WestCanMan

What proof do you have of that Argus? Nothing but CNN-approved opinions. If you had half a brain you would completely disregard everything that you saw on the network that covered for B Clinton’s back for twenty years and then said “all women have to be believed”. Trudeau has as much credibility as you and CNN.

You get sucked right in by every moronic thing that flashes across the screen on CNN and then you call me a cultist? LMAO.

Such utter horseshit. You literally have no clue what’s going on.

If Trudeau doesn't ever have to debate I guess this is a moot point. Our democracy is being railroaded. We have a PM who gave the CBC $795 million, other media $600 Million, he doesn't have to debate, he has exerted pressure on the AG to bend laws and then fired her when she disobeyed, he has overridden the legal system with regard to Khadr's settlement, and "our media" doesn't see any problems at all.

Get a grip Argus. Did the Russians hate the person who let a Russian company buy Uranium One? Also, Obama was the one caught surreptitiously dealing off-camera with Medvedev, not Trump. Who were the people that Christopher Steele was getting his info from for his bogus dossier? Just name the country, thanks. And answer this Argus: HOW MUCH OF THE STUFF IN THE DOSSIER, WHICH WAS USED TO OBTAIN A FISA WARRANT, WAS VERIFIED? HOW MUCH WAS PROVEN FALSE? That's a bigger scandal than the collusion investigation. What's the BEST example that you can find of Trump putting pressure on the Ukraine? He asked for something which was perfectly legal. Schiff and his muppet media stated unequivocally that the aid from the Ukraine on Biden info was a pre-requisite for aid from the US government, but that was proven to be false, just like every other idiotic thing that CNN convinced to say here. How's the attempted rape case against Kavanaugh going btw Argus? You still have a mountain of egg on your face from just that one CNN farce. Here's an ACTUAL EXMPLE of using the US Government and it's resources as a tool to influense an election: "FIRE THE PROSECUTOR WHO STARTED THE INVESTIGTION INTO THE COMAPNY WHERE MY SON WAS MYSTERIOUSLY HIRED ONTO THE BOARD (AND PAID A SALARY OF $50,000 PER MONTH) OR YOU DON"T GET THE $1BILLION FROM OUR TAXPAYERS. Explain that away, Argus, without saying something that amounts to "an internal, secret, Dem-run investigation already cleared the Bidens so now we just need to see what a public, Dem-run investigation into the President can turn up!" The Ukranians are already saying that Trump didn't do anything, just like they're saying that the Bidens didn't do anything. They're obviously shit-scared of the Russians, and wholly dependant on US sympathies for their own survival, so they're not in a position to say "Yup, the [insert "Dems or Republicans" here] did something entirely bogus here. Anything that the US doesn't discover on their own will remain hidden, and the Dems just want the dirt from one side, you're no better than they are. Do you understand that Argus? Biden definitely used US aid as a weapon. He bragged about it, and you can watch videos of it from different angles if you choose. There's absolute evidence that you cannot possibly deny, without looking like an idiot. Now you're taking the position that the United States had no right to enquire about it, which is also a ridiculous position to take.

Neetu Garcha on Global News in Vancouver this morning was sitting with a panel of representatives from the 4 major parties and she said: Pardon? That's actually a Liberal campaign slogan and not the truth at all. A small minority of Canadians who don't have jobs and don't drive cars might get more back than they pay but the 66% who think that they'll get screwed are actually all correct. Then she went on to let the Liberal representative go first and just heap more crap onto the debate, without asking any tough questions at all. We already pay 11 cents more at the pumps and that's going up to 33, flying in planes will cost more, the extra cost for shipping groceries and consumer goods around the country will all go up which will be reflected in costs that we all pay, some smaller companies that aren't operating with large profit yet will be driven out of business, and when some people get finally get a return back at the end of the year it won't cover all of those added costs.

These links draw focus away from when Hunter was working there, when the investigation started, why it ended, etc. They just focus on Trump and the call. Everyone knows he called.

There was a transcript of a call to the Australian PM that was leaked. I think that all phone calls with foreign leaders are stored on that same server now.

That would be awesome. Buuuut, how could it be considered fake news? It's not just a story by CNN saying that "Biden and his son were not under investigation and that the entire western world believed that prosecutor was corrupt" is it? I will literally laugh my ass completely off if you tell me that a CNN article or something that Adam Schiff said = ample evidence. The people who think it was legal for Hillary to collude with Russians to start the collusion investigation with zero evidence now think that Trump can't even talk to the Ukranian President about a crime with ample evidence (biden admitting to slamming a Billion dollar quid pro quo down the Ukraine's throat = ample evidence of a crime).

