Author Topic: Big Guy Biden & Son (Hunter)  (Read 21653 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 55124
    • View Profile
Big Guy Biden & Son (Hunter)
« on: September 24, 2019, 04:16:51 PM »
Looks like this brouhaha is going to need its own thread:

Kicking it off with this:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435906-us-embassy-pressed-ukraine-to-drop-probe-of-george-soros-group-during-2016?fbclid=IwAR2xK-eZfB_e7F7bne0B4LIiS0FK08mmM_30oXDTfITuvY_wvvp1clJf6D0

Feel free to repaste relevant articles from other threads.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2021, 04:36:44 AM by Crafty_Dog »



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 55124
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14518
    • View Profile
Biden in his own words, I got the Ukraine prosecutor fired
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2019, 05:45:09 PM »
From the Biden thread:

I am missing the point of why he is openly talking about this.  Did he do nothing wrong?  Same people that dismiss this are worried about Trump's "emoluments".

In his own words at the Council of Foreign Affairs:

[But had not talked with his son about business in Ukraine - in the year his other son died]

Foreign Affairs Issue Launch with Former Vice President Joe Biden
Tuesday, January 23, 2018

https://www.cfr.org/event/foreign-affairs-issue-launch-former-vice-president-joe-biden
...
"And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."
...
-------------------------------------------
More here at the Hill, April 1, 2019
Joe Biden's 2020 Ukrainian nightmare: A closed probe is revived
BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 04/01/19
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12622
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20047
    • View Profile

rickn

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
Up to our Necks in Ukraine internal politics
« Reply #8 on: September 25, 2019, 01:50:12 AM »
Is it merely a coincidence that Taco Bell recently introduced a new cheesy chalupa and another episode in the Obama administration's policy in favor of one Ukraine political faction has emerged under the pretext of a whistleblower complaint to the DNI?

The Russia collusion hoax began as a Ukrainian-influence operation inside the DNC by Andrea Chalupa.  She worked for and supported an anti-Russia faction in Ukraine.  When Manafort joined the Trump campaign in early 2016, Chalupa and the DNC began the earliest versions of the Russia story because she and her Ukraine faction feared that Manafort would steer Trump to support Russia in its disputes with Ukraine. 

But there is a third faction inside Ukraine that is anti-Russia and anti-corruption.  That faction elected the new president of Ukraine.  Chalupa was supporting an anti-Russia faction that was likely corrupt.

Now that the original Russia hoax diversion has been proven false, the alignment between the corrupt Ukraine faction and many Obama administration members along with Biden's son could come to light because the current Ukraine president has authorized an investigation into this type of corruption.  Hence, the need for certain partisan members of the intelligence bureaucracy to try and parry this threat until after the 2020 election. 

This time, they chose not to leak transcripts of the phone call.  Instead, they abused the whistleblower statute and reg's inside DNI in order to provide cover for the identity of the whistleblower and the leaker.  Then, they leaked to Schiff the existence of the questionable whistleblower complaint. 

It is also no coincidence that this occurred at the same time that Trump was at the UN and Iran's Rouhani will speak at the UN.  Because that deal also could be argued to be corrupt.

There are some bad people working inside the bureaucracy.  And they are tarnishing the reputations of the many workers there who do their jobs properly.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12622
    • View Profile
Re: The Ukrainian Affairs And Biden-China
« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2019, 05:06:12 AM »
Hi Rick
thanks for update

please keep it up as more information comes out.

anyone think whistleblower wears a maga hat at home?   :wink:

ps
ate a cholidil or something like that at Taco Bell yesterday.  I don't know what is so great about Chipotle .  TB is better and more reasonable in price
then those crummy bowels or salads or burritos you get at chipotle

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14518
    • View Profile
Re: Even ABC News! This is a keeper!
« Reply #10 on: September 25, 2019, 05:32:08 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH_sdTC7Anw&fbclid=IwAR0MxMpQrqmxl3tv47PvZxSnhAYrBQBYHpu_4O8r31w1Ca-r07J2hVMRevA

Hunter Biden was brought onto the Ukraine natural gas company board (at US$50,000 per month) "that was facing corruption charges to help with it's transparency and corporate responsibility."

