|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
On September 27 2019 02:10 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2019 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2019 01:57 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2019 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2019 01:21 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2019 00:53 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2019 00:41 redlightdistrict wrote:
Honestly wouldn't be surprised if the "whistle blower" that engineered the complaint in the first place is Trump specifically to force Peloci's hand down the road of an impeachment inquiry so it will turn up nothing and the investigating will drag on and on and keep the dems from properly fending Trump off leading into the election. Distract the candidates and make them feel pressure to come out in favor of impeachment early and often. If so Warren already took the bait. This is some 8 dimensional jenga fantasy. I'm going to save these so at the end we can go back and see. So far we have Trump being his own whistle blower to force impeachment proceedings, which he will bend to his will to thrash the dems And That some unnamed group or singular Oligarch planted this to distract the masses from structural change. Anyone else have any wild theories to throw out before we find out more? Anyone say that, or you make it up? Someone did yes, I then asked them for clarification and they choose to not respond so it was my presumption based on their post, past posts, and non-normal reaction to not respond that this was their belief. Perhaps you could ask this person to respond to my post and then we would know for sure. But sadly until further clarification I can only work with what information I have. I can confirm for you I never said that and don't think it By all means then please explain what you did mean with your post to clear it up. It is a strange strategy to take at least 2 posts to say "I didn't say that" when one post explaining what you did in fact mean would do the trick.
certainly no less weird than talking about him, to him, as if it weren’t him. why bother trying to ask someone to be direct when you’ve been purposefully indirect? be the change you want to see.
|
On September 27 2019 02:10 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2019 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2019 01:57 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2019 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2019 01:21 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2019 00:53 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2019 00:41 redlightdistrict wrote:
Honestly wouldn't be surprised if the "whistle blower" that engineered the complaint in the first place is Trump specifically to force Peloci's hand down the road of an impeachment inquiry so it will turn up nothing and the investigating will drag on and on and keep the dems from properly fending Trump off leading into the election. Distract the candidates and make them feel pressure to come out in favor of impeachment early and often. If so Warren already took the bait. This is some 8 dimensional jenga fantasy. I'm going to save these so at the end we can go back and see. So far we have Trump being his own whistle blower to force impeachment proceedings, which he will bend to his will to thrash the dems And That some unnamed group or singular Oligarch planted this to distract the masses from structural change. Anyone else have any wild theories to throw out before we find out more? Anyone say that, or you make it up? Someone did yes, I then asked them for clarification and they choose to not respond so it was my presumption based on their post, past posts, and non-normal reaction to not respond that this was their belief. Perhaps you could ask this person to respond to my post and then we would know for sure. But sadly until further clarification I can only work with what information I have. I can confirm for you I never said that and don't think it By all means then please explain what you did mean with your post to clear it up. It is a strange strategy to take at least 2 posts to say "I didn't say that" when one post explaining what you did in fact mean would do the trick.
I meant what I said.
On September 25 2019 09:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2019 07:47 farvacola wrote:
Indeed, but with reference to the whistleblower complaint, there appears to be a common thread connecting the alleged acts.
I’m not sure on whether this thing will move or not, but I do think it has legs that prior controversies did not. I'm thinking this just takes the place of Russiagate to keep the conversation away from real structural change.
Based on your confusion I should probably have said:
I'm thinking this just takes the place of Russiagate keeping the conversation away from real structural change.
I think it's clear what I'm saying to everyone but you, but just in case, I'm saying this is going to spam up political spaces crowding out coverage/discussions/actions based on serious structural changes, systemic issues, and so on. like Russiagate did.
I'd appreciate if instead of making bad presumptions like that you just quote me or not.
|
On September 27 2019 01:18 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2019 01:06 Nouar wrote:An interesting bit quoted from the guardian's live, that says the prosecutor general that initially implied wrongdoing by the Clinton campaign and biden's family, now says the investigation was dormant at the time Biden pushed for the removal of his predecessor, and Hunter Biden was not involved in the wrongdoing of his company anyway, as it predated his arrival : 16:47
Former Ukrainian prosecutor says Hunter Biden did not break the law
Yuri Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian president who first raised the allegations against Hunter Biden that Rudy Giuliani urged the country to investigate again, said he did not believe the son of the former vice president had broken the law.
