|
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 04:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2019 04:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote: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.
Except Ukraine never saw it being about military aid... Let's cut the spin eh?
Zelensky and his advisers believed that the White House may have frozen the aid package to Ukraine because of the proposed sale of Motor Sich, a Ukrainian factory that produces engines for missiles and jets, to a Chinese company. The U.S. has objected to that sale on national security grounds, and Trump’s then-National Security Adviser John Bolton urged Zelensky and his government to stop the sale during a visit to Kiev in August. “At the time China was more acute,” as an issue in U.S.-Ukrainian relations, than was the question of investigating Biden, says the official.
https://time.com/5686788/ukraine-no-connection-aid-biden/
|
On September 27 2019 07:15 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2019 04:15 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2019 04:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote: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. Except Ukraine never saw it being about military aid... Let's cut the spin eh? Show nested quote +Zelensky and his advisers believed that the White House may have frozen the aid package to Ukraine because of the proposed sale of Motor Sich, a Ukrainian factory that produces engines for missiles and jets, to a Chinese company. The U.S. has objected to that sale on national security grounds, and Trump’s then-National Security Adviser John Bolton urged Zelensky and his government to stop the sale during a visit to Kiev in August. “At the time China was more acute,” as an issue in U.S.-Ukrainian relations, than was the question of investigating Biden, says the official. https://time.com/5686788/ukraine-no-connection-aid-biden/ Except for the part where the Ukrainian President asks for Javalin missiles.I would also like to thank you·for.your great support in the area
of defense. . We. are ready to continue to cooperate for the next
steps. specifically we a·re almost. ready to buy more Javelins from
·_ the United· States for defense purposes .. (sorry about the wierd dots, its a copy paste issue with where I got it from)
www.cbsnews.com
|
On September 27 2019 07:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2019 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 27 2019 03:28 JimmiC wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Please don't presume about me and instead read the words I have written. Given your complaints about me you would think this wouldn't be a big ask, though I know it is.
The words you've written say that you will continue your presumptions, assigning them to me, and not quoting my original words. If that's untrue, I welcome the good news. Otherwise it's only fair people conclude your paraphrases of my positions are misinformed and should be disregarded completely if not accompanied by the "paraphrased" post.
I'll operate under the belief they are being so disregarded unless someone specifically says otherwise as to avoid more of these usually fruitless exchanges.
|
On September 27 2019 07:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2019 07:15 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 27 2019 04:15 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2019 04:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote: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. Except Ukraine never saw it being about military aid... Let's cut the spin eh? Zelensky and his advisers believed that the White House may have frozen the aid package to Ukraine because of the proposed sale of Motor Sich, a Ukrainian factory that produces engines for missiles and jets, to a Chinese company. The U.S. has objected to that sale on national security grounds, and Trump’s then-National Security Adviser John Bolton urged Zelensky and his government to stop the sale during a visit to Kiev in August. “At the time China was more acute,” as an issue in U.S.-Ukrainian relations, than was the question of investigating Biden, says the official. https://time.com/5686788/ukraine-no-connection-aid-biden/ Except for the part where the Ukrainian President asks for Javalin missiles. Show nested quote +I would also like to thank you·for.your great support in the area
of defense. . We. are ready to continue to cooperate for the next
steps. specifically we a·re almost. ready to buy more Javelins from
·_ the United· States for defense purposes .. (sorry about the wierd dots, its a copy paste issue with where I got it from) www.cbsnews.com Did you read the article? How can it be any clearer?
When President Donald Trump asked his counterpart in Ukraine to help investigate Trump’s political opponents, the Ukrainian President and his team did not see the request as linked to the release of U.S. military aid, a senior Ukrainian official tells TIME on Wednesday.
“I’m telling you – no, there was no such connection,” says the official, who took part in the call between Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25 but would only discuss it on condition of anonymity.
If you want to disagree with him and entertain conspiracy theories that is your prerogative.
|
Too bad this was based on a series of calls.
|
On September 27 2019 07:15 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2019 04:15 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2019 04:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote: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. Except Ukraine never saw it being about military aid... Let's cut the spin eh? Show nested quote +Zelensky and his advisers believed that the White House may have frozen the aid package to Ukraine because of the proposed sale of Motor Sich, a Ukrainian factory that produces engines for missiles and jets, to a Chinese company. The U.S. has objected to that sale on national security grounds, and Trump’s then-National Security Adviser John Bolton urged Zelensky and his government to stop the sale during a visit to Kiev in August. “At the time China was more acute,” as an issue in U.S.-Ukrainian relations, than was the question of investigating Biden, says the official. https://time.com/5686788/ukraine-no-connection-aid-biden/
Does it matter. Do you not find it inherently wrong for Trump acting as President to call a personal favor of digging up dirt on a political rival and funneling that though his personal lawyer? Especially when he singles out bidens son who timeline doesn't even match.
On September 27 2019 08:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2019 07:24 Gorsameth wrote:On September 27 2019 07:15 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 27 2019 04:15 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2019 04:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote: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. Except Ukraine never saw it being about military aid... Let's cut the spin eh? Zelensky and his advisers believed that the White House may have frozen the aid package to Ukraine because of the proposed sale of Motor Sich, a Ukrainian factory that produces engines for missiles and jets, to a Chinese company. The U.S. has objected to that sale on national security grounds, and Trump’s then-National Security Adviser John Bolton urged Zelensky and his government to stop the sale during a visit to Kiev in August. “At the time China was more acute,” as an issue in U.S.-Ukrainian relations, than was the question of investigating Biden, says the official. https://time.com/5686788/ukraine-no-connection-aid-biden/ Except for the part where the Ukrainian President asks for Javalin missiles. I would also like to thank you·for.your great support in the area
of defense. . We. are ready to continue to cooperate for the next
steps. specifically we a·re almost. ready to buy more Javelins from
·_ the United· States for defense purposes .. (sorry about the wierd dots, its a copy paste issue with where I got it from) www.cbsnews.com Did you read the article? How can it be any clearer? Show nested quote +
When President Donald Trump asked his counterpart in Ukraine to help investigate Trump’s political opponents, the Ukrainian President and his team did not see the request as linked to the release of U.S. military aid, a senior Ukrainian official tells TIME on Wednesday.
