard to find examples of others being actually prosecuted for rather than settled out of court with a plea bargain.

And when was Trump 'exonerated by the DOJ' about Jan 6th? Would love to know what you're referring to there.

 

The first year of investigation found there was no evidence of an insurrection, or link between Trump and the rioters. Which, like it or not, exonerates Trump. So the Dems took things into their own hands with the ridiculously one sided J6 committee and, along with Biden, directed the DOJ to try harder. And they did.

Sorry, but that is how it happened. On record.

As for Hunter, you quote the spin that must be produced so that the DOJ is not seen to be sticking two fingers at the people. Why, after five years, could the DOJ and Hunter not agree to the meaning of the sweetest of sweet heart deals when they came to court? Because it was an unprecedented deal that appeared to be dictated by Hunter's team, and would have given him sweeping immunity. And don't blame the judge for doing their job. How you can seriously defend that, I do not know. And that is without pointing out that the five years, needed to carry out what you seem to think is a run of the mill case (ha!), allowed more pressing tax charges, that may have led to the Big Man, to become barred by statute. No, they really went after Hunter. Didn't they? Ha! Take yourself more seriously. It took less than a year to rush Trump into court over some charges, even you admit in some cases, that are politically motivated.

You are not kidding anyone but yourself, I am afraid.

Yiu may or may not be right about Trump, but, in my honest opinion, you are way off target with Democrats/Elites and their motivation.

 

So now you have arrived at the following conclusion 'because you know':

A well-respected academic decided to coin a term linked to a phrase he knew would be widely read by his peers and other academics; he 'didn't mean it as an insult' but, apparently, 'he knew that it was an elitist derogatory term from the start.' Seems a good way to commit academic suicide to me.

How do you know he knew that? Because he referenced the 'Third Estate' in pre-revolutionary France. His use of 'tiers-monde' was actually a direct paraphrase from a political pamphlet written by Sieyes in 1789, entitled 'What is the Third Estate?' Who was Sieyes? A leading (pro-Revolution) political theorist in late 18th century France.
That pamphlet asked & responded to three fundamental questions, as below:

1. What is the Third Estate? Everything.
2. What has it been hitherto? Nothing.
3. What does it desire to be? To become something.

Does that last response ring a bell?

Sieyes went on to claim that there was no need of the First or Second Estates.....all could be found within that Third Estate, hitherto treated as 'nothing'.

As I tried to explain in a previous post, Sauvy was making a very direct reference to the Revolution & its outcome, the implications of which he knew would be fully grasped by his audience. He was paraphrasing the words of a leading theorist of the French Revolution, one who had called for the dominance of the 'Thirds' over the 'Firsts and Seconds.'

But no, he clearly meant what he wrote to be 'elitist and derogatory'.

I have never suggested your stance on this particular subject involves calling people 'fascists'. In this instance, I believe it was the accusation of 'defending a racist term'.
I'm sure it's difficult to keep track of which unjustified accusation you have levelled sometimes.

 

But basically what you're saying is the absence of any immediate action in that first year by the DOJ vindicates and/or exonerates Trump. Which is plainly ridiculous. Exoneration is a positive act - if the DOJ came out and said they were satisfied he'd done nothing wrong then you'd have a point but nothing remotely like that ever happened. And if they'd rushed to charge him all we'd hear from the Republicans is about the DOJ rushing to conclusions, not prioritising the genuinely violent people who led on the ground etc. And yes, of course the J6 Committee findings fed into that. Their investigation was broad, heard testimony from a lot of the key players and turned up a lot of evidence which pointed to the very top. Again, stuff that wasn't available immediately at the start of the Biden administration.

Is it spin or is it factually proven by real prosecution numbers? You tell me. Plus it was the Trump DOJ that wasted a lot of the time you mention investigating Hunter. That was on Bill Barr's watch.

I haven't blamed the judge for doing anything either. The funny thing is while Republicans obsess (in the literal sense of the word) about Hunter Biden, most Democrats couldn't really give a monkeys about him. Most will point out he's not running for office, he's not a politician, he's not been paid to be part of his father's White House staff and he should go to jail if it's deserved. That's why I always find the sideshow curious. The Republicans have always tried to keep the bandwagon going in the their vain effort to drum up impeachment articles against Joe - how's that going now it looks like their star witness is a Russian asset?

 

No. It is very simple. He coined a phrase and then defined it. It may have been a warning to the elites, or a call to the third estate, but he knew that if the first and second worlds used it to describe a group of countries, it would be to describe them as a basket of deplorables (to paraphrase). Does that ring a bell?

No matter how much you say otherwise, Sauvy was well aware that the contempt that drove the third estate to rebellion, was the same contempt with which the first and second worlds treated the third. He spells it out by doing exactly what you describe, yet you are so fixated on defending the phrase that you cannot see it.

Your argument is a bit like saying, the guy who coined the phrase "Your going home in a Watford Ambulance" was extolling the quality of the local NHS service to beleaguered football fans.

You have all the intelligence in the world, but I am afraid you are struggling to see the obvious for a wood of absurdly over pomped academia trees.

But now you have denied it was this occasion, WHEN DID I CALL ANYONE A FASCIST ON THIS FORUM?

Answers on a post card, please, to:
MAGPIE,
Thames Television
Teddington Lock,
Middlesex
TW11 9NT

Or have the grace to withdraw your insulting comment

 

No. I am saying they produced reports that found no insurrection and no link to Trump, and that following that, Congress held an absurdly partisan Committee with no opposing views, that recommended prosecutions, and Biden gave executive orders to the DOJ. That is all on record, and we have discussed it previously. The federal indictments were all directed from political sources.

The Trump DOJ? How ridiculous. The place was riddled with establishment cronies, with people like Peter Strzyk and his girlfriend, openly hostile to Trump, leading investigations and talking of backup plans to ensure Trump would not become President. Biden's DOJ does what he says. Trump's did not. It's just been revealed, I understand, that the CIA was spying on Trump's campaign, as Trump said it was , to derision. The Russia report was fake and paid for by Clinton. Yes. MAGA talking points, but that is because they actually happened.

The problem with Hunter is that he couldn't be earning the millions he has got from Ukraine, Russia and China (again, all on record) without his access to Joe. And that little number, where Biden threatened to withold funds from Ukraine if they didn't get rid of the prosecuter looking into Hunter's employer, is fair game for investigation, no matter what lame arguments are made to ignore it. It was virtually the same argument as Trump's first impeachment.

Sorry, again, but you are kidding no one. You are just lucky that there are enough people who want to believe it, imho.

 

Regarding the Ukraine-Burisma intervention, if an investigation were to show that it was US policy to withold the money, as opppsed to a whim on the part of Biden, if the prosecutor was not sacked, then Biden is in the clear. If there is no other indication (the loan had already been endorsed by Congress, apparently) then suspcions must be raised. The impeachment investigation is an opportunity to at least put that one to bed.