Hunter Biden’s Ukraine gas firm pressed Obama administration to end corruption allegations, memos sh

Discussion in 'General Politics' started by speedkilz88, Nov 4, 2019.

  1. superonyx

    superonyx Well-Known Member

    85 Messages
    4 Likes Received
    The other factor in this political theater is due to the "News" no longer being news. It has turned in to political fighting. Fox News rating went through the roof attacking Obama and the chairman of CNN or MSNBC was on record saying he knows Trump isnt good for our country but he is great for his networks ratings and bottom line.

    The Tv tells us what issues we should be fighting about. They hire opinion talking heads to get people fired up because this helps ratings. If a person wants to get a honest and fair news source they need to turn to RT or youtube. Now the government and their corporations are upset over their potential loss of control of the narrative. So they are attacking youtube to change the algorithms to direct people to CNN, Fox News, ect. Plus they are attacking facebook now to play political moderator. People should be disturbed by these things.



    I'll give Trump the benefit of the doubt. My gut tells me he most likely doesnt even realize he is doing something wrong by asking what he asked of the Ukrainian president. He surrounds himself with yes men and his white house has been a revolving door.

    But there is zero chance I will ever believe he didn't mean to mock the autistic reporter with the flapping of his arms. It can be spun anyone someone wants to. Too many coincidences to be coincidences. Trump is an insecure human being. Give him a compliment and he will love you forever. From what I hear his father was very hard on him from a psychological perspective. He has most likely never been in a relationship where the person actually loved him for him and not for his money. Anyone who goes in front of the world and says "I'm a stable genius" is anything but. Imagine sitting in a bar and some dude walks in and comes to you and tells you how mentally stable he is.... you are running for the door because most likely this guy is about to shoot the place up. He often can't get out of his own way. Remember when he answered the Norad phone call on christmas eve and told the kid he may not believe in Santa at his age?
     
  2. superonyx

    superonyx Well-Known Member

    85 Messages
    4 Likes Received
    Be careful of the speaking engagements. Hillary was getting $400k for a private bankers speech. Another ways the politicians have legalized bribery.
     
  3. superonyx

    superonyx Well-Known Member

    85 Messages
    4 Likes Received
    Posted this in a new thread of its own. Something to consider when you find yourself fighting with each other.
    Big money interest is the only thing that seems to matter.

     
  4. iceberg

    iceberg Well-Known Member

    3,909 Messages
    2,454 Likes Received
    and obama went nuts attacking fox. neither party is "innocent" here but IMHO NO PRESIDENT should be engaged in telling the press what to do. and yes, i do fully include trump in these wars. but as human nature dictates, one person does something, the other says "hold my beer".

    i can go on forever how obama attacked the press, what he did to them and the spying he did on sharyl attkisson when she broke fast and furious. she has taken her case to the supreme court and keeps getting stonewalled, for some reason.

    and i'll just say this again and if it continues, i'm going to lose interest in these conversations.

    you hate trump. i get it. but these attacks on him i am tired of reading. it cries out of personal validation *of which* i see a lot of people put aside logic to continue these attacks.

    yes trump has an ego the size of most dinosaurs put together and gelled into one.
    yes he says stupid ****
    i do wish he'd stay off twitter

    however, those are personal, not legal, issues.

    the reporter for instance, you choose to ignore the *fact* that trump has done these gestures time and time again. why do you do that? you have to put aside history and pretend this is something new but it's not. i am NOT defending trump here, like i said i turn the tv off or change it to impractical jokers when he comes on cause i just don't like listening to him. but if he's done this before and has an established history of these gestures, then it's NOT new but instead made a huge issue by people who hate him cause they need others to feel as they do - my guess anyway.

    you want to attack the issues, i'll keep talking with you. you've got some great points when you do that. you want to attack trump and dog on him, i'll move on cause thats pointless to me and makes mountains out of molehills for personal reasons.

    and i have zero use for that.
     
