The Ukraine scandal timeline Democrats... don’t want America to see

[Cow Poke]

It was difficult to interpret your statement in another fashion.

My apologies.

I can understand the degree of "you don't have power to remedy the situation so you can calm down about it"--heck, I've paid almost no attention to this whole impeachment business. Is Trump guilty? Heck if I know, I haven't kept up. Why bother? I wasn't going to vote for Trump anyway (whatever small chance I had was removed by his haphazard Syrian withdrawal), and I can't see myself voting for any of the Democrats either. It'll almost certainly be Brian Carroll for me, even if it has to be a Write-In. The issue of Trump's guilt or innocence won't even affect me indirectly in regards to the Senate/House (who do decide the issue of impeachment) because my district is so liberal the Republicans didn't even bother running someone last time, and there's no Senate election in my state in 2020. So why should I care? The amount of time spent untangling this whole mess to form an opinion would be better spent forming an opinion on something that is actually relevant to my life choices.

The problem is that that doesn't really relate to the whole "well, God allowed it!" idea. I don't know why you even brought it up if you weren't actually arguing anything with it.

It's just part of the process. It's how we got where we are.
God allowed, for whatever reason, Trump to be President. I am instructed to pray for those in power over us. I do.

I am NOT told to attack him at every turn, and pile on, and believe and report every bit of gossip and rumor about him. I certainly am not consumed with his demise. I leave that in God's hands.

I don't happen to believe that the people who are at war with him - Pelosi and Schiff, for example - are God's agents for change. They're just as determined to keep control of the House as Trump is determined to keep control of the White House, and the Republicans are determined to keep control of the Senate.

The legitimate means for removal of Trump, as I said, is either impeachment or the 2020 election. For now, it appears impeachment is rapidly losing steam - even more news today.

IF the Dems had really been serious about finding the truth, they wouldn't have gone about it in such a smarmy manner, putting the one of the most partisan hacks on the planet as judge, chief prosecutor and jury.

[Watermelon]

My apologies.



It's just part of the process. It's how we got where we are.
God allowed, for whatever reason, Trump to be President. I am instructed to pray for those in power over us. I do.

I am NOT told to attack him at every turn, and pile on, and believe and report every bit of gossip and rumor about him. I certainly am not consumed with his demise. I leave that in God's hands.

I don't happen to believe that the people who are at war with him - Pelosi and Schiff, for example - are God's agents for change. They're just as determined to keep control of the House as Trump is determined to keep control of the White House, and the Republicans are determined to keep control of the Senate.

The legitimate means for removal of Trump, as I said, is either impeachment or the 2020 election. For now, it appears impeachment is rapidly losing steam - even more news today.

IF the Dems had really been serious about finding the truth, they wouldn't have gone about it in such a smarmy manner, putting the one of the most partisan hacks on the planet as judge, chief prosecutor and jury.

So what do you believe happened after hearing all the testimonies?

Do you think the white house visit was conditioned on the investigation announcement?

What do you think is the best explanation, based on the testimonies, for why the aid was withheld?

Would your position change if Trump actually did withhold aid for the investigation announcement?

[Cow Poke]

So what do you believe happened after hearing all the testimonies?

I think Schiff raised expectations to cause people to believe there would be numerous smoking guns, and all we ended up with was a bunch of assumptions, guesses, imaginings, he said / she said, and speculation. On top of that, Schiff acted in such a prejudicial manner that it turned people off to think there was any kind of "fair process" at all.

As for the rest of your questions, the hearings did nothing, in my opinion, to shed any real light on any of that, but just muddied the waters.

Apparently, the Dems put on the very best case they could, with the very best witnesses they had, and it fell flat.

The very fact that there was a definite "for impeachment" atmosphere before the hearings and it actually flipped to "against impeachment" shows what a crappy job the Dems did with the hearings.

So, what are the liberals left with? Well, the polls are wrong, or that one poll was an outlier (more polls are coming out that are even more brutal) or -- "this just proves that the American people are stupid".

