Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

The “Whistleblower Complaint” isn’t a whistleblower complaint, it’s a closing argument

The “Whistleblower Complaint” isn’t a whistleblower complaint, it’s a closing argument

If CIA or other intelligence operatives are using their access to sensitive information in order to interfere in our political process, then that is a lot more frightening than a President raising the widely-reported corruption of his political opponent with the president of the country where the alleged corruption took place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNDIOd4Dqa4

When the so-called Whistleblower Complaint was released this morning, my first impression was that this was a very professionally-done document, likely crafted by a lawyer.

It looks like a lawyer letter. It’s very legalistic in many parts, cites to statutes and executive orders, and is heavily footnoted. It attempts to bring together evidence from disparate sources, including public news reports. It is, in every sense, a closing argument or brief in support of a position by someone who did not actually participate in the events about which he or she is writing.

The document does not at all read like we would expect a whistleblower complaint to read — alerting the appropriate authority to facts the whistleblower has learned and leaving the legal conclusions to those authorities.

The NY Times reports that the whistleblower is a CIA officer, likely an analyst, assigned at one time to White House duty, though the timing of that assignment is unclear. That would make sense considering the analytical nature of the document, and particularly the opening two sentences and later paragraph regarding classification:

I am reporting an “urgent concern” in accordance with the procedures outlined in 50 U.S.C. §3033(k)(5)(A). This letter is UNCLASSIFIED when separated from the attachment.

* * *

To the best of my knowledge, the entirety of this statement is unclassified when separated from the classified enclosure. I have endeavored to apply the classification standards outlined in Executive Order (EO) 13526 and to separate out information that I know or have reason to believe is classified for national security purposes. 1

• If a classification marking is applied retroactively, I believe it is incumbent upon the
classifying authority to explain why such a marking was applied, and to which specific
information it pertains.

* * *

[Fn 1] 1 Apart from the information in the Enclosure, it is my belief that none of the information contained herein meets the definition of”classified information” outlined in EO 13 526, Part 1, Section 1. 1. There is ample open-source information about the efforts I describe below, including statements by the President and Mr. Giuliani. In addition, based on my personal observations, there is discretion with respect to the classification of private comments by or instructions from the President, including his communications with foreign leaders; information that is not related to U.S. foreign policy or national security-such as the information contained in this document, when separated from the Enclosure-is generally treated as unclassified. I also believe that applying a classification marking to this information would violate EO 13526, Part 1, Section 1.7, which states: “In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to: (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; [or] (2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency.”

Who talks/writes like this? Lawyers and analysts steeped in national security law, and concerned about the nuances of classifications. In this case, the whistleblower likely was well-versed in national security law AND had legal help crafting the complaint.

Why go to the trouble of such a detailed explanation of what is/is not classified in the document? Why not leave that classification issue to the appropriate authorities?

Perhaps the whistleblower wanted the document to be leaked and wanted to make sure the leakers knew only to leak the letter, not the attachment:

This letter is UNCLASSIFIED when separated from the attachment.

* * *

To the best of my knowledge, the entirety of this statement is unclassified when separated from the classified enclosure.

In the coming days, we’re likely to find out more about the whistleblower. An exclusive interview with the Washington Post, a la Christine Blasey Ford, seems likely with or without a reveal of identity.

It’s too soon to say conclusively this was a CIA analyst or other intelligence community member, but if that turns out to be the case, then the implications are frightening. It will show that the worst conspiracy theories about the “deep state” were not conspiracy theories at all.

If CIA or other intelligence operatives are using their access to sensitive information in order to interfere in our political process, then that is a lot more frightening than a President raising the widely-reported corruption of his political opponent with the president of the country where the alleged corruption took place.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:
, ,

Comments

I doubt the ‘whistle-blower’ actually wrote this document, if it came out right after the phone call then maybe, but I believe this was written by the lawyers he/she engaged. the timing is right

    ROTONDARON in reply to ronk. | September 27, 2019 at 10:58 am

    Let’s remember, “most” of the Liberal, house members, are ‘ATTORNEYS”! None of them could even introduce a case into their respective courts, with this type of “no evidence”, material! 3rd party “heresy”, innuendo’s, suggestive theories, etc. { No judge will even entertain this type of case}……”YET”…..American Democrats, will “try” to scam the courts, & our Electorate, & Impeach this President,
    with this partisan crapola! *Demoncrats…..just ani’t what they used to be! these days….No honor, Integrity, or Patriatism…..Sad, AIn’t it?..:O{{{

    Connivin Caniff in reply to ronk. | September 27, 2019 at 12:44 pm

    Exactly. We should stop referring to him as a “whistle-blower” and, importantly, our side should not treat him as one, especially by expressing phony praise of his fake “whistle-blower” status. Our representatives must use every means necessary to deprive him of that false privilege, and thereby yank him by his yellow neck out into the sunshine, so that the Country can clearly see him for the lousy scoundrel he is. Miss Lindsay, where are you??

Brennan kept talking about things he “knew” and how these things he knew would bring down Trump. The CIA operative is Brennan’s man.

We have seen that Obama politicized the CIA, FBI, IRS, DOJ, and the State Department only need a little more tweaking to weaponize it.

Mueller failed, that was the FBI efforts of the Deep State to overthrow the President.

This is Brennan’s turn at the plate.

BTW, conspiracies happen all the time, it isn’t phony or fake, but the impression of conspiracies was changed after Kennedy was murdered. The FBI needed to discredit all of those people who kept coming up with all the discrepancies around the investigation and results of the investigation. They took conspiracy, which is a group of people coming together for a purpose – typically for nefarious purposes. Couple it with theory, and make out as if all those who see a hidden cabal are nuts. No matter how many facts back them up. Conspiracy comes from conspire, people do this all the time to achieve their ends.
The forces that keep being arraigned against Trump are far too neatly put together, too well fitted, to be happenstance. This coup attempt is a conspiracy and the left is counting on distrust of those who point out a conspiracy to be nuts thus giving them cover for their crimes.

Why would anyone think the President’s phone is NOT tapped?

    I read the complaint, and the first thing that I thought of was that this was the work of a team of professionals, not just one “concerned” person.

    I think they made a big mistake by making it look so professional.

      amwick in reply to amwick. | September 26, 2019 at 10:29 pm

      Sorry Tempejeff, I misplaced that comment… I was going to say that Tucker had a guest that explained the process of transcribing official Presidential phone calls, because it was her job. She said that normally two people listened and took notes, that was their job, SOP.

    ROTONDARON in reply to TempeJeff. | September 27, 2019 at 11:07 am

    Deep state “SWAMP”! Lindsy Graham doesn’t believe in the “deep state”…..{ he must be blind}…..This is not just another Conspiracy theory, it is “REAL, & IT IS HAPPENING”….

    The Liberal factions, throughout our GBMNT, both sides…..Swamp dwellers, with a purpose…..One World rule…..United Nations, running this world?…{ comprised of mostly dictators, Communists, Muslims, Oligarchies…..Guilty party: George Soros, Clintons, Obama, & many “enemies” in such critical dept’s as FBI…..CIA…..DNC…..NSC…..Law enforcement & watch dog dept’s, critical to our National Security, “many” are corrupt, & evil! Weed them out, & prosecute them! { Trump has made a great start: Comey, Rosenstein, Mueller, McCabe, Strozk, paige, Brennan}…..et al…..Keep up the great work President Trump! Most of America, is in your corner!…..:O}}}

As far as drafting the document, ask Perkins Coie the Law firm retained by Obama and Hillary. Question: Did Christopher Steele witness this too? LOL

PDJT studied the democrat playbook and has been patiently waiting for the right moment to turn it all around on them. The democrats were blindsided by the quick and full realease of the transcript. Then the rumour monger complaint. It wasn’t hard to play them, they more or less played themselves. Now what to do with that impeachment issue…

Not to belabor the obvious, but if this “whistleblower” had filed a complaint against (to pick someone at random) Obama, we’d already know who it is and there would already be a well developed campaign of intimidation underway.

Plus the media would be screaming about how unfair it is and that whistleblower statues are intended to protect “real” whistleblowers and they’re going to have to be changed to make sure atrocities like this never happen again.

    ROTONDARON in reply to irv. | September 27, 2019 at 11:13 am

    Besides all the “entities”, we are aware of that are trying to eliminate Trump……The “Media”, is complicit in the attempted assassination of President Trump!

    There are just a handful of “Media”, both in print, radio, & T.V. that are Conservative, Patriotic, & god supporting journalists! The rest of them…{ We all know who they are}…..MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN…{ & MORE}…..ARE THE “ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE”, PROSTITUTING THEMSELVES FOR A HEINOUS POLITICAL PARTY, { LIBRETARDS}….THAT HAS “LOST IT’S SOUL”, & PURPOSE!

Are the Dems pushing to have the whistleblower himself testify before their committee? If not, why not? He would seem to be an obvious witness to call, if they actually wanted a thorough investigation.

    CKYoung in reply to OldProf2. | September 27, 2019 at 2:26 am

    The democrats are waiting to see what the political fallout is going to be (internal polling etc.) If their polling indicates impeachment will damage them beyond the benefit gained by the “whistle-blower” they are going to throw said “whistle-blower” under the bus. “WE DIDN’T KNOW THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER WAS INSANE AND MENTALLY ILL, ALL WE WERE DOING IS SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH!”

    iRickee in reply to OldProf2. | September 27, 2019 at 2:23 pm

    The “whistleblower” didn’t actually witness anything.

legacyrepublican | September 26, 2019 at 10:47 pm

Whatever this whistleblower’s urgent concern is, it was based on the rumor mill, aka, gossip, not hard facts or any evidence.

Only the gullible think our government is something other than an organized crime syndicate

    INTERESTING THAT YOU SHOULD BRING THIS UP…….Remember Joseph Kennedy? Now think of the mafia, that had to go “legit”, to survive……Joe Kennedy, { organized crime connections}….inserted his ‘sons”, into Politics, & many of the Mafia, went underground, to continue their nefarious deeds…..{ follow Clinton’s path from Arkansas, to the white house}…..56+ “bodies”, mysterious deaths? suicides? No one has 56 “previous contacts/friends/aides that have perished, naturally, & without suspicion! Biden, Clinton’s, Obama’s, { & yes}….The Kennedy’s…..I would not be surprised to find out they all have “Mob COnnections”….Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, The Rat Pack, & Hollywood…..

    Put it all together……makes sense…..eh?

Perhaps the whistleblower wanted the document to be leaked and wanted to make sure the leakers knew only to leak the letter, not the attachment:

More likely a CYA so somebody else can be blamed when the document is inevitably leaked.

Intelligence analysts don’t write like that. This is the work of lawyers and the senate need to get the spreader of gossip in, under oath and make him spill the beans. This type of undermining of an elected President by government employees can’t continue.

An astute analysis, Mr. Jacobson. I have only skimmed it so far, because I actually had real work to do today. But my first impression was that this wasn’t the work of an ordinary whistleblower. Something’s up.

I agree that the whistleblower did not write the document. It’s far too clean and detailed. I suspect the Dem IC staffers did it for him.

I don’t see any possibility this is really a high ranked officer or somebody with real dirt, simply because the whole thing is all RUMINT as they say, Rumor Intelligence. I suspect every single one of the “I talked to several people and they said…” incidents is made up out of whole cloth, because the only way to come close to disproving that kind of claim is to interview *hundreds* of people and throw the whole White House into disorder, and EVEN if that was done and nobody said they were the source, wise heads in the MSM will still bob along with the crap of “Oh, it isn’t disproven, therefor it is proven”

Fast forward. This is how you get more Trump. Trump supporters and even skeptics smell a rat. After Kavanaugh, we’ve learned there is no bottom.

But there is no way this is pushing America into the warm embrace of Biden or Warren.

The coup will continue until AG Barr starts prosecuting the participants.

There are rumors afoot that Joseph Cofer Black, former CIA and Special Assistant to Romney’s 2012 campaign, is also a Member of the Board for Burisma Group.

    Paul In Sweden in reply to stablesort. | September 27, 2019 at 12:58 am

    I would like to see prosecutions too but I really have doubts that the FBI and DOJ will actually prosecute any of their own criminally. They do not want to tarnish the agencies and they are not subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

    It’s not a rumor:

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/mitt_romney_adviser_sits_on_burisma_board_of_directors.html

    That this too is not spreading like wildfire further confirms that we “conspiracy theorists” had it wrong only in the sense that it is so much worse than even we thought. Even now it still seems that people absolutely refuse to face reality. We really are the frogs in the boiling pot.

      The article says that Cofer Black joined the board in 2017, six months after Joe Biden’s son left. Wikopedia still shows him on the board through 2019. Somebody is wrong???

    Barr starts prosecuting 5 minutes after hell freezes over

      MarkSmith in reply to MarkS. | September 27, 2019 at 9:14 am

      Yep, he is part of the swamp. I am still a believer in Session. It is starting to look like insiders shut him down even before he got on board. He should have resigned like in the first month. As things become more obvious, Carter Page and Manfort were on the other team. The level of infiltration in Trump affairs is amazing. I still don’t know how he won the elections. Hillary must have been really bad or somehow Trump was able to stop them from the cheating they have been doing since the Kennedy/Nixon or both. Maybe the trucks with fake ballots have a few accidents and we did not hear about it because it would expose the cheating.

        Sessions BEGGED Trump to be his AG. His first action was to recuse himself from the Hillary e-mail investigation. Sessions IS part of the swamp. He just isn’t very bright.

          Ok, you really know it all. Just a few little things have come out recently that cut him off at the knees from DOJ. Might want to check them out before you spout. Ethics attorneys that were advising him were embedded anti-Trump insiders. Things are a lot more complex that appears on the surface. I think Trump know what was going on before he was even elected. I think the only thing that caught Trump by surprise is Flynn. That log jam is about to break with the Flynn.

          Stunning Rebuke – Federal Judge Throws Out Guilty Verdict for Flynn Partner and Acquits…

          https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/24/stunning-rebuke-federal-judge-throws-out-guilty-verdict-for-flynn-partner-and-acquits/

          No, we don’t “know it all”, but we know enough.

          Sessions asked to be AG and upon appointment he promptly recused himself, improperly, and allowed the most damaging witch hunt to take place. He could have stopped it all and he didn’t.

          Why? I don’t care. He is either corrupt or dog bone stupid.

          Can I get a “woof”?

          Easy answer to a complex problem. Thinking that Session could have stopped it all is a little naive and simplistic.

          Deep state is so embedded that I doubt anyone could do too much. In someways I mistrust Barr more that Sessions. Time will tell. As long as Wrey is around, it is an on going problem. Session was the least of the problem. DOJ is thick with problems two and three levels carerr types down from the top. Ag is not going to change that.

          MarkSmith in reply to Pasadena Phil. | September 27, 2019 at 6:42 pm

          “So, your position is that Sessions was either stupid and had no idea what he was doing or that he was being controlled so that he could not even resign? Is that it? cause I’m having trouble believing that.”

          Nope, I think Trump had an AG problem and he needed someone to plug the hole. He could trust Session. Session filled the gap until he could get a handle on the DOJ culture under control (which had Reince Priebus working against him). The culture was an uphill battle and Session was working it. Trump let Rosenstein stay, why?. At least he got Preet Bharara out of there. I think it is an illusion to think he could have stopped the Mueller investigation. Their were too many players in the game from SDNY, Congress and Lawfare. He did not have a chance. He stood his ground. Got Comey. I think a few years from now you will see that he set some pieces in play and other could not. Fat lady has not sung yet.

        Insiders did not shut Sessions down, Sessions shut himself down.

        Suppose, for the moment, that Jeff Sessions was sold on being AG, by the Establishment, for the purpose of making sure that the Servergate indictment never occurred, as well as to protect other Obama Administration people from criminal exposure. Then once installed, Sessions is informed that the conspiracy is going to attack Trump and his associates though the DOJ, using the Crossfire Hurricane counter intel operation. Sessions decides that he wants out, but is unable to simply leave the AG position. What to do? Recuse himself from any affiliation with the Russian Collusion investigation. When the conspiracy suggested that Rosenstein be brought in to handle that, Sessions acquiesced. Rather than go to Trump, his boss and tell him what was going on, Sessions simply hid in the bathroom in his office, with his hands over his ears.