  5. iceberg

    iceberg Well-Known Member

    3,909 Messages
    2,454 Likes Received
    like i said - you look into it. i am not going to discount this as a means of revenue because it has been abused or a way to "funnel" money. but if found that's what happened, jail time.

    IMHO we need an island somewhere around alaska we can buy and surround like a prison and drop these people off there to fend for themselves, providing only necessary means for them to do so and they can build their own culture w/o us. there was a movie long ago about this but i still dig the idea. :)
     
  6. Nova

    Nova Well-Known Member

    600 Messages
    273 Likes Received
    This story is inaccurate and misleading

    For a quick example, this excerpt:

    In September 2015, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt gave a speech imploring Ukrainian prosecutors to do more to bring Zlochevsky to justice, according to published reports at the time.

    By early 2016 the Ukrainian investigation had advanced enough that then-Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin authorized a court-ordered seizure of Zlochevsky’s home and other valuables, including a luxury car. That seizure occurred on Feb. 2, 2016, according to published reports in Ukraine.


    These two sentences have the audacity to be next to each other without noting that Pyatt's plea to "do more to bring Zlochevsky to justices" was out of frustration with Shokin's lack of action and cooperation with the Brits when they were investigating Zlochevsky (they had just frozen 24mil of his assets).

    Here's a quote from Pyatt:

    “In the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, the U.K. authorities had seized $23 million in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people,” Pyatt said. Officials at the prosecutor general’s office, he added, were asked by the United Kingdom “to send documents supporting the seizure. Instead they sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a result, the money was freed by the U.K. court, and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus.”

    John Solomon is a largely discredited "reporter" at this point. And even if you don't care for The New Yorker, which I suspect you guys don't, you can easily find troves of documentation debunking his narrative.

    I mean, this stuff just happened 4-5 years ago. You can find old articles with time stamps that clearly show Biden was not the only one nor even the first to suggest removing Shokin.
     
  7. Nova

    Nova Well-Known Member

    600 Messages
    273 Likes Received
    Going to reply here because I believe it pertains to our convo in Joe’s soup and your mention of billions missing.

    I’d like to point out that all three articles listed here predate Hunter Biden’s time at Burisma by at least a few months.

    But they are helpful in understanding the complexities of providing aid to a country with a corrupted government.

    What you have to understand, though, is that the source of Ukraine’s corruption is largely Russia’s control in their politics. This corruption came to a head with Yanukovych (a Putin puppet) and the Kiev protests to oust him. Since then, The Ukrainian population been fighting to take back their country and align themselves with the EU and “The West”. But the Ukraine has not been without their setbacks.

    The aid that goes to them is not only military driven but also is supposed to keep them from being crushed by outstanding debt.

    But the aid isn’t very useful when hijacked by oligarch’s who would prefer to keep things going as they were before.

    This is why aid from the IMF, Joe Biden (and Republicans in Congress), and other western allies called for Shokin to be removed. Because he wasn’t doing enough to combat the oligarchs working against the interest of Ukraine, and by proxy, the interests of the west.

    This is an extremely condensed dip into the context of the situation in Ukraine, but thought it might be helpful to understand the complexities and messiness of Ukraine’s quest for transparency and a reformed democracy.

    Also side note, the DOJ cleared the President of legal wrongdoing on the phone call, but the reason people are perturbed is because the heart of the matter really isn’t DOJ’s jurisdiction.

    The very term “Abuse of power” implies misuse of legal authority. Meaning it can be legal for The President to do something that is obviously an abuse of power. DOJ does not concern itself with matters that are not illegal, and the President’s immense legal authority is pretty much entirely outside of their arena by their own policy.

    accountability for the office of the presidency comes from the other two branches, but more specifically Congress’ ability to impeach.

