Schiff and Jordan, and a few thoughts on this week

[Crazyhole]

Both deny knowing the name of the whistleblower, and yet when Schiff set the ground rules for the hearing he specifically stated that nobody was allowed to release the guys name. Earlier this fall, Schiff admitted that the whistleblower had met with his staff. Jordan claimed that schiff was the only person who knows the whistleblowers name, to which he denied it multiple times. Kind of hard to believe that Schiff's staff would keep it secret from him.

Also, on day one didn't Kent kind of make the case that there SHOULD be an investigation into the Burisma deal? He said he was concerned that prosecutors in Ukraine may have been bribed to stop looking into them. He also called Bidens office and talked to them about his concerns about Hunter being on the BOD, so doesn't that make Joe Biden a liar when he said that he didn't know that Hunter was on the BOD?

 

[firm_bizzle]

Provide evidence that Joe or Hunter Biden did anything illegal or STFU.

 

[Crazyhole]

Provide evidence that Joe or Hunter Biden did anything illegal or STFU.

Hard to provide evidence when they wont investigate it. obviously Kent was concerned that something was going on, otherwise he wouldn't have reached out to Bidens office about it

 

[firm_bizzle]

Hard to provide evidence when they wont investigate it. obviously Kent was concerned that something was going on, otherwise he wouldn't have reached out to Bidens office about it

Barr won't investigate??? Is he deep state too?

 

[NinjaKnight]

Lmao, Trump nuthuggers in 2019 are all time levels of stupid. I cannot fathom being this fuking stupid. OP please do not procreate for the good of the human species. .

 

[beelit47]

The dems are a lost cause. Trump wins again.

 

[fried-chicken]

Hard to provide evidence.

Your post should have stopped there. The rest of it was dumb.

 

[DaShuckster]

The dems are a lost cause.

If that Fox News clip was your 'evidence,' dream on.

 

[Boosted87]

Also, on day one didn't Kent kind of make the case that there SHOULD be an investigation into the Burisma deal? He said he was concerned that prosecutors in Ukraine may have been bribed to stop looking into them. He also called Bidens office and talked to them about his concerns about Hunter being on the BOD, so doesn't that make Joe Biden a liar when he said that he didn't know that Hunter was on the BOD?

Here's the great fallacy in the entire Biden/Burisma narrative pushed by Rudy and crew.

The State Department had been putting pressure on Shokin to fight corruption. They were optimistic when he got the job. The issues related to Burisma's oligarch (Zlochevsky) was one area they were applying pressure. But their discontent with Shokin wasn't limited to a single issue. But if anything, you could argue that his failure to pursue the Zlochevsky investigation vigorously enough was one of the reasons official US policy turned to replacing him.

Now, in order to buy Rudy's logic, you have to believe that Biden wanted him fired for precisely the opposite reason - that he may have decided to aggressively pursue Zlochevsky.

Now - i'm not saying it's impossible that Biden had an ulterior motive to the rest of the administration, but there is no evidence he did. Compounding that is the risk that a new prosecutor goes hard against Zlochevsky. Kent pointed this out in his testimony, essentially arguing that installing a new prosecutor would create more uncertainty/risk for Zlochevsky.

 

[UCFBS]

Here's the great fallacy in the entire Biden/Burisma narrative pushed by Rudy and crew.

The State Department had been putting pressure on Shokin to fight corruption. They were optimistic when he got the job. The issues related to Burisma's oligarch (Zlochevsky) was one area they were applying pressure. But their discontent with Shokin wasn't limited to a single issue. But if anything, you could argue that his failure to pursue the Zlochevsky investigation vigorously enough was one of the reasons official US policy turned to replacing him.

Now, in order to buy Rudy's logic, you have to believe that Biden wanted him fired for precisely the opposite reason - that he may have decided to aggressively pursue Zlochevsky.

Now - i'm not saying it's impossible that Biden had an ulterior motive to the rest of the administration, but there is no evidence he did. Compounding that is the risk that a new prosecutor goes hard against Zlochevsky. Kent pointed this out in his testimony, essentially arguing that installing a new prosecutor would create more uncertainty/risk for Zlochevsky.

The Republicans are using the same argument with Trump. The problem is that Quid Pro Quo is everywhere with State. It's standard operating procedure. Just because Trump is stupid in public, doesn't mean this isn't 'standard issue.' Many in State have been public and forward about that.