        This might not be accurate. But, it sure looks like what happened. You do not remain in Congress as long as Sessions waa there, without being in the hip pocket of a number of people and interests. He was Establishment all the way.

          MarkSmith in reply to Mac45. | September 27, 2019 at 12:59 pm

          Valid argument. Only trouble is that he did try to resign early on. He also brought with him Steven Miller who has been a huge success for Trump. I think Sessions was a place holder until Trump could get someone in that he could trust (and he still hasn’t). Reince Priebus is the dirty player here. According to Roger Stone, Priebus was behind the Mueller appointment and my guess supporting Rosenstein role.

          Session was cut off at the knees as soon as he came on board. Notice how he has not trashed the President. Class act. Face it DOJ is not being run by Barr now. When I see actually indictments, just maybe I will believe otherwise.

          Sessions strong point was Judiciary. Trump has had huge success with Judge appointments.

          I know enough career people at DOJ to know how they loved Eric Holder. AG is not going to change that culture. Those are the people that can or can’t make an indictment happen.

          Trump knew the threat even before he took office. Sessions is optics.

          Remember Session ordered Rosenstein to resign and Trump over ruled it.

          Also, Sessions was legally required to recuse himself from overseeing the Russia investigation. It wasn’t his choice to make; it was legally mandated.

          Ethic attorneys in DOJ (that had links to the coup) got to him early. His hands were tied. Trump used Sessions advice to use EOs and was very successful with it. If things come out about Dick Dearborn then my position will change.

          Trump had to sell his sold to the RNC to get what he wanted. I don’t think Session was the establishment RNC package. Reince Priebus was and Trump had to tough it out. Still a few holders, but if he wins in 2020, they are gone.

          Exactly. Sessions could have informed Trump beforehand that he intended to delegate his duties as AG to others. Even if he was surrounded by enemies, he didn’t know that beforehand? I don’t see Sessions as a coward but as a sneaky fraud. He knew why he wanted to be AG and succeeded in getting it done.

          MarkSmith in reply to Mac45. | September 27, 2019 at 1:41 pm

          He offered Trump his resignation June ’17. Less than 3 months. Trump was played by Reince Priebus not Session. I think Trump knew it even before Session was appointed. Trump may whine about him, but Trump knew what he was doing and to blame Session is a red flag. Team Session was behind Trump winning the election. Not sure how that makes him a fraud.

          Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | September 27, 2019 at 5:12 pm

          So, your position is that Sessions was either stupid and had no idea what he was doing or that he was being controlled so that he could not even resign? Is that it? cause I’m having trouble believing that.

          Jeff Sessions was in public office for 36 years before he became the USAG. 20 of those years were as a US Senator. And, after all that time, we are supposed to believe that he was a moron? For not let the good ‘ol boy southern charm fool you.

          Sessions was a US Attorney for 12 years and you do not think he is incapable of analyzing the scope of laws and regulations? He knew, or should have known, that he did not have to recuse himself and he should not have done so. We are supposed to believe that if he thought, for one moment, that he had to recuse himself, that Rosenstein did not either have to recuse himself or be removed from the oversight of the obstruction of justice investigation? And, Sessions had to know about the obstruction investigation, because he should have known that a criminal complaint was needed for a SC, that the Russian Collusion investigation was a counter intel investigation not a criminal one and therefor, he should have inquired as to the basis for the SC. And, even recused, Jeff Sessions still had control over who has oversight over the SC.

          I agree that the whole world was against Trump and his close advisors in the WH were working either against him or to control him. After all, there were millions at stake. But, I doubt that Sessions was a white hat, let alone a white knight.

          Barry in reply to Mac45. | September 27, 2019 at 9:06 pm

          Mac has it right.

          Sessions isn’t stupid, he’s not even ignorant. He knew exactly what was going on and went along with it.

          The proof?

          Just look at what he did, and didn’t do.

Seriously, there is no choice left.

Burn Down the Mission

I said shortly after I read the leakers document it was written by a group of the Dems. It’s not and never was a “whistleblower” that term and law was used to generate the activity. The democrats coordinated this with their media.

If you didn’t understand this before, understand it now:

Shut the CIA down, put all intelligence in the military.
You can close the FBI as well. They do far more damage to the country than good.

Just like in the Kavanaugh inquisition, things were permitted that would be thrown out of a court of law. This WB is a phony because he/she was not part of the unit that the alleged crimes took place. Everything he/she says is hearsay and would not be allowed in a courtroom. Why are we allowing the degradation of the standards required to accuse a person of wrongdoing? To allow this person to attack and possibly bring down the POTUS with hearsay evidence is just unimaginable! I believe that most open-minded people will see this for what it is and reject the whole premise.

Some are saying the complaint reads as if an intel analyst wrote it, but it’s almozt certain, even if the whistle blower is an intel analyst, it was at least edited by an attorney.

The Leftist media keeps emphasizing that the whistle blower meticulously followed all the rules, but all this shows is that someone took pains to meet all regulatory and statutory process requirements. However, the transcript of the call in question shows there is no substance to the complaint. It’s as if a cop pulled over a driver without reasonable suspicion or probable cause then followed all the rules for an investigatory stop, except the stop was unlawful.

Hopefully the so-called whistle blower can be held liable for, at a minimum, filing a frivilous complaint.

    MarkSmith in reply to Barry Soetoro. | September 27, 2019 at 9:28 am

    It was written by a combination of lawfare lawyers and Schumer’s lawyers. Some say Bolton might have a hand in this too. Driving forces might be a combine effort of the Globalist and extreme socialist combining forces. (Soro and Koch living brother). I use to claim to be a Neocon, but those days are over. William Buckley is figurative today and we are now fighting a socialist Uni party.

I hear on the street that Schiff was involved with the whistle blowers complaint since he had this information since the start of August (before it was known by the general public).

It’s not that difficult. It’s part of a pattern of behavior. Trump said on national television that he would accept dirt from foreign countries to help his campaign. In a phone call with the president of Ukraine, Trump asked for dirt on his political opponent. Then the White House moved the record of the phone call to a highly secure computer system meant for top secret information.

    Trump asked for dirt on Crowd Strike and why the prosecutor investigating Hunter was fired, all legitimate inquiries. A “political opponent” is not exempt from the law

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 27, 2019 at 8:16 am

    except the Dems are combining conjecture with a dose of hearsay

    the phone call being moved is not a crime nor is it even indicative of some malfeasance that you seem to suggest here

    with the release of both the transcript and complaint, anyone can see the entire scheme here was unfounded while hiding under the anonymity of moles and within Trump’s own administration passing secondhand info (and third)

    the libs are starting to understand this was the wrong basket to throw their impeachment egg into

    you can tell by their subtle shift in narrative that it was now some Nixon level “cover-up” instead of foreign influence peddling

    but it is too late for the Dems to back out now

    their road to impeachment started at this rabbit hole

    MarkS: Trump asked for dirt on Crowd Strike and why the prosecutor investigating Hunter was fired, all legitimate inquiries.

    Except we already know why the prosecutor was fired. It was public knowledge at the time.

    fishstick: the phone call being moved is not a crime nor is it even indicative of some malfeasance that you seem to suggest here

    That a document that did not include any state secrets was moved to a computer server designed to hold top secrets is indicative that the move was for reasons other than to protect top secrets.

      MarkSmith in reply to Zachriel. | September 27, 2019 at 9:36 am

      Well it is public knowledge that Biden threaten to withhold funds (see the fifty posting of the public video) if they did not fire the prosecutor. Second, the phone call DID have material in it (more that most of Comey’s stuff that got classified), so another red herring.

        MarkSmith: Well it is public knowledge that Biden threaten to withhold funds (see the fifty posting of the public video) if they did not fire the prosecutor.

        That’s right. It’s public knowledge that the western powers, including the U.S. and E.U., insisted that the prosecutor be fired due to corruption as a condition of continued aid.

        MarkSmith: Second, the phone call DID have material in it (more that most of Comey’s stuff that got classified), so another red herring.

        Then the top secret information would have been redacted, and only made available to the intelligence committee.

          fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 27, 2019 at 10:47 am

          again you ignore Biden is literally on tape admitting to doing just what you are inferencing Trump “supposedly” did in a phone call

          the fact the other western powers wanted to oust said prosecutor doesn’t change the fact of what Biden did

          which amounts to that “evil foreign meddling” the libs get all worked up over

          fishstick: again you ignore Biden is literally on tape admitting to doing just what you are inferencing Trump “supposedly” did in a phone call

          No, they are not the same. Biden was working on behalf of U.S. interests, the stated of policy of which, in conjunction with U.S. allies, was to have Ukraine remove a corrupt prosecutor as a condition of continued aid. Trump was working for his personal political benefit.

          “From the perspective of Ukrainian legislation, he did not violate anything… Hunter Biden cannot be responsible for violations of the management of Burisma that took place two years before his arrival.” — former Ukraininan prosecutor who investigated gas giant Burisma

          fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 27, 2019 at 12:16 pm

          so you are telling us it is in the US interest for Biden (then VP) to intimidate the Ukrainian government due to their investigation of a company Biden’s son is employed with?

          again – Biden is on tape admitting this

          there is no way to weasel word your way out of this one

          fishstick: so you are telling us it is in the US interest for Biden (then VP) to intimidate the Ukrainian government due to their investigation of a company Biden’s son is employed with?

          The stated policy of the U.S., in conjunction with U.S. allies, was to have Ukraine remove a corrupt prosecutor as a condition of continued aid.

          fishstick: Biden is on tape admitting this

          Uh, no. There is no indication that Biden was telling the Ukrainians to stop an investigation of his son. Keep in mind that “Hunter Biden cannot be responsible for violations of the management of Burisma that took place two years before his arrival.”

          Actually, there is NO evidence that Biden was acting solely for US interests or for US interests at all. That is the reason for Trump’s request for the Ukrainian authorities to cooperate with Barr and Giuliani. The US is now investigating what the Ukrainians knew about the demand to fire the prosecutor. Where there demands made by the US prior to Biden’s ultimatum? Was the Biden ultimatum the last in a series of requests by the US for the removal of the prosecutor? If so, and if documentation exists at State or in the US, then it is unlikely that Trump would have mentioned Biden. But, if not, the motivation for the ultimatum becomes suspect, as it directly benefited Hunter Biden.

          There were also a few other things which came out of Ukraine which were used against Trump in the election; including DNC operatives going to the government of the Ukraine to gain compromising information on Trump and the fact that CrowdStrike used hacker DNA from an alleged hack of a Ukrainian artillery app, which CrowdStrike claimed was done by a GRU cyber-hacking unit, code named Fancy Bear, to claim that this unit hacked the DNC servers. The identification of Fancy Bear, as the hacker of the artillery app, along with the claim that the app was actually hacked, has been critically questioned by several cyber-security entities since. This all comes back to possible illegal actions taken by US citizens and entities against the current POTUS. It is all fair game.

          If people are going to give Biden the benefit of the doubt on the ultimatum, then they have to give it to Trump as well.

          fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 27, 2019 at 12:43 pm

          Zachriel: The stated policy of the U.S., in conjunction with U.S. allies, was to have Ukraine remove a corrupt prosecutor as a condition of continued aid.

          sure didn’t sound like that when Biden explained it

          I guess threatening to withhold monies because a “corrupt” prosecutor is investigating the company his son was (likely) peddling influence with doesn’t have the same ring to it, eh?

          like I said – you can weasel word it all you want, doesn’t change what Biden himself admittedly did

          Zachriel: Uh, no. There is no indication that Biden was telling the Ukrainians to stop an investigation of his son. Keep in mind that “Hunter Biden cannot be responsible for violations of the management of Burisma that took place two years before his arrival.”

          again – wrong analysis

          Biden admitted to the killing of an investigation into the company Biden’s son worked for, where Hunter was likely employed simply for political reasons

          Mac45: Actually, there is NO evidence that Biden was acting solely for US interests or for US interests at all.

          We keep posting the evidence, but we can’t make you look at it.

          April 2016: The US had openly urged Mr Poroshenko to sack Viktor Shokin, who had failed to prosecute a single member of the Yanukovich regime or the post-revolutionary elite.

          Mac45: If so, and if documentation exists at State or in the US, then it is unlikely that Trump would have mentioned Biden.

          Trump doesn’t work from facts.

          fishstick: Biden admitted to the killing of an investigation into the company Biden’s son worked for

          In the speech making the rounds, Biden boasts about his role in the removal of the prosecutor seen as corrupt, but nothing about the investigation into the company his son worked for. Are you referring to something else? If so, then please provide an exact quote and reference.

          There is no evidence that Hunter Biden broke any laws.

          fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 27, 2019 at 1:48 pm

          Zachriel: We keep posting the evidence, but we can’t make you look at it.

          but you didn’t show us any evidence

          all you have is making the claim Biden’s interests was solely the US’s when he bragged about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired

          that’s a claim – not evidence

          again – you ignore the company Biden’s son was working for got very lucrative deals in the same timeframe Biden himself went to

          oh and an investigation into said company got culled by Biden himself (in his own words)

          Zachriel: Trump doesn’t work from facts.

          and your side works from pure fantasy

          note – you aren’t disputing things are/have happened by trying to spin them to fit a false narrative of “orange man bad”

          not a good way to endear your position to those not drinking the same kool aid as you :p

          Zachriel: In the speech making the rounds, Biden boasts about his role in the removal of the prosecutor seen as corrupt, but nothing about the investigation into the company his son worked for.

          I think you might be right for once as Biden might not have directly implicated the company his son worked for (that I can find)

          but by going by your standard of “reasonable inference”

          “I said we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. “They said ‘you can’t do that, you have no authority, you’re not the president,’”

          “If the prosecutor’s not fired, you’re not getting the money.”

          “Well son of a bitch, he got fired, and they put in place someone who was solid.”

          well those are just 3 soundbites that show VP Biden was engaged in “political meddling and intimidation”, right?

          Zachriel: There is no evidence that Hunter Biden broke any laws.

          I didn’t claim that

          what I am implying is the company Hunter Biden worked for got an investigation off their back and some lucrative deals while his father was the #2 in a US presidential administration

          fishstick: but you didn’t show us any evidence

          We have provided contemporaneous reports about U.S. and European concerns about corruption in Ukraine. Search the archives. It was a significant issue at the time. That’s called evidence.

          fishstick: well those are just 3 soundbites that show VP Biden was engaged in “political meddling and intimidation”

          Yes, that’s right. The U.S. policy was to pressure Ukraine to fight corruption, including replacing Shokin, who was widely seen as corruptly protecting Kremlin-backed oligarchs who had looted the country before the revolution.

          fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 27, 2019 at 5:59 pm

          Zachriel: We have provided contemporaneous reports about U.S. and European concerns about corruption in Ukraine. Search the archives. It was a significant issue at the time. That’s called evidence.

          yes but it doesn’t change the fact of VP Biden strong-arming Ukrainian leadership of an immediate dismissal for foreign aid

          now doesn’t it?

          especially when the Ukrainian investigation into Burisma was dropped shortly after the appointment of the new state prosecutor

          now that could be “coincidence” but considering Hunter Biden had no expertise in the area of his employment was hired likely for influence peddling, THAT would be a mighty strange coincidence

          those are also curious little things called evidence

          Zachriel: Yes, that’s right. The U.S. policy was to pressure Ukraine to fight corruption, including replacing Shokin, who was widely seen as corruptly protecting Kremlin-backed oligarchs who had looted the country before the revolution.

          except you forget the entire Ukrainian regime is supposedly corrupt and has been for many years

          so why single out that and only that state prosecutor, hmm?

          artichoke in reply to Zachriel. | September 27, 2019 at 11:51 pm

          US interests are now presumptively what Trump says they are. Trump was elected. Biden’s term as VP is over and his party was defeated. Our policy changed — of course!