    And no. The President does not have to break any laws to betray his oath of office and deserve impeachment.
     
    tabascocat and JoeKing like this.
  8. iceberg

    iceberg Well-Known Member

    3,909 Messages
    2,454 Likes Received
    then why bother about worrying with 1 comment in a phone call to say IMPEACH??? it would seem they don't even need it, yet here we are pushing it when it's not even needed.

    as far as not the DOJ's job, those same people are all after trump and have been since day 1. those same people still insist the mueller report proves he's guilty. forgive me if i don't follow along with the anger-boner of the day. if they would stop screaming IMPEACH on a daily basis, their points would have more credibility. however, since they scream IMPEACH 45 at icecream socials, i offer none at this point because they've cried WOLF far too many times. in my eyes this means they don't care what they get him for, just that they get him.

    the very basis of a witch hunt.
     
  9. Nova

    Nova Well-Known Member

    600 Messages
    273 Likes Received
    The line of defense has been to frame the impeachment inquiry as being based on one comment in a phone call, but that’s just not the case.

    First of all, you have to understand that the Whistleblower’s complaint is second hand, based on accounts from multiple officials listening to and/or aware of the call. But it’s important to mention that these are the people who are in the room with a better understanding of our relations with Ukraine, our diplomatic norms, and also regularly get a glimpse behind the curtain with Donald Trump.

    Second of all, before becoming public the Whistleblower’s complaint was vetted by Trumps own appointed ICIG who deemed it credible. In order for this to happen, the IG has to conduct preliminary interviews to assess the complaints credibility.

    In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit information via the ICWPA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. This includes information received from another person, such as when a fellow employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing

    While you may look at the transcript of the call and think there is nothing there, some officials in his office clearly thought this may be a portion of wrongdoing by the President.

    Let's just stop here for a moment to understand and appreciate the gravity of this:

    Officials in Donald Trump’s own White House felt strongly enough to come forward with their concerns of impropriety. This has not happened to any other President.

    Do you not think this is cause for investigation?
     
  10. iceberg

    iceberg Well-Known Member

    3,909 Messages
    2,454 Likes Received
    not really, no.

    i can look back at all the dems did under obama and no one on the left cried foul.

    spying on journalists
    spying on congress
    lying to get FISA warrants
    spying on presidential candidates with data proven to be "bought" and not verified.

    its very difficult for me to get worked up on yet another HE MUST GO tirade from the left when no one on the left gave a damn about any of that. this is they hate trump and will do whatever it takes to get rid of him. give the fact they don't mind making up stories, that hurts their credibility also - kavanaugh. zero witnesses and later we find the ones that tried to say something were lying.

    given that track record no. they've cried wolf and simply got caught lying far too many times for me to give a damn about having a current president saying "can you look into this".

    while i do agree we've lost our common baseline for right and wrong, in my views i see the left leading that parade and unfortunately the right does follow at times and it isn't helping.

    keep in mind i am NOT defending trump. not a huge fan of his but i am also NOT going to sit around and watch people try to oust someone who was elected by any means they can manufacture. when schiff himself tweeted A MONTH in advance of said whistleblower complaints, that tells me they had time to build a story and try to fly it through.

    Schiff Flipped On Whistleblower Testimony After Reports Of Coordination

    He shouldn't be involved in the complaint. Let the man say what he heard. Otherwise yes this is planned and an attack.

    I'd also LOVE to see a witness without a history of bias.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2019
  11. Nova

    Nova Well-Known Member

    600 Messages
    273 Likes Received
    I think you’re letting your views against the left blind you to what should be obvious.

    A President leveraging foreign policy for personal political gain is a textbook answer to ‘what is impeachable?’.

    If people within the White House had concerns that he was doing so, echoing public concerns of wrongdoing by Giuliani dating back to May and possibly contextualizing public concerns over withholding aid that predate knowledge of the whistleblower, it should at the very least be checked out.


    Example of a witness without a history of bias? Bill Taylor-- who gave the most damning testimony of them all.
     
  12. iceberg

    iceberg Well-Known Member

    3,909 Messages
    2,454 Likes Received
    And I think you are letting your feelings about Trump allow the left to do things you'd not want done to you.