This is what gets to me. I want all of this to stop. The Clinton Global Initiative and career politicians. It's amazing we're going after a non-career politician, for sh-- that career politicians are known for. Trump is a transparent Reality TV star fool I've never liked. But they hypocrisy is so f'ing thick here.

 

[Happy Hands]

Pippen and Jordan. Now there was a combo. Politics is just pro wrestling for people with pleated pants.

 

[UCFBS]

Pippen and Jordan. Now there was a combo. Politics is just pro wrestling for people with pleated pants.

Such has been the history of the US Congress. We only got a 'civilized reprieve' for about 20 years during the early-to-mid 'Communist Scare.'

 

[Boosted87]

The Republicans are using the same argument with Trump. The problem is that Quid Pro Quo is everywhere with State. It's standard operating procedure. Just because Trump is stupid in public, doesn't mean this isn't 'standard issue.' Many in State have been public and forward about that.

This is what gets to me. I want all of this to stop. The Clinton Global Initiative and career politicians. It's amazing we're going after a non-career politician, for sh-- that career politicians are known for. Trump is a transparent Reality TV star fool I've never liked. But they hypocrisy is so f'ing thick here.

At a bare minimum, Trump has one fatal difference from all those career politicians. Those career types always operated in a world where "plausible deniability" can save your ass. While maybe it was OK to be corrupt behind the scenes, you had to pretend to be on the up-and-up in public. You had to launder your corruption through non-profits and the appearance of doing good things. That's actually a really important distinction.

I mean, it's bad to be Pastor who is a hypocrite and cheats on his wife. But from the perspective of the church, it's far worse to be a pastor who openly talks about cheating on his wife during a sermon and acts like it's OK. The former is a bad apple you can make an example of. The later is a fundamental threat to the core beliefs of the church itself.

That's Trump today. Out in the open. Normalizing.

 

[UCFBS]

At a bare minimum, Trump has one fatal difference from all those career politicians. Those career types always operated in a world where "plausible deniability" can save your ass.

Politicians gonna politick, they are masters at it.

While maybe it was OK to be corrupt behind the scenes, you had to pretend to be on the up-and-up in public. You had to launder your corruption through non-profits and the appearance of doing good things. That's actually a really important distinction.

Of course. Trump is a Reality TV star and used to 'Yes men,' and always wanting praise. He's like the anti-Ross Perot.

I mean, it's bad to be Pastor who is a hypocrite and cheats on his wife. But from the perspective of the church, it's far worse to be a pastor who openly talks about cheating on his wife during a sermon and acts like it's OK.

That depends on your idea of 'confession' and 'giving up your sin.'

The former is a bad apple you can make an example of. The later is a fundamental threat to the core beliefs of the church itself.

Depends on one's church.

That's Trump today. Out in the open. Normalizing.

Which is why a lot of people support him as well. Just not the US Media.

But last time I checked, Trump's approval ratings are higher than the US Media. As a Libertarian, that's scary when you have a transparent politician and a subversive US Media. Americans aren't dumb. They hate Trump, but they hate the US Media and career politicians as well, possibly more.

 

[Boosted87]

The Republicans are using the same argument with Trump. The problem is that Quid Pro Quo is everywhere with State. It's standard operating procedure. Just because Trump is stupid in public, doesn't mean this isn't 'standard issue.' Many in State have been public and forward about that.

I think "quid pro quo" was poor framing from the dems from day one because you're right, there's plenty of "non corrupt" quid-pro-quo's that go on. I suspect we'll see an Article of Impeachment simply titled "Solicitation of Bribery" or something that effect.

That said, what Trump did was not "standard issue." For comparison sake, imagine the Biden situation included testimony from multiple staffers and career officials that Biden had expressly communicated to Shokin that he'll continue to call for his removal until he publicly states that the Burisma investigation is permanently closed. And we had testimony from a Biden aid/staffer saying "He doesn't care about Ukraine, he just wants to protect Hunter."

That's the level of testimonial evidence we'd need to paint the Biden situation with the same brush here, of distorting US foreign policy for direct personal benefit. That would be insanely damning and his campaign would be over already if that was the case. Only someone with Trumps' ego would even be trying to survive this politically.