I wanna see the Democrat who runs on that platform == "you're too stupid to know what's going on, so vote for me".

[Watermelon]

I think Schiff raised expectations to cause people to believe there would be numerous smoking guns, and all we ended up with was a bunch of assumptions, guesses, imaginings, he said / she said, and speculation. On top of that, Schiff acted in such a prejudicial manner that it turned people off to think there was any kind of "fair process" at all.

As for the rest of your questions, the hearings did nothing, in my opinion, to shed any real light on any of that, but just muddied the waters.

Apparently, the Dems put on the very best case they could, with the very best witnesses they had, and it fell flat.

The very fact that there was a definite "for impeachment" atmosphere before the hearings and it actually flipped to "against impeachment" shows what a crappy job the Dems did with the hearings.

So, what are the liberals left with? Well, the polls are wrong, or that one poll was an outlier (more polls are coming out that are even more brutal) or -- "this just proves that the American people are stupid".

I wanna see the Democrat who runs on that platform == "you're too stupid to know what's going on, so vote for me".

They all testified as to what they directly experienced as well as what they heard and what they knew to give a overall narrative of what transpired over several months.

The public servants that had frequent contact with the Ukrainians came to understand that aid was withheld until investigations were announced. How they came to that understanding was:

- a back channel to the White House was made and operated independently
- the people using this back channel repeatedly asked the Ukrainians to announce investigations into Biden
- Sondland tells Ukrainians in a meeting White House visit conditioned on announcement causing Bolton to end the meeting abruptly
- aid was withheld
- the back channel people told the Ukrainians the aid would be released after investigation announcement

These are facts that were established by multiple witnesses with direct knowledge in these events and Sondland testified to multiple occasions where he directly told the Ukrainians the aid and announcement condition which he said was his presumption.

The defence to this is:

- no witnesses actually heard Trump say aid was conditioned on announcement

Is this summary similar to your understanding?

If you had knowledge about the repeated requests to investigate Biden and the White House visit for announcements like Vindman did, is it so crazy to be concerned that aid would be used to get this announcement made after hearing the phone call?

[rogue06]

If your so concerned about Satan driving wedges, why do you spend so much time helping him do it?

And the fact that you see absolutely no irony in your statement is telling

[oxmixmudd]

And the fact that you see absolutely no irony in your statement is telling

That is because there is no irony. For there to be irony, I would have to be thinking I have no part to play, which simply isn't the case.

CP does not seem to understand the extent to which he owns the problem he is lamenting. I am not claiming I have no part to play when asking the question. I am simply asking why CP has chosen to play such a large part himself if that is a significant concern.

What is interesting about these sorts of accusations is that all one need do to assess exactly how much is the other fellows fault is to simply stop your own part. If after you or CP stops casting aspersions on who I am or my character., the problem magically disappears, then you know you were the problem. If it doesn't, then the extent to which it doesn't is the part you can lay at my feet.

[Mountain Man]

They all testified as to what they directly experienced as well as what they heard and what they knew to give a overall narrative of what transpired over several months.

The public servants that had frequent contact with the Ukrainians came to understand that aid was withheld until investigations were announced. How they came to that understanding was:

- a back channel to the White House was made and operated independently
- the people using this back channel repeatedly asked the Ukrainians to announce investigations into Biden
- Sondland tells Ukrainians in a meeting White House visit conditioned on announcement causing Bolton to end the meeting abruptly
- aid was withheld
- the back channel people told the Ukrainians the aid would be released after investigation announcement

These are facts that were established by multiple witnesses with direct knowledge in these events and Sondland testified to multiple occasions where he directly told the Ukrainians the aid and announcement condition which he said was his presumption.

The defence to this is:

- no witnesses actually heard Trump say aid was conditioned on announcement

Is this summary similar to your understanding?

If you had knowledge about the repeated requests to investigate Biden and the White House visit for announcements like Vindman did, is it so crazy to be concerned that aid would be used to get this announcement made after hearing the phone call?