    Bill taylor
    Impeachment Star Witness Has Longtime Relationship with Burisma-Backed Think Tank
    Schiff's Star Witness, Ambassador Taylor, Actively Worked Against the Ukrainian Oligarch George Soros Was Trying to Overthrow
    Turns Out That 'Damning' Taylor Testimony About Trump Quid-Pro-Quo Was 100% Hearsay
    BREAKING: Schiff Staffer Met With Impeachment Witness During Ukraine Trip

    And the list goes on.

    If we need to investigate every little complaint, OK. Fine. The left needs to understand the investigations are now coming back to them centered around Russia, fisa abuse, spying, missing billions and so forth. It's unfortunately how we do politics anymore.

    Sucks.
     
  13. Nova

    Nova Well-Known Member

    600 Messages
    273 Likes Received
    I suppose this is why Pompeo hand picked him to head the embassy in Ukraine?
     
  14. iceberg

    iceberg Well-Known Member

    3,909 Messages
    2,454 Likes Received
    Maybe.
     
  15. Nova

    Nova Well-Known Member

    600 Messages
    273 Likes Received
    Bill Taylor is something like a 50 year public servant. West Point Grad, Vietnam Vet, former George Bush ambassador to Ukraine that was asked to be ambassador once again by Trump's most loyal cabinet member, Mike "Benghazi" Pompeo.

    But because his testimony is damaging to Trump he has some kind of bias.

    Look I'm admittedly no fan of Trump, but that's ridiculous.

    Especially considering Sondland, who basically bought his position in the Trump Administration for 1MM, has corroborated much of Taylor's testimony.
     
  16. iceberg

    iceberg Well-Known Member

    3,909 Messages
    2,454 Likes Received
    Just seems we keep finding more witnesses as needed on a shaky claim to begin with after the DOJ said nothing wrong with the call.

    The DOJ gets brushed off as a Trump friend but 5he possibility Hillarys DOJ friends did the same is unthinkable.

    Seems we always come back to "this is different" and I'm simy tired of it.

    All around.
     
  17. Nova

    Nova Well-Known Member

    600 Messages
    273 Likes Received
    I see both sides of the outcry of impropriety on DOJ’s part. I can see the cause for concern, but I also see a completely plausible explanation for the course of action they’ve taken in matters related to the Ukraine controversy. My stance is the latter.

    DOJ ruled the phone call did not break any campaign finance infractions and ruled that the White House was not legally obligated to share the IG report with Congress. There are qualified people who dispute that ruling, but I actually accept it as it is. It’s pretty consistent with DOJ’s purpose of evaluating what is lawful and what isn’t.

    DOJ did not absolve Trump of all wrongdoing. That also would not be consistent with their purpose or authority either.

    The impeachment inquiry is concerned with abuse of power; not campaign finance violations. So DOJ’s ruling does not undermine or undercut the inquiry—it doesn’t even really exist on the same plane.

    With that said, officials speaking out from within the White House (and deemed credible by Trump's own ICIG) do not constitute a shaky claim.

    But are you really saying that witnesses are corroborating the claim and then saying the claim is shaky?
     
  18. iceberg

    iceberg Well-Known Member

    3,909 Messages
    2,454 Likes Received
    I'm saying the left screams IMPEACH 45 daily and doesn't ever seem to need a reason. Is THIS TIME valid but the last several not?

    They've simply cried wolf too often to me.
     
  19. Nova

    Nova Well-Known Member

    600 Messages
    273 Likes Received
    Screaming IMPEACH 45 and actually moving to do so are two different things, though.

    I get why you would maybe not take this inquiry seriously because of the former, but actual movement implies that this is different.

    I mean, think about the moderate democrats in purple districts. Do you think they really want to have to deal with this hot button issue?

    That said, at this point there’s quite a bit of reason to be concerned that’s unrelated to how Democrats feel about Donald Trump, and more rooted in the testimony of the people working for him.
     
  20. JoeKing

    JoeKing Well-Known Member

    4,359 Messages
    2,107 Likes Received


    Sums it up pretty well, IMO.
     

Share This Page