Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
no no noWell, at least my post was fact and sourced which is more than you can say about this -
wow, some conspiracy theory!Of course not... That's what Giuliani (the President's personal -- not government -- attorney) is for.
Donald has needed a new bagman ever since Cohen went to prison.
But of course... They do Donald's business over the table, while Giuliani does his business under it.
Every criminal enterprise needs a legitimate-looking front.
wow, some conspiracy theory!
any evidence for any of those wild accusations, or is that pure libel & calumny?
And so, you're telling me, "beware, US Mayors & Presidents are grossly corrupt...
good thing for Vice President Biden he's automatically squeaky clean (and innocent until proven guilty)" ?
Am I hearing you right ?
What conspiracy? It's how organized crime operates...
...although perhaps I am disrespectful for the comparison... Donald's people are far from "organized."
IOW, like I said, Biden is "probably ok" -- despite having multiple / plural family foreign financial ties, to foreign powers, with whom the US has tragically been at odds in recent times?Most of them aren't... Just one ex-mayor and one current president... The rest are probably ok.
Since when is Donald Trump part of an "organized crime" syndicate?
IOW, like I said, Biden is "probably ok" -- despite having multiple / plural family foreign financial ties, to foreign powers, with whom the US has tragically been at odds in recent times?
Do I understand now?
Trump asked Ukraine to "investigate wrong-doing by a US POTUS candidate in the Ukraine"
You have access to the Internet, obviously, yes?
This whole issue is about Mr. Biden's family ties to the Ukrainian oil conglomerate Burisma (which hired his son Hunter Biden onto its board, for political reasons, Hunter having zero oil industry expertise, and paid him $50K a month -- that would be a couple of million dollars over a few years)
Only Ukraine can investigate Ukrainian companies, like Burisma, yes?
Sorry, I just naturally assumed that one would look at all the infor. for contributors on that site. I should have link to both pages.no no no
that article was about only the "top 15 contributors"
the other article was about "grand total of all contributors"
there is no actual factual disagreement there
That presidential candidate is a private citizen. Currently Joe Biden is not working for the government.
what for? Only Donald's followers keep bringing it up.
I’m sure I’m your eyes that they certainly do. But let’s not make this about you,
let’s just look at the Democratic RESIST movement, Antifa coming to power through violence,
Hillary’s never ending “Why I lost” tour,
the calls for impeachment starting before he was inaugurated,
two years, 35,000,000, 19 attorneys, 40 Special agents, over 1,000,000 pages of documents, 2,800?subpoenas, 500 witnesses and no action.
Three years of attempting to have the President impeached and Trump supporters are the ones brining it up.
uh huh
I think you're a Donald follower because you echo the words of his other followers so faithfully... but let's not make this about you; let's make it about Donald's impeachable offenses... and the attempt to expose and intimidate those who testify against them.
Then you obviously haven't read where I've said in the past that both parties are the same and not worth voting for, or have you?
Lutsenko has testified (as yet un-dis-proven) that his efforts to supply information to the US were obstructed
Again, how could US authorities initiate an investigation, when Lutsenko's "whistleblower complaint" was silenced overseas?
US policy makers, up to POTUS, are allowed to have foreign financial ties ? Even questionable ones like oft-investigated Burisma ?
We know that the WB has "political bias" against Trump in favor of his 2020 opponent?
Why?
Nobody else was asking the Ukraine to investigate, true fact?
POTUS was the "last in line", true fact?
So POTUS asked Ukraine to investigate, true fact?
You. are. seriously. saying. it. is. a. crime. to. (even) ask. that. corruption. be. investigated?
Other than POTUS, everyone else is acting as if that is the case?
Biden is not an ordinary US citizen -- he's a POTUS candidate
higher standards?
closer scrutiny?
Why can you demand Trump be intensely scrutinized... but similar scrutiny can't be applied to Biden??
Don't the American people have a right to know about POTUS-level corruption allegations before they're elected?
you support the ACLU ?