Looks more like using international corruption to get out of domestic corruption charges.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12622
    • View Profile
ABC =>>> the Biden family
« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2019, 07:03:35 AM »
Rush pointed this out that the establishment Dems are now going to "take out " dentured - plugged - red eyed - botoxed - cognitively impaired -man .  (besides they know he is a loser anyway )

what Rush didn't say as to why surprised me:

It  is also to clear the field so they can focus attention solely on the alleged  trump corruption .
can't keep pushing the Trump Ukraine  angle with Biden's obvious corruption being the elephant in the room.

Just like the left went after a few token me too dems (only those that would not cost them any seats) to clear the field to go after Donald for his , ahem , indiscretions...........

I mean the MSM can only look the other way so long.  The Left has to sweep their own dirt under the rug at some point.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14518
    • View Profile
Re: Peter Schweizer: Joe Biden is the most corrupt VP of our lifetime 2.0
« Reply #12 on: September 25, 2019, 07:18:19 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo3LpGOFIAY&fbclid=IwAR0AIGTMgE8PpogbNbIwjgtjJCrHIM8qVTIEXnUCMcHr9JpAi6_3gyKL5PU

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/peter-schweizer-biden-familys-foreign-dealings-7-essential-facts

Peter Schweizer: Biden Ukraine dealings – 7 essential facts

Peter Schweizer and the Government Accountability Institute spent three years investigating former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter and their dealings in the Ukraine and China.  Below are some of the results of the investigation.

1. Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma in April 2014, according to RSB bank records. Hunter Biden had little background in energy. Over a 16-month period, Burisma paid $3.1 million to a bank account associated with Hunter’s business.

2. Joe Biden led the Obama administration’s policy toward Ukraine when he served as vice president. Biden helped shape Ukraine’s energy and anti-corruption policies, issues that directly impact Burisma.

3. Burisma sought to capitalize Hunter Biden’s name and relationships. According to The New York Times, Hunter Biden helped assemble the company’s legal team, which consisted of American attorneys and consulting firms, including a former Obama Justice Department official.

4. Burisma is led by an oligarch named Mykola Zlochevsky. Zlochevsky served as ecology minister under pro-Russia former Ukrainian leader Viktor Yanukovich, leading to allegations that he used his office to benefit Burisma.

5. Burisma was under legal scrutiny. Shortly before Hunter Biden was appointed to Burisma’s board, British authorities froze $23 million of Zlochevsky’s assets as part of a corruption investigation. Ukraine opened its own probe later that year.

6. Financial records from Morgan Stanley show numerous lines of money going into the account of “Robert H. Biden.” The funds originated from oligarchs and anonymous LLCs in Ukraine, China, Kazakhstan and elsewhere.

7. In 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew aboard Air Force Two to China. Ten days later, Hunter Biden’s firm scored a $1.5 billion deal with a subsidiary of the Chinese government’s Bank of China.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12622
    • View Profile
The Left's response
« Reply #13 on: September 25, 2019, 07:26:31 AM »
********Peter Schweizer: Biden Ukraine dealings – 7 essential facts

Peter Schweizer and the Government Accountability Institute spent three years investigating former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter and their dealings in the Ukraine and China.  Below are some of the results of the investigation.

1. Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma in April 2014, according to RSB bank records. Hunter Biden had little background in energy. Over a 16-month period, Burisma paid $3.1 million to a bank account associated with Hunter’s business.

2. Joe Biden led the Obama administration’s policy toward Ukraine when he served as vice president. Biden helped shape Ukraine’s energy and anti-corruption policies, issues that directly impact Burisma.

3. Burisma sought to capitalize Hunter Biden’s name and relationships. According to The New York Times, Hunter Biden helped assemble the company’s legal team, which consisted of American attorneys and consulting firms, including a former Obama Justice Department official.

4. Burisma is led by an oligarch named Mykola Zlochevsky. Zlochevsky served as ecology minister under pro-Russia former Ukrainian leader Viktor Yanukovich, leading to allegations that he used his office to benefit Burisma.

5. Burisma was under legal scrutiny. Shortly before Hunter Biden was appointed to Burisma’s board, British authorities froze $23 million of Zlochevsky’s assets as part of a corruption investigation. Ukraine opened its own probe later that year.