The Washington Post reports:
‘From the perspective of Ukrainian legislation, he did not violate anything,’ former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko told The Washington Post in his first interview since the disclosure of a whistleblower complaint alleging pressure by Trump on Ukraine’s president, Volodymr Zelensky.
Lutsenko’s comments about Hunter Biden — which echo what he told Bloomberg News in May — were significant because President Trump and his personal attorney Giuliani have sought to stir up suspicions about both Hunter and former vice president Joe Biden’s conduct in Ukraine in recent weeks. ...
As vice president, Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the Lutsenko’s predecessor, Viktor Shokin, who Biden and other Western officials said was not sufficiently pursuing corruption cases. At the time, the investigation into Burisma was dormant, according to former Ukrainian and U.S. officials.
‘Hunter Biden cannot be responsible for violations of the management of Burisma that took place two years before his arrival,’ Lutsenko said. This will put a serious stop into the allegations of biden's intervention being to save his son. No it wont.
I agree that pressuring a country to fire someone or you don't give them aid is a bad thing. However it's done everywhere, aid is used as leverage sadly, to get contracts etc.
In this case, several countries had complained about that specific prosecutor that was a sham against corruption.
If the us pressured to have him gone, it's not an illegal matter by itself.
If the us pressured to have him gone to protect biden's son from an investigation, it's a scandal and there should be heavy consequences.
This allegation came from lutsenko just before the Ukrainian election. Trump and Republicans jumped on it, especially after Biden admitted to leveraging aid against this prosecutor.
Lutsenko himself now says Hunter Biden was never implicated in this probe anyway (which was dormant, since the prosecutor was a crook).
So we are back to square 1 : the us using aid as political pressure to advance an agenda, which is what the us does (Israel, abortion, etc). But nothing illegal.
So why wouldn't it change anything? Please develop instead of being a troll.
|
Yes he did. The man just accused the whistleblowers sources of being spies, and looks nostalgic of the time where they were dealt with in a...brutal manner. What a madman. Whistleblower? Protections? Hang them ! The law? Bah, it's for the others.
Again from the guardian's live
18:12
Trump compared whistleblower's source to a 'spy' and alluded to retaliation, report says
Trump told a group of staffers from the US Mission to the United Nations this morning that he wanted to know who provided information to the whistleblower and alluded to possible retaliation, according to the New York Times.
The Times reports:
The remark stunned people in the audience, according to a person briefed on what took place, who had notes of what the president said. Mr. Trump made the statement about several minutes into his remarks before the group of about 50 people at the event intended to honor the United States Mission. At the outset, he condemned the former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s role in Ukraine at a time when his son Hunter Biden was on the board of a Ukrainian energy company.
Mr. Trump repeatedly referred to the whistle-blower and condemned the news media reporting on the complaint as ‘crooked.’ He then said the whistle-blower never heard the call in question. ...
‘I want to know who’s the person who gave the whistle-blower the information because that’s close to a spy,’ Mr. Trump said. ‘You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right? We used to handle it a little differently than we do now.’
|
United States43200 Posts
Trump accusing others of treason is basically a confession at this point. The man has never accused anyone of something he’s not personally guilty of.
|
|
|
|
|
On September 27 2019 02:53 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2019 02:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2019 02:10 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2019 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2019 01:57 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2019 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2019 01:21 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2019 00:53 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2019 00:41 redlightdistrict wrote:
Honestly wouldn't be surprised if the "whistle blower" that engineered the complaint in the first place is Trump specifically to force Peloci's hand down the road of an impeachment inquiry so it will turn up nothing and the investigating will drag on and on and keep the dems from properly fending Trump off leading into the election. Distract the candidates and make them feel pressure to come out in favor of impeachment early and often. If so Warren already took the bait. This is some 8 dimensional jenga fantasy. I'm going to save these so at the end we can go back and see. So far we have Trump being his own whistle blower to force impeachment proceedings, which he will bend to his will to thrash the dems And That some unnamed group or singular Oligarch planted this to distract the masses from structural change. Anyone else have any wild theories to throw out before we find out more? Anyone say that, or you make it up? Someone did yes, I then asked them for clarification and they choose to not respond so it was my presumption based on their post, past posts, and non-normal reaction to not respond that this was their belief. Perhaps you could ask this person to respond to my post and then we would know for sure. But sadly until further clarification I can only work with what information I have. I can confirm for you I never said that and don't think it By all means then please explain what you did mean with your post to clear it up. It is a strange strategy to take at least 2 posts to say "I didn't say that" when one post explaining what you did in fact mean would do the trick. I meant what I said. On September 25 2019 09:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 25 2019 07:47 farvacola wrote:
Indeed, but with reference to the whistleblower complaint, there appears to be a common thread connecting the alleged acts.