          Trump has done other regime changes. Look what he did in Saudi Arabia. Obama’s boys surely never saw that coming, ha! That’s the man we elected, Donald J. Trump, world class power player and mogul. If you don’t like it, you gotta beat him in the election!

          Unfortunately the only Dem that could have been electable, Biden, has been politically mortally wounded by the Ukraine corruption. Mueller failed. Election looks like another bust. Gotta go with impeachment! It was like flipping a switch.

          Oh by the way we have a treaty with Ukraine. We’re supposed to cooperate on corruption investigations. Trump was right to hide the stuff in a classified system so it wouldn’t leak out and disrupt the investigation.

          Z. you can kiss my you know what.

          fishstick: it doesn’t change the fact of VP Biden strong-arming Ukrainian leadership of an immediate dismissal for foreign aid

          That’s right. Per U.S. policy, the aid was dependent on rooting out the corruption of Kremlin-linked oligarchs who had looted the country before the revolution.

          fishstick: especially when the Ukrainian investigation into Burisma was dropped shortly after the appointment of the new state prosecutor

          Shokin was not actively investigating Burisma. He was fired, and the new prosecutor reopened the investigation.

          fishstick: so why single out that and only that state prosecutor, hmm?

          Because Shokin was prosecutor general, and was an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts. He was slow-walking the investigation of Burisma, among other things.

          artichoke: US interests are now presumptively what Trump says they are.

          Like most would-be autocrats, Trump thinks U.S. interests are identical to his own interests, especially with regards to holding onto power. However, his oath of office requires that he put the interest of the country first, while the law precludes his using the powers of the presidency for his personal benefit.

          artichoke: Look what he did in Saudi Arabia.

          Saudi agents sawed up a journalist working for the Washington Post. Good job!

          fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 28, 2019 at 9:47 am

          Zachriel: That’s right. Per U.S. policy, the aid was dependent on rooting out the corruption of Kremlin-linked oligarchs who had looted the country before the revolution.

          so the same US policy doesn’t extend for the now president Trump?

          remember – the investigations into this Biden affair were ongoing prior to Zelensky’s election

          not to mention the newly elected Ukrainian president is on record (with several of his own staffers) disputing your very claims that Trump was strong-arming him into “foreign election interference”

          Zachriel: Shokin was not actively investigating Burisma. He was fired, and the new prosecutor reopened the investigation.

          apparently Shokin says otherwise

          and the new prosecutor actually closed the investigation

          he didn’t re-open it

          instead a group of US lawyers contacted the new state prosecutor shortly after his appointment and what did you know – the Burisma investigation got dismissed

          Zachriel: Because Shokin was prosecutor general, and was an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts. He was slow-walking the investigation of Burisma, among other things.

          true Shokin was corrput but you just made the claim a sentence before that he wasn’t investigating Burisma

          however we do know Hunter Biden was flagged by the Ukrainians upon his hire

          now, Hunter likely did no illegal activity but he was suspected of his job position being Burisma doing some political posturing

          but you couple the above with VP Biden’s strong-arming the Ukrainian government and the case against Burisma summarily being dismissed by the new state prosecutor…

          well one can “reasonably inference” some shady shit was going on, right?

          Zachriel: Like most would-be autocrats, Trump thinks U.S. interests are identical to his own interests, especially with regards to holding onto power. However, his oath of office requires that he put the interest of the country first, while the law precludes his using the powers of the presidency for his personal benefit.

          here you start off with an assumption then compound it with biased commentary void of any honesty

          like the whistleblower complaint – it is nothing but hearsay and conjecture of you libs believe to be true but where the evidence and facts fall extremely short

          because if anything you said was accurate, then the Dems would be drafting articles of impeachment on the very issues you typed out here but are they instead complaining about a “cover-up” instead of any actual malfeasance (which is non-existent) that you listed

          Zachriel: Saudi agents sawed up a journalist working for the Washington Post. Good job!

          you are actually blaming Trump for that?

          yet I would bet you didn’t even bat an eye for the Obama-Iran deal that literally put billions in their hands for nothing but a false promise in return

          which Isreal would later expose a short year later in how the Iranian regime didn’t even honor that deal from day zero

          Obama did a great job there, right?

          fishstick: so the same US policy doesn’t extend for the now president Trump?

          Sure it does, but apparently Trump is only concerned with investigations that directly impact his electoral chances.

          fishstick: disputing your very claims that Trump was strong-arming him into “foreign election interference”

          If you watch the video, he says he doesn’t want to get involved. It’s like watching a hostage video.

          fishstick: and the new prosecutor actually closed the investigation

          They reviewed the case, and publicly stated that they have found no evidence of corruption by the Bidens.

          fishstick: Hunter likely did no illegal activity but he was suspected of his job position being Burisma doing some political posturing

          Well, duh. They were trying to get out from underneath the corruption that was endemic to the system before the revolution.

          fishstick: apparently Shokin says otherwise

          Right. The prosecutor widely seen in Ukraine and the West as corruptly protecting Kremlin-linked kleptocrats. And now you can see the rotten foundations of your position.

          fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 28, 2019 at 12:17 pm

          Zachriel: Sure it does, but apparently Trump is only concerned with investigations that directly impact his electoral chances.

          again – this is conjecture not supported by the transcript

          and the Ukrainian president himself (along with some staffers) contest there was a purposed withholding of funds for “quid pro quo”

          Zachriel: If you watch the video, he says he doesn’t want to get involved. It’s like watching a hostage video.

          really now? more conjecture to discredit an actual statement of no “quid pro quo”?

          Zachriel: They reviewed the case, and publicly stated that they have found no evidence of corruption by the Bidens.

          actually what they found was Hunter Biden did not break the law while in the employ of Burisma

          however, whether or not VP Biden’s actions will meet some kind of charge (unlikely) remains to be seen as that part of the investigation is still ongoing

          Zachriel: Well, duh. They were trying to get out from underneath the corruption that was endemic to the system before the revolution.

          except you conveniently leave out Burisma acquiring big contract with VP Biden foreign visits

          also the timeline of the dropped investigation along with Biden’s own admission doesn’t help his own corruption matters much

          Zachriel: Right. The prosecutor widely seen in Ukraine and the West as corruptly protecting Kremlin-linked kleptocrats. And now you can see the rotten foundations of your position.

          except you ignore the words and actions of VP Biden in his role of getting him fired, for what you are accusing Trump of now

          except with Trump – you rotten foundation is based entirely on hearsay

          like I said before, you cannot weasel word your way out of this one

          fishstick: again – this is conjecture not supported by the transcript

          Of all the things Trump could have asked as a favor, it was for dirt on his political opponents.

          fishstick: actually what they found was Hunter Biden did not break the law while in the employ of Burisma

          That’s right. They said he had broken no Ukrainian laws. They forward income information to the U.S. so the tax authorities there can verify that he properly reported his income.

          fishstick: however, whether or not VP Biden’s actions will meet some kind of charge (unlikely) remains to be seen as that part of the investigation is still ongoing

          What law? He was acting to further U.S. aims in Ukraine, consistent with stated U.S. and E.U. policy.

          fishstick: also the timeline of the dropped investigation along with Biden’s own admission doesn’t help his own corruption matters much

          You have the timeline wrong. Documentary evidence shows that Shokin was slow-walking the investigation into Burisma and other corrupt organizations. The U.S. and E.U. pressured Ukraine into firing Shokin. Shokin’s successor reopened the investigation, but closed it a year later. Ukraine has again reopened the investigation of Burisma, but the allegations concern the period before Hunter Biden joined the organization. Ukrainian prosecutors note that the U.S. has not provided any evidence of wrongdoing by either of the Bidens.

          fishstick: except you ignore the words and actions of VP Biden in his role of getting him fired, for what you are accusing Trump of now

          Biden asked for something that was in furtherance of the explicit policy of the United States, and was clearly acting in his capacity of a representative of the Obama Administration. Trump was asking for dirt on his political opponents.

          fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 29, 2019 at 6:36 pm

          Zachriel: Of all the things Trump could have asked as a favor, it was for dirt on his political opponents.

          again – its conjecture not supported by the transcript

          and the Ukrainians are on record stating they were not pressured into “finding dirt” on his “political opponent”

          Zachriel: That’s right. They said he had broken no Ukrainian laws. They forward income information to the U.S. so the tax authorities there can verify that he properly reported his income.

          except that isn’t the real issue but whether Hunter’s employment itself was the impropriety

          seeing as he was the VP’s son, landed sweetheart deals for Burisma, and had zero expertise in his position

          you know – that kind of stuff

          Zachriel: What law? He was acting to further U.S. aims in Ukraine, consistent with stated U.S. and E.U. policy.

          I don’t know, maybe what you are accusing Trump of?

          Zachriel: You have the timeline wrong. Documentary evidence shows that Shokin was slow-walking the investigation into Burisma and other corrupt organizations.

          here you misjudge the timeline

          the investigation was literally dropped by the new state prosecutor after VP Biden got Shokin fired

          Zachriel: The U.S. and E.U. pressured Ukraine into firing Shokin. Shokin’s successor reopened the investigation, but closed it a year later.

          actually Shokin’s successor dropped the investigation after a visit from US lawyers associated with Burisma

          the state prosecutor appointed before Zelensky’s election has re-opened it in regards to past activities by Burisma

          Zachriel: Ukraine has again reopened the investigation of Burisma, but the allegations concern the period before Hunter Biden joined the organization.

          from what I’m reading, it was only Hunter Biden’s role that got dismissed as a potential infraction

          Zachriel: Ukrainian prosecutors note that the U.S. has not provided any evidence of wrongdoing by either of the Bidens.

          actually the Ukrainians are the ones who requested the exchange of evidence because no one in the state department is cooperating with them on that matter

          Zachriel: Biden asked for something that was in furtherance of the explicit policy of the United States, and was clearly acting in his capacity of a representative of the Obama Administration.

          except for that timeline quirk where Hunter Biden is on Burisma’s board and got a sweetheart deal + an investigation off their backs

          again – why was that state prosecutor fired at that moment and not before?

          Zachriel: Trump was asking for dirt on his political opponents.

          again a misrepresentation of the transcript where there was no “quid pro quo”

          the transcript reads Trump more in asking the incoming Ukrainian president to look into the possible wrongdoing by the former US officials into their body of politics

          which is a reasonable and not illegal request

          remember CrowdStrike from our previous conversation – well they apparently were over in Ukraine also

          Please see below.

      fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 27, 2019 at 10:42 am

      but that is an assumption (made in poor faith) on your end

      what I am getting at is it is not illegal since the president can classify his own conversations however he wants to

      and Trump may have done so for the legitimate reasoning of suspecting unwarranted personnel were accessing his communications through the other server

      which looks highly likely at this point and something the DNI head referenced to during his testimony

        fishstick: but that is an assumption

        What is an assumption? That the text of the phone call was removed to a computer system designed to keep top secret information? There was nothing redacted in the text, so it clearly didn’t contain anything considered top secret information.

        fishstick: what I am getting at is it is not illegal since the president can classify his own conversations however he wants to

        It’s indicative of a corrupt motive.

          fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 27, 2019 at 12:10 pm

          well you made the assumption that the entirely legal action of Trump was part of some nefarious scheme to undermine the rule of law

          again – you are assuming some corrupt motive where none exists

          if you listened to the DNI head yesterday, then the leaks of the president’s phone calls were likely from own staffers whom had access to that server

          and the file being on that server wasn’t against any statute because the president has that classification authority

          fishstick: well you made the assumption that the entirely legal action of Trump was part of some nefarious scheme to undermine the rule of law

          It’s hardly an assumption, but a reasonable inference given the content of the phone record.

          The only “indications” are that you are a corrupt communist killer dedicated to the destruction of the United States.

          You will and do lie about everything.

          People like you are sick and twisted.

          fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 27, 2019 at 12:59 pm

          Zachriel: It’s hardly an assumption, but a reasonable inference given the content of the phone record.

          again – the president has the authority to classify his conversations how he wants to

          there is no there there due to the content of the phone record having no strong-arming of the Ukrainian president

          thus your “reasonable inference” revolves around the theory where the president covered up a “crime” that wasn’t one, where the “cover-up” itself is an entirely legal action

          fishstick: there is no there there due to the content of the phone record having no strong-arming of the Ukrainian president

          Half of Ukraine is occupied by Russia resulting in continuing international tension and threat of war, and Trump decides the most important issue is acquiring dirt on his political opponent based on a conspiracy theory.

          fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 27, 2019 at 2:28 pm

          honestly I think I only ever down voted a post of yours twice

          but damn yours above me really is the most deserving I have seen from you yet

          you can literally read that full transcript between 2 presidents and nothing in there even suggests any of THAT transpired

          you almost sound as bad as Schiff there (almost)

          because first off – Russia has nothing to do with this topic here

          then second – blame the Obama regime if they do offend you so

          remember it was HRC who wanted the “Russian reset” and it was the Obama regime who have the pro-Russian soundbites of the Uranium One deal, standing idle as Putin stretched the Russian border and who famously quoted “tell Putin I’ll have more flexibility after the election” and “the 80’s called, they want their foreign policy back”

          so don’t be blaming Trump for Russia my man because his stance against them in his first term has been much harsher than Obama’s eight

          and third – I mean you are really twisting that transcript to make it sound that something really improper happened

          I guess the plausible idea that there could have been real strong-arming done by way of Biden and the Democratic camp using Ukrainian resources during the 2016 election is some sort of misnomer to you?

          I guess Trump is guilty for the Ukrainian president to have the gall to bring that topic up for discussion, eh?, then for him to “lie” afterwards that Trump didn’t coerce him definitely means they are in cahoots to bring Biden down

          right?

          fishstick: you can literally read that full transcript between 2 presidents and nothing in there even suggests any of THAT transpired

          That’s exactly what happened. Zelensky said Ukraine needed more weapons, so Trump says he needs a favor and starts rambling about conspiracies theories and Biden. He was asking for dirt on his political opponent.

          fishstick: Russia has nothing to do with this topic here

          Huh? Half of Ukraine is occupied by Russia, and Ukraine is in desperate need of U.S. support.

          fishstick: remember it was HRC who wanted the “Russian reset”

          That’s right. The idea was to draw Russia into the community of nations to help create a more stable international framework. When Russia annexed Crimea, though, Clinton changed course and worked to put punitive sanctions on Russia in place. Putin is still harboring a grudge, and was more than happy to interfere in the U.S. election to get revenge on Clinton. And you and your ilk played along, pretending it never happened.

          fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 27, 2019 at 5:43 pm

          Zachriel: That’s exactly what happened. Zelensky said Ukraine needed more weapons, so Trump says he needs a favor and starts rambling about conspiracies theories and Biden. He was asking for dirt on his political opponent.

          but that is not what happened at all

          even the Ukrainian president and his staff even contests your dumb theory

          besides – it isn’t asking for dirt or being a conspiracy theory when those things actually happened

          I think you would agree (Russia Russia Russia), that we should be worried when US government officials are abed and interfering with foreign bodies, right?

          and this guy, Zelenskyy, was literally elected on an anti-corruption platform because the whole former Ukrainian administration was damn corrupt

          (hint: those are the people the Dems were talking to)

          you may not know this but investigations were already opening into this before his election

          Zachriel: Huh? Half of Ukraine is occupied by Russia, and Ukraine is in desperate need of U.S. support.

          yet you don’t blink an eye at VP Biden literally strong-arming Ukraine over a billion dollars in aid that could have tanked their economy

          and he’s on tape bragging about it

          there is no speculation there pal

          Zachriel: That’s right. The idea was to draw Russia into the community of nations to help create a more stable international framework.

          yeah and like with everything the Dems do on the world stage, it proved to be overly optimistic

          Obama even dropped a planned missile defense grid in eastern Europe and then reduced our nuclear arsenal, much of that being swindled by… wait for it… Russia

          Zachriel: When Russia annexed Crimea, though, Clinton changed course and worked to put punitive sanctions on Russia in place.

          again – where was Obama during this?