 

[DaShuckster]

The Republicans are using the same argument with Trump. The problem is that Quid Pro Quo is everywhere with State.

Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiight.

There's a Grand Canyon-wide 'Quid-pro-quo' difference between using our influence to the strategic benefit of our nation versus using it to benefit our President's reelection campaign.

 

[UCFBS]

I think "quid pro quo" was poor framing from the dems from day one because you're right, there's plenty of "non corrupt" quid-pro-quo's that go on.

Yes, and charges of various 'corrupt' ones too. That's the thing here, we're already 'at guilt' for Trump, but 'at nothing' for Clinton, Biden, et al.

I suspect we'll see an Article of Impeachment simply titled "Solicitation of Bribery" or something that effect.

Fine by me. A 'standard' will have been set. Watch out left!

That said, what Trump did was not "standard issue."

What Trump did is still being hotly contested by people in State, Ukraine and elsewhere. That's where I have a problem. I absolutely agree people in CIA, Defense and others will have an issue with it, just as they did with Clinton (Benghazi 'Talking Points') and countless actions when she was Secretary of State too. Even the Obama administration constantly pointed out 'conflicts of interests' that Hillary was guilty of, and several of those could be claimed as 'corrupt,' if they were investigated.

For comparison sake, imagine the Biden situation included testimony from multiple staffers and career officials that Biden had expressly communicated to Shokin that he'll continue to call for his removal until he publicly states that the Burisma investigation is permanently closed. And we had testimony from a Biden aid/staffer saying "He doesn't care about Ukraine, he just wants to protect Hunter."

But some Ukranian officials have stated that! But we're not listening to them because they are 'Russian Puppets.' We're also not talking about Podesta being registered as a foreign agent, or the Russian hacking his account before he became Clinton's campaign manager either.

Why? They aren't Trump, and no independent council was assigned. And even though the independent council didn't find enough on Trump, the Democrats have decided to go forward any way. This is way, way different than Star -- let alone so many Democrats on this board are in total denial about all of the convicted business partners of the Clintons in the '90s. I mean, those stones from glasses houses really are dropping shards at this point.

That's the level of testimonial evidence we'd need to paint the Biden situation with the same brush here, of distorting US foreign policy for direct personal benefit. That would be insanely damning and his campaign would be over already if that was the case. Only someone with Trumps' ego would even be trying to survive this politically.

But Biden has never been investigated, much more by an independent council. That is the only thing missing here. Same with Hillary (at least since the '90s).

Why not? Why not an investigation? I'm sorry, as much as Barr is very much a mouth-piece for Trump, I'm all for him investigating.

I was against all the 'Deep State' non-sense argument ... until the facts came out, political monies were used, and McCain -- who I defended against Trump -- was guilty of lying his butt off, as was more than proven. There is absolutely a 'Deep State' against Trump, just like there is a 'Deep State' against making the NCIC/NICS usable by public servants who don't want it to be (so more laws are passed), etc...

Investigate them all. And get Schiff out of this non-sense. He's as bad as Trump.

 

[firm_bizzle]

The Republicans are using the same argument with Trump. The problem is that Quid Pro Quo is everywhere with State. It's standard operating procedure. Just because Trump is stupid in public, doesn't mean this isn't 'standard issue.' Many in State have been public and forward about that.

This is what gets to me. I want all of this to stop. The Clinton Global Initiative and career politicians. It's amazing we're going after a non-career politician, for sh-- that career politicians are known for. Trump is a transparent Reality TV star fool I've never liked. But they hypocrisy is so f'ing thick here.

Bribery. The problem is what Trump wanted in return was for his personal benefit not ours.

 

[UCFBS]

Bribery. The problem is what Trump wanted in return was for his personal benefit not ours.

Again, please explain this to me like a 2 year-old ... how is what Hillary and Biden have done not the same? Seriously. The only difference here is that no one has investigated. That's it.

 

[fried-chicken]

Again, please explain this to me like a 2 year-old ... how is what Hillary and Biden have done not the same? Seriously. The only difference here is that no one has investigated. That's it.

Trump was acting against official state department policy for his own benefit and Biden was acting in line with official state department policy.