There is quite a bit of conjecture there. Yes, Zelensky did mention Biden -- and allegedly first, though I think we'd need the full transcript to be released to know that for sure (or at least have it verified this is the full transcript).stop stop stop
Trump said "AG [Barr]"...
Zelensky countered "Guiliani"...
Zelensky was politely telling the President he was more comfortable dealing with Giuliani? Trump should have ignored that request for Giuliani? "No, Zelensky, can't help you there, AG only or we can't move forward with these investigations into US ELECTION FRAUD and possible POTUS CANDIDATE CORRUPTION..."
please. respond. to. the. fact. that. Zelensky. requested. Guiliani. by. name.
Trump was accommodating Zelensky's preference
The NSC told him to make the call, he called
Zelensky told him he preferred Giuliani, he accommodated
Shokin. was. the. Chief. Prosecutor.
Who best knows the Chief Prosecutor's prosecution cases:
The Chief Prosecutor himself
3rd parties (with obvious political bias)
?
No, I don't, and the facts don't support it either. Lutsenko made his claims to Giuliani in March -- and a signed affidavit in March from Lutsenko (who was then still Chief Prosecutor) would have been all that was needed for the US to start an investigation. But Giuliani gave it to Trump, alone (that we know of) and neither ever contacted US law enforcement, particularly AG Barr, to get an investigation started.The President asked for an investigation into Burisma & 2016 election meddling, not Hunter Biden's private family vacations
And if Giuliani had acquired evidence of wrongdoing, you agree he would have turned it over to the AG?
please. respond. to. the. fact. that. Zelensky. requested. Guiliani. by. name.
Trump was accommodating Zelensky's preference
The NSC told him to make the call, he called
Zelensky told him he preferred Giuliani, he accommodated
Cart before the horse
No investigation yet because:
Shokin was fired (before Biden's Burisma could be investigated)
Lutsenko was fired (before his elections meddling evidence could reach the AG)
Trump is being fired (distracting everyone from the foreign financial ties issue)
Please. tell. me. how. Biden. gets. investigated. in. actual. practice.?
You are telling me, to my face, that -- after every attempt to investigate Biden is quashed -- that therefore after that Biden is not under investigation, and so is innocent
Burn down the police department & courthouse, no investigation & trial... so totally innocent!
please. please. please. acknowledge. that. Zelensky. requested. Giuliani. over. against. instead of. the AG ?
Can the President of the United States have his own trusted set of "eyes & ears", or must the President of the United States passively sit back and gulp down whatsoever he or she is spoon fed by "The Experts" ?
Does POTUS have to tie their shoes just so, comb their hair exactly right? Do they have a curfew, lights out by 9pm?
Giuliani was trying to help an investigation into foreign financial & political influences into US Politics
Are you accusing Giuliani of manufacturing evidence? Cause otherwise he was just accepting Zelenksy's request for his help
Zelensky trusts Trump & Guiliani more than the AG, please tell me that fact registers with you?
From your timeline:you didn't look at the timeline. Lutsenko not only cleared the Bidens, again, he has also stated that Yovanovitch never gave him a "do not prosecute" list -- that it was a lie she did. Your "yet un-disproven" facts are the claims of a man who once cleared the Bidens of wrongdoing (when he closed the case two years ago) and has since retracted the various claims he made this Spring.
I'm not aware of any questionable foreign financial ties Joe Biden has. You speculate -- with no actual evidence -- that Biden somehow has profited off of his son's work for Burisma but there is no evidence to that effect. I know there was an article originating from a questionable right wing news site, but that was shown to be inaccurate. While their were payments made to Seneca Rosemont Partners, the payments were not as large as the article claimed and are payments to Hunter Biden and Devon Archer (who are owners of Seneca Partners) -- who were in business already together when they were given seats on Burisma's Board of Directors.
And the complaint about Burisma is for events that happened early this decade, specifically tied to the owner. The alleged complaint is about the lack of investigation into those events, and your complaint that Hunter Biden has not been investigated (despite Lutsenko's previous and current claims he never saw any evidence of wrongdoing, including closing the investigation two years ago); not that they are often investigated. Again, there were the things that occurred prior to Hunter joining their board, and then Republicans want it investigated for hiring Hunter Biden -- there are not mulitple claims of Burisma's wrongdoing and those charges were specifically leveled at Burisma's owner.