1) Being concerned with blatant corruption at that level isn't unusual. Biden went out and admitted that he used US aid as a weapon to destroy the career of someone who may have been leading an investigation into his own son. And what other corruption are you referring to? The Russian collusion that didn't happen? Picture this Boges. You know that you didn't commit a specific crime. Let's say for example it's collusion with Russia. You've seen the evidence, you know it's an absurd accusation by a bitter political rival, but there's an investigation, even though the FBI knows that they are using bogus evidence to start the whole thing. It's only a political hitjob disguised as an investigation into a crime. People you know are thrown in jail for things that the FBI knew about more than 20 years ago, and they are offered reduced sentences if they testify against you. But in the end, absolutely no evidence of collusion turns up. And you knew all along it wouldn't turn up because you knew you didn't do it. Then there's an obstruction of justice accusation based on the investigation into the first fake investigation. Would it bother you that the person who started the investigation was known to have committed a felony but didn't get properly investigated? To know that witnesses in her case were given immunity for basically providing no testimony? How is that even a real thing? Now you see a video of a former VP bragging about committing what was most likely a crime, and he's not getting investigated? I can see why Trump wants him investigated, but you are pretending that you don't see it. Boges - Trump was proven innocent of collusion and obstruction. Hillary is known to be guilty of colluding with Russians and mishandling classified information and the destruction of subpoenaed evidence. Biden appears to be guilty of using his VPOTUS badge to interfere in a foreign country's legal processes to get his son out of hotwater or at least to punish someone who he has a vendetta against. Can you see the problem with your awkward pov? 2) You are saying now that you don't understand the difference between first-hand knowledge and everything else? That's a problem. FYI that person doesn't know any more than anyone else from reading the transcript. People who were in the room would have more of an idea of whether Trump was pressuring the other person than you and I do when we read it. There's a big difference between "Let's eat, Grandpa!" and "Let's eat Grandpa". Proper punctuation can go a long way to helping you understand a conversation but not nearly as well as if you're actually hearing it in person. No one that was there thought it was inappropriate, and on the surface it doesn't have even remotely the same level of impropriety as Biden's own description of what he did in the Ukraine. Biden basically said that he most likely committed a serious crime. 3) If you leave out the word "Obama" I think you're onto something.

Nothing that you're saying about this story is accurate and honest though Boges. At every turn you're just adamant that you have incontrovertible evidence that nothing Biden and his son did even had the hint of impropriety, Biden was doing the whole world a favour by firing that prosecutor who was [by your first accusation weak on prosecuting corruption and by your second accusation, which was a total 180, he was actually corrupt himself] and that everything Trump did was unnecessary, sinister, and totally related to the aiding in the election. And how do you know all of this Boges? You don't. It's absolutely impossible for any of us to know any of this. We just have to be able to assign a reasonable level of credibility to what we hear based on who's been caught lying and which stories make more sense. And your sources have already been caught in several lies about material facts in this case, plus they're following the most unlikely storyline possible (that nothing Biden did had the hint of impropriety), and their case against Trump is based on their own speculation of what his motives were. I can tell you for certain that he's motivated by the fact that he has endured 3 years of investigations and accusations for a crime he didn't commit, while Biden committed an obvious crime and faces no repercussions.

1 Can you find the quote from the transcript where he said that the investigation of an obvious crime had anything to do with the upcoming election? You need to cite that Boges. 2 The whistleblower's own statement said that "they talked to people with first hand knowledge of the conversation". 3 When Obama left the Whitehouse he made access to secret information easier for hundreds of people, resulting in an unprecedented amount of leaks. Conversations between the President and all other world leaders, not just that particular phone call, were all moved to more secure servers.

This is huge. If there's proof that at any brief point in time that prosecutor was investigating Hunter Biden, then that probably constitutes a preponderance of evidence that Joe Biden's interference was part of an actual vendetta against the prosecutor. IE, Biden used the US government's leverage as a tool to exact revenge on someone who Biden considered a personal enemy. Even if the investigation was over at the point Joe Biden demanded that the prosecutor had to be fired, a reasonable man would still conclude that if Biden took such strong action after the investigation was ended, he likely took just as strong action while the investigation was still underway. By his own account he was on his "12th or 13th trip to Kiev" when he placed that demand on the Ukranian government. No one would believe that he was so adamant about the prosecutor on that one trip but he was never interested at any point previously, especially if there was a time when his son was actually under investigation. Biden's video was a smoking gun in his hand, if Hunter was ever investigated that's a bullet-hole is in a very damning spot, and Biden's hand is red.

FWIW: US - Ukraine Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters: https://www.state.gov/12978 It's a Bill Clinton era agreement between the US and the Ukraine to exchange information on criminal investigations/allegations.

Here, fyi: There's WashPo for ya. One story, at least one huge lie. Here's incontrovertible evidence that it was no big deal: More info: Here are some more lies that you might want to propagate: So, one story, several outright lies, and here you are, caught championing the cause of fake news yet again. WHEN WILL YOU EVER LEARN BOGES? You make Charlie Brown look a Hall of Fame placekicker.

That's another stupid comment Boges. It's not illegal for the President to do something that's legal for a private citizen (Hillary) or a Vice-President (Biden). He is actually at liberty to discuss far more things than Hillary, but that's beside the point. I think that you must have known that when you gave your answer. You know that you're wrong and yet you feel compelled to just say something anyways, to give the impression that there's something to this. It's like CNN-lite.

You tell me....? I've been asking the question for two years now but Dem suppoerters always thought it was ok until now. What changed?