6. Financial records from Morgan Stanley show numerous lines of money going into the account of “Robert H. Biden.” The funds originated from oligarchs and anonymous LLCs in Ukraine, China, Kazakhstan and elsewhere.

7. In 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew aboard Air Force Two to China. Ten days later, Hunter Biden’s firm scored a $1.5 billion deal with a subsidiary of the Chinese government’s Bank of China.****


Mario's obnoxious kid (the youngest one not the older one)
et al:

**Yes these facts above are true but still "NO PROOF" of anything done wrong . "NO PROOF"
so nothing here and let's skip this and get back to Trump.

The Dem machine behind the scenes saying time to get rid of Biden and take away Trump/Gullianis's: "what about Joe?" retort.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14518
    • View Profile
Ukrainian Affairs And Biden-China, Andrew McCarthy
« Reply #14 on: September 25, 2019, 07:38:36 AM »
This was the first look I had at the 'scandal'.  Nothing I have seen or heard since has contradicted McCarthy's analysis.

https://news.yahoo.com/breaking-down-whistleblower-frenzy-103053753.html

Breaking Down the Whistleblower Frenzy
National Review   
Andrew C. McCarthy
,National Review•September 21, 2019

The Democrats’ media narrative of impeachment portrays President Trump and his administration as serial law-breakers who, true to form, obstruct all congressional investigations of wrongdoing. This then becomes the analytical framework for every new controversy. There are at least two fundamental problems with this.

First, our constitutional system is based on friction between competing branches vested with separate but closely related powers. The Framers understood that the two political branches would periodically try to usurp each other’s authorities. Congress often does this by enactments that seek to subject executive power to congressional (or judicial) supervision. Presidential pushback on such laws is not criminal obstruction; it is the Constitution in action.

Second, we’ve become so law-obsessed that we miss the forest for the trees. Often, the least important aspect of a controversy — viz., whether a law has been violated — becomes the dominant consideration. Short shrift is given to the more consequential aspects, such as whether we are being competently governed or whether power is being abused.

These problems are now playing out in the Trump controversy du jour (or should I say de l’heure?): the intelligence community whistleblower.

As this column is written on Friday afternoon, the story is still evolving, with the president tweeting as ever, and the New York Times producing a report by no fewer than eight of its top journalists, joining the seven (and counting) who are working it for the Washington Post, which broke the story.

It stems from — what else? — anonymous leaks attributed to former intelligence officials. Whether they are among the stable of such retirees now on the payroll at anti-Trump cable outlets is not known. While the media purport to be deeply concerned about Trump-administration law-breaking in classified matters, there is negligible interest in whether the intelligence officials leaking to them are flouting the law.

A Promise to Ukraine?
In any event, we learn that an unidentified “whistleblower” has filed a complaint with the intelligence community’s inspector general (IGIC), relating that President Trump had recent interaction with an unidentified foreign leader during which the president made a “promise” which is not further described to us, other than that the whistleblower found it very “troubling.” The inference that President Trump is the subject of the complaint (or at least a subject) derives from the fact that intelligence officials say it involves someone who is “outside the intelligence community,” and that there are issues of “privilege” that justify non-disclosure to Congress. (The president is “outside” the intelligence community in the sense of being over it as chief executive; and, as I discussed in a column earlier this week, presidents have executive privilege, which shields communications with advisers.)

The latest news to break suggests that the communications (there is more than one) relate, at least in part, to Ukraine. The whistleblower complaint is believed to have been filed on August 12. President Trump is known to have spoken by phone with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25. Rudy Giuliani, who is Trump’s private lawyer (and who hired me as a prosecutor many years ago), has been open about urging Ukraine to pursue an investigation implicating Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden. Specifically, when he was Obama-administration vice president, Biden is rumored to have pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who was conducting a corruption investigation of a natural-gas company. Biden’s son, Hunter, sat on the company’s board, and his law firm was lavishly compensated.

Thus, the theorizing in anti-Trump circles is that an intelligence official privy to details of the July 25 call must have learned that the president made a quid pro quo arrangement with Ukraine, promising some kind of assistance in exchange for movement on an investigation that could politically wound Trump’s potential 2020 opponent. (A CNN interview that became a spirited argument between Giuliani and Chris Cuomo got lots of play on Friday. Meanwhile, to my knowledge, there has not been much congressional interest in examining Obama-administration and Clinton-campaign dealings with Ukraine in 2016, when our government encouraged Kiev to investigate Paul Manafort, and a leak about a claim of lavish cash payments to Manafort resulted in his removal as Trump’s campaign chairman.)

President Trump is pooh-poohing the whistleblower complaint as a fabrication by “Radical Left Democrats and their Fake News Partners, headed up again by Little Adam Schiff.” That last derogatory reference is to the California Democrat and Trump antagonist who chairs the House Intelligence Committee. Conveniently omitted by the president are the facts that (a) the whistleblower has tried to comply with federal law and go through government channels rather than leaking information to the Trump-hostile media; (b) the IGIC to whom the whistleblower made his report is a Trump appointee, namely Michael Atkinson, a career Justice Department prosecutor who got the IGIC gig in 2018; and (c) Atkinson concluded that the whistleblower’s complaint was credible and sufficiently serious to be deemed a matter of “urgent concern.”

‘Urgent Concern’ — Another Confusing Dual-Use Term
This brings us to a common situation that we rarely notice but that often skews public debate. I’ll call it the dual-use term: A word or phrase that has both a common meaning because it is invoked in everyday parlance and a specialized meaning in statutory law — either because Congress has taken the trouble to define it or the courts have authoritatively construed it.

“Urgent concern” is a dual-use term. Such terms confuse things because politicians seamlessly shift from the common to the specialized meaning. Frequently, legal consequences limited to the narrower legal sense of the term are triggered by anything that fits the term’s broad general understanding. To take a notorious example, “collusion” — the subject, ahem, of a certain new book — has both a broad general connotation (concerted activity that can be benign or sinister, or anything in between) and a narrow specialized meaning when invoked in law-enforcement investigations (criminal conspiracy). For years, Chairman Schiff and other Trump critics have intimated that episodes of unremarkable collusion in the broad sense (e.g., negotiating policy or real-estate deals with Russians) are evidence of illegal collusion in the narrow, specialized sense (conspiracy to commit cyberespionage with Russians).

The common meaning of urgent concern is obvious: It could describe anything that raises the specter of imminent harm. But urgent concern is also a specialized term in federal law. Under Section 3033(k)(5)(G) (of Title 50, U.S. Code), an “urgent concern” relates to specified problems involving intelligence activities and classified information that are within the responsibility of the Director of National Intelligence. The DNI is the cabinet official who oversees the so-called community of intelligence agencies. The urgent concerns Section 3033 outlines include, for example, violations or abuses of laws or executive orders, or deficiencies in the funding, administration or operation of an intelligence activity. Section 3033 urgent concerns also include misleading of Congress regarding intelligence activities, and reprisals against whistleblowers who report an urgent concern.

Notice the difference between the common and statutory meaning.

Any executive action that imperils national security, particularly in connection with classified information falling into the hands of a foreign power, could accurately be described as a matter of urgent concern, as that term is commonly understood. Even if there were no Section 3033, and there were no specialized statutory definition of “urgent concern,” it would be entirely appropriate for Congress to inquire into such matters.

On the other hand, if a situation qualifies as one of the narrower sets of “urgent concerns” defined by Section 3033, it triggers the mandatory reporting procedures prescribed in the statute. To wit, if an intelligence official believes a Section 3033 urgent concern has arisen, that official (a whistleblower) may report the matter to the IGIC with an eye toward its transmission to Congress. The IGIC then has two weeks to decide whether a complaint is credible. If the IGIC so finds, the matter must be referred to the DNI, who must notify the congressional intelligence committees within one week.

Section 3033 Does Not Apply to the President
Here, the whistleblower (who is reportedly represented by a lawyer well versed in Section 3033) believed President Trump’s undescribed promise to the unidentified foreign leader qualified as an “urgent concern” under the statute. On August 12, the whistleblower reported the matter to IGIC Atkinson. In what I believe was an error, Atkinson concluded that the complaint did indeed spell out a Section 3033 urgent concern because it was credible and raised a serious issue. (As we’ll see, my quarrel is with the application of the statute to the president; I assume the Trump-appointed IGIC is correct that the complaint is credible and serious.)