No, we actually don't. We have been given a name for what is assumed to be the whistleblower, there has been no verification this is true -- we just know what has been illegally leaked and who some people think fits the facts we know about the whistleblower. Further, it is being claimed since he "worked with Joe Biden" and other Democrats (as someone working in the White House during the Obama administration would have) that he must be anti-Trump. Yet, they ignore that, as a non-political worker, that he has worked with members of the Trump administration (and presumably VP Pence).
Last, any "bias" does not matter in the least; it is Argumentum ad Hominem, a logical fallacy. What matters if if the information in the report is valid, not if the person has a bias. Remember, the IG (a Trump political appointee) found that the report was "credible" and "serious," calling for it to be passed on to Congress.
Because it is the wrong way to do it, as I've explained previously. The President should have taken it to AG Barr, asked him to investigate it. AG Barr then starts an investigation and, if needed, goes to Ukraine and have them help him.
Foreign law enforcement does not know, much less investigate, based on US laws. That is why investigations by the government start and end with US law enforcement. Again, they seek help of other countries if they need help determining the facts of what occurred in that country but they do not have other countries determine if US Citizens broke US law in their country.
And the US government should have no interest in if a foreign government decides to investigate a US Citizen, other than ensuring the US Citizens rights are protected.
Now, yes, the US should be concerned about corruption in Ukraine -- but that is Ukrainian corruption, they should not be investigating US corruption for the US, that is a job for US law enforcement.
No, I don't see why he would be. Instead, in this case, it appears that there was "pressure" put on Lutsenko by Parnas and the billionaire oligarch that used Parnas, to get Lutsenko to change his story on the Biden's and, more specifically, make a story about Yovanovitch to get her removed -- for whatever reason (though likely to get someone more pro-Russian). He also reopened the investigation into Biden and Burisma he had closed two years earlier, when he claimed it showed no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden. It is unclear how involved Giuliani was involved in this activity, though Lutsenko has claimed to feeling pressured by Giuliani.
Of course, Lutsenko has now retracted his statements, saying they are untrue and again has repeated he has not, from either investigation, seen evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens. So when was Lutsenko lying -- and why did he only change his story when feeling pressured by Giuliani and those he was working with?
And does this potentially tie the President of the United States into Ukrainian corruption, since he sent Giuliani, whose investigation appears to have pressured Lutsenko to temporarily changing his story? It appears that rather than being the "last line" that this had come directly from the President's personal investigation.
Yes.
No, I'm stating the how this "investigation" has taken place is a crime. The facts remain, the only investigation Trump ever started in Ukraine was that for his personal use, by Giuliani.
If, after Giuliani reportedly told Trump about the things Lutsenko stated about Ukraine, Trump had gone to Barr and asked for an investigation into those allegations, Trump would have done the right thing. But, he didn't.
You could even argue if Trump had officially appointed a US government envoy to Ukraine -- though he'd likely still need to get Barr to open and investigation, and get Giuliani onboard as an independent prosecutor on the case -- then he arguably would have been fine.
But no, Trump never tells Barr, he never opens any official US investigation. Instead, despite the fact that he claimed he'd have Barr call, he only ever sends his personal attorney doing a private investigation -- never even telling US law enforcement what he's found, what he's doing in Ukraine, etc. Yes, this is corrupt and illegal, particularly since it is against a rival candidate for the Presidency.
It isn't that he asked, it is how he did it, and the things he didn't do. Particularly the fact, if there was no whistleblower, we still likely wouldn't have heard much about Trump's investigation. My guess is Trump was wanting to sit on this information, keep it secret, and only announce it at a key point of the campaign -- maybe hopefully right after Biden accepted the Democratic nomination -- then give it to Barr to open an official US investigation. Granted, that is speculation on my part but it is not unfounded, not when Trump was keeping that investigation completely hidden from US law enforcement.
No, everyone else understands that what the President is alleged to have done is wrong, if not illegal.