How do you know that? It took a two year investigation to clear Trump of collusion, which no one ever saw any actual evidence of, yet you still think he's guilty. There was no actual investigation of Biden, just something hastily conducted by his own government, and there is plenty of actual evidence that he did something illegal. He actually gives that evidence himself on video. Yet you don't even question his innocence. So... Biden basically investigates himself, you think it's all good. The FBI investigates Trump and finds no evidence but you still think he's guilty. You gotta admit that doesn't make you look intelligent. Hillary ad the Dems just did it so how can they call that a crime? Yeah I said Hillary. It's extremely relevant. Grow up.

It's only irrelevant to you because you want it to be. It's actually a precedent. Look that up. It's pure speculation to say that investigating an actual crime has anything to do with the election.

It's a lie to say that there's anything criminal, or worthy of impeachment in it. These whistleblowers are supposed to be heard and have the merits of their concerns weighed in a private and professional manner. It's important to have these things come out into the light of day. In due time they make it to the press if there's anything to them. The process isn't there for the dropping of huge, fake bombshells before they're even looked at. "IT'S A WHISTLEBLOWER SO YOU KNOW IT'S 100% TRUE AND THAT IT'S HUGE!!!!!! CNN SAYS THAT THIS IS REASON FOR IMPEACHMENT!!!!! EVEN BOGES IS SAYING IT NOW [but he has repeated everything else that CNN has said for the last two years and he has been wrong every single time without fail] THE PRESIDENT IS NEVER ALLOWED TO DO THINGS THAT THE DEMOCRATS JUST DID." Honestly, you know, 100%, that Hillary and the Dems colluded with Russians to start the Russian collusion investigation, and now they're saying that it's illegal for Trump to do 1/4 of what Hillary did, and the Dems are going on the attack to lay down cover fire for the Bidens. You give me one good reason why a gas co in the Ukraine would suddenly hire Hunter Biden and pay him tens of thousands of dollars per week? Are you honestly saying that there's nothing there? It was quickly and quietly investigated by Obama's justice department and it's all good? Is that where you're at Boges? The US gov't just randomly got an investigation stopped and then got a prosecutor fired and "there's nothin to see here folks." No one over 12 should be that naive. Why can't the Republicans say "there's nothing to see here folks" after a 2 yr investigation, thousands of subpoenas and interrogations? There were even people arrested on completely unrelated charges who were offered reduced sentences for (false?) testimony. Honestly they had ZEEEEEROOOOOOO evidence of an actual crime so they exerted an extreme amount of force to coerce people into saying that there was one. WTF? You think that's normal? And that someone just saying "Bidens are clean, move on" is legit in this context? Boges, you need to say this out loud a couple times, just for kicks: "It's ok for the VP of the USA to use government money to force a foreign power to stop an investigation into a company where his son was on the board of directors making a salary of over $50,000 per month. A quick, private investigation under the VP's own administration was enough to permanently clear his and his son's name, and for anyone to raise questions about it is a crime."

Ummmm, that's all I ever do here. By the time we get to the bottom of this one, and the MSM is winding down their drivel because they know they've been exposed as fraudsters, they'll switch to the next over-sensationalized garbage and you'll be regurgitating that. This is the next, shiniest one. Three days from now there will be another and you'll go for it hook, line and sinker. Just like this one.

It's a waste of time to say "fact check the WashPo" now. You know as well as I do that they're extremely politically motivated at best, and outright liars at worst. They'll spin, omit, slip through some "mistakes" that they can retract on page six at a later date, etc. It's literally all garbage. When did they ever come out and say "OK we totally botched it on the Kavanaugh story. Looking back now it's really embarrassing that we covered that story in such a biased and corrupt manner." Never. They do what they do and they leave their trail of slime for all to see, but people like you ignore it and just gobble up the next thing they spew. It's hilarious/pathetic/astonishing.

OMG I can't believe that you're just on to the next thing like the Dems' trained attack dog. It's like you have no clue that the last ten things that they brought up were all lies, and you think that you're just doing the right thing by blindly regurgitating their spew. The Dems think that it's ok for Hillary to funnel money through a law firm to Russians for election dirt but it's not ok for Trump to merely talk with a foreign leader about something that is actually known to have happened which completely reeks of "government officials using huge gobs of government money to force foreign governments to confer a benefit on their own family members". It's astonishing that you still post here, thinking that you're actually making sense. You're like a guy who steps on a rake wherever you go but you think you're the Fonz.

I think we should be able to agree that we're past the point now where we need to cite anything just to call something in WasPo, NYT or CNN fake news. It's all fake to some extent, unless it's a fluff story that's got nothing at all to do with anything that's political in nature. It's just a matter of how fake it is.

Just a 25% drop? It's a start, but ffs, it's hard to believe that they still have any viewers. I get that a certain percent of those people are watching just to laugh at the latest round of BS, and some businesses show CNN contractually, like airports and train stations, but there are still a lot of people who turn on the TV thinking that they're going to find out "what's happening in the world". Much like Charlie Brown keeps on believing that he's finally gonna kick that football.