If by chance Biden wins the presidency how long before he's impeached?

I don't doubt, however, that there would be a retributive barrage of attempts.

 

Biden won't be the Democratic nominee, so how can he win the Presidency?

 

That is for sure.
We now have pictures of Joe and Hunter Biden golfing with Unkranian energy company executives. Whoops.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7523253/Photo-reveals-Joe-Hunter-Biden-golfing-Ukraine-gas-company-executive-2014.html

 

It is hoped those who should read this post, Trump's supporters, will do so and with great concern. However, I fear they will not. Their main excuse will be they are too busy to take two minutes to read the post. The real reason, however, is when it comes to Trump, they try to avoid reality. Others will use an unsaid excuse. Since they have shown inability to defend Trump, what is the point of reading a realistic post that illustrates Trump's incompetence?

I hope I am wrong about this.

Perhaps it is time to reassess their priorities. Well, Trump's supporters don't want to think about that, either.

The U.S. Attorney General, William Barr, has openly said he will investigate the investigators of the Russian intervention in our 2016 Presidential election and has said the FBI was spying.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP) — Attorney General William Barr says he thinks “spying did occur” against Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

Trump has said that Barr can help him validate his 2016 electoral victory, and Giuliani has been trying to unearth damaging information about former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in anticipation of the 2020 race.As part of his efforts, Barr in recent months has asked the president to facilitate communications with foreign officials and has made at least one trip to Italy to secure cooperation, according to a department official. https://www.ktrs.com/ag-barr-i-think-spying-did-occur-against-trump-campaign/

In an effort to investigate the group of spies known as the FBI, an organization directly under the control of Barr's DOJ, Barr enlisted the help of President Trump.

"President Trump pushed the Australian prime minister during a recent telephone call to help Attorney General William P. Barr gather information for a Justice Department inquiry that Mr. Trump hopes will discredit the Mueller investigation, according to two American officials with knowledge of the call," the Times.

What does it say about this administration when the A.G. is openly supporting Trump, pretty much acting like President's personal lawyer with an enormous amount of juice, the entire Department of Justice?

What does it say about this administration when the A.G. openly asks the President to call a foreign leader to ask for help to validate his 2016 electoral victory, an election that took place nearly three years ago? Is Trump -- and Barr -- obsessed?

What does it say about this administration when the President openly asks the Australian leader to investigate his own government for the President's poltical benefit?

Is there something wrong about all of this? Of course.

 

Nothing, no reaction whatsoever from Trump's supporters. Why? It's like I said. When it comes to Trump, they prefer avoiding reality, and, in the second place, they lack the ability to defend him.

Of course, it can be argued, everyone does. How would anyone defend Trump? It can't be done.

 

yabberefugee said: ↑

Trump was not dealing with a "whistleblower".....until suspiciously recent revisions, whistleblowers could only relate 1st hand accounts.

That is a lie. It was a lie when Trump said it. It was a lie when Graham said it. And it is a lie here.

Early on Tuesday, Trump tweeted, "Why aren't we entitled to interview & learn everything about the Whistleblower, and also the person who gave all of the false information to him."

Sen. Chuck Grassley is the chamber's most senior Republican.

"No one should be making judgments or pronouncements without hearing from the whistleblower first and carefully following up on the facts," he wrote. "Uninformed speculation wielded by politicians or media commentators as a partisan weapon is counterproductive and doesn't serve the country."

"When it comes to whether someone qualifies as a whistleblower, the distinctions being drawn between first- and second-hand knowledge aren't legal ones," Grassley said. "It's just not part of whistleblower protection law or any agency policy. Complaints based on second-hand information should not be rejected out of hand, but they do require additional leg work to get at the facts and evaluate the claim's credibility."

A statement from the inspector general appointed by Trump made clear that the whistleblower was not simply communicating secondhand knowledge.
"The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information," the statement read. "The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible."

"The Senate voted unanimously in favor of a resolution calling for a whistleblower complaint involving President Donald Trump to be turned over to congressional intelligence committees," Business Insider.

Trump's house of cards is collapsing.