This same board had a huge thread about someone who claimed to be stabbed in the hand because of a Nazi haircut and yall were pages deep in this when it was exposed. You probably don't remember that because I don't bring it up in every thread.
Senate opens inquiry into the Bidens
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
Lol, I guess this is the beauty of being a skeptic. I don't jump to conclusions because my confirmation bias rules my life. Name some trump conspiracies and I'll tell you where I came down on them. (Hint: all of them ended up with no evidence that would push someone off the fence)
I can't remember the details of it, but isn't there a statute that says a civilian can't negotiate with an adversarial country on public policy? Iran would be considered an adversary and Kerry was working with them on a government negotiation. I may be wrong, this goes back like 5 years but that is what I remember.
It's remarkable that two people can see the same information and draw radically different conclusions. Let's run with your hypothetical.
- We get a whistleblower report deemed credible by ICIG, claiming that Biden acted corruptly in the firing of Shokin.
- As a result, a call transcript was released where, after Poroshenko asks bout aid money, Biden says "if you could do me a favor, and look into Shokin, that would be great. I hear that he's looking into Burisma, a really great company, and lots of people are telling me that he's a bad person."
- In Biden's case, everyone really was telling him that of course. In Trump's case, he was relying on Rudy and going against his own experts...
I'm not saying there's zero basis for a Biden investigation. I am saying that some kind of credibility threshold is appropriate. Rudy just got done running a smear campaign against Amb. Yovanovitch. I'm not seeing anyone dispute that. At the same time, I'm supposed to accept the word of the exact same players who orchestrated that smear campaign to justify an investigation of Biden, while simultaneously discounting those individuals who have all testified that Biden was executing consensus policy at the time.
I'm not sure you realize how bad Rudy and John Solomon's credibility is right now. They just participated in a smear campaign to tarnish the reputation of a sitting US Ambassador for reasons that we still don't understand. Even if you don't want to blame Trump here, it's painfully obvious that Bolton was right - Rudy is a hand grenade.
Logan act of 1799. "criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized persons with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States"
Kerry wasn't negotiating with Iran, he was trying to preserve the deal that was in place.
I don't see how you can find Solomon credible if you take an honest accounting. I can't tell you what his agenda or motivations are. I do agree that he's VERY good at what he does. But when really huge stories break, troves of really good investigative journalists get involved and they all break stories. It's a huge red flag to me that this entire narrative is dependent on a single journalist.
- Jan 2018 - A group of more than 12 staffers at the Hill challenge management regarding Solomon's reporting.
- The Hill ends up re-branding him as "opinion" - Keep that in mind. The "investigative" journalist responsible for these stories had to be branded as opinion by his own outlet.
- Now, the Hill is going back and annotating his stories and updating them with context and testimony.
So on one side, you have Rudy and John Solomon. On the other side you have every credible investigative journalist that's looked into it, plus every senior government official that's testified on the subject saying it's not credible.
Not to mention, these are the same characters that ran the smear on Yovanovitch (no one seems to be disputing or defending that smear campaign).
What he was doing, however, was undermining the US policy set by the current elected President.
Lol, so he was rebranded by the Hill as "opinion" because he didn't mention that trump accusers did the exact same thing as clinton accusers? That's supposed to demonstrate that he is an opinion writer and should be disregarded even when he provides government documentation that backs up his reporting? Matt drudge had zero credibility before he broke the Clinton story back in the 1990s and it turned out to be true, which nobody denies. Solomon has won awards for his investigative journalism over 2 decades and we are supposed to just throw his stuff into the "opinion piece" trashbin?
Did you click on mine?
Not necessary to clink on all of his links. A huge number of them simply link back to own reporting. The reporting the Hill is calling "opinion" and essentially disavowing.
I'm pretty familiar with the narrative at this point. He mixes in plenty of actual facts, includes testimony/interviews with not-credible individuals, and ignores a range of exculpatory evidence. Is conspiracy narrative spinning 101.
That’s pretty much the state of journalism today. Only you reject Solomon because you disagree with him versus the people that are writing on the side you agree with. It’s all good.
Funny how many of the same posters who agreed with me that Smollett’s story didn’t make sense have no problem believing Trump’s actions regarding Ukraine were ‘perfect’ and this impeachment inquiry is ‘a circus’ and all of the witnesses (including the Republican ones) are all Deep-State neverTrumpers who only want to take down this Presidency.
Apparently common sense leaves the room when it comes to defending Trump.
Of course you're posting John Solomon articles literally the same day this breaks.
Don't you ever take a step back and realize your masters are lying to you?
I guess I don't see a "smear campaign" against yavonovitch. There are criticisms of her performance and Pompeo wanted her out a year before trump finally recalled her, and if what Lutsenko and Zelensky claim is true she wasn't being an ambassador they were comfortable with.
Please link me to a single credible source (outside Solomon) criticizing her job performance. I'm legit curious. No doubt, if you're an anti-corruption minded US Ambassador in Ukraine, you're going to have enemies, so I'm sure there are Ukrainians complaining about her.
The only other source for this I'm aware of is Pete Sessions letter to Pompeo back in 2018. Sessions says he wanted her fired because "several congressional colleagues" told him she was "disparaging of Trump." He has refused to say who those colleagues were. Now of course we know about Parnas and Fruman committing $20k to Sessions, apparently in exchange for his help with the Yavanovitch effort, thanks to indictment. Sessions says his letter was unrelated to their efforts. They're now indicted for illegally funneling money into Sessions campaign.
Well you named one yourself, although you couched it with skepticism. Like I said, IF we are to believe Lutsenkos interview with babel, and zelensky in the transcript then we have 3 people that are critical of her.
Hey remember how irrationally mad you were over a conspiracy theory that Adam Schiff met with the whistleblower?
How come not so mad now we learn that Devin Nunes met with Shokin to get dirt on Biden before all this broke and still acted as ranking member in the inquiry?
I don't remember that at all. I remember pointing out that he may have a conflict there, but I wasn't mad.
I love how you insist on making me into a caricature of what you want a boogeyman to look like because I challenge your 1st grade-level positions.
dont worry its just getting started. also this investigation should not be limited in scope. they should be able to go in any direction they want. they could find associates of joes that might have done something along time ago. that is all fair game.
Sigh ... this just proves the whole point of what the Republicans are complaining about. It's one-way BS.