          Zachriel: Putin is still harboring a grudge, and was more than happy to interfere in the U.S. election to get revenge on Clinton. And you and your ilk played along, pretending it never happened.

          what grudge?

          all Putin did while Obama was in charge was run circles around his boney ass on the world stage

          we never forgot, it is you guys that did by trying to blame Obama’s failures on Trump

          fishstick: but that is not what happened at all

          It’s right in the transcript. Trump says Ukraine is in debt to the U.S., Ukraine says they need weapons, Trump says he wants a favor, Trump starts rambling about conspiracy theories and investigations concerning CrowdStrike and the Bidens, then Trump says his personal attorney will be in touch. Meanwhile, Giuliani had already laid the groundwork.

          fishstick: yet you don’t blink an eye at VP Biden literally strong-arming Ukraine over a billion dollars in aid that could have tanked their economy

          That’s right, because the U.S. wasn’t going to give aid to a country that still had Kremlin-linked oligarchs being protected by vestiges of the previous corrupt regime in the Ukrainian government.

          fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 28, 2019 at 10:10 am

          Zachriel: It’s right in the transcript. Trump says Ukraine is in debt to the U.S., Ukraine says they need weapons, Trump says he wants a favor, Trump starts rambling about conspiracy theories and investigations concerning CrowdStrike and the Bidens, then Trump says his personal attorney will be in touch. Meanwhile, Giuliani had already laid the groundwork.

          was this taken from the parody transcript of yours a few scrolls down?

          and again – it is not a conspiracy theory when the very things happened as this investigation was already underway before Zelensky got elected

          and nothing about sharing intel is actually illegal you know, especially when it comes to investigating and exposing foreign corruption

          after all, CrowdStrike supposedly used infected Ukrainian software to help “determine” Russia hacked the DNC servers

          (again from our previous conversations – since there was no US inspection on said servers, the validity of any such determination is questionable)

          THAT is why their name popped up you know

          but the idea there was a “shakedown” is not present in the text, no matter how much you try to type out that it was

          even the Ukrainians are saying none of that occurred

          Zachriel: That’s right, because the U.S. wasn’t going to give aid to a country that still had Kremlin-linked oligarchs being protected by vestiges of the previous corrupt regime in the Ukrainian government.

          except the timelines don’t match up with your scenario

          as that former president had already been ousted years before

          so why did it take VP Biden threatening to withhold a billion dollars for Ukraine to finally get rid of a state prosecutor, if he was known to be part of that old corrupt establishment?

          apparently Shokin could easily had been dismissed anytime they wanted, so why was it only done at that particular time?

          fp: was this taken from the parody transcript of yours a few scrolls down?

          It’s taken from the rough transcript provided by the U.S. government.

          fp: and nothing about sharing intel is actually illegal

          Unless there is a corrupt motive. Using government resources for personal gain is illegal and an abuse of power.

          fp: so why did it take VP Biden threatening to withhold a billion dollars for Ukraine to finally get rid of a state prosecutor, if he was known to be part of that old corrupt establishment?

          Because corruption in Ukraine was deeply embedded in the government from before the revolution, with Kremlin-linked oligarchs siphoning off the country’s wealth. A lot of powerful people were tainted by association, so there was a lot of political resistance to uncovering the wrongdoing.

          The previous comments should be attributed to fishstick.

          fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 28, 2019 at 12:07 pm

          Zachriel: It’s taken from the rough transcript provided by the U.S. government.

          I think that “rough” translation only exists in your head

          as the full transcript does not describe the quid pro quo you libs are claiming

          Zachriel: Unless there is a corrupt motive. Using government resources for personal gain is illegal and an abuse of power.

          except you have to prove there was a corrupt motive here, which you can’t because it is conjecture not supported by the transcript itself

          Zachriel: Because corruption in Ukraine was deeply embedded in the government from before the revolution, with Kremlin-linked oligarchs siphoning off the country’s wealth. A lot of powerful people were tainted by association, so there was a lot of political resistance to uncovering the wrongdoing.

          that is hardly a good enough reason that explains VP Biden’s strong-arming in getting a state prosecutor fired, AFTER what you just described in that little paragraph

          fishstick: I think that “rough” translation only exists in your head

          “CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion.”

          fishstick: as the full transcript does not describe the quid pro quo you libs are claiming

          Zelensky: we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

          Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though

          However, a quid pro quo is not required for the conversation to be an abuse of power, as Trump is asking a foreign power for dirt on a political opponent.

          fishstick: that is hardly a good enough reason that explains VP Biden’s strong-arming in getting a state prosecutor fired

          The U.S. and European powers all wanted Shokin gone because he was shielding corrupt Kremlin-linked kleptocrats from investigation.

          fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 28, 2019 at 7:46 pm

          Zachriel: “CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion.”

          point taken

          but then THAT tells you two things

          1) there can’t be much more within this 30 minute conversation otherwise the Democrats would be crying for the full unredacted transcript

          and 2) there really was reason to believe their phone call had levels of classification within them

          Zachriel: Zelensky: we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes… Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though

          except the entire context of this argument lacks the “quid pro quo” needed to make it work

          asking a favor for better communications in dealing with corruption abroad is not the same as strong-arming a foreign administration in withholding a billion dollars if they don’t fire a state prosecutor

          plus your timelines don’t match up because the Ukrainians themselves are on record stating there was no “pressure” put on them by Trump to investigate the Biden

          but the funny part is your previous argument begs to question the entire exchange itself

          so your argument cannot have it both ways

          Zachriel: However, a quid pro quo is not required for the conversation to be an abuse of power, as Trump is asking a foreign power for dirt on a political opponent.

          but without the “quid pro quo”, you have no legitimate case

          and asking the incoming Ukrainian administration to investigate possible corruption that might have been done by a former member of the US government (remember Biden is on tape admitting to such), is not the same as asking for dirt on a political opponent

          you got that confused with the Steele dossier – you know that document compiled by a foreign agent using unverified foreign intel that was used to spy on Donald Trump during his election year

          funny you never make mention of this one

          Zachriel: The U.S. and European powers all wanted Shokin gone because he was shielding corrupt Kremlin-linked kleptocrats from investigation.

          that’s true, I’m not arguing that

          all I’m saying is the timing of his firing is highly suspicious, especially considering how easily Shokin was fired after the US threat was made

          so why wasn’t he gone before?

          fishstick: 1) there can’t be much more within this 30 minute conversation otherwise the Democrats would be crying for the full unredacted transcript

          There is probably no complete transcript or recording, though that should be clarified as the investigation proceeds. However, there are many witnesses to the conversation. The White House may claim executive privilege, but there may be sufficient evidence for the courts to allow subpoenas to go forward.

          fishstick: and 2) there really was reason to believe their phone call had levels of classification within them

          Those would show as redactions.

          fishstick: except the entire context of this argument lacks the “quid pro quo” needed to make it work

          Oh gee whiz. Zelensky asks for missiles, and Trump immediately asks for a favor. What matters is that the ask was for dirt on his political opponents.

          fishstick: but without the “quid pro quo”, you have no legitimate case

          That is incorrect. Asking for dirt on your political opponents is soliciting help with your political campaign, which is against the law.

          fishstick: and asking the incoming Ukrainian administration to investigate possible corruption that might have been done by a former member of the US government (remember Biden is on tape admitting to such)

          That is incorrect. Establishing a stable democracy in Ukraine was U.S. policy at the time, and considered to be in U.S. interests. Biden asked what the U.S. and other western governments were asking, that a prosecutor be removed who was impeding investigations into endemic corruption.

          fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 29, 2019 at 6:53 pm

          Zachriel: There is probably no complete transcript or recording, though that should be clarified as the investigation proceeds.

          well there would be if there was a summation to make a transcript

          it is likely the details of their 30 min conversation would hold alot of sensitive and classified material

          Zachriel: However, there are many witnesses to the conversation.

          what are you talking about here?

          the entire whistleblower complaint was second and third handed information using media stories to try and collaborate it

          Zachriel: The White House may claim executive privilege, but there may be sufficient evidence for the courts to allow subpoenas to go forward.

          who they gonna subpoena though?

          the whistleblower is anonymous, his sources are anonymous, with the varied info being relayed through the media

          in court – it will amount to nothing more than hearsay

          did you even read the DNI and DOJ analysis on said complaint?

          Zachriel: Those would show as redactions.

          except those “redactions” wouldn’t be present in a contextual summation of a 30 min phone call into 5 or 6 paragraphs

          Zachriel: Oh gee whiz. Zelensky asks for missiles, and Trump immediately asks for a favor. What matters is that the ask was for dirt on his political opponents.

          except there was no “quid pro quo” or an or-else ultimatum

          because you see THAT existed with VP Biden

          but your argument falls even further apart with the statements of the Ukrainians themselves saying there was no pressure

          Zachriel: That is incorrect. Asking for dirt on your political opponents is soliciting help with your political campaign, which is against the law.

          but you actually have to prove it and your argument of a “quid pro quo” would have to go beyond the merit of investigating possible US corruption into their own government

          which is more likely what happened than your wannabe argument

          Zachriel: That is incorrect. Establishing a stable democracy in Ukraine was U.S. policy at the time, and considered to be in U.S. interests.

          except one would have to believe that was only the case

          again – the curious actions of Burisma and Hunter Biden being in their employ throws an inconvient spanner into the works and WHY it took until that moment for Shokin to be rid of

          Zachriel: Biden asked what the U.S. and other western governments were asking, that a prosecutor be removed who was impeding investigations into endemic corruption.

          except for that he strong-armed a foreign government over a billion dollar loan

        You are arguing with a corrupt communist that is PAID to do exactly what it is doing here.

        My advice, call it names and don’t engage it further.

        They lie about everything.

    I clicked over to your blog where you refer to Tea-baggers and racists for Trump supporters.

    The rest of your trolling is insulting to the intelligence and do you people in the insane Left think you have the credibility outside your Cult to make arguments the rest of us won’t blow-off right away?

    You probably do becuase of your extremely low opinion of Trump supporters or should I say Tea-baggers?

Zachriel….are you delusional…stupid…or have the derangement syndrome but bad….hard to tell. Let me guess you are all cool with ACTUAL corruption and wrong doing by the Democrats..nevermind…clearly you are….

BTW, the “super talent agent” Ari Emanuel who is CEO of Endeavor, the money-losing company which again pulled its IPO yesterday, is another of Rahm’s brothers cashing in on connections. Like they don’t lose enough of their private investors’ money already so they want ours.

The Ukraine caper is not dirt in the usual sense. Nor is the email server fiasco. These involve serious violations of law.

The leftists involved here are trying to kill two birds with one stone because this baloney is going to knock out Biden. The spotlight is shining on his Ukraine shenanigans and his campaign is finished.
I agree with a previous comment that this event proves that the deep state is deeper and much more dangerous to our country than I previously thought.
I hope God give Trump the strength to fight them to the end.

This person was a plant. According to WaPo, he was only assigned to the White House for 3 to 6 months. Swooped in and swooped out. To me this reads like opposition research. All the citations to news articles and reports is designed to make a case much as you say it makes a legal case. I did recognize too that this was written as a legal brief. I agree that the typical whistleblower would write a 2 page double spaced memo not a highly researched dossier. This person didn’t just outline an event, he interviewed dozens if not a hundred people before writing this. What kind of whistleblower does that? Once you start doing that you risk exposing yourself before you can report your claim. This was part of a very elaborate team effort. Likely a group of people who collaborated. That group of people is very likely the “unnamed administration officials” that are mentioned throughout.

    MarkSmith in reply to DanJ1. | September 27, 2019 at 9:51 am

    Kinda funny that Nixon was worried about being spied on. Level of spying on Trump really make you think that they have been doing this all along. Must have started with LBJ knocking off Kennedy with the CIA help. CIA Manchurian Obama might be the end of their rule.

      NPR show last night was talking with an author of a book on Pence making a connection between him and this attempt to dump Trump. They seem to think that Pence will do anything to be Prez.

“If…” How much more proof do h more proof do we need that the CIA and FBI are interfering with out elections?

He states that he received a readout of the call but not a transcript. I’m curious as to the difference? I also wonder why he relies on extensive interviews, I mean, conversations, with anonymous White House officials when he could have just quoted the readout???? It also seems that access to readouts would be restricted which means that he could be identified by that distribution list. He likely started in mid-April and left in August after submitting the dossier. HR records should make the job easy too.

Reading the report, my very first thought was “This is not a ‘whistleblower’, this is someone unhappy about policy from a political point of view.” And that is, by definition not “blowing the whistle”, and receives no protection under the law.

In a just world, it would be a quick, “You’re fired for undermining your boss” and done.

Terence G. Gain | September 27, 2019 at 11:12 am

I believe Professor Jacobson’s statement above is the best and most succinct statement of this scandal (which is another attempted coup). but with profound respect a careful reading of the Transcript shows that it was Zelensky, not President Trump, who raised the issue of ongoing investigations.

Definitely an orchestrated hit. I expect the Democratic members of the committee coordinated with the so called 2nd or 3rd hand whistleblower to draft this complaint along with their lawyers and some outside counsel. No legitimate whistleblower documenting their first hand knowledge of a situation would write like this.

This is all blowing up in DemocRats’ faces. Long time Democrats I know are appalled we’re being dragged through yet another phony witch hunt. Democrat voters will turn on their insane party. November 2020 is going to be fun!

    There is no way they can do the “Hope and Change” pivot for the General Election now. They are stuck in a exclusively negative message which considering the state of the country will backfire badly.

PDJT as chief leo of US was merely asking for Ukrainian help with an investigation into the shady activities of the Bidens who may have broken US law.

With all this “Crapola”, being raised by the Libreatards……Where is the criminal proceedings re Hillary, & her blatant criminality? Obstruction of Justice…..Sale of our Uranium to Russia, & Slick perverted Willie, getting half a million for a ‘speech” in Moscow?…{ He ain’t worth 2 cents}…..175 million$’s, to the Clinton Foundation…..{ & many $’s from other “Enemy”countries to this fdntn}…..33,000 “ERASED” e-mails…..Clinton’s { both of them}….involved with Jeffrey Epstein…..{ & Soooo, much More!} When is “this” coming? Republicans…..are you listening? ? ? ?

    artichoke in reply to ROTONDARON. | September 27, 2019 at 11:44 pm

    As long as they can keep this chaos-fest going, there’s no time to crack down on wrongdoers on the other side, and the legitimacy of the prosecution can be questioned.

    At some point, the impeachment effort against Trump will have sufficient formality (regardless of grounds) that Dems will say Trump isn’t allowed to nominate Ginsburg’s replacement on SCOTUS, which he can do but “except in cases of impeachment”.

The Intelligence organizations control this country and the MSM is just their mouthpiece. It is 24/7 black ops.

It is equally frightening that the CIA would use laws and regulations enacted to protect nonpolitical employees to harass and impeach the elected President.

    Just out today. The ODNI whistlebliwer form always provided that a whistleblower report required first hand direct knowledge and could nit be based on hearsay and news articles.

    Obviously this supposed whistlebliwer report did not and could not meet that standard.

    So guess what? Somebody at ODNI changed the no hearsay direct personal knowledge requirement to allow hearsay complaints.

    Guess when this rule was changed? August 2019 just in time for this bullcrap!!!

      artichoke in reply to garybritt. | September 27, 2019 at 11:41 pm

      That’s a full excuse for one or two week’s delay sending it out to Congress. To Barr, it didn’t look like a proper whistleblower complaint. Barr was probably looking into whether it’s really proper under new rules, and maybe whether those rules were properly adopted.

Trump: You owe us.

Zelensky: We could use more weapons, Most Bigly President. The Russians are occupying our country.