The defense is quite a bit stronger than that:

- No witnesses actually heard Trump say aid was conditioned on an announcement
- Sondland testified under oath that the President told him directly that there was to be no quid pro quo
- The transcript of the phone call shows that there was no explicit or implicit quid pro quo
-Members of the Ukrainian government, including President Zelinsky, say there was no pressure from the Trump administration
- There is zero evidence that anybody in the Ukrainian government was even aware that military aid had been temporarily suspended
- Military aid was eventually released to Ukraine without them ever agreeing to any investigations

Those are the basic facts of the case, and all the water-cooler gossip, presumption, guesswork, and feelings aren't going to change that.

So, yes, unless the Democrats have much better witnesses who can speak directly to the facts, or have hard evidence like documents to prove their accusations, then they have no case, and certainly we should expect at least that much when their aim is to remove a duly elected president from office.

[oxmixmudd]

The defense is quite a bit stronger than that:

- No witnesses actually heard Trump say aid was conditioned on an announcement
- Sondland testified under oath that the President told him directly that there was to be no quid pro quo
- The transcript of the phone call shows that there was no explicit or implicit quid pro quo
-Members of the Ukrainian government, including President Zelinsky, say there was no pressure from the Trump administration
- There is zero evidence that anybody in the Ukrainian government was even aware that military aid had been temporarily suspended
- Military aid was eventually released to Ukraine without them ever agreeing to any investigations

Those are the basic facts of the case, and all the water-cooler gossip, presumption, guesswork, and feelings aren't going to change that.

So, yes, unless the Democrats have much better witnesses who can speak directly to the facts, or have hard evidence like documents to prove their accusations, then they have no case, and certainly we should expect at least that much when their aim is to remove a duly elected president from office.

1) the transcript shows quid pro quo
2) diplomats from ukraine not only knew the aid was withheld, they knew they had to announce publically an investigation which included the names burisma and biden to get that aid
3) the aid was released only after the aid for biden quid pro quo was revealed by the whistle blower.

In addition

4)the White House has blocked testimony by those with the most complete knowledge of the president's words on the matter in acts of obstruction

5) in ongoing efforts to obfuscate and confuse, the White House and the GOP continue to push russian sourced conspiracy theories about Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 ekections.

ETA: this is by no means any sort of complete list of the evidence against the president in the testimoney.

[firstfloor]

I think Solomon has gone off in disgrace to paddle his own canoe.

[rogue06]

1) the transcript shows quid pro quo

Please show us exactly where.

2) diplomats from ukraine not only knew the aid was withheld, they knew they had to announce publically an investigation which included the names burisma and biden to get that aid

Citation please.

3) the aid was released only after the aid for biden quid pro quo was revealed by the whistle blower.

Citation please

In addition

4)the White House has blocked testimony by those with the most complete knowledge of the president's words on the matter in acts of obstruction

A president is allowed to claim Executive Privilege. It is a right explicitly spelled out in the constitution.

Now, this could have easily been resolved by the courts (determining which supersedes the other, Executive Privilege or a Congressional subpoena) when Charles Kupperman filed a suit asking them to decide. But, Schiff pulled the subpoena rather than let that happen.

So if there is anyone is to blame for this impasse it is the pencil-necked clown with the Charles Manson stare.

5) in ongoing efforts to obfuscate and confuse, the White House and the GOP continue to push russian sourced conspiracy theories about Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 ekections.

And yet recently the Ukrainian government brought charges against one of their own officials, Artem Sytnyk (the director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine -- NABU) who was being investigated for interfering with the 2016 election. Back in March the Ukrainian Prosecutor General, Yuriy Lutsenko, announced that he opened an investigation on whether or not Sytnyk attempted to influence the 2016 vote to the benefit of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton

Imagine that.

[Mountain Man]

1) the transcript shows quid pro quo

Please show us exactly where.

Vindman repeatedly asserted that Trump demanded that Ukraine investigate Biden. Ratcliffe asked him for a direct quote from the transcript to justify his accusation. In one of the more comical moments of the hearing, Vindman said, and I quote: "Give me a minute, and I'll see if I can find something."