No, we don't have the right to know "allegations." As I've mentioned, there are reasons investigations are held in private, and police rarely state who the suspects are. Part of that is to protect the reputation of the innocent, until they feel they have the evidence to charge people with a crime.
I've stated that I have no issue with Biden being investigated, multiple times. I personally don't care for Biden and hope the Democrats do not nominate him; I'm not a Democrat.
I'm not sure why that would matter, that seems to be off topic.
(Since this is too long, I'll continue in my next post)
Apples & orangesLetsenko's "complaint"... Lutsenko not only cleared the Bidens, again, he has also stated that Yovanovitch never gave him a "do not prosecute" list -- that it was a lie she did. Your "yet un-disproven" facts are the claims of a man who once cleared the Bidens of wrongdoing (when he closed the case two years ago) and has since retracted the various claims he made this Spring.
I'm not aware of any questionable foreign financial ties Joe Biden has. You speculate -- with no actual evidence -- that Biden somehow has profited off of his son's work for Burisma but there is no evidence to that effect. I know there was an article originating from a questionable right wing news site, but that was shown to be inaccurate. While their were payments made to Seneca Rosemont Partners, the payments were not as large as the article claimed and are payments to Hunter Biden and Devon Archer (who are owners of Seneca Partners) -- who were in business already together when they were given seats on Burisma's Board of Directors.
And the complaint about Burisma is for events that happened early this decade, specifically tied to the owner. The alleged complaint is about the lack of investigation into those events, and your complaint that Hunter Biden has not been investigated (despite Lutsenko's previous and current claims he never saw any evidence of wrongdoing, including closing the investigation two years ago); not that they are often investigated. Again, there were the things that occurred prior to Hunter joining their board, and then Republicans want it investigated for hiring Hunter Biden -- there are not mulitple claims of Burisma's wrongdoing and those charges were specifically leveled at Burisma's owner.
No, we actually don't. We have been given a name for what is assumed to be the whistleblower, there has been no verification this is true -- we just know what has been illegally leaked and who some people think fits the facts we know about the whistleblower. Further, it is being claimed since he "worked with Joe Biden" and other Democrats (as someone working in the White House during the Obama administration would have) that he must be anti-Trump. Yet, they ignore that, as a non-political worker, that he has worked with members of the Trump administration (and presumably VP Pence).
Last, any "bias" does not matter in the least; it is Argumentum ad Hominem, a logical fallacy. What matters if if the information in the report is valid, not if the person has a bias. Remember, the IG (a Trump political appointee) found that the report was "credible" and "serious," calling for it to be passed on to Congress.
Because it is the wrong way to do it, as I've explained previously. The President should have taken it to AG Barr, asked him to investigate it. AG Barr then starts an investigation and, if needed, goes to Ukraine and have them help him.
Foreign law enforcement does not know, much less investigate, based on US laws. That is why investigations by the government start and end with US law enforcement. Again, they seek help of other countries if they need help determining the facts of what occurred in that country but they do not have other countries determine if US Citizens broke US law in their country.
And the US government should have no interest in if a foreign government decides to investigate a US Citizen, other than ensuring the US Citizens rights are protected.
Now, yes, the US should be concerned about corruption in Ukraine -- but that is Ukrainian corruption, they should not be investigating US corruption for the US, that is a job for US law enforcement.
No, I don't see why he would be. Instead, in this case, it appears that there was "pressure" put on Lutsenko by Parnas and the billionaire oligarch that used Parnas, to get Lutsenko to change his story on the Biden's and, more specifically, make a story about Yovanovitch to get her removed -- for whatever reason (though likely to get someone more pro-Russian). He also reopened the investigation into Biden and Burisma he had closed two years earlier, when he claimed it showed no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden. It is unclear how involved Giuliani was involved in this activity, though Lutsenko has claimed to feeling pressured by Giuliani.
Of course, Lutsenko has now retracted his statements, saying they are untrue and again has repeated he has not, from either investigation, seen evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens. So when was Lutsenko lying -- and why did he only change his story when feeling pressured by Giuliani and those he was working with?
And does this potentially tie the President of the United States into Ukrainian corruption, since he sent Giuliani, whose investigation appears to have pressured Lutsenko to temporarily changing his story? It appears that rather than being the "last line" that this had come directly from the President's personal investigation.
Yes.
No, I'm stating the how this "investigation" has taken place is a crime. The facts remain, the only investigation Trump ever started in Ukraine was that for his personal use, by Giuliani.
If, after Giuliani reportedly told Trump about the things Lutsenko stated about Ukraine, Trump had gone to Barr and asked for an investigation into those allegations, Trump would have done the right thing. But, he didn't.
You could even argue if Trump had officially appointed a US government envoy to Ukraine -- though he'd likely still need to get Barr to open and investigation, and get Giuliani onboard as an independent prosecutor on the case -- then he arguably would have been fine.
But no, Trump never tells Barr, he never opens any official US investigation. Instead, despite the fact that he claimed he'd have Barr call, he only ever sends his personal attorney doing a private investigation -- never even telling US law enforcement what he's found, what he's doing in Ukraine, etc. Yes, this is corrupt and illegal, particularly since it is against a rival candidate for the Presidency.
It isn't that he asked, it is how he did it, and the things he didn't do. Particularly the fact, if there was no whistleblower, we still likely wouldn't have heard much about Trump's investigation. My guess is Trump was wanting to sit on this information, keep it secret, and only announce it at a key point of the campaign -- maybe hopefully right after Biden accepted the Democratic nomination -- then give it to Barr to open an official US investigation. Granted, that is speculation on my part but it is not unfounded, not when Trump was keeping that investigation completely hidden from US law enforcement.
No, everyone else understands that what the President is alleged to have done is wrong, if not illegal.
No, we don't have the right to know "allegations." As I've mentioned, there are reasons investigations are held in private, and police rarely state who the suspects are. Part of that is to protect the reputation of the innocent, until they feel they have the evidence to charge people with a crime.
I've stated that I have no issue with Biden being investigated, multiple times. I personally don't care for Biden and hope the Democrats do not nominate him; I'm not a Democrat.
I'm not sure why that would matter, that seems to be off topic.
(Since this is too long, I'll continue in my next post)
300 million Americans, and you expect none of them will do their homework? Abraham Lincoln was wrong?But, again, you didn't look at the timeline. Lutsenko not only cleared the Bidens, again, he has also stated that Yovanovitch never gave him a "do not prosecute" list -- that it was a lie she did. Your "yet un-disproven" facts are the claims of a man who once cleared the Bidens of wrongdoing (when he closed the case two years ago) and has since retracted the various claims he made this Spring.
I'm not aware of any questionable foreign financial ties Joe Biden has. You speculate -- with no actual evidence -- that Biden somehow has profited off of his son's work for Burisma but there is no evidence to that effect. I know there was an article originating from a questionable right wing news site, but that was shown to be inaccurate. While their were payments made to Seneca Rosemont Partners, the payments were not as large as the article claimed and are payments to Hunter Biden and Devon Archer (who are owners of Seneca Partners) -- who were in business already together when they were given seats on Burisma's Board of Directors.
And the complaint about Burisma is for events that happened early this decade, specifically tied to the owner. The alleged complaint is about the lack of investigation into those events, and your complaint that Hunter Biden has not been investigated (despite Lutsenko's previous and current claims he never saw any evidence of wrongdoing, including closing the investigation two years ago); not that they are often investigated. Again, there were the things that occurred prior to Hunter joining their board, and then Republicans want it investigated for hiring Hunter Biden -- there are not mulitple claims of Burisma's wrongdoing and those charges were specifically leveled at Burisma's owner.
No, we actually don't. We have been given a name for what is assumed to be the whistleblower, there has been no verification this is true -- we just know what has been illegally leaked and who some people think fits the facts we know about the whistleblower. Further, it is being claimed since he "worked with Joe Biden" and other Democrats (as someone working in the White House during the Obama administration would have) that he must be anti-Trump. Yet, they ignore that, as a non-political worker, that he has worked with members of the Trump administration (and presumably VP Pence).
Last, any "bias" does not matter in the least; it is Argumentum ad Hominem, a logical fallacy. What matters if if the information in the report is valid, not if the person has a bias. Remember, the IG (a Trump political appointee) found that the report was "credible" and "serious," calling for it to be passed on to Congress.
Because it is the wrong way to do it, as I've explained previously. The President should have taken it to AG Barr, asked him to investigate it. AG Barr then starts an investigation and, if needed, goes to Ukraine and have them help him.
Foreign law enforcement does not know, much less investigate, based on US laws. That is why investigations by the government start and end with US law enforcement. Again, they seek help of other countries if they need help determining the facts of what occurred in that country but they do not have other countries determine if US Citizens broke US law in their country.
And the US government should have no interest in if a foreign government decides to investigate a US Citizen, other than ensuring the US Citizens rights are protected.
Now, yes, the US should be concerned about corruption in Ukraine -- but that is Ukrainian corruption, they should not be investigating US corruption for the US, that is a job for US law enforcement.
No, I don't see why he would be. Instead, in this case, it appears that there was "pressure" put on Lutsenko by Parnas and the billionaire oligarch that used Parnas, to get Lutsenko to change his story on the Biden's and, more specifically, make a story about Yovanovitch to get her removed -- for whatever reason (though likely to get someone more pro-Russian). He also reopened the investigation into Biden and Burisma he had closed two years earlier, when he claimed it showed no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden. It is unclear how involved Giuliani was involved in this activity, though Lutsenko has claimed to feeling pressured by Giuliani.
Of course, Lutsenko has now retracted his statements, saying they are untrue and again has repeated he has not, from either investigation, seen evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens. So when was Lutsenko lying -- and why did he only change his story when feeling pressured by Giuliani and those he was working with?
And does this potentially tie the President of the United States into Ukrainian corruption, since he sent Giuliani, whose investigation appears to have pressured Lutsenko to temporarily changing his story? It appears that rather than being the "last line" that this had come directly from the President's personal investigation.
Yes.
No, I'm stating the how this "investigation" has taken place is a crime. The facts remain, the only investigation Trump ever started in Ukraine was that for his personal use, by Giuliani.
If, after Giuliani reportedly told Trump about the things Lutsenko stated about Ukraine, Trump had gone to Barr and asked for an investigation into those allegations, Trump would have done the right thing. But, he didn't.
You could even argue if Trump had officially appointed a US government envoy to Ukraine -- though he'd likely still need to get Barr to open and investigation, and get Giuliani onboard as an independent prosecutor on the case -- then he arguably would have been fine.
But no, Trump never tells Barr, he never opens any official US investigation. Instead, despite the fact that he claimed he'd have Barr call, he only ever sends his personal attorney doing a private investigation -- never even telling US law enforcement what he's found, what he's doing in Ukraine, etc. Yes, this is corrupt and illegal, particularly since it is against a rival candidate for the Presidency.
It isn't that he asked, it is how he did it, and the things he didn't do. Particularly the fact, if there was no whistleblower, we still likely wouldn't have heard much about Trump's investigation. My guess is Trump was wanting to sit on this information, keep it secret, and only announce it at a key point of the campaign -- maybe hopefully right after Biden accepted the Democratic nomination -- then give it to Barr to open an official US investigation. Granted, that is speculation on my part but it is not unfounded, not when Trump was keeping that investigation completely hidden from US law enforcement.
No, everyone else understands that what the President is alleged to have done is wrong, if not illegal.
No, we don't have the right to know "allegations." As I've mentioned, there are reasons investigations are held in private, and police rarely state who the suspects are. Part of that is to protect the reputation of the innocent, until they feel they have the evidence to charge people with a crime.
I've stated that I have no issue with Biden being investigated, multiple times. I personally don't care for Biden and hope the Democrats do not nominate him; I'm not a Democrat.
I'm not sure why that would matter, that seems to be off topic.
(Since this is too long, I'll continue in my next post)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?