Trump: I would like you to do us a favor, though, to help bury Biden’s political career in a shallow grave. Tonight, in the woods, by the landfill.

Zelensky: Of course, Don Trump. It is very important for to me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. No collusion! Big hands!!

Trump: Talk to my personal attorney, Tom Hagen Rudy Giuliani. He’ll be in touch.

Zelensky: Covfefe.

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/godfather/images/5/5b/Khartoum.jpg

SCANNING THROUGH THE LAST 100, OR SO, “COMMENTS”…..CONCLUSION: “Oh….BOO….HOOOO…..The mean old “Republicans” are getting away with our country!…{ SOB}…..Where’s our hero….Hillary?….{ doa}…..Biden?….{ deep in a scandal, & possible criminality}…..Pocahontas?….{ No way Jose}…..You poor Liberals……stop whining, & help Trump run this country! Be Unified…..let’s get together, & do some “common good”!

The final battle to prevent this once land of liberty from becoming a socialist “republic” will be in the streets. That’s why the Vermont Lenin and his crew want to seize all guns

It’s hard enough to be an intel officer. We try to keep our heads down and do everything we can so you don’t know our names but behind the curtain we make a difference. Nimitz said intel was worth an extra battle group at Midway.

https://www.amazon.com/Joe-Rocheforts-War-Codebreaker-Outwitted/dp/1591141613

“Joe Rochefort’s War: The Odyssey of the Codebreaker Who Outwitted Yamamoto at Midway”

I can’t get too into it. I signed a bunch of papers swearing I can keep a secret. And I can. But I so want to come out of retirement to deliver a beating that some individuals will not recover from.

The other, better known, silent service.

http://militaryhonors.sid-hill.us/mem/jones.htm

“THE BELLS LEFT BEHIND
by Colonel Charles A Jones USMCR
Article and three images copied from HERE
USN pub: Undersea Warfare Magazine”

I try to keep things in perspective. Visiting the Submarine Memorial Chapel at Pearl Harbor, remembering the boats that remain on patrol, helps with that.
submariners do not enjoy the publicity that other branches of service do. Many can name the pilot of the B-29 that dropped the atomic bomb or the photographer who took the famous picture of the Iwo Jima flag raising. But who can name the U.S. submarine with the most confirmed sinkings during the war? Also, who remembers that Admiral Chester Nimitz, a submariner himself, began his successful tour as Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet, on 31 December 1941, at a ceremony aboard the submarine USS Grayling SS-209? A keen eye can make out the submarine’s bell mounted on the conning tower in the photograph of the ceremony…”

“…

The line that begins with “…submariners do not enjoy…” is a quotation from the linked article penned by the good Colonel. What am I? Joe Biden? I don’t steal intellectual property. My original formatting made it clear I was quoting from the linked article but my formatting was lost in translation.

In the redacted Classified Appendix, some of the classifications are still classified! For example at the top of each page, Top Secret is lined out so we can see that was there. But after the slash the classification itself is redacted. And the paragraphs say things like S/(redacted) ; they used to be Secret / (something) and the something is redacted.

    fishstick in reply to artichoke. | September 28, 2019 at 9:50 am

    the conversation between the two presidents did hold some classification (missile transfer) and from what I am reading, the Ukrainians are not happy at all that convo went public

fishstick: it is likely the details of their 30 min conversation would hold alot of sensitive and classified material

There were no redactions in the rough transcript.

Zachriel: However, there are many witnesses to the conversation.

fishstick: what are you talking about here?

There are normally multiple parties listening in to diplomatic calls. Trump didn’t make his own rough transcript, for instance. Then the rough transcript is shared with those who have a hand in policy, but that procedure was not followed in this case.

fishstick: the whistleblower is anonymous, his sources are anonymous, with the varied info being relayed through the media

The identity of the whistleblower is protected by law, but not the contacts. The whistleblower is expected to testify at some point. There’s little doubt that the investigation will reveal the sources.

fishstick: except those “redactions” wouldn’t be present in a contextual summation of a 30 min phone call into 5 or 6 paragraphs

It wasn’t a summation, but a rough transcript.

fishstick: except there was no “quid pro quo” or an or-else ultimatum

Zelensky asks for weapons for his country. Trump immediately says “I would like you to do us a favor, though.” But even without a quid pro quo, asking a foreign government for dirt on a political opponent is a violation of campaign law.

fishstick: because you see THAT existed with VP Biden

Yes, it did, Biden’s quid pro quo was in furtherance of the stated policy of the U.S. and its allies to provide aid if Ukraine addressed corruption, in particular, by removing a prosecutor who was slow-walking corruption investigations.

On the other hand, Trump was trading American resources for help with his political campaign.

fishstick: but your argument falls even further apart with the statements of the Ukrainians themselves saying there was no pressure

What do you expect them to say. It would threaten their aid package, and it would put them in an untenable position at home.

fishstick: except for that he strong-armed a foreign government over a billion dollar loan

That’s right!

fishstick: except that isn’t the real issue but whether Hunter’s employment itself was the impropriety

It has the appearance of impropriety at least, but investigators have found no illegal behavior. Hunter Biden turned down an offer to stay on the board with Burisma to avoid a conflict with Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.

Zachriel: {Biden} was acting to further U.S. aims in Ukraine, consistent with stated U.S. and E.U. policy.

fishstick: I don’t know, maybe what you are accusing Trump of?

Trump was asking a foreign government for dirt on his political opponents, a violation of campaign law. He appeared to be using U.S. resources as leverage.

fishstick: the investigation was literally dropped by the new state prosecutor after VP Biden got Shokin fired

That is not correct. The investigation wasn’t closed until a year after Lutsenko took over the top job. The U.K. also closed their own investigation for lack of evidence. Lutsenko reopened the investigation earlier this year, apparently at Giuliani’s instigation, but it again led nowhere. Lutsenko said, “Hunter Biden cannot be responsible for violations of the management of Burisma that took place two years before his arrival.”

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | September 30, 2019 at 8:22 pm

    Zachriel: There were no redactions in the rough transcript.

    and why would there be in a rough transcript?

    Zachriel: There are normally multiple parties listening in to diplomatic calls. Trump didn’t make his own rough transcript, for instance. Then the rough transcript is shared with those who have a hand in policy, but that procedure was not followed in this case.

    except all of this was followed, otherwise we would have be hearing about it in the negative that proves Trump was “guilty” somehow

    the only thing I am aware of that was added to the overall procedure was the movement of the call from the normal server to a different one for more classified info

    and this was likely done due to the Trump camp finally wising up to how all his phone calls were previously leaked

    Zachriel: The identity of the whistleblower is protected by law, but not the contacts. The whistleblower is expected to testify at some point. There’s little doubt that the investigation will reveal the sources.

    but that is just it though

    the Dems will likely not want to bring the whistleblower in for questioning due to him due to his testimony being a third account with second hand info

    the point of that there was a bit of a joke because hauling him in would only create more problems for the Dem narrative

    same problem exists with the sources said whistleblower used because under cross they will be subject to lines of questioning the Dems would rather not have them face

    see that will be one of the big differences here with the House impeachment inquiry compared to the Mueller probe

    as Mueller’s team never had to face cross during the course of their investigations

    Zachriel: It wasn’t a summation, but a rough transcript.

    well if that is the case – which it isn’t – then that is the shortest 30 minute phone call in the history of phone calls

    otherwise it was a summation

    Zachriel: Zelensky asks for weapons for his country. Trump immediately says “I would like you to do us a favor, though.” But even without a quid pro quo, asking a foreign government for dirt on a political opponent is a violation of campaign law.

    you’ve convinced yourself that your earlier parody was what was detailed in the transcript

    however – there was no “quid pro quo”

    even the Ukrainians said there was no pressure on the US end to investigate the Bidens

    and we know the Dems won’t subpoena them

    Zachriel: Yes, it did, Biden’s quid pro quo was in furtherance of the stated policy of the U.S. and its allies to provide aid if Ukraine addressed corruption, in particular, by removing a prosecutor who was slow-walking corruption investigations.

    except the very action you are accusing Trump of, VP Biden is guilty of

    atleast you admit that though

    but the problem you have is the reverse doesn’t hold true because the evidence of it just isn’t there in that transcript

    Zachriel: On the other hand, Trump was trading American resources for help with his political campaign.

    how so?

    Trump’s team (and the Ukrainians) were investigating political corruption stemming from possible US interference into Ukrainian affairs

    you do realize this was all happening even prior to that phone call, right?

    this also includes CrowdStrike

    you do remember those guys I was telling you about in our last convo on the Comey page

    Zachriel: What do you expect them to say. It would threaten their aid package, and it would put them in an untenable position at home.

    so Trump is forcing the Ukrainians to do his bidding?

    is that the lib argument now?

    Zachriel: That’s right!

    and here I thought liberals thought foreign meddling was a no-no

    such hypocrisy!

    Zachriel: It has the appearance of impropriety at least, but investigators have found no illegal behavior. Hunter Biden turned down an offer to stay on the board with Burisma to avoid a conflict with Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.

    but that doesn’t explain away the very lucrative contracts Burisma obtained during Hunter’s short tenure there

    now does it?

    Zachriel: Trump was asking a foreign government for dirt on his political opponents, a violation of campaign law. He appeared to be using U.S. resources as leverage.

    again it wasn’t political dirt

    you see you are confusing this with the Steele dossier, which was actually a document of literal political dirt employed by the Clinton election campaign AND our own damn intelligence community to spy on another US campaign

    and again – the Ukrainians contest your entire scenario

    Zachriel: That is not correct. The investigation wasn’t closed until a year after Lutsenko took over the top job. The U.K. also closed their own investigation for lack of evidence. Lutsenko reopened the investigation earlier this year, apparently at Giuliani’s instigation, but it again led nowhere. Lutsenko said, “Hunter Biden cannot be responsible for violations of the management of Burisma that took place two years before his arrival.”

    except Burisma had a US legal team contact the incoming officials that would replace Shokin’s branch… the day after the state prosecutor was fired

    one of the things that has gone unsaid is it was the Ukrainian prosecutors that first made contact with Guilani about this above issue

    that line of Zelensky’s in the transcript – of him being knowledgeable about the situation – was about THIS

    now with all THAT said – there likely wasn’t anything *illegal* going on on Hunter’s end as he was fairly clearly hired as a figurehead for influence peddling

    but still it shows the impropriety of what was occurring in Ukraine at the behest of the former US administration

fishstick: and why would there be in a rough transcript?

Because the procedure is that redactions are indicated, not ignored. That’s so that people who have authorization can ask for the redacted portions. Of course, the White House didn’t follow procedures when they hid even the unclassified portions of the rough transcript in a server meant for the most sensitive information.

fishstick: except all of this was followed, otherwise we would have be hearing about it in the negative that proves Trump was “guilty” somehow

We are hearing about it. It’s considered the act of someone with something illicit to hide. Now Congress wants to know what else the President is hiding under the guise of security for his own political benefit.

fishstick: and this was likely done due to the Trump camp finally wising up to how all his phone calls were previously leaked

The law does not allow the executive to use the government’s security system to protect himself from embarrassing or incriminatin information, but only for information that is related to the national security.

fishstick: the Dems will likely not want to bring the whistleblower in for questioning due to him due to his testimony being a third account with second hand info

What? You don’t think police investigate based on tip? Second hand information is perfectly acceptable for an inquiry. Investigators can then follow the leads to primary sources.

In point of fact, the whistleblower’s complaint correctly characterized the contents of the Trump-Zelensky phone call, and that there was an effort to hide the transcript. That’s why Congress asked for the transcript, and found out about the efforts to hide it.

fishstick: even the Ukrainians said there was no pressure on the US end to investigate the Bidens

Of course that’s what they said. They are in an untenable position. They could lose their aid package, and admitting they were subject to pressure would be politically damaging at home.

fishstick: except the very action you are accusing Trump of, VP Biden is guilty of

There’s nothing illegal or unethical about a quid pro quo, otherwise, you couldn’t buy a loaf of bread, or anything else for that matter. A quid pro quo becomes illegal or unethical when the exchange entails something illegal or unethical.

In Biden’s case, American aid was exchanged for the removal of a corrupt prosecutor general, in pursuit of U.S. and E.U. policies. In Trump’s case, military weapons were dangled in exchange for dirt on Trump’s political opponent. But even then, a quid pro quo isn’t necessary to show wrongdoing. Simply asking for dirt on his political opponent is solicitation of an illegal campaign donation. That he did it from a position of power provided by his being president of the United States with the means to make or break Ukraine just makes it much, much worse.

fishstick: Trump’s team (and the Ukrainians) were investigating political corruption stemming from possible US interference into Ukrainian affairs

Making stuff up doesn’t make for a valid defense. There is no evidence that either Biden did anything illegal. That the President would involve himself in what you yourself say is non-criminal behavior is indicative of a corrupt motive.

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | October 1, 2019 at 8:33 pm

    Zachriel: Because the procedure is that redactions are indicated, not ignored. That’s so that people who have authorization can ask for the redacted portions. Of course, the White House didn’t follow procedures when they hid even the unclassified portions of the rough transcript in a server meant for the most sensitive information.

    except you are making three big assumptions here in one paragraph

    first you are assuming the words spoken are only those in the transcript which I’ve already pointed out – would literally be the shortest 30 minute conversation, like ever

    so – the transcript is a summation of what was or is being said as to not include highly sensitive data written into them

    because why would they

    then second – Trump wasn’t hiding the phone call

    we know this because he almost immediately released a transcript of it

    and third – Trump moving said call to another server is entirely within his bounds as President of the United States

    are you trying to make the claim he broke some law here?

    Zachriel: We are hearing about it. It’s considered the act of someone with something illicit to hide. Now Congress wants to know what else the President is hiding under the guise of security for his own political benefit.

    so what illicit action did Trump undergo here?

    the Ukrainians say there was no “quid pro quo”

    transcript of call doesn’t provide enough for the Dems to go on

    so what is the illicit action here?

    because like I already stated, what Trump did is not illegal

    Zachriel: The law does not allow the executive to use the government’s security system to protect himself from embarrassing or incriminatin information, but only for information that is related to the national security.

    actually it does because the Dems would be drafting an article of impeachment for an abuse of power on that statute

    the fact them Dems aren’t should tell you something right there

    Zachriel: What? You don’t think police investigate based on tip? Second hand information is perfectly acceptable for an inquiry. Investigators can then follow the leads to primary sources.

    except this “tip” was a third hand account with second hand info

    it is hardly acceptable for any kind of inquiry

    but the Dems shot themselves in the foot using this as their impeachment springboard so they have no choice but to go all-in now

    Zachriel: In point of fact, the whistleblower’s complaint correctly characterized the contents of the Trump-Zelensky phone call,

    again I think your parody account of the transcript is overriding the reality of it

    you’ve made too many assumptions not supported with facts of any supposed transgression

    Zachriel: and that there was an effort to hide the transcript. That’s why Congress asked for the transcript, and found out about the efforts to hide it.

    again – there was no hiding of the transcript as the Dems were literally given it less than a day after requesting it

    as well as the whistleblower complaint

    what the Dems realized very quickly was there was no there there and tried to subtly shifted the conversation into the transcript coming off a different server

    which should tell you alot about their own argument

    Zachriel: Of course that’s what they said. They are in an untenable position. They could lose their aid package, and admitting they were subject to pressure would be politically damaging at home.

    it is kinda laughable that you would type all that out when VP Biden literally did that, and you didn’t bat an eye to it

    I guess your stance is Trump is (somehow) forcing the Ukrainians to do his evil bidding, right?

    yeah that doesn’t sound ridiculous

    Zachriel: There’s nothing illegal or unethical about a quid pro quo, otherwise, you couldn’t buy a loaf of bread, or anything else for that matter. A quid pro quo becomes illegal or unethical when the exchange entails something illegal or unethical.

    what?

    the whole point of a “quid pro quo” is that it is either an illegal or unethical standard in the realm of politics

    Zachriel: In Biden’s case, American aid was exchanged for the removal of a corrupt prosecutor general, in pursuit of U.S. and E.U. policies. In Trump’s case, military weapons were dangled in exchange for dirt on Trump’s political opponent.

    except both arguments you make here are conjecture, especially the latter when the Ukrainians themselves contest it

    and again you also ignore VP Biden’s (possible) role with Burisma, the company his son is working for, who was under an investigation by the state prosecutor at the time

    Zachriel: But even then, a quid pro quo isn’t necessary to show wrongdoing. Simply asking for dirt on his political opponent is solicitation of an illegal campaign donation.