“I’m telling you – no, there was no such connection,” says the official, who took part in the call between Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25 but would only discuss it on condition of anonymity.
Trump is willing to withhold military aid do you think he's going to say yes and piss Trump off?
|
Of course he's gonna say he didn't feel like he was pressured. He needs the weapons. If he makes it sound it was linked to Biden, he's not getting them. Whether it was ever linked or not, it would be horrible for him to admit it.
|
|
|
On September 27 2019 07:15 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2019 04:15 KwarK wrote:On September 27 2019 04:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote: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. Except Ukraine never saw it being about military aid... Let's cut the spin eh? Show nested quote +Zelensky and his advisers believed that the White House may have frozen the aid package to Ukraine because of the proposed sale of Motor Sich, a Ukrainian factory that produces engines for missiles and jets, to a Chinese company. The U.S. has objected to that sale on national security grounds, and Trump’s then-National Security Adviser John Bolton urged Zelensky and his government to stop the sale during a visit to Kiev in August. “At the time China was more acute,” as an issue in U.S.-Ukrainian relations, than was the question of investigating Biden, says the official. https://time.com/5686788/ukraine-no-connection-aid-biden/
Have you ever asked a bullied kid if he is being bullied, while the bully is in the room?
|
Apparantly Fox is seriously considering dropping Trump over this Ukraine scandal, with Paul Ryan being one of the people pushing for it.
source
This morning, Sean Hannity told friends the whistle-blower’s allegations are “really bad,” a person briefed on Hannity’s conversations told me. (Hannity did not respond to a request for comment). And according to four sources, Fox Corp CEO Lachlan Murdoch is already thinking about how to position the network for a post-Trump future. A person close to Lachlan told me that Fox News has been the highest rated cable network for seventeen years, and “the success has never depended on any one administration.” (A Fox Corp spokesperson declined to comment.)
Among the powerful voices advising Lachlan that Fox should decisively break with the president is former House speaker Paul Ryan, who joined the Fox board in March. “Paul is embarrassed about Trump and now he has the power to do something about it,” an executive who’s spoken with Ryan told me. (Ryan did not return a call seeking comment.) But a person more sympathetic to Trump has told Lachlan that Fox should remain loyal to Trump’s supporters, even if the network has to break from the man. “We need to represent our viewers,” the source said. “Fox is about defending our viewers from the people who hate them. That’s where our power comes from. It’s not about Trump.”
From that last part, I wonder who would be the next person that represents Trumpist viewers but is not as openly crooked as Trump.
I like the 'now Ryan has the power to do something' quote too lmao. What was he doing as speaker then?
|
On September 27 2019 23:13 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Apparantly Fox is seriously considering dropping Trump over this Ukraine scandal, with Paul Ryan being one of the people pushing for it. sourceShow nested quote +This morning, Sean Hannity told friends the whistle-blower’s allegations are “really bad,” a person briefed on Hannity’s conversations told me. (Hannity did not respond to a request for comment). And according to four sources, Fox Corp CEO Lachlan Murdoch is already thinking about how to position the network for a post-Trump future. A person close to Lachlan told me that Fox News has been the highest rated cable network for seventeen years, and “the success has never depended on any one administration.” (A Fox Corp spokesperson declined to comment.) Show nested quote + Among the powerful voices advising Lachlan that Fox should decisively break with the president is former House speaker Paul Ryan, who joined the Fox board in March. “Paul is embarrassed about Trump and now he has the power to do something about it,” an executive who’s spoken with Ryan told me. (Ryan did not return a call seeking comment.) But a person more sympathetic to Trump has told Lachlan that Fox should remain loyal to Trump’s supporters, even if the network has to break from the man. “We need to represent our viewers,” the source said. “Fox is about defending our viewers from the people who hate them. That’s where our power comes from. It’s not about Trump.” From that last part, I wonder who would be the next person that represents Trumpist viewers but is not as openly crooked as Trump. I like the 'now Ryan has the power to do something' quote too lmao. What was he doing as speaker then?
We all know the speak of the house has zero power to check the president. Come on now!
|
|
|
sounds like he’s ‘intentionally’ mis spelling little to make it sound like how one might talk to a baby.
|
United States44275 Posts
He forgot how to spell little.
|
United States44275 Posts
On September 27 2019 23:44 brian wrote:
sounds like he’s ‘intentionally’ mis spelling little to make it sound like how one might talk to a baby.
Did he also intentionally misspell “discribing” in the followup tweet to defend his first misspelling?
|
he’ll claim so i’m sure, yes. a select fewfe people in the know would understand.
|
Trump loves infantilizing and contractions and "hashtaggable" insulting nicknames, it's 80% of how he discusses opposition. "Liddl' " is par for the course if a very odd way to contract it. The true stupidity is the follow-up where he calls an apostrophe a hyphen and misspells describing, which is just par for the covfurse.
|
have we forgotten covfefe?
He misspelled little, the end.
(and if your still shocked he doesn't know how to spell little, congratulation at waking up from your coma, we have some very bad news to tell you)
|
Ok, so it wasn't even an attempt at a coverup using an actual word then. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/OwXuJlL_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)
