Home        About Dan        News        Books        Forum        Art
 
   
Page 2 of 2 <12
Topic Options
#169379 - 10/10/19 02:31 PM Re: Banned From Twitter [Re: Enright]
CPD Offline
enthusiast


Registered: 04/07/06
Posts: 262
Loc: Lorain County, Ohio, USA
Does anyone here think that that the accusations against him that are being characterized by the Democrats as impeachable, are in fact so?
I've read the transcript a few times. I've read the first "whistleblower" report, and frankly, I don't see it. I imagine that every communication between world leaders is an act of attempted persuasion.


Edited by CPD (10/10/19 02:32 PM)
_________________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. —Samuel Beckett

Top
#169380 - 10/10/19 02:43 PM Re: Banned From Twitter [Re: CPD]
jmill Offline
Full Shrike


Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 5679

I'm amazed that the Dems trotted out a second "whistleblower" about an event for which we've all had the chance to read the original transcript. What is this person supposed to tell us? That we read it wrong? That we're too stupid to see what's REALLY going on? That he or she knows more than the translator who wrote the conversation down? If so, this "whistleblower" better speak Ukrainian, and better be provably superior to the original translator.

There is no impeachable offense, no high crime, no misdemeanor. This is just another example of how Democrats don't care what the rules are if to bend or break them means they can undo a Republican's vote, and a reminder of how they will "interpret" the law and the Constitution when it suits them.


Edited by jmill (10/10/19 02:56 PM)

Top
#169381 - 10/10/19 02:46 PM Re: Banned From Twitter [Re: jmill]
jmill Offline
Full Shrike


Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 5679

Final point: the Dems want impeachment based on secret witnesses. The Dems continue to try and shield the identity of these "whistleblowers", in my opinion because they know that they can't stand up to any scrutiny. If they think they are going to impeach a sitting president on Star Chamber tribunals, they better think again.

Top
#169382 - 10/10/19 06:18 PM Re: Banned From Twitter [Re: jmill]
CPD Offline
enthusiast


Registered: 04/07/06
Posts: 262
Loc: Lorain County, Ohio, USA
I got to wondering why the Democrats would take such a high-risk gamble. If they win, they likely win the Presidency and Congress. If they lose, they probably lose the House. It's all in for them.

My hypotheses:
At this point, the President's re-election is highly probable. Democrats have to either remove him from office through impeachment, or so tarnish him so that he loses swing votes and the election. That does not seem like reason enough to put everything at risk. I wonder if the investigation into the "Russian Collusion" sources is so damning to the Democrats that they have to go to risky extreme measures.
_________________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. —Samuel Beckett

Top
#169383 - 10/10/19 07:33 PM Re: Banned From Twitter [Re: Enright]
jmill Offline
Full Shrike


Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 5679
 Originally Posted By: Enright
As a conspiracy theorist, I'll be enthusiastically supporting Donald Trump in 2020 because, for one reason, there has been a distracting, frenzied, three-year, deep-state conspiracy and cover-up to remove a sitting president of the United States – a duly elected president – by extra-electoral means. The last thing we should do is reward this dangerous sort of political hysteria, lest it become even more common.


Absolutely agree. To allow this Democratic coup to succeed could be the beginning of the end for our nation, because if it somehow works (not at all likely at this point), then the Republicans will do the same thing to the next Democratic president. This is the kind of behavior I expect from a banana republic, not the United States of America. the Democrats should be ashamed of this behavior.

Top
#169384 - 10/10/19 07:36 PM Re: Banned From Twitter [Re: CPD]
jmill Offline
Full Shrike


Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 5679
 Originally Posted By: CPD
I got to wondering why the Democrats would take such a high-risk gamble. If they win, they likely win the Presidency and Congress. If they lose, they probably lose the House. It's all in for them.

My hypotheses:
At this point, the President's re-election is highly probable. Democrats have to either remove him from office through impeachment, or so tarnish him so that he loses swing votes and the election. That does not seem like reason enough to put everything at risk. I wonder if the investigation into the "Russian Collusion" sources is so damning to the Democrats that they have to go to risky extreme measures.


I keep hearing that as a possibility, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if it's true, but until there are actually some indictments handed down of people like a Biden, Clapper, Comey, Brennan, or even a Clinton, I won't believe it's possible to do anything about it.


Edited by jmill (10/10/19 07:44 PM)

Top
#169385 - 10/10/19 11:20 PM Re: Banned From Twitter [Re: jmill]
Enright Offline
Super User


Registered: 05/17/06
Posts: 3564
Loc: CA
 Originally Posted By: jmill
 Originally Posted By: CPD
I got to wondering why the Democrats would take such a high-risk gamble. If they win, they likely win the Presidency and Congress. If they lose, they probably lose the House. It's all in for them.

My hypotheses:
At this point, the President's re-election is highly probable. Democrats have to either remove him from office through impeachment, or so tarnish him so that he loses swing votes and the election. That does not seem like reason enough to put everything at risk. I wonder if the investigation into the "Russian Collusion" sources is so damning to the Democrats that they have to go to risky extreme measures.


I keep hearing that as a possibility, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if it's true, but until there are actually some indictments handed down of people like a Biden, Clapper, Comey, Brennan, or even a Clinton, I won't believe it's possible to do anything about it.


Apparently a Ukrainian legislator went on official Ukrainian TV yesterday (or so this story asserts) saying that Joe Biden was paid $900,000 by Barisma Holdings (the same gas company on whose board sat Hunter Biden, at 50,000 a month) for "consulting services."

The story of this explosive charge starts at 6:28 into this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFtmRzlxpww
_________________________
Jim

Top
#169386 - 10/11/19 01:56 PM Re: Banned From Twitter [Re: Enright]
jmill Offline
Full Shrike


Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 5679

If this can be confirmed, that's huge.

Top
#169387 - 10/12/19 08:28 PM Re: Banned From Twitter [Re: jmill]
Enright Offline
Super User


Registered: 05/17/06
Posts: 3564
Loc: CA
 Originally Posted By: jmill

If this can be confirmed, that's huge.

Here is some more info on this story, from the New York Post. (At a press conference in 2017, Sara Huckabee Sanders brought up the DNC–Ukraine connection [as did others], so theoretically there was plenty of warning time for Mr. Biden to do something about the financial trail of his doings, perhaps, if indeed there is something to this story.)

New York Post:

Rudy Giuliani has alleged that a Ukrainian natural-gas company that employed Joe Biden’s son Hunter also paid the former vice president $900,000 in lobbying fees.

Appearing on Fox News’ “Hannity” Wednesday, President Trump’s personal lawyer cited as evidence claims made by Andriy Derkach, a member of Ukraine’s parliament.

“Biden, his son and his brother had a 30-year-long scam to make money, millions, selling his public office,” Giuliani told host Sean Hannity.

Derkach held a press conference earlier Wednesday in Kyiv where he claimed to have documents showing how Burisma Holdings paid Joe Biden the lobbying fees.

Hunter Biden worked for Burisma while his father served as vice president and acted as the point man on US effort to stamp out corruption in Ukraine. Hunter was paid $50,000 a month.

“Funds in the amount of $900,000 were transferred to the US-based company Rosemont Seneca Partners,” Derkach told reporters, referring to the investment company the younger Biden founded with Chris Heinz, the stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry.

“The payment reference was payment for consultative services,” Derkach said, according to Interfax, a Russian news agency.

He went on to claim Burisma — according to documents — paid $16.5 million to former Polish President Aleksander Kwasnieski, who was chair of Burisma’s board, Hunter Biden and Devon Archer.

Archer, a partner in Rosemont Seneca, joined the Burisma board months before Hunter Biden did in 2014.

Their joining Burisma led to a falling out with Heinz, who eventually ended his business relationship with them.

Derkach claimed Joe Biden pressured Ukraine in December 2015 to force the resignation of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin and dangled $1 billion in loan guarantees as an incentive.

Prosecutors have found no evidence that either Biden did anything wrong, and Giuliani did not respond to requests for comment about details of the alleged documents.

Joe Biden’s presidential campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump and his allies, including Giuliani and Republican members of Congress, have alleged that Joe Biden sought to have Shokin fired because Shokin was investigating Burisma.

Asked about the documents on “Fox & Friends” Thursday, Trump campaign spokeswoman Kayliegh McEnany said she hadn’t seen them.

“We don’t know that it’s true yet. We know of the allegation,” she said.

Trump in a July 25 phone call asked Zelensky to launch an investigation into the Bidens.

https://nypost.com/2019/10/10/giuliani-c...-lobbying-fees/

This in particular caught my eye: Their joining Burisma led to a falling out with Heinz, who eventually ended his business relationship with them. Heinz might make a witness for the prosecution if this means what I think it means, that he saw their actions as corrupt.


Edited by Enright (10/12/19 08:42 PM)
_________________________
Jim

Top
Page 2 of 2 <12


Hop to:

Generated in 0.076 seconds in which 0.037 seconds were spent on a total of 13 queries. Zlib compression disabled.

Home    Books    Curtis on Publishing   Previews    Bio    Bibliography    Snapshots     Foreign News    Reader's Forum    Art