    I keep pointing out that investigating possible corruption by the former US administration isn’t the same as “asking for political dirt”

    heck even the Ukrainians were doing this before the phone call that you claim is somehow illicit

    again – real political dirt is the Steele dossier and how the Clinton campaign and even US intelligence agencies used it to spy on another US campaign and then his transition team

    you keep missing THAT though

    Zachriel: That he did it from a position of power provided by his being president of the United States with the means to make or break Ukraine just makes it much, much worse.

    again – the Ukrainians contest your little theory here

    at this point you are just projecting your own parody into the mix here

    Zachriel: Making stuff up doesn’t make for a valid defense.

    that is not making stuff up, when that actually happened

    I mean VP Biden is on tape even admitting it (like literally)

    even a picture just came out with him golfing with his son and 2 Burisma executives

    I’ve even pointed out the other foreign meddling the Obama administration did in Isreal, but you ignored those as well

    Zachriel: There is no evidence that either Biden did anything illegal.

    I’ll grant you this, this may end up proving to be true on a legal standpoint

    but VP Biden strong-arming the former Ukrainian administration, which goes up to White House direction, and his son having a very lucrative position with Burisma who seemed to get really lucky landing big contracts during VP Biden oversea trips, does show there was alot of impropriety going on

    none of it may end up being illegal but it was startling enough for the Ukrainians to investigate it themselves (twice)

    Zachriel: That the President would involve himself in what you yourself say is non-criminal behavior is indicative of a corrupt motive.

    this sentence doesn’t even make any sense

    how could non-criminal behavior be indicative of a corrupt political motive?

    sure, I guess you can spin Trump investigating VP Biden’s affair in Ukraine being politically motivated

    but what do you call the spy ring setup on the Trump campaign and transition teams?

    what do you call Comey’s actions in leaking his “classified” memos?

    what do you call the Mueller special counsel of Democrats and its near 3 year affair into all things Trump?

    what do you call the whistleblower complaint, made after a rule change, filled with legal hearsay?

    and what do you call this impeachment inquiry done by a change in House rules to avoid a floor vote and limit the minority party any say in the proceedings?

    THOSE aren’t corrupt political motives, right?

fishstick: first you are assuming the words spoken are only those in the transcript which I’ve already pointed out – would literally be the shortest 30 minute conversation, like ever

We never made that assumption. Indeed, after we had referred to the “rough transcript”, you said “I think that “rough” translation only exists in your head{,} as the full transcript does not describe the quid pro quo you libs are claiming” {emphasis added}.

fishstick: we know this because he almost immediately released a transcript of it

The White House didn’t “immediately release” the transcript. It was released only after the Democrats started an impeachment inquiry.

fishstick: transcript of call doesn’t provide enough for the Dems to go on

There’s more than sufficient evidence to initiate an inquiry.

Zelensky: we are almost ready to buy more Javelins (missiles) from the United States.

Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though

Then Trump asks for dirt on his political opponent. Gee whiz! He apparently thinks the DNC server is in Ukraine!

fishstick: actually it does because the Dems would be drafting an article of impeachment for an abuse of power on that statute

The House of Representatives has started an impeachment inquiry. Whether they will decide Trump should be impeached is something they will have to decide. Not all lawbreaking results in impeachment, and not all impeachable offenses are violations of statutory law.

fishstick: except this “tip” was a third hand account with second hand info

The original complaint included first-hand information as well as second-hand information, and we now have a rough transcript of the call in question, so that is direct evidence. We also know there were others on the call who can be called as witnesses. That will probably be subject to a claim of executive privilege, but executive privilege can’t be used to hide evidence of a crime. See United States v. Nixon.

fishstick: there was no hiding of the transcript as the Dems were literally given it less than a day after requesting it

Well, that’s false. It was only after formal opening of an impeachment inquiry that the White House released the rough transcript.

fishstick: the whole point of a “quid pro quo” is that it is either an illegal or unethical standard in the realm of politics

A quid pro quo denotes “something given or received for something else”, the connotation suggesting “the propriety or equity of the transaction is in question”. However, an exchange is not in and of itself improper. Ignoring the point is not an argument.

Biden exchanged American aid for removal of a prosecutor widely seen in the West as an obstruction to ending corruption in Ukraine, and in furtherance of U.S. and E.U. policy. Trump dangled American aid in return for dirt on his political opponent based on various conspiracy theories, including that the DNC servers somehow ended up in Ukraine. (You do realize how crazy that sounds?)

fishstick: you also ignore VP Biden’s (possible) role with Burisma, the company his son is working for, who was under an investigation by the state prosecutor at the time

The evidence shows that the prosecutor general was slow-walking the Burisma investigation.

fishstick: I keep pointing out that investigating possible corruption by the former US administration isn’t the same as “asking for political dirt”

And making stuff up to excuse asking for dirt doesn’t make the dirt go away. The Bidens have been investigated and no evidence of a crime was found. Indeed, you yourself say there is probably no crime involved.

fishstick: none of it may end up being illegal but it was startling enough for the Ukrainians to investigate it themselves (twice)

That means the favor Trump is asking has nothing to do with seeking justice through the legal system, but dirt on his political opponent.

fishstick: how could non-criminal behavior be indicative of a corrupt political motive?

Hiding evidence of a possible crime is evidence of corrupt intent.

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | October 2, 2019 at 8:27 pm

    this shit is really pissing me off

    4th time posting this shit

    let’s see if breaking it up in half works

    Zachriel: We never made that assumption. Indeed, after we had referred to the “rough transcript”, you said “I think that “rough” translation only exists in your head{,} as the full transcript does not describe the quid pro quo you libs are claiming” {emphasis added}.

    emphasis noted 😀

    but you are making that assumption because you claim the transcript is an “exactness” of their conversation

    which is a false impression due to the limited word count and any context with said sentences being missing

    we are talking about a 30 minute phone call here

    that transcript would only provide about what, 2 to 3 minutes of convo at the most?

    Zachriel: The White House didn’t “immediately release” the transcript. It was released only after the Democrats started an impeachment inquiry.

    except the White House did “immediately release” said transcript (and the whistleblower complaint) barely a day after the Democrats requested it

    Zachriel: There’s more than sufficient evidence to initiate an inquiry.

    but it doesn’t change the fact them Dems still cannot draw an article for impeachment even after being given the transcript

    as what Trump did (supposedly), did not constitute a crime

    Zachriel: Then Trump asks for dirt on his political opponent.

    again that is conjecture

    and again it was even contested by the Ukrainians

    Zachriel: Gee whiz! He apparently thinks the DNC server is in Ukraine!

    you may not know this but CrowdStrike supposedly used Ukrainian software to help determine that those evil Ruskies “hacked” the election like you libs continually claim

    again – none of the above can really be verified since the FBI nor the NSA ever performed an inspection on said servers

    Zachriel: The House of Representatives has started an impeachment inquiry. Whether they will decide Trump should be impeached is something they will have to decide.

    true enough

    but the inquiry itself is not being done by normal procedure and the very thing that kicked it off (the whistleblower complaint) was also not done by normal procedure

    what I’m getting at is this whole impeachment process is starting off on a bogus front

    and the optics of IT looks worse than what you are accusing the president of

    Zachriel: The original complaint included first-hand information as well as second-hand information,

    except there was no first-hand information within said complaint

    it literally reads that the writer of this complaint has no direct knowledge of its allegations as they were all gained through other anonymous second-hand sources

    what is even worse is the complaint uses footnotes of media stories to beef up these uncorroborated accounts

    Zachriel: and we now have a rough transcript of the call in question, so that is direct evidence.

    again – which doesn’t meet the threshold for “quid pro quo”

    and again – the Ukrainians contest your very argument of there being one

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | October 2, 2019 at 8:27 pm

    looks like that did the trick

    Zachriel: Well, that’s false. It was only after formal opening of an impeachment inquiry that the White House released the rough transcript.

    again – how many days did it take for their request for the transcript (and complaint) to be given to them?

    there is no there there to some claim of obstruction here

    Zachriel: Biden exchanged American aid for removal of a prosecutor widely seen in the West as an obstruction to ending corruption in Ukraine, and in furtherance of U.S. and E.U. policy.

    again – the role VP Biden played here in strong-arming a foreign national is a legitimate investigation of foreign interference

    and again – the whole timing of it was suspect with the Burisma factor and their case curiously getting dumped by the incoming state prosecutor

    and again – these are things that were being looked at by the Ukrainians themselves even before this phone call took place

    Zachriel: Trump dangled American aid in return for dirt on his political opponent…

    more conjecture from your reading where the Ukrainians contest

    Zachriel: …based on various conspiracy theories, including that the DNC servers somehow ended up in Ukraine.(You do realize how crazy that sounds?)

    not nearly as crazy as you sound

    you do realize that CrowdStrike’s co-founder is Russian-born, right?

    and them Dems hands were all up in Ukraine leading up to the 2016 election and even after

    the DNC had a known contact digging up dirt on Paul Manafort and even 3 Dem senators sent a formal letter the Ukrainian prosecutor general to cooperate with the Mueller probe, “or else”

    Zachriel: The evidence shows that the prosecutor general was slow-walking the Burisma investigation.

    and other “evidence” shows that Burisma had 4 open investigations when Shokin got canned

    and they curiously disappeared after VP Biden’s visit

    Zachriel: And making stuff up to excuse asking for dirt doesn’t make the dirt go away.

    again – it is not simply making stuff up when all this shit actually went down

    Zachriel: The Bidens have been investigated and no evidence of a crime was found.

    again – doesn’t explain away the impropriety the Bidens had with Burisma

    Zachriel: Indeed, you yourself say there is probably no crime involved.

    likely so but it still doesn’t absolve them of any possible guilt associated with Burisma and the sweetheart deals they got during Hunter’s employ

    Zachriel: That means the favor Trump is asking has nothing to do with seeking justice through the legal system, but dirt on his political opponent.

    except you missed the entire point there

    as much of it was happening prior to his phone call with Zelensky

    Zachriel: Hiding evidence of a possible crime is evidence of corrupt intent.

    except none of that actually happened here

    as Trump can literally classify his phone call however he wants to

    there is no legal infraction there

    now what you are confusing “corrupt intent” with is how the Clinton camp destroyed subpoenaed materials with hammers and wiped servers, you know like with a cloth

looks like my earlier reply got deleted somehow

edit: 3rd time having to post this shit (ugh)

I’ll try to keep my responses shorter this time

Zachriel: We never made that assumption. Indeed, after we had referred to the “rough transcript”, you said “I think that “rough” translation only exists in your head{,} as the full transcript does not describe the quid pro quo you libs are claiming” {emphasis added}.

emphasis noted 😀

but you are making that assumption because you claim the transcript is an “exactness” of their conversation

which is a false impression due to the limited word count and any context with said sentences being missing

we are talking about a 30 minute phone call here

that transcript would only provide about what, 2 to 3 minutes of convo at the most?

Zachriel: The White House didn’t “immediately release” the transcript. It was released only after the Democrats started an impeachment inquiry.

except the White House did “immediately release” said transcript (and the whistleblower complaint) barely a day after the Democrats requested it

Zachriel: There’s more than sufficient evidence to initiate an inquiry.

but it doesn’t change the fact them Dems still cannot draw an article for impeachment even after being given the transcript

as what Trump did (supposedly), did not constitute a crime

Zachriel: Then Trump asks for dirt on his political opponent.

again that is conjecture

and again it was even contested by the Ukrainians

Zachriel: Gee whiz! He apparently thinks the DNC server is in Ukraine!

you may not know this but CrowdStrike supposedly used Ukrainian software to help determine that those evil Ruskies “hacked” the election like you libs continually claim

again – none of the above can really be verified since the FBI nor the NSA ever performed an inspection on said servers

Zachriel: The House of Representatives has started an impeachment inquiry. Whether they will decide Trump should be impeached is something they will have to decide.

true enough

but the inquiry itself is not being done by normal procedure and the very thing that kicked it off (the whistleblower complaint) was also not done by normal procedure

what I’m getting at is this whole impeachment process is starting off on a bogus front

and the optics of IT looks worse than what you are accusing the president of

Zachriel: The original complaint included first-hand information as well as second-hand information,

except there was no first-hand information within said complaint

it literally reads that the writer of this complaint has no direct knowledge of its allegations as they were all gained through other anonymous second-hand sources

what is even worse is the complaint uses footnotes of media stories to beef up these uncorroborated accounts

Zachriel: and we now have a rough transcript of the call in question, so that is direct evidence.

again – which doesn’t meet the threshold for “quid pro quo”

and again – the Ukrainians contest your very argument of there being one

Zachriel: Well, that’s false. It was only after formal opening of an impeachment inquiry that the White House released the rough transcript.

again – how many days did it take for their request for the transcript (and complaint) to be given to them?

there is no there there to some claim of obstruction here

Zachriel: Biden exchanged American aid for removal of a prosecutor widely seen in the West as an obstruction to ending corruption in Ukraine, and in furtherance of U.S. and E.U. policy.

again – the role VP Biden played here in strong-arming a foreign national is a legitimate investigation of foreign interference

and again – the whole timing of it was suspect with the Burisma factor and their case curiously getting dumped by the incoming state prosecutor

and again – these are things that were being looked at by the Ukrainians themselves even before this phone call took place

Zachriel: Trump dangled American aid in return for dirt on his political opponent…

more conjecture from your reading where the Ukrainians contest

Zachriel: …based on various conspiracy theories, including that the DNC servers somehow ended up in Ukraine.(You do realize how crazy that sounds?)

not nearly as crazy as you sound

you do realize that CrowdStrike’s co-founder is Russian-born, right?

and them Dems hands were all up in Ukraine leading up to the 2016 election and even after

the DNC had a known contact digging up dirt on Paul Manafort and even 3 Dem senators sent a formal letter the Ukrainian prosecutor general to cooperate with the Mueller probe, “or else”

Zachriel: The evidence shows that the prosecutor general was slow-walking the Burisma investigation.

and other “evidence” shows that Burisma had 4 open investigations when Shokin got canned

and they curiously disappeared after VP Biden’s visit

Zachriel: And making stuff up to excuse asking for dirt doesn’t make the dirt go away.

again – it is not simply making stuff up when all this shit actually went down

Zachriel: The Bidens have been investigated and no evidence of a crime was found.

again – doesn’t explain away the impropriety the Bidens had with Burisma

Zachriel: Indeed, you yourself say there is probably no crime involved.

likely so but it still doesn’t absolve them of any possible guilt associated with Burisma and the sweetheart deals they got during Hunter’s employ

Zachriel: That means the favor Trump is asking has nothing to do with seeking justice through the legal system, but dirt on his political opponent.

except you missed the entire point there

as much of it was happening prior to his phone call with Zelensky

Zachriel: Hiding evidence of a possible crime is evidence of corrupt intent.

except none of that actually happened here

as Trump can literally classify his phone call however he wants to

there is no legal infraction there

now what you are confusing “corrupt intent” with is how the Clinton camp destroyed subpoenaed materials with hammers and wiped servers, you know like with a cloth

fishstick: this shit is really pissing me off

Your frustration occurs because you don’t respond to our arguments. Even if you don’t agree, it’s important to try and understand them before replying. Rather, you repeat your position, and can’t understand why we don’t agree with the power of your reasoning. Examples follow below:

fishstick: but you are making that assumption because you claim the transcript is an “exactness” of their conversation

That is contrary to what we said. EXAMPLE

fishstick: that transcript would only provide about what, 2 to 3 minutes of convo at the most?