I’m not sure on whether this thing will move or not, but I do think it has legs that prior controversies did not. I'm thinking this just takes the place of Russiagate to keep the conversation away from real structural change. Based on your confusion I should probably have said: I'm thinking this just takes the place of Russiagate keeping the conversation away from real structural change. I think it's clear what I'm saying to everyone but you, but just in case, I'm saying this is going to spam up political spaces crowding out coverage/discussions/actions based on serious structural changes, systemic issues, and so on. like Russiagate did. I'd appreciate if instead of making bad presumptions like that you just quote me or not. Perhaps it is a good lesson that even when presumptions come from a place of past actions it does not guarantee their accuracy? given the prior conversation I think the presumption I made is fair, and you should have indicated that you meant this happenstance will be all people talk about instead of what you find important. Not sure why it took so many posts to get here, but at least we are here.
If you're going to try to save my position for later I just request you save the quote of it and not your notoriously poor interpretations.
|
|
|
On September 27 2019 02:34 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2019 01:18 Trainrunnef wrote:On September 27 2019 01:06 Nouar wrote:An interesting bit quoted from the guardian's live, that says the prosecutor general that initially implied wrongdoing by the Clinton campaign and biden's family, now says the investigation was dormant at the time Biden pushed for the removal of his predecessor, and Hunter Biden was not involved in the wrongdoing of his company anyway, as it predated his arrival : 16:47
Former Ukrainian prosecutor says Hunter Biden did not break the law
Yuri Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian president who first raised the allegations against Hunter Biden that Rudy Giuliani urged the country to investigate again, said he did not believe the son of the former vice president had broken the law.
The Washington Post reports:
‘From the perspective of Ukrainian legislation, he did not violate anything,’ former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko told The Washington Post in his first interview since the disclosure of a whistleblower complaint alleging pressure by Trump on Ukraine’s president, Volodymr Zelensky.
Lutsenko’s comments about Hunter Biden — which echo what he told Bloomberg News in May — were significant because President Trump and his personal attorney Giuliani have sought to stir up suspicions about both Hunter and former vice president Joe Biden’s conduct in Ukraine in recent weeks. ...
As vice president, Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the Lutsenko’s predecessor, Viktor Shokin, who Biden and other Western officials said was not sufficiently pursuing corruption cases. At the time, the investigation into Burisma was dormant, according to former Ukrainian and U.S. officials.
‘Hunter Biden cannot be responsible for violations of the management of Burisma that took place two years before his arrival,’ Lutsenko said. This will put a serious stop into the allegations of biden's intervention being to save his son. No it wont. I agree that pressuring a country to fire someone or you don't give them aid is a bad thing. However it's done everywhere, aid is used as leverage sadly, to get contracts etc. In this case, several countries had complained about that specific prosecutor that was a sham against corruption. If the us pressured to have him gone, it's not an illegal matter by itself. If the us pressured to have him gone to protect biden's son from an investigation, it's a scandal and there should be heavy consequences. This allegation came from lutsenko just before the Ukrainian election. Trump and Republicans jumped on it, especially after Biden admitted to leveraging aid against this prosecutor. Lutsenko himself now says Hunter Biden was never implicated in this probe anyway (which was dormant, since the prosecutor was a crook). So we are back to square 1 : the us using aid as political pressure to advance an agenda, which is what the us does (Israel, abortion, etc). But nothing illegal. So why wouldn't it change anything? Please develop instead of being a troll.
it wont change anything because there are people that still buy the seth rich bullshit.
you keep referencing evidence as though it matters anymore. pictures, timelines, documents... they dont mean shit.
Call me cynical if you want, but Trump has had evidence shoved in his face and his response is always i have better evidence, or some version of "i was right when i said that thing, but now i changed my mind and im more right now than ever".
|
I wish we could fast forward to when the news isn't "Trump Trump Trump" every day. What else is going on in the US?
|
On September 27 2019 03:54 Starlightsun wrote:
I wish we could fast forward to when the news isn't "Trump Trump Trump" every day. What else is going on in the US?
Last week tonight and Patriot Act are the only 2 insight into non Trump news I have left. They're not exactly partial, but they are for the most part accurate (and depressing).
|
On September 27 2019 02:34 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2019 01:18 Trainrunnef wrote:On September 27 2019 01:06 Nouar wrote:An interesting bit quoted from the guardian's live, that says the prosecutor general that initially implied wrongdoing by the Clinton campaign and biden's family, now says the investigation was dormant at the time Biden pushed for the removal of his predecessor, and Hunter Biden was not involved in the wrongdoing of his company anyway, as it predated his arrival : 16:47
Former Ukrainian prosecutor says Hunter Biden did not break the law
Yuri Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian president who first raised the allegations against Hunter Biden that Rudy Giuliani urged the country to investigate again, said he did not believe the son of the former vice president had broken the law.
The Washington Post reports:
‘From the perspective of Ukrainian legislation, he did not violate anything,’ former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko told The Washington Post in his first interview since the disclosure of a whistleblower complaint alleging pressure by Trump on Ukraine’s president, Volodymr Zelensky.
Lutsenko’s comments about Hunter Biden — which echo what he told Bloomberg News in May — were significant because President Trump and his personal attorney Giuliani have sought to stir up suspicions about both Hunter and former vice president Joe Biden’s conduct in Ukraine in recent weeks. ...
As vice president, Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the Lutsenko’s predecessor, Viktor Shokin, who Biden and other Western officials said was not sufficiently pursuing corruption cases. At the time, the investigation into Burisma was dormant, according to former Ukrainian and U.S. officials.
‘Hunter Biden cannot be responsible for violations of the management of Burisma that took place two years before his arrival,’ Lutsenko said. This will put a serious stop into the allegations of biden's intervention being to save his son. No it wont. I agree that pressuring a country to fire someone or you don't give them aid is a bad thing. However it's done everywhere, aid is used as leverage sadly, to get contracts etc. In this case, several countries had complained about that specific prosecutor that was a sham against corruption. If the us pressured to have him gone, it's not an illegal matter by itself. If the us pressured to have him gone to protect biden's son from an investigation, it's a scandal and there should be heavy consequences. This allegation came from lutsenko just before the Ukrainian election. Trump and Republicans jumped on it, especially after Biden admitted to leveraging aid against this prosecutor. Lutsenko himself now says Hunter Biden was never implicated in this probe anyway (which was dormant, since the prosecutor was a crook). So we are back to square 1 : the us using aid as political pressure to advance an agenda, which is what the us does (Israel, abortion, etc). But nothing illegal. So why wouldn't it change anything? Please develop instead of being a troll.
You seem to misunderstand something? This isn't a case of USA using political pressure to a foreign country to advance a political agenda of USA, but the president of USA using political pressure to a foreign country against his own domestic rivals. One is something Americans don't care about, the other is a path to dictatorship.
|
On September 27 2019 03:28 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2019 02:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2019 02:53 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2019 02:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2019 02:10 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2019 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2019 01:57 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2019 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2019 01:21 JimmiC wrote:On September 27 2019 00:53 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
This is some 8 dimensional jenga fantasy. I'm going to save these so at the end we can go back and see. So far we have Trump being his own whistle blower to force impeachment proceedings, which he will bend to his will to thrash the dems And That some unnamed group or singular Oligarch planted this to distract the masses from structural change. Anyone else have any wild theories to throw out before we find out more? Anyone say that, or you make it up? Someone did yes, I then asked them for clarification and they choose to not respond so it was my presumption based on their post, past posts, and non-normal reaction to not respond that this was their belief. Perhaps you could ask this person to respond to my post and then we would know for sure. But sadly until further clarification I can only work with what information I have. I can confirm for you I never said that and don't think it By all means then please explain what you did mean with your post to clear it up. It is a strange strategy to take at least 2 posts to say "I didn't say that" when one post explaining what you did in fact mean would do the trick. I meant what I said. On September 25 2019 09:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 25 2019 07:47 farvacola wrote:
Indeed, but with reference to the whistleblower complaint, there appears to be a common thread connecting the alleged acts.
I’m not sure on whether this thing will move or not, but I do think it has legs that prior controversies did not. I'm thinking this just takes the place of Russiagate to keep the conversation away from real structural change. Based on your confusion I should probably have said: I'm thinking this just takes the place of Russiagate keeping the conversation away from real structural change. I think it's clear what I'm saying to everyone but you, but just in case, I'm saying this is going to spam up political spaces crowding out coverage/discussions/actions based on serious structural changes, systemic issues, and so on. like Russiagate did. I'd appreciate if instead of making bad presumptions like that you just quote me or not. Perhaps it is a good lesson that even when presumptions come from a place of past actions it does not guarantee their accuracy? given the prior conversation I think the presumption I made is fair, and you should have indicated that you meant this happenstance will be all people talk about instead of what you find important. Not sure why it took so many posts to get here, but at least we are here. If you're going to try to save my position for later I just request you save the quote of it and not your notoriously poor interpretations. No point now since you have clarified. And quoting posts is handy, but often leaves the context out unless someone is willing to go back and read the whole conversation. Quite often you yourself have pulled quotes from people that don't even include the entire post, which further creates the problem. Restating is a great way to show understanding or lack there of that simply quoting cannot.
I gather this your way of saying you're going to continue to distort or fabricate positions, assign them to me (directly or indirectly), expect me to answer to/for them and refuse to quote them while you do it. You do you I guess.
|
United States43200 Posts
On September 27 2019 04:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2019 02:34 Nouar wrote:On September 27 2019 01:18 Trainrunnef wrote:On September 27 2019 01:06 Nouar wrote:An interesting bit quoted from the guardian's live, that says the prosecutor general that initially implied wrongdoing by the Clinton campaign and biden's family, now says the investigation was dormant at the time Biden pushed for the removal of his predecessor, and Hunter Biden was not involved in the wrongdoing of his company anyway, as it predated his arrival : 16:47
Former Ukrainian prosecutor says Hunter Biden did not break the law
Yuri Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian president who first raised the allegations against Hunter Biden that Rudy Giuliani urged the country to investigate again, said he did not believe the son of the former vice president had broken the law.
The Washington Post reports:
‘From the perspective of Ukrainian legislation, he did not violate anything,’ former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko told The Washington Post in his first interview since the disclosure of a whistleblower complaint alleging pressure by Trump on Ukraine’s president, Volodymr Zelensky.
Lutsenko’s comments about Hunter Biden — which echo what he told Bloomberg News in May — were significant because President Trump and his personal attorney Giuliani have sought to stir up suspicions about both Hunter and former vice president Joe Biden’s conduct in Ukraine in recent weeks. ...
As vice president, Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the Lutsenko’s predecessor, Viktor Shokin, who Biden and other Western officials said was not sufficiently pursuing corruption cases. At the time, the investigation into Burisma was dormant, according to former Ukrainian and U.S. officials.
‘Hunter Biden cannot be responsible for violations of the management of Burisma that took place two years before his arrival,’ Lutsenko said. This will put a serious stop into the allegations of biden's intervention being to save his son. No it wont. I agree that pressuring a country to fire someone or you don't give them aid is a bad thing. However it's done everywhere, aid is used as leverage sadly, to get contracts etc. In this case, several countries had complained about that specific prosecutor that was a sham against corruption. If the us pressured to have him gone, it's not an illegal matter by itself. If the us pressured to have him gone to protect biden's son from an investigation, it's a scandal and there should be heavy consequences. This allegation came from lutsenko just before the Ukrainian election. Trump and Republicans jumped on it, especially after Biden admitted to leveraging aid against this prosecutor. Lutsenko himself now says Hunter Biden was never implicated in this probe anyway (which was dormant, since the prosecutor was a crook). So we are back to square 1 : the us using aid as political pressure to advance an agenda, which is what the us does (Israel, abortion, etc). But nothing illegal. So why wouldn't it change anything? Please develop instead of being a troll. You seem to misunderstand something? This isn't a case of USA using political pressure to a foreign country to advance a political agenda of USA, but the president of USA using political pressure to a foreign country against his own domestic rivals. One is something Americans don't care about, the other is a path to dictatorship.
Using taxpayer money to pay them to investigate a rival really. If he cancels the military aid and then makes paying it conditional on the investigation then he’s paying them to investigate with taxpayer money.
|
On September 27 2019 04:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2019 02:34 Nouar wrote:On September 27 2019 01:18 Trainrunnef wrote:On September 27 2019 01:06 Nouar wrote:An interesting bit quoted from the guardian's live, that says the prosecutor general that initially implied wrongdoing by the Clinton campaign and biden's family, now says the investigation was dormant at the time Biden pushed for the removal of his predecessor, and Hunter Biden was not involved in the wrongdoing of his company anyway, as it predated his arrival : 16:47
Former Ukrainian prosecutor says Hunter Biden did not break the law
Yuri Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian president who first raised the allegations against Hunter Biden that Rudy Giuliani urged the country to investigate again, said he did not believe the son of the former vice president had broken the law.
The Washington Post reports:
‘From the perspective of Ukrainian legislation, he did not violate anything,’ former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko told The Washington Post in his first interview since the disclosure of a whistleblower complaint alleging pressure by Trump on Ukraine’s president, Volodymr Zelensky.
Lutsenko’s comments about Hunter Biden — which echo what he told Bloomberg News in May — were significant because President Trump and his personal attorney Giuliani have sought to stir up suspicions about both Hunter and former vice president Joe Biden’s conduct in Ukraine in recent weeks. ...
As vice president, Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the Lutsenko’s predecessor, Viktor Shokin, who Biden and other Western officials said was not sufficiently pursuing corruption cases. At the time, the investigation into Burisma was dormant, according to former Ukrainian and U.S. officials.
‘Hunter Biden cannot be responsible for violations of the management of Burisma that took place two years before his arrival,’ Lutsenko said. This will put a serious stop into the allegations of biden's intervention being to save his son. No it wont. I agree that pressuring a country to fire someone or you don't give them aid is a bad thing. However it's done everywhere, aid is used as leverage sadly, to get contracts etc. In this case, several countries had complained about that specific prosecutor that was a sham against corruption. If the us pressured to have him gone, it's not an illegal matter by itself. If the us pressured to have him gone to protect biden's son from an investigation, it's a scandal and there should be heavy consequences. This allegation came from lutsenko just before the Ukrainian election. Trump and Republicans jumped on it, especially after Biden admitted to leveraging aid against this prosecutor. Lutsenko himself now says Hunter Biden was never implicated in this probe anyway (which was dormant, since the prosecutor was a crook). So we are back to square 1 : the us using aid as political pressure to advance an agenda, which is what the us does (Israel, abortion, etc). But nothing illegal. So why wouldn't it change anything? Please develop instead of being a troll. You seem to misunderstand something? This isn't a case of USA using political pressure to a foreign country to advance a political agenda of USA, but the president of USA using political pressure to a foreign country against his own domestic rivals. One is something Americans don't care about, the other is a path to dictatorship.
You misread my post. I was talking only about the Biden stuff. Of course the president asking to investigate political opponents is a crime. Biden admitted to threatening to withdraw a 1billion package if Ukraine did not fire the previous prosecutor general. Which would be the same as Trump actions if his son was involved. Looks like he was not, which changes the perspective.
I also somewhat misunderstood trainrunnef's post. (It's better after his late answer, which is sadly correct. However only changing the perception of 2/3% would be enough to stop at 4 years of trump. There can't be THAT MANY blind idiots right? Not 50% of voters can be totally oblivious to mischief? Everyone is supposed to have a breaking point at some point. Well I hope.)
But my post was about the Biden stuff. His son not being under investigation directly removes quite a bit of the shadow this move casted.
|
I see, thanks. I got it all mixed up.
|
On September 27 2019 03:54 Starlightsun wrote:
I wish we could fast forward to when the news isn't "Trump Trump Trump" every day. What else is going on in the US?
You should ignore the national news and just read your state and local papers. Tons of stuff is happening that you don't know about everyday that affects you a million more times then trump. Also these local news sources are slowly being bought up by rich congolmerates so you should get to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