One was acting in the state departments plan for America's best interests, the other was trying to stir up dirt on a political foe as advised by his personal lawyer and nongovernment employee Rudy Guliani.

Hope that helps.

 

[UCFBS]

Trump was acting against official state department policy for his own benefit and Biden was acting in line with official state department policy.

I call BS. The latter hasn't been investigated, only the former.

One was acting in the state departments plan for America's best interests

You mean just like the Ukranian officials at odds with Biden's statements on the matter? And what about the Clinton Global Initiative before that?

Stop listening to only the parties you want to agree with! Sigh ...

the other was trying to stir up dirt on a political foe as advised by his personal lawyer and nongovernment employee Rudy Guliani.

This was going on before Guliani, despite what the Mainstream US Media is telling you!

Hope that helps.

Yes, that you're a left-wing partisan trying to label me as a Trump, let alone Guliani, supporter.

 

[KNIGHTTIME^]

Trump was acting against official state department policy for his own benefit and Biden was acting in line with official state department policy.

One was acting in the state departments plan for America's best interests, the other was trying to stir up dirt on a political foe as advised by his personal lawyer and nongovernment employee Rudy Guliani.

Hope that helps.

Lol! Yeah nothing was in Hunter Biden's interest or major conflicts with Joe.

 

[fried-chicken]

Lol! Yeah nothing was in Hunter Biden's interest or major conflicts with Joe.

Biden never acted outside of official stated state department policy, Trump did. You asked the difference there it is.

You may not like Hunter Biden making 600k for a board seat but nothing that Joe Biden is accused of was outside of the interests of the state department policy.

Trump was 100% out of policy to stir up dirt.

 

[Crazyhole]

Biden never acted outside of official stated state department policy, Trump did. You asked the difference there it is.

You may not like Hunter Biden making 600k for a board seat but nothing that Joe Biden is accused of was outside of the interests of the state department policy.

Trump was 100% out of policy to stir up dirt.

Who dictates official state dept policy?

 

[fried-chicken]

Who dictates official state dept policy?

President. And if he wanted it changed to exclude the support of Ukraine he should change it. Instead he worked under the table against his diplomats and our congress because he didn't want anyone to know about the shakedown.

 

[Boosted87]

Who dictates official state dept policy?

This is a fair question and Trump's best defense against the "shadow foreign policy" narrative. But in order for that defense to hold water, Trump has to own the policy. So if he comes out and says "Yes - official Trump Policy was to withhold aid in exchange for an anti-corruption statement specifically mentioning these items" then he undercuts that argument. But of course he also admits to the underlying accusation in that case.

On the other hand, Pompeo seems to have been clearly out of the loop. So at best, Trump is undermining his own Secretary of State by running an op without his awareness, creating two "official" policies if you want to make the argument that anything Trump does is inherently "official".

 

[Crazyhole]

President. And if he wanted it changed to exclude the support of Ukraine he should change it. Instead he worked under the table against his diplomats and our congress because he didn't want anyone to know about the shakedown.

"Because". That's where your confirmation bias dictates your assumption.

I realize that congress has pretty much left foreign aid conditions up to the president, but don't you wonder if the intent of our military aid under Obama was to send MREs and blankets when Ukraine was asking for anti-tank missiles?

 

[Crazyhole]

This is a fair question and Trump's best defense against the "shadow foreign policy" narrative. But in order for that defense to hold water, Trump has to own the policy. So if he comes out and says "Yes - official Trump Policy was to withhold aid in exchange for an anti-corruption statement specifically mentioning these items" then he undercuts that argument. But of course he also admits to the underlying accusation in that case.

On the other hand, Pompeo seems to have been clearly out of the loop. So at best, Trump is undermining his own Secretary of State by running an op without his awareness, creating two "official" policies if you want to make the argument that anything Trump does is inherently "official".

I don't think he would even have to go that far. He could just state that our foreign aid to Ukraine was dependent on knowing that the dollars were used for the intended purpose and point out that billions of dollars didn't go where they were supposed to go in the past. That would be consistent with his original platform against giving money to countries who work against us. He's not smart enough to make that case, but it would be a great defense. Point out how Obama's foreign policy was terrible and riddled with waste, show how he is willing to help an enemy of russia, and frame the whole thing around fiscal responsibility. If he could do that, the average person turns on the impeachment hearing in a way that no Democrat would vote in favor of.

 

[fried-chicken]

"Because". That's where your confirmation bias dictates your assumption.

I realize that congress has pretty much left foreign aid conditions up to the president, but don't you wonder if the intent of our military aid under Obama was to send MREs and blankets when Ukraine was asking for anti-tank missiles?

Na, I didn't wonder that. I listened to the ambassadors testimony about why Ukraine was so important to the US.

 

[sk8knight]

I don't think he would even have to go that far. He could just state that our foreign aid to Ukraine was dependent on knowing that the dollars were used for the intended purpose and point out that billions of dollars didn't go where they were supposed to go in the past. That would be consistent with his original platform against giving money to countries who work against us. He's not smart enough to make that case, but it would be a great defense. Point out how Obama's foreign policy was terrible and riddled with waste, show how he is willing to help an enemy of russia, and frame the whole thing around fiscal responsibility. If he could do that, the average person turns on the impeachment hearing in a way that no Democrat would vote in favor of.

It's not that he's not smart enough to make that case, it's that making that case gets lost in all the stupid unofficial messaging that he's spewing.

I continue to find it ironic that the same left that has elevated vilifying their opponents to an art form is so up-in-arms about Trump using their own playbook against them.

 

[DaShuckster]

Who dictates official state dept policy?

President. And if he wanted it changed to exclude the support of Ukraine he should change it.

What was Trump's 'policy' regarding Ukraine?

According to Ambassador to the UN, Gordon Sondland, Trump didn't give a sh*t about Ukraine, he only cares about 'the big stuff' like dirt on the Bidens.

Let's see on Wednesday whether he recalls saying this at the dinner party which was interrupted by a cell phone call from his big boss, Trump.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Again, please explain this to me like a 2 year-old ... how is what Hillary and Biden have done not the same? Seriously. The only difference here is that no one has investigated. That's it.

Show me some evidence, phone calls, witnesses. Trump did say that he was going to "look into Hillary's situation" and "lock her up". What happened to that?

 

[Crazyhole]

What was Trump's 'policy' regarding Ukraine?

According to Ambassador to the UN, Gordon Sondland, Trump didn't give a sh*t about Ukraine, he only cares about 'the big stuff' like dirt on the Bidens.

Let's see on Wednesday whether he recalls saying this at the dinner party which was interrupted by a cell phone call from his big boss, Trump.

Sondland also said that trump's approach to Ukraine was better than Obama's because we started arming them to defend against russia.

 

[UCFKnight85]

What was Trump's 'policy' regarding Ukraine?

According to Ambassador to the UN, Gordon Sondland, Trump didn't give a sh*t about Ukraine, he only cares about 'the big stuff' like dirt on the Bidens.

Let's see on Wednesday whether he recalls saying this at the dinner party which was interrupted by a cell phone call from his big boss, Trump.

What was Obama's "policy" regarding Ukraine?

To stand around and watch as Putin moved into Crimea? Stand around and watch as Putin moved into eastern Ukraine and to this day wages war? To stand around and watch while the Pentagon and R and D Congressional Leaders begged for defensive weapons for Ukraine and repeatedly got rejected by the Obama Admin?

Obama's policy on Ukraine is that actual pro-Russia policy that you lunatics have been screetching about with regards to Trump, only it was enacted by your beloved Barack Obama. The first lethal defensive weapon sent to Ukraine to kill Rusisans arrived after Trump took office and approved it.

Gee, if I were going to hawk conspiracy theories I'd wonder if the Russians had something on Saint Obama. They probably had a hooker piss down his throat and videotape it!

 

[fried-chicken]

What was Obama's "policy" regarding Ukraine?

To stand around and watch as Putin moved into Crimea? Stand around and watch as Putin moved into eastern Ukraine and to this day wages war? To stand around and watch while the Pentagon and R and D Congressional Leaders begged for defensive weapons for Ukraine and repeatedly got rejected by the Obama Admin?

Obama's policy on Ukraine is that actual pro-Russia policy that you lunatics have been screetching about with regards to Trump, only it was enacted by your beloved Barack Obama. The first lethal defensive weapon sent to Ukraine to kill Rusisans arrived after Trump took office and approved it.

Gee, if I were going to hawk conspiracy theories I'd wonder if the Russians had something on Saint Obama. They probably had a hooker piss down his throat and videotape it!

Mad?

 

[DaShuckster]

What was Obama's "policy" regarding Ukraine?

A long-winded "whattabout?" in a lame attempt to deflect attention away from Trump.

 

[sk8knight]

What was Obama's "policy" regarding Ukraine?

To stand around and watch as Putin moved into Crimea? Stand around and watch as Putin moved into eastern Ukraine and to this day wages war? To stand around and watch while the Pentagon and R and D Congressional Leaders begged for defensive weapons for Ukraine and repeatedly got rejected by the Obama Admin?

Obama's policy on Ukraine is that actual pro-Russia policy that you lunatics have been screetching about with regards to Trump, only it was enacted by your beloved Barack Obama. The first lethal defensive weapon sent to Ukraine to kill Rusisans arrived after Trump took office and approved it.

Gee, if I were going to hawk conspiracy theories I'd wonder if the Russians had something on Saint Obama. They probably had a hooker piss down his throat and videotape it!

Obama’s positions were far more favorable to Russia and that’s just the ones that were public and unclassified. If someone were to leak some of the classified behavior, it would break dear old shookster as he would see what a President that is friendly to Russia’s interest actually looks like. Not that I think Obama was in Putin’s pocket by any means. Just that he was so concerned with his global goodwill tour that he gave up the farm in so many places it’s scary.

Although, a case could be made...

 

[UCFBS]

Show me some evidence, phone calls, witnesses

Biden hasn't been investigated. Clinton has not been investigated either. We need an actual investigation. But Democrats like yourself are asking for evidence prior to it.

But Hillary had so many 'conflicts-of-interest,' even the Obama administration repeatedly took issue with her, and several of those memos became public! But no investigations ... yet.

Congressional hearings are not investigations. That's why I got tired of the Republicans having a 'show.' And one of the reason why Republicans had a 'show' is because by opening those 'floodgates,' they too would get reamed. But now that it's happened to Trump, we're starting to see more and more Republicans ready to 'go after' at least Biden, if not Clinton, with an 'independent counsel,' once this whole non-sense is over.

SIDE NOTE: Remember, this would not be the first time for Hillary. Or did you not read various reports during the Clinton administration? Both Starr and before Starr? E.g., you do understand things from the get-go like 'Travelgate,' correct? Hillary thought DC was Little Rock, and she could fire permanent staffers and give her friends contracts and jobs.

Trump did say that he was going to "look into Hillary's situation" and "lock her up". What happened to that?

The DoJ gave Hillary a 'Get Out of Jail Free Card' by severely limiting the FBI's ability to seize equipment and otherwise contain the evaluate the damaged caused by her classified spillage and other disclosures. Trump and his DoJ's 'hands are tied' on that.

However ... over 30 people (up from 11 earlier this year) have now been identified for discipline and possible prosecution in their role in handling Clinton's e-mail services -- including, but not limited to -- disabling the Trend Micro Security software and proliferating malware and other, unauthorized use and access via Clinton's servers. Yes, people are being prosecuted for it now. Yes, her servers were compromised. Yes, there is public information on that. And yes, the US State Department was compromised via her servers!

They admitted that last year in Congressional hearings on the matter. Trend Micro also confirmed it independently, upon subpoena. This is what the public InfoSec community already knew, but the FBI could not investigate, per DoJ agreement with Clinton.

Again, the problem is that none of that evidence was allowed as part of the Clinton agreement with the DoJ. But it's not only public record of the US State Department now, but explains what the public InfoSec community (blackhole lists, security watchdogs of SMTP servers, etc...) already knew and disclosed, but could not be used against Clinton, per the agreement. Trend Micro's services disclosure further confirmed this.

In other words, when her mail servers were 'attacking' State servers, they were blocking her access and e-mails. She forced them to disable the entire security infrastructure, for 6 months. And that was just 1 incident. It's a total joke at this point. That's why when FireEye hired her to speak at a conference, there were mass protests among not just the public InfoSec community, but even the government IA/CyberSecurity community.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Trump should be in jail.

 

[UCFKnight85]

A long-winded "whattabout?" in a lame attempt to deflect attention away from Trump.

It’s called context which you never indulge in since it always interferes with your delusions