About 10 minutes if you read it out loud. Even though Zelensky speaks English, he may still have had portions translated, or either party may have paused to seek counsel. No one knows. We are relying on what the White House provided, which is marked as a rough transcript. There are notable ellipses, so the rough transcript doesn’t represent everything that was said. However, there are no redactions for classified information.

fishstick: except the White House did “immediately release” said transcript (and the whistleblower complaint) barely a day after the Democrats requested it

Sept 20, Biden calls for release of transcript
Sept 24, Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry
Sept 25, Transcript released

We had already posted Biden’s call for the release of the transcript, and provided a link. EXAMPLE

fishstick: as what Trump did (supposedly), did not constitute a crime

Z: not all impeachable offenses are violations of statutory law. EXAMPLE

fishstick: you may not know this but CrowdStrike supposedly used Ukrainian software to help determine that those evil Ruskies “hacked” the election like you libs continually claim

What does that have to do with the actual servers supposedly being in Ukraine? EXAMPLE

fishstick: it literally reads that the writer of this complaint has no direct knowledge of its allegations as they were all gained through other anonymous second-hand sources

Uh, not literally. What the complaint literally says is “I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues’ accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another.” Some of the information in the complaint are to be found in a classified appendix, which was provided to the Inspector General.

fishstick: the role VP Biden played here in strong-arming a foreign national is a legitimate investigation of foreign interference

As he was working in furtherance of U.S. policy at the time, there is no evidence he did anything wrong. EXAMPLE

fishstick: likely {no criminal behavior by the Bidens}

Consequently Trump was asking for dirt rather than pursuing a criminal inquiry. EXAMPLE

Zachriel: Hiding evidence of a possible crime is evidence of corrupt intent.

fishstick: except none of that actually happened here. as Trump can literally classify his phone call however he wants to

Just because an act would otherwise be legal doesn’t mean it can’t also be evidence of corrupt intent. EXAMPLE

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | October 3, 2019 at 5:26 pm

    Zachriel: Your frustration occurs because you don’t respond to our arguments. Even if you don’t agree, it’s important to try and understand them before replying. Rather, you repeat your position, and can’t understand why we don’t agree with the power of your reasoning.

    and you just confirmed to me you cannot understand context within sentences

    I was referring to my frustration of this site constantly deleting my replies as those two you just read (and likely not comprehended) took me 4 attempts to get them loaded on this page

    and I had to retype that shit 3 times because my highlight and save only captured a portion of it

    besides you are also constantly repeating your position because I’m calling you out on your bullshit and double standards

    so don’t blame me for simply playing your game

    and I’ll respond to the rest of your post when I get back home and on a better computer

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | October 3, 2019 at 7:30 pm

    Zachriel: That is contrary to what we said.

    but that is what you typed out on this page

    Zachriel: About 10 minutes if you read it out loud.

    not even half that

    Zachriel: Even though Zelensky speaks English, he may still have had portions translated, or either party may have paused to seek counsel.

    he speaks english

    I mean that is a reach

    Zachriel: No one knows.

    funny thing here – neither did the whistleblower

    Zachriel: We are relying on what the White House provided, which is marked as a rough transcript. There are notable ellipses, so the rough transcript doesn’t represent everything that was said. However, there are no redactions for classified information.

    so in other words it is a summation, like I said before

    but you don’t even realize here this paragraph you typed undercuts your argument

    so if the transcript doesn’t represent everything that was said, then how can you make the assertion there was no talks that would be considered classified material?

    even if we were to go on your claim of the transcript representing just a third of the entire conversation

    Zachriel: Sept 20, Biden calls for release of transcript

    I don’t see how former VP Biden has any authority on this matter

    Zachriel: Sept 24, Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry… Sept 25, Transcript released

    so you are talking about a day, if that

    and at worst, 5 days?

    yeah I can really see you making a real case here for obstruction

    /sarcasm

    Zachriel: not all impeachable offenses are violations of statutory law.

    true – but it doesn’t help your case any

    Zachriel: What does that have to do with the actual servers supposedly being in Ukraine?

    oh I don’t know, perhaps the CrowdStrike team had actually gone to Ukraine to access their software

    Zachriel: Uh, not literally. What the complaint literally says is “I was not a direct witness to most of the events described.

    that means second-hand info

    Zachriel: However, I found my colleagues’ accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another.”

    except some of those accounts were also second-handed, making it third-hand

    and in all the cases, the whistleblower had no direct knowledge of anything in his own complaint except for hearsay

    so that completely undercuts any credibility it has

    Zachriel: Some of the information in the complaint are to be found in a classified appendix, which was provided to the Inspector General.

    and much of that is circular reporting from media articles to bolster its own credentials

    it is not a good look for it because it makes the complaint itself look like a legal brief written by partisan hacks

    which it likely was

    even the DNI director said it amounts to an uncorroborated account

    Zachriel: As he was working in furtherance of U.S. policy at the time, there is no evidence he did anything wrong.

    again – it is still foreign meddling, something you’ve been crying “Marsha, Marsha, Marsha” about over Russia

    and again I would point out it doesn’t absolve VP Biden of any guilt of his association with Burisma who received quite favorable treatment through Biden’s foreign affairs

    Zachriel: Consequently Trump was asking for dirt rather than pursuing a criminal inquiry.

    again – that’s conjecture not supported in the released transcript

    and again – even the Ukrainians are saying there was no “quid pro quo”

    Zachriel: Just because an act would otherwise be legal doesn’t mean it can’t also be evidence of corrupt intent.

    case in point – the actions of VP Biden 😀

    big difference here is though is Sleepy Joe was stupid enough to brag out loud about his duplicity

    where you are making insinuations about Trump extorting the Ukrainians for political dirt

fishstick: but that is what you typed out on this page

Actually, we were the first to refer to it as a “rough transcript”. You replied referring to the “full transcript”, which if it exists, is not public at this time.

fishstick: so if the transcript doesn’t represent everything that was said, then how can you make the assertion there was no talks that would be considered classified material?

We said the rough transcript doesn’t show any classified information, and there are no redactions as would occur if there were classified information. Because there are no redactions, and as redactions are standard practice, it is reasonable to conclude there was no classified information.

fishstick: I don’t see how former VP Biden has any authority on this matter

This is an example of the above. Either you forgot your own claim, or are consciously refusing to make the connection. You had said “there was no hiding of the transcript as the Dems were literally given it less than a day after requesting it”. In fact, Democrats had demanded that Trump release the transcript days before (e.g. Biden on 9/20), and it wasn’t until the formal impeachment inquiry began that the rough transcript was released.

fishstick: oh I don’t know, perhaps the CrowdStrike team had actually gone to Ukraine to access their software

Seriously, you’re saying they transported physical servers to Ukraine. What the heck? Do you even know how computers work? It’s not the hardware, but the software and data.

fishstick: that means second-hand info

That’s right, the key word being “most”, meaning he had some first-hand information, which the Inspector General made clear in a public statement. That contradicts your claim. We had thought to bold the word, but you probably still would have ignored it.

fishstick: so that completely undercuts any credibility it has

The Inspector General, a Trump appointee, found the allegations credible. Second-hand information is often important during an investigation, as the criminals themselves rarely come forward. If someone overhears someone planning a crime, is that information therefore of no value to law enforcement?

fishstick: again – it is still foreign meddling

Of course it’s foreign involvement. Ukraine wants help, and the U.S. wants to help establish a stable democracy there. Whether it is wise or not is irrelevant to whether or not Biden’s actions were motivated by self-dealing.

fishstick: even the Ukrainians are saying there was no “quid pro quo”

Of course they would have to say that. If they admit to the pressure, then Trump could retaliate, and kowtowing to the U.S. is already causing political damage at home. We said this already, but instead of replying to what we said, you simply repeated your claim.

fishstick: case in point – the actions of VP Biden

While it is reasonable to argue that there is an appearance of impropriety, there is no evidence of a crime. If there were, then the U.S. should prosecute. Call a grand jury. American justice shouldn’t be outsourced to Ukraine or Communist China.

fishstick: big difference here is though is Sleepy Joe was stupid enough to brag out loud about his duplicity

Except that’s not what happened, as you know, and have been informed repeatedly. What Biden bragged about was forcing Ukraine to fire a prosecutor in furtherance of U.S. and E.U. policy.

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | October 4, 2019 at 6:08 pm

    Zachriel: Actually, we were the first to refer to it as a “rough transcript”. You replied referring to the “full transcript”, which if it exists, is not public at this time.

    and I agreed with you but then stated said “rough transcript” was written in limited mode (summation)

    Zachriel: We said the rough transcript doesn’t show any classified information, and there are no redactions as would occur if there were classified information. Because there are no redactions, and as redactions are standard practice, it is reasonable to conclude there was no classified information.

    except that it was written in a limited capacity as there would be no need to include possible classified info detailed out

    Zachriel: This is an example of the above. Either you forgot your own claim, or are consciously refusing to make the connection.

    no you made the silly argument about Joe Biden requesting the info

    I retorted that the former VP had no authority to even ask for its release

    Zachriel: You had said “there was no hiding of the transcript as the Dems were literally given it less than a day after requesting it”. In fact, Democrats had demanded that Trump release the transcript days before (e.g. Biden on 9/20), and it wasn’t until the formal impeachment inquiry began that the rough transcript was released.

    but it was literally a day after the Dems requested it

    so no obstruction case there buddy

    Zachriel: Seriously, you’re saying they transported physical servers to Ukraine. What the heck? Do you even know how computers work? It’s not the hardware, but the software and data.

    you do know that software can easily be transferred to other devices, right?

    so yeah it is highly probable that the “hacked” data went anywhere CrowdStrike went

    Zachriel: That’s right, the key word being “most”, meaning he had some first-hand information, which the Inspector General made clear in a public statement. That contradicts your claim. We had thought to bold the word, but you probably still would have ignored it.

    I think you read a different complaint, because where was any of the first-hand information you claim is in existence?

    the only contradiction here is your analysis of it

    the DNI head confirmed it was made entirely of second-hand (and third-hand) material

    even the DOJ slapped it down as partisan hearsay

    and to make it worse – the complaint was only “passable” because the normal procedures for these things were changed a few months back

    Zachriel: The Inspector General, a Trump appointee, found the allegations credible.

    and this is the same guy who never bothered to read the Trump-Zelenskyy transcript before passing the complaint off as “credible”

    that is not a good look

    Zachriel: Second-hand information is often important during an investigation, as the criminals themselves rarely come forward. If someone overhears someone planning a crime, is that information therefore of no value to law enforcement?

    perhaps if we are talking about a crime here

    except there was no crime the Dems can even agree to bring a floor vote on

    Zachriel: Of course it’s foreign involvement. Ukraine wants help, and the U.S. wants to help establish a stable democracy there. Whether it is wise or not is irrelevant to whether or not Biden’s actions were motivated by self-dealing.

    and to the same degree, Trump wants to make sure the Ukrainians aren’t double-dealing behind his administration’s back by working in the favor of the opposing US party

    it is not that hard to understand

    even the Ukrainians had admitted to this: h ttps://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

    not exactly a conservative website there

    and this doesn’t even take into account the Ukrainians had opened new investigations into the Biden-Burisma affair prior to the phone call itself

    Zachriel: Of course they would have to say that. If they admit to the pressure, then Trump could retaliate, and kowtowing to the U.S. is already causing political damage at home. We said this already, but instead of replying to what we said, you simply repeated your claim.

    but this is like the 10th time you repeated your dumbass claim

    so Trump is making them do it?

    that is your argument here?

    you know Trump didn’t do – he didn’t strongarm the Ukrainians into firing a state prosecutor nor did he send staffers to work with a foreign body to do political ops

    nor did Trump pen an official Senate letter implying to the Ukrainians to comply with the Mueller special probe lest they risk US aid in the future

    Zachriel: While it is reasonable to argue that there is an appearance of impropriety, there is no evidence of a crime. If there were, then the U.S. should prosecute. Call a grand jury. American justice shouldn’t be outsourced to Ukraine or Communist China.

    considering how the Democrats and our own government used foreign intel to spy on the Trump election and transition teams, you really have no ground to make such a statement

    because you are not only typing out a line of utter bullshit but are showing a clear double standard

    and sometimes you need to investigate corruption to produce a possible indictment/s

    and it is not against any law I am aware of to cooperate with foreign nationals to get material for said investigations, right?

    I mean that is what the Dems did

    Zachriel: Except that’s not what happened, as you know, and have been informed repeatedly. What Biden bragged about was forcing Ukraine to fire a prosecutor in furtherance of U.S. and E.U. policy.

    but that is exactly what happened – Biden got caught on tape bragging about get a state prosecutor of a foreign nation fired

    and again I will point out – this is the same state prosecutor who would later stated his office was being pressured by a US diplomat to treat their Burisma cases with white gloves

    and wouldn’t you know, a year later, he’s fired and Burisma is off the hook… while landing some really sweetheart deals with Hunter Biden in their employ

fishstick: except that it was written in a limited capacity as there would be no need to include possible classified info detailed out

So the White House is hiding that there is information they have determined that is classified that has been redacted, information which may be of importance to the impeachment inquiry.

fishstick: I retorted that the former VP had no authority to even ask for its release

That wasn’t your claim, which was that Democrats hadn’t requested the transcript until the day before its release. As Biden is a Democrat, that was a false statement. Did you mean to refer to the Intelligence Committee?

fishstick: you do know that software can easily be transferred to other devices

That’s right, so the whole idea that the DNC servers are hidden in Ukraine is just silly conspiracy mongering.

fishstick: I think you read a different complaint, because where was any of the first-hand information you claim is in existence?

Both the complaint and the Inspector General say there is first-hand information. It may be included in the classified appendix.

fishstick: but this is like the 10th time you repeated your {} claim

And ten times you have ignored it.

fishstick: but that is exactly what happened – Biden got caught on tape bragging about get a state prosecutor of a foreign nation fired

That’s right, in furtherance of U.S. and E.U. policy at the time, including bipartisan support on Capitol Hill.

fishstick: this is the same state prosecutor who would later stated his office was being pressured by a US diplomat to treat their Burisma cases with white gloves

The same prosecutor who is widely seen as corrupt and in the pockets of Kremlin-aligned oligarchs who had looted Ukraine.

Zachriel: So the White House is hiding that there is information they have determined that is classified that has been redacted, information which may be of importance to the impeachment inquiry.

except you are the one making that claim

I’m only stating that such a written form (transcript) of a 30 minute phone call is likely not to have detailed out information with and including classified materials

Zachriel: That wasn’t your claim, which was that Democrats hadn’t requested the transcript until the day before its release.

yes – and it holds true

both the phone call transcript and the whistleblower complaint were released the day after it being requested by the House Democrats

Zachriel: As Biden is a Democrat, that was a false statement. Did you mean to refer to the Intelligence Committee?

again – Joe Biden, who is a former VP at this stage, has no authority to demand well… anything

Zachriel: That’s right, so the whole idea that the DNC servers are hidden in Ukraine is just silly conspiracy mongering.

except if the infected software was copied and indeed brought to Ukraine at some point for side-by-side testing, then it isn’t simply a silly conspiracy theory

and this warrants a look since the DNC did not provide material for cross examination by the US government

Zachriel: Both the complaint and the Inspector General say there is first-hand information. It may be included in the classified appendix.

but it isn’t

you can keep typing this BS line of yours and I’ll continue to retort with the fact the complaint was all second-hand information because it literally says it is

and again – the ICIG has admitted he did not even look at the transcript in question before submitting his analysis to the DNI head, who bumped it as an uncorroborated account, then to the DOJ who bumped it as a partisan document

Zachriel: And ten times you have ignored it.

again – your claim is utter BS as I’ve pointed out some 11 times now

but hey, wanna go for a 12th?