A president is allowed to claim Executive Privilege. It is a right explicitly spelled out in the constitution.

I'm still trying to figure out who it was that came up with the notion that innocent men are obligated to submit themselves to an interrogation by a hostile panel in order to prove their innocence.

[Zymologist]

What's missing from Solomon's timeline is the letter from Shokin's office given directly to Burisma, clearing him, ending the UK investigation, and adding to the extensive evidence of corruption that made Shokin's removal a priority to the US, the IMF, and the European community.

What's missing from your source checking is the fact Solomon Reports is the love child of his forced removal from the Hill's reporting ranks, his subsequent resignation, and his history at the Moonie Times.

If you'd just stick to preaching, you could avoid making Christianity look like the first choice of religions for chumps.

This has been extensively reported, but you're a goober, so you're going to keep on sucking up the stories that make ya feel good, not the stories that are good for you. And don't whine. Please, don't whine. We've tried saying this politely before, and you just blow it off.

Go ahead and queue up the counter-attacks and quote mines, your go-to defenses when you're busted dirty, but at the end of the day, we both know it's just you pushing apologetics for partisans, when you could be pushing back against them in defense of the way and the truth.

This is your life, now.

Explainer: Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn't pursue corruption cases
Courtney Subramanian
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – A whistleblower complaint centering on President Donald Trump's phone call with the Ukrainian president has spurred a number of allegations and counterallegations as Republicans and Democrats jockey for position amid an impeachment inquiry.

At the heart of Congress' probe into the president's actions is his claim that former Vice President and 2020 Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden strong-armed the Ukrainian government to fire its top prosecutor in order to thwart an investigation into a company tied to his son, Hunter Biden.

But sources ranging from former Obama administration officials to an anti-corruption advocate in Ukraine say the official, Viktor Shokin, was ousted for the opposite reason Trump and his allies claim.

Politics
Top House Democrat says ethics probe of Nunes is likely over alleged meeting with Ukrainian about Bidens
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Colby Itkowitz
November 23, 2019 at 7:47 p.m. EST

A high-ranking House Democrat said Saturday it’s “quite likely” Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) will face an ethics investigation over allegations that he met with an ex-Ukrainian official to obtain information about former vice president Joe Biden and his son.

Nunes doesn't have the majority to shield himself from an ethics probe this time. But it's his evil companions who are more relevant to this thread.

The allegation that Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, met with a former Ukrainian prosecutor last year to discuss the Bidens came from the attorney for Lev Parnas, one of two Soviet-born associates of Rudolph W. Giuliani who were indicted on charges they broke campaign finance law.

Parnas’s attorney, Joseph Bondy, told The Washington Post that Ukraine’s former top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, informed Parnas that he had met with Nunes in Vienna in December 2018.

Bondy also said that a top aide to Nunes, Derek Harvey, sometimes joined a group that met frequently in spring 2019 at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., to discuss the Biden matter, among other topics. The group, according to Bondy, was convened by Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, and included Parnas, his business associate Igor Fruman, as well as journalist John Solomon and the husband-and-wife legal team of Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing.

All of Solomon's primary sources on the "Biden scandal" are corrupt. Two have been indicted, one is under investigation by the FBI, and another is heading for yet another ethics investigation.

Perhaps Cow Poke is a Russian asset?

[Cow Poke]

Perhaps Cow Poke is a Russian asset?

Da!

[rogue06]

Perhaps Cow Poke is a Russian asset?

Don't be ridicu...

00000000000000000001.jpeg

00000000000000000002.jpg

00000000000000000003.jpg



00000000000000ars3.gif

[rogue06]

Vindman repeatedly asserted that Trump demanded that Ukraine investigate Biden. Ratcliffe asked him for a direct quote from the transcript to justify his accusation. In one of the more comical moments of the hearing, Vindman said, and I quote: "Give me a minute, and I'll see if I can find something."

Clickinate on if you please