Atkinson thus notified Joseph Maguire, the acting DNI. Maguire, however, did not believe the matter met the Section 3033 definition of an urgent concern, because it related to an activity by someone not under the authority of the DNI (inferentially, the president). Consequently, Maguire declined to pass the complaint along to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

As noted above, current and former intelligence officials continue to leak like sieves in their years-long campaign against the sitting president. Thus, the existence of the complaint, the report of it to the IGIC, and the acting DNI’s refusal to alert Congress became known to the media and to Chairman Schiff. The chairman is claiming that the Trump administration is violating the law by failing to notify Congress of an urgent concern, as mandated by Section 3033.

In my view, Chairman Schiff’s claim, based on IGIC Atkinson’s interpretation of the statute, is wrong. Section 3033 does not apply to a president’s negotiations with or commitments to foreign powers, or to a president’s sharing of classified information with foreign powers. To repeat, the statute applies to intelligence activities by government officials acting under the authority of the DNI. If I am right, the Trump administration should not be accused of law-breaking for declining to follow Section 3033, even if the whistleblower had an “urgent concern” in the ordinary understanding of that term.

In our system, the conduct of foreign policy is a nigh plenary authority of the chief executive. The only exceptions are explicitly stated in the Constitution (Congress regulates foreign commerce, the Senate must approve treaties, etc.). Congress may not enact statutes that limit the president’s constitutional power to conduct foreign policy; the Constitution may not be amended by statute.

Consistent with this principle, the Justice Department has long adhered to the so-called “clear statement” rule: If the express terms of a statute do not apply its provisions to the president, then the statute is deemed not to apply to the president if its application would conflict with the president’s constitutional powers. Section 3033 does not refer to the president. By its terms, it applies to intelligence-community officials. And, in any event, it may not properly be applied to the president if doing so would hinder the president’s capacious authority to conduct foreign policy.

At least when a Republican is in the White House, progressives are enthralled by laws that, in effect, empower bureaucrats — here, “intelligence professionals”– to second-guess and otherwise check the president’s power to direct the executive branch. That is not our system.

Congress’s Selective Interest in Presidential Abuses of Power
In conducting foreign affairs, the president may make commitments to other foreign leaders (subject to the Constitution’s treaty clause). The president, unlike his subordinates, also has the power to disclose any classified information he chooses to disclose. Like all presidential powers, these may be abused or exercised rashly. When there is a credible allegation that they have been, that should cause all of us urgent concern.

To take one example, President Obama misled Congress and the nation regarding the concessions he made to Iran in connection with the nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). The Obama administration, moreover, structured the arrangement so that commitments to Iran were withheld from Congress — as if what were at stake were understandings strictly between Tehran and the U.N.’s monitor (the International Atomic Energy Agency), somehow of no concern to the United States. Representative Schiff’s skepticism about Iran became muted when a Democratic president cut the deal. Yet these cloak-and-dagger arrangements with a jihadist regime that proclaims itself America’s mortal enemy, in which a U.S. president willfully end-ran the Constitution’s treaty provisions and congressional oversight, were and remain urgent concerns for millions of Americans and most members of Congress.

So how should we evaluate the current controversy?

For starters, we should recognize what is important and what is not. Section 3033 should be the least of our considerations. As argued above, it very likely does not apply, despite the IGIC’s conclusion to the contrary. Its lack of application would not stop the whistleblower from getting the information to Congress (though it may affect whether the whistleblower is protected from reprisals). More to the point, it is irrelevant whether Congress should have been notified within one week of X date as prescribed by statute. Regardless of whether I am right about the statute’s inapplicability, the intelligence committees are now on notice and positioned to examine the matter.

The issue is not Section 3033 and whether the DNI should have alerted Schiff. The issue is whether President Trump has abused his foreign-affairs powers.

On that score, we should withhold judgment until more facts are in. Democrats would have us leap to the conclusion that impeachable offenses have been committed; the president would have us dismiss the matter out of hand as a political contrivance. There are reasons to doubt both of them.

For one thing, there has been a three-year campaign by current and former government officials to undermine the Trump presidency by lawless leaks of politicized intelligence. On the other side of the coin, though, IGIC Michael Atkinson is a Trump appointee. It is he who found the whistleblower’s complaint serious and credible. And the acting DNI, Joseph Maguire, does not appear to be refuting that conclusion; his quibble (which I share) appears to be that Section 3033 urgent concerns are inapposite where presidential foreign-affairs powers are involved. Many of President Trump’s foreign policy moves have been impulsive; it is hardly inconceivable that he could have offered a commitment that was poorly thought through. Giuliani, a key outside adviser to the president, has been pressing the Ukrainians to look into Biden, and, when asked on Friday about whether he discussed Biden in the July call with Ukraine’s president, Trump declined to answer directly, replying, “Someone ought to look into Joe Biden.”

And maybe someone should. The fact that Biden may end up being Trump’s rival in the 2020 election does not immunize him from investigation. If he used his political influence to squeeze a foreign power for his son’s benefit, that should be explored. Of course, Trump should not use the powers of his office solely for the purpose of obtaining campaign ammunition to deploy against a potential foe. But all presidents who seek reelection wield their power in ways designed to improve their chances. If Trump went too far in that regard, we could look with disfavor on that while realizing that he would not be the first president to have done so. And if, alternatively, the president had a good reason for making a reciprocal commitment to Ukraine, that commitment would not become improper just because, collaterally, it happened to help Trump or harm Biden politically.

The president has the power to conduct foreign policy as he sees fit. The Congress has the power to subject that exercise to thorough examination. The clash of these powers is a constant in our form of government. It is politics. For once, let’s find out what happened before we leap to DEFCON 1.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12622
    • View Profile
Re: The Ukrainian Affairs And Biden-China
« Reply #15 on: September 25, 2019, 08:15:19 AM »
from the transcript released at least
no clear "quid pro quo"

to me


so he asked the Ukranian leader to look into the Biden thing - so what.

of course the LEFt will claim otherwise.




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14518
    • View Profile
The Call Transcript, Trump and Ukraine President Zelensky
« Reply #18 on: September 25, 2019, 10:44:28 AM »
from the transcript released at least
no clear "quid pro quo"
to me
so he asked the Ukranian leader to look into the Biden thing - so what.
of course the LEFt will claim otherwise.

The transcript:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14518
    • View Profile
Ukrainian Affairs, Biden warns about impeachment for political reasons, 1998
« Reply #19 on: September 25, 2019, 11:03:54 AM »
Biden in 1998 warns of impeaching over politics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b9faG2gHB0

The election of the president is the only nationwide vote the American people will ever cast and that's a big deal. The American people don't think they made a mistake in electing Donald Trump [Bill Clinton] and we in Congress had better be very careful before we upset their decision and make darn sure we convince them, if we decide to upset their decision, that our decision to impeach him was based upon principle and not politics.

   - Direct quote except for the name changes, Joe Biden 1998

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 55124
    • View Profile



rickn

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
Re: The Ukrainian Affairs And Biden-China
« Reply #23 on: September 25, 2019, 07:29:18 PM »
Although the Biden episode is getting all the ink/pixels, the other two topics involving Ukraine and the 2016 election are very interesting:

1) the fact that the DNC server analyzed by Crowdstrike (but not he FBI) may be in Ukraine; and,

2) the US ambassador to Ukraine being discussed as a very bad person. 

Wonder if our ambassador was facilitating the DNC's efforts about Russia collusion through the Ukraine government back in 2016 when the pro-Obama president was in charge there?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14518
    • View Profile
Ukrainian Affair, Whistleblower complaint transcript
« Reply #24 on: September 26, 2019, 09:23:55 AM »
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/read-full-text-whistleblower-complaint-n1058971
------------------------------------

I must say, the Trump  administration has done a good job of getting all the information out there - at least after it blew up last week.

Trump admitted the phone call.  Put out the  transcript and now has made sure everyone had the 'complaint' in its entirety, at least as much as possible.

I read it.  It says over and over that he did not witness any of this first hand and mostly doesn't know who did.  He refers to the phone call, but we already have the transcript of that.  He alleges a cover up but that means nothing now.  It is loaded with his opinions more than facts.  As McCarthy said, the complaint doesn't constitute an urgent matter.

In the heart of the matter, is it wrong, is it illegal for a President try to get to the bottom of international corruption if the alleged corruption would reflect badly on an opponent, potentially benefiting himself?

Where is Liz Warren, the anti-corruption candidate, on the President's effort to get this obvious influence peddling investigated? 
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/elizabeth-warren-roars-for-impeachment-after-ukraine-news-confirmed-trump-thinks-hes-above-the-law
Just a hypocritical head fake.  Investigate Trump for investigating corruption?  Who should investigate the corruption then, if not our AG cooperating with theirs?  The UN?
« Last Edit: September 26, 2019, 09:55:59 AM by DougMacG »

rickn

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
Re: The Ukrainian Affairs And Biden-China
« Reply #25 on: September 26, 2019, 01:29:54 PM »
NYT now says the whistleblower is a CIA analyst assigned to work at White House.

Mitt Romney's former special adviser on security issues is the Burisma director who succeeded Hunter Biden.

https://www.waynedupree.com/mitt-romney-hunter-biden-burisma/

These guys must fear that if Trump's investigation of 2016 gets close to Ukraine, it will uncover a bunch of bad stuff.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12622
    • View Profile
Re: The Ukrainian Affairs And Biden-China
« Reply #26 on: September 26, 2019, 02:23:02 PM »
Wow
our own intelligence service people spying on our *own* President and trying to bring him down.
could this happen in any other country?

if anyone thought Edgar Hoover was bad........

Schumer's words clearly ring true today
don't they.

I wonder if Brennan is somehow in the loop.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 55124
    • View Profile




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14518
    • View Profile
"Whistlerblower"has political "bias", Lawyer Dem operative
« Reply #31 on: September 26, 2019, 06:52:42 PM »
https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-intel-inspector-general-found-ryan-saavedra

"Whistleblower" Had ‘Bias’ In Favor Of ‘Rival Candidate’ Of Trump

he attorney for the whistleblower has previously worked for Democrat New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2019, 08:35:45 PM by DougMacG »






DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14518
    • View Profile
Re: The Ukrainian Affairs And Biden-China
« Reply #37 on: September 27, 2019, 04:50:19 AM »
Would like to add this to the previous Hunter Biden lack of qualifications list:

Doesn't speak Ukrainian.
---------------
What we know about Hunter Biden in the gas business:
He had absolutely no experience or expertise in the industry.
He had no history of being able to do any other job.
He was a drug addict and a drunk.
His dad was Vice President of the United States.
Burisma paid him 50k/month over a period of time.
VP Biden did in fact intervene in the Ukraine with the threat of taking away a billion in aid to get the prosecutor looking into Burisma fired.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14518
    • View Profile
Re: Oh no! Say it ain't so Slo Joe!
« Reply #38 on: September 27, 2019, 05:03:27 AM »


https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story?fbclid=IwAR0bxkc-u8p_8HREfXqluSIRV2pPcM645gNn_WBey95Ili35xEHvU32W-ek

The emerging truth in the Biden corruption story makes the effort of wanting it looked into a proper Presidential act.

He ran for president promising to clean up this type of deep state corruption.

Missing in the phone call transcript, only in Adam Schiff's parody does it say he tells them to make false charges (dirt) on Biden.  There is no hint of that anywhere.

I fail to see how pressing for a real investigation of real corruption, an appropriate Presidential act when it involves communicating at the leadership level of an ally, can be an impeachable offense, even if a political rival is involved. 

Are all political rivals immune from all investigations?  If so, how does anyone in the Obama-Biden administration justify the FISA pursuit of candidate Trump and President Trump, the wiretapping of Flynn, and the wiretapping of the meeting at Trump tower, for examples.  According to House Democratic logic, pursuit of investigations of a political rival team or family for any reason is a crime. 
« Last Edit: September 27, 2019, 08:39:13 AM by DougMacG »

rickn

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
Did Biden Embellish his Role in Ukraine Prosecutor Firing?
« Reply #39 on: September 27, 2019, 05:22:41 AM »
See the last graf in John Solomon column to which craftydog first linked.

Did Biden exaggerate his role in the Ukraine prosecutor firing when he spoke on the Council of Foreign Relations panel in 2018?  Solomon suggests that he may done so.

Is it a matter of public concern for the US to discover if Biden, while acting in his official capacity as VP of the US, used his official position to cause the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating alleged illegalities in Burisma, a company that had named Biden's son as a member of its board of directors?

Burisma itself is very interesting given that it had first named Biden's son to its board when Biden himself was VPOTUS.  Then, shortly after Trump took office, Burisma named a former CIA official to its board to replace Biden.  And this CIA official just happened to have been a foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney during the now senator's 2012 presidential election campaign.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12622
    • View Profile
Re: The Ukrainian Affairs And Biden-China
« Reply #40 on: September 27, 2019, 05:26:54 AM »
not a CIA peep about Biden.

only Trump.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14518
    • View Profile
Re: The Ukrainian Affairs And Biden-China
« Reply #41 on: September 27, 2019, 07:11:00 AM »
not a CIA peep about Biden.

only Trump.

Yes, CIA intervention only on one side.  No one was offended during FISA-gate?
 
Also, the group think of the Democrats is amazing.  Not one can just apply an objective test and say there is nothing there. 

If you say no impeachment, or part on any issue, you are out, even though Biden, Nadler and others are on 1998 record of opposing political impeachment.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/flashback-1998-jerry-nadler-said-impeachment-is-an-undoing-of-a-national-election/

Possible exception, Tulsi Gabbard, but not without adding Trump is "corrupt" (offering no evidence), "unfit" and "unqualified".  That should cover her, but she won't be moving into leadership anytime soon.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-defies-pelosi-no-compelling-cause-for-trump-impeachment

Republicans are different.  If Trump did commit a high crime, he's out.  We turn on our own all the time.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12622
    • View Profile
Re: The Ukrainian Affairs And Biden-China
« Reply #42 on: September 27, 2019, 07:19:36 AM »
"Republicans are different.  If Trump did commit a high crime, he's out.  We turn on our own all the time."

Last I heard Hawley still against impeachment but states will have to wait and see...........

Trump fucked himself over on this one.
But I still fight because if he goes down all of us on the right will too as does the nature of our country.

Just too much at stake as great one Levin says.

I like Pence but I don't have confidence he has the charisma to carry on.

Trump's inability to be gracious turned what should be a great Presidency into a totally controversial never ending mud wrestling / MMA fight.

If only.....

I stand to fight on.......  no choice.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12622
    • View Profile
Re: The Ukrainian Affairs And Biden-China
« Reply #43 on: September 27, 2019, 07:37:26 AM »
In addition early on in Trump's presidency it was Brennan , I think , who pointed out that Trump's personality could be used against him.  His impulsiveness could be used against him.

Like the Dem operatives in the CIA with their Dem operative lawyers happily did  as we can see.

Irritate his enough and he starts to do stupid things apparently in reality as well as saying stupid shit.

The hypocracy  of the DC establishment and the Dems is so sickening.  Republicans should just give them the finger and hold firm.

The Rino retort that ( this will come back to haunt us when the Dems get power ) is hollow.  The Dems do whatever it takes no matter what.

So by playing nice now will not be rewarded by integrity by them at anytime in the future when push comes to shove.
SO that argument is bogus and false.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14518
    • View Profile
Re: The Ukrainian Affairs And Biden-China - VDH
« Reply #44 on: September 27, 2019, 07:50:47 AM »
A must read, start to finish.  VDH puts the details in context.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-impeachment-frenzy-may-strengthen-trump/
...
"Any president has a perfect right to tell a foreign head of state and recipient of major U.S. aid that his corruption-plagued country has played a destabilizing but still murky role in recent American elections and in scandals that have affected the American people, and in particular the current president of the United States — and that it would be a good thing to get to the bottom of it." ...

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12622
    • View Profile
Re: The Ukrainian Affairs And Biden-China
« Reply #45 on: September 27, 2019, 08:15:53 AM »
Hope VDH is right.

Hope the swing voters see through all the media Dem Party hype , distortions , and propaganda and obvious manipulation .

There not fooling me.
but I am in the choirs

There big push is 24/7 try to persuade more than 50% impeachment is correct.
So far, they fall on their own swords .

rickn

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12622
    • View Profile
Democrat operatives
« Reply #48 on: September 27, 2019, 01:20:49 PM »
conspired the whole thing. Worth the listen of ~ 15 minutes:

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/levin-adam-schiff-knows-exactly-whistleblower/

Democrat lawyers , Schiff , and the MSM.