Zachriel: That’s right, in furtherance of U.S. and E.U. policy at the time, including bipartisan support on Capitol Hill.

again – more ignorance of the liberal double standard you are so fond of

and again – it does not absolve VP Biden of any possible guilt of his association with Burisma

Zachriel: The same prosecutor who is widely seen as corrupt and in the pockets of Kremlin-aligned oligarchs who had looted Ukraine.

sure, why not?

the Democrats did this with James Comey, Peter Strozk, Avenatti and the pornstar, from the Mueller probe to the whole Kavanaugh affair, and now the whistleblower and its inquiry

and the above is just some of the whinefest we have seen from the Democrats in the Trump first term

fishstick: I’m only stating that such a written form (transcript) of a 30 minute phone call is likely not to have detailed out information with and including classified materials

If there is information of relevance to the Congress, but it was left out of the rough transcript without so much as a notice of redaction, then it is clearly being hid from Congress. That it is classified simply means that it can’t be shown in open hearings, but would still be available to the select committee for review. That’s why you show the redactions, so that authorized personnel can have access.

fishstick: both the phone call transcript and the whistleblower complaint were released the day after it being requested by the House Democrats

Okay. So you have modified your original statement. However, that too is false. Schiff demanded the transcript on September 22, and the rough transcript was only released after Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry.

Sept 20, Biden calls for release of transcript
Sept 22, Schiff calls for release of transcript
Sept 24, Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry
Sept 25, Transcript released

And now you are suggesting that the White House has purposefully redacted part of the transcript without providing notice of the redactions.

fishstick: your claim is utter BS as I’ve pointed out some 11 times now

You say, but don’t support by reference to the claim. Rather, you rant tu quoque, or as they say in American, “Yo mama!”

fishstick: it does not absolve VP Biden of any possible guilt of his association with Burisma

There is no evidence of a crime by either Biden, as you yourself have granted. But you don’t need whistleblowers, or text messages, or rough transcripts. Trump was on the White House lawn calling on the authoritarian communist government of China to investigate a U.S. citizen for which there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, a citizen who is Trump’s political opponent, just a week before important trade negotiations with China are set to begin.

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | October 5, 2019 at 3:12 pm

    Zachriel: If there is information of relevance to the Congress, but it was left out of the rough transcript without so much as a notice of redaction, then it is clearly being hid from Congress.

    unless it was never jotted down in the first place

    I keep typing this but you keep ignoring it but why would record potential classified info for a transcript?

    Zachriel: Okay. So you have modified your original statement. However, that too is false.

    I didn’t modify any statement

    when the Dems requested the material, Trump literally gave it to them

    Zachriel: Schiff demanded the transcript on September 22, and the rough transcript was only released after Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry.

    okay so 3 days – in your best case scenario with crazy Schiff – is somehow a viable obstruction charge to you?

    sorry but I don’t think that argument is going to fly in a court

    Zachriel: And now you are suggesting that the White House has purposefully redacted part of the transcript without providing notice of the redactions.

    and where did I suggest this at?

    you are the one who keeps bringing up “redactions”, not me

    Zachriel: You say, but don’t support by reference to the claim. Rather, you rant tu quoque, or as they say in American, “Yo mama!”

    what reference?

    you keep making the conjecture, “Trump is making them do it!”

    sorry but that is just a BS argument

    wanna try for a 13th now?

    Zachriel: There is no evidence of a crime by either Biden, as you yourself have granted.

    and there is still no evidence of a crime by Trump, is there?

    Zachriel: But you don’t need whistleblowers, or text messages, or rough transcripts. Trump was on the White House lawn calling on the authoritarian communist government of China to investigate a U.S. citizen for which there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, a citizen who is Trump’s political opponent, just a week before important trade negotiations with China are set to begin.

    you do realize that was in response to a question that Trump was asked, right?

    it was a hypothetical

    an example of what isn’t a hypothetical is when 3 Dem senators actually sent a letter to Ukraine demanding they comply with the Mueller probe

    but to you that was okay, right?

    or another example when a Dem operative was working in hand with Ukrainians to dig up dirt on Trump

    but to you that was okay, right?

    and you don’t even see your liberal double standard

    for over 2 years, the Dems had an investigation into all things Trump where there was no actual crime or infraction he had (supposedly) done even listed

    (I think) three special counsel mandate changes because the Mueller team quickly realizes there was no there there when it came to Trump-Russia collusion

    and you are crying about there being no “evidence” of a crime committed

    well one big difference here – VP Biden is on fucking tape admitting to politically strong-arming the former Ukrainian president

    another big difference – VP Biden’s son had a lucrative position at Burisma, despite have zero qualifications for said position

    another big difference – Burisma scored multi-million (even billion) contracts during Hunter’s tenure there, oh and they tended to happen after VP Biden visited said country on an official US affair

    if you are using conjecture on pure allegations, then I can use the same conjecture on the strange happenstance with the Bidens

Meanwhile,

Republican senator said Friday he learned from a U.S. ambassador that President Donald Trump was tying military aid for Ukraine to an investigation of the 2016 election. But when the senator asked Trump if he could assure the Ukraine leadership the money would be coming, the president blocked him from carrying that message.

Of course, there was no quid pro quo. Just sending him on a trip to Belize.

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | October 5, 2019 at 2:39 pm

    Zachriel: Meanwhile, Republican senator said Friday he learned from a U.S. ambassador that President Donald Trump was tying military aid for Ukraine to an investigation of the 2016 election. But when the senator asked Trump if he could assure the Ukraine leadership the money would be coming, the president blocked him from carrying that message.

    again with the someone someone knows told me this argument?

    Zachriel: Of course, there was no quid pro quo. Just sending him on a trip to Belize.

    note the above

    on the other hand – the top US envoy to Ukraine for 2 years testifies and directly contradicts the Dem narrative of “quid pro quo”

    but nothing to see there, right?

fishstick: again with the someone someone knows told me this argument?

Have no idea what that means. Senator Johnson was told by Ambassador Sondland that there was a quid pro quo. Sondland worked with Volker to draft an agreement that specifically included mention of 2016. Sondland worked with Volker on a draft statement that included a promise to investigate 2016 and Burisma.

Volker said in his prepared statement that “I have known former Vice President Biden for 24 years, and the suggestion that he would be influenced in his duties as Vice President by money for his son simply has no credibility to me. I know him as a man of integrity and dedication to our country.” Yet Trump publicly called for Biden to be investigated, and brought it up in his phone call with Zelensky.

Volker said in a text that “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / ‘get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington”, a clear quid pro quo.

But you don’t need whistleblowers, or text messages, or rough transcripts. Trump was on the White House lawn calling on the authoritarian communist government of China to investigate a U.S. citizen for which there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, a citizen who is Trump’s political opponent, just a week before important trade negotiations with China are set to begin.

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | October 5, 2019 at 5:54 pm

    Zachriel: Have no idea what that means.

    it means hearsay

    Zachriel: Senator Johnson was told by Ambassador Sondland that there was a quid pro quo.

    hearsay

    Zachriel: Sondland worked with Volker to draft an agreement that specifically included mention of 2016. Sondland worked with Volker on a draft statement that included a promise to investigate 2016 and Burisma.

    except Volker’s testified a couple days ago that he was never aware of nor took part in any effort to push the Ukrainians to investigate former VP Biden or his son

    and he testified they were investigations broad in scope on corruption by outside sources (Bidens) upon their own government, and not the political hit jobs you libs are trying to make them out to be

    Zachriel: Volker said in his prepared statement that “I have known former Vice President Biden for 24 years, and the suggestion that he would be influenced in his duties as Vice President by money for his son simply has no credibility to me. I know him as a man of integrity and dedication to our country.”

    sure Sleepy Joe is squeaky clean

    /sarcasm

    still doesn’t explain Burisma, doesn’t it?

    Zachriel: Yet Trump publicly called for Biden to be investigated, and brought it up in his phone call with Zelensky.

    of course!

    because he is on tape literally bragging about strong-arming the former president of Ukraine

    Zachriel: Volker said in a text that “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / ‘get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington”, a clear quid pro quo.

    except his later testimony contradicts the whole affair: “… at no time was I aware of or took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden.”

    so still no smidgen of “quid pro quo”

    Zachriel: But you don’t need whistleblowers, or text messages, or rough transcripts. Trump was on the White House lawn calling on the authoritarian communist government of China to investigate a U.S. citizen for which there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, a citizen who is Trump’s political opponent, just a week before important trade negotiations with China are set to begin.

    addressed this in your previous post:

    again – it was a hypothetical to a question a reporter had asked the president

fishstick: I didn’t modify any statement

fs, October 2: except the White House did “immediately release” said transcript (and the whistleblower complaint) barely a day after the Democrats requested it

fs, October 5: the phone call transcript and the whistleblower complaint were released the day after it being requested by the House Democrats

Those are not the same statements. The latter modifies “Democrats” to “House Democrats”. Even then, the revised statement was false.

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | October 5, 2019 at 6:01 pm

    Zachriel: fs, October 2: except the White House did “immediately release” said transcript (and the whistleblower complaint) barely a day after the Democrats requested it

    yes “immediately released” within a day (or three if you count Schiff) is pretty darn fast

    again – no obstruction there

    Zachriel: fs, October 5: the phone call transcript and the whistleblower complaint were released the day after it being requested by the House Democrats

    again – released within a day of it being requested by House Democrats

    Zachriel: Those are not the same statements. The latter modifies “Democrats” to “House Democrats”. Even then, the revised statement was false.

    awww – you can’t tell the difference between Dems and House Dems now?

    well who else was I referring to?

    Senate Dems?

    former Democrat Presidents like Obama and Bill Clinton?

    or perhaps employees of the DNC?

    how about people who vote Democrat?

    oh wait I got it – I was clearly referring to dead people associated with the Democratic party!

    funny you didn’t catch on to those other possibilities there

fishstick: it was a hypothetical to a question a reporter had asked the president

Oh gee whiz. You only have to have ears to hear.

Trump: China should start an investigation into the Bidens. Because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.

The Bidens are U.S. citizens. China is an authoritarian communist regime.

Trump’s call for China to probe Biden clouds trade talks

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | October 6, 2019 at 12:17 pm

    Zachriel: Oh gee whiz. You only have to have ears to hear.

    well that is what ears are for

    Zachriel: “” Trump: China should start an investigation into the Bidens. Because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine. “”

    again that was an answer to a directed question by a reporter over his phone call with Zelenskyy

    you are trying to excuse away the Bidens’ impropriety with Burisma who landed a huge billion dollar deal with China after VP Biden makes a visit there

    and the cases built against the Burisma company ended up getting squashed

    not to mention the supposed lead on this (Hunter Biden) has zero expertise when it comes to China nor Ukraine nor energy nor even private equity

    Zachriel: The Bidens are U.S. citizens. China is an authoritarian communist regime.

    true but that didn’t stop the Democrats for pressuring the Ukrainians into digging up dirt on US citizens either

    except here, there is actual admittance on Ukraine’s end that they got involved

    in the case you are trying to make, it is the opposite

fishstick: again that was an answer to a directed question by a reporter over his phone call with Zelenskyy

The context doesn’t help.

Reporter: What exactly do you hope Zelensky will do about the Bidens after your phone call? Exactly?

Trump: Well, I would think that if they were honest about it they’d start a major investigation into the Bidens. It’s a very simple answer. They should investigate the Bidens. Because how does a company that’s newly formed and all these companies … And, by the way, likewise China should start an investigation into the Bidens. Because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.

There’s just no way around it. Trump is calling for an authoritarian communist regime to investigate his political rivals, private U.S. citizens whom you have already granted there is probably no prosecutable offenses.

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | October 6, 2019 at 6:26 pm

    Zachriel: The context doesn’t help.

    sure it does

    if you don’t like the answer, then don’t ask the question

    Zachriel: There’s just no way around it. Trump is calling for an authoritarian communist regime to investigate his political rivals, private U.S. citizens whom you have already granted there is probably no prosecutable offenses.

    no – Trump is actually calling for China to investigate possible offenses done by the Bidens per their dealings with Burisma holdings

    and there could be charges there for influence peddling, which is an illegal activity in most countries

fishstick: Trump is actually calling for China to investigate possible offenses done by the Bidens

You got it! Trump is calling for an authoritarian communist regime to investigate his political rivals, private U.S. citizens.

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | October 7, 2019 at 7:05 pm

    Zachriel: You got it! Trump is calling for an authoritarian communist regime to investigate his political rivals, private U.S. citizens.

    except it was framed as a hypothetical to a question a reporter had asked him

    you keep ignoring that part of it

    as well as the distinction Trump isn’t using his position as PotUS to demand China do these things like VP Biden did with the Ukrainians on behalf of the Obama administration

    Joe Biden’s role as a political candidate has nothing to do with the allegations here and potential crimes therein

    funny thing – Biden’s viability to win the Dem nomination has tanked since this whole “whistleblower” concoction of theirs has boomeranged and hit them in their donkey faces

fishstick: except it was framed as a hypothetical to a question a reporter had asked him

The reporter’s question wasn’t hypothetical: “What exactly do you hope Zelensky will do about the Bidens after your phone call? Exactly?”

Regarding Ukraine, Trump hedges at first, but then makes a clear declarative: “It’s a very simple answer. They should investigate the Bidens.”

Regarding China, Trump doesn’t hedge at all: “And, by the way, likewise China should start an investigation into the Bidens.”

It’s clear you don’t want to face the facts concerning Trump’s statements. The best answer for Trump would be that he misspoke in the moment. But this is part of a long pattern of such behavior on his part, including during his phone call with Zelensky, and now the selling out of the Kurds in Syria to the benefit of authoritarians; Erdoğan, Putin, and Assad.

Trump Towers Istanbul

    fishstick in reply to Zachriel. | October 8, 2019 at 7:27 pm

    Zachriel: The reporter’s question wasn’t hypothetical: “What exactly do you hope Zelensky will do about the Bidens after your phone call? Exactly?”

    except that is a hypothetical question

    as the question is a literal proposition

    Zachriel: Regarding Ukraine, Trump hedges at first, but then makes a clear declarative: “It’s a very simple answer. They should investigate the Bidens.”

    except you don’t take into context the hypothesis of the president’s answer

    he’s stating the Ukrainians should be investigating the Bidens because of the acts they have been engaged in

    such as Biden’s role in strong-arming the previous Ukrainian president and Hunter’s role in Burisma, whom seem to have a run of good fortune with the former VP’s son on their board

    Zachriel: Regarding China, Trump doesn’t hedge at all: “And, by the way, likewise China should start an investigation into the Bidens.”

    again – because of context

    there is clear impropriety going on there that you continually ignore

    Zachriel: It’s clear you don’t want to face the facts concerning Trump’s statements.

    but I’ve stated it atleast six different times now that you are arguing a hypothetical

    the reality is your argument that Trump is leveraging his position into forcing other countries to investigate the Bidens just doesn’t have any factual support

    the transcript doesn’t reveal any “quid pro quo”, the current Ukrainian administration has flat out denied any such pressuring, and there is even of an argument for you bringing up “commie” China

    Zachriel: The best answer for Trump would be that he misspoke in the moment. But this is part of a long pattern of such behavior on his part, including during his phone call with Zelensky,

    and again – you ignore Zelenskyy has contradicted the very premise of your argument

    Zachriel: and now the selling out of the Kurds in Syria to the benefit of authoritarians; Erdoğan, Putin, and Assad.

    this here is nothing new as Trump has made continual efforts to pull troops out of that region and force these other countries to better invest in their own defense

    now – I think there is a good argument to be made that THIS is a mistake, like Obama pulling the troops out of Iraq, but it has been Trump’s MO

    as he wants the rest of the world to step it up and stop relying on the US to foot everyone’s bill

fishstick: except that is a hypothetical question

There is nothing hypothetical about the question. “What exactly do you hope Zelensky will do about the Bidens after your phone call? Exactly?”

A hypothetical question is one which is of the form, “If …”. This is a hypothetical question: If you were a bird, would you be a hawk or an owl?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend