Topic: Vid of Biden admit bribe of Ukrainian Pres. to fire prosecutor investigating son - page 24. (Read 4111 times)

You're such a hypocrit. I've engaged with you on the subpoena thing including digging up all sorts of governmental documents to back up my arguments and then you turned around and said you wouldn't do the same just like a true keyboard warrior who is "pathetic and lazy". You're not interested in the facts, just spreading opinion to convince the sheep to your bias.

You seriously have a reading comprehension issue or only see what confirms your own bias. That's not what I've said at all.

Once again, you failed to "prove" anything. I showed you that what you provided was for hearings and not for investigations etc. I also showed straight from the government site that the "form" is only a sample and is meant as a guide as to what should be in the subpoena. It could be written on toilet paper but as long as it had the correct information it would be valid. For someone who claims to know "the law" you're really dense when it comes to this. I then proved proof that committees have wide ranging powers to issue their own subpoenas, which they authorize all on their own through appropriate signatures. I've also provided a link to a senate handbook that presents an subpoena in the form of a letter. The letter from the whitehouse itself acknowledge what you claim isn't a subpoena, is actually a subpoena. I guess you're right though and all that stuff straight from the government is wrong.

So you get to tell me what I am saying now? Well since we are speaking for each other...


What EXACTLY has Solomon published before that you consider "fake news"? Don't just make a character attack then not back any of it up, that is pathetic and lazy. You just declaring very relevant facts such as the investigation being reopened before the call, and that Ukraine had no idea the funds were withheld are not applicable doesn't wave a magic wand over them and make it true. You aren't making any arguments, you are just repeating your position and telling me I am wrong and you are right like a true mental midget. You aren't wondering, you are declaring it a fake based on zero evidence. I ask again, do you really believe he some how got all of these agencies to lie for him and cover up some other transcript? There were lots of people listening to that call...

You claimed congressional subpoenas were not legal documents, and now you are just claiming I provided no evidence when I clearly provided an example of past congressional subpoenas and compared them to the letters requesting information they are calling "subpoenas" and proved they are in fact not actual subpoenas. If you had even the most rudimentary knowledge of law you would know this, but all you have are character attacks, parrot vomit, and denials.

That's a very lawyerly look at just one of several connotations of the word "though" in a conversation. There are several others and frankly that's the very definition of the phrase "grasping at straws."

Not sure what there could possibly be wrong with taking the statement of the man supposedly pushed around over the word of Viper1 (anonymous Internet opinionated). It is what it is. Deal with it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/world/europe/zelensky-trump.html

Ukraine’s president, in his first public comments on the phone call that led to an impeachment inquiry into President Trump, said Wednesday that the call was “normal,” that “nobody pushed me,” and that he did not want to become entangled in American elections.

“I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be involved in the democratic elections of U.S.A.,” said the Ukrainian leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, speaking to reporters with Mr. Trump on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

“We had, I think, a good phone call,” Mr. Zelensky added, referring to a call the leaders had on July 25, which is at the center of the inquiry. “It was normal. We spoke about many things. And so, I think, and you read it, that nobody pushed — pushed me.”

End of subject, right? But you really should go back and look at what Trump asked as "a favor." You'd like us to focus on Biden, sure, but THAT WAS THE FIFTH THING ON HIS LIST.

TL;DR

"I'm right, you're wrong, because I say so. In fact I am so right I don't even need to make an argument and can rely solely on character attacks."

That's a good little sheep. I love how you guys that tend to believe conspiracy theories pick and choose who you'll believe to just fit what you want to be true. Of course he's going to agree with that. That's what you do when you're being "strong armed". You really have to be naive if you can't see that. I also note you left out the "though" word. Nice attempt at trying to misleading others.

You're not talking about the phone call specifically. You're putting up a smoke screen for the sheep.


Given his past and the "quality" of what he writes in terms of misleading, obfuscating the like, I don't put much credence in what Solomon may say all on it's own. He's just the typical "fake news" person who's intent is to convince sheep to a certain bias. Like you apparently.

Besides that, it's all just a smoke screen to try and distract from what was said in the phone call. Trump clearly said if you want more stuff, you need to do this for me/us. So none of what you're saying or posting is applicable. Even his own spokesperson said it was a quid pro quo and he also said they held back aid by the way. Until it can at least be agreed on that Trump's call was a quid pro quo, the discussion cannot move onto the other issue of whether or not it was specifically for political gain or for other interests.

I said if they produce a 100% "accurate" one, then one has to wonder if it's been "faked" or not given all the lies and crap that's been going on in the WH. But until it happens, if ever, it's a moot point. Are you so derange in your worship of dear leader that you have reading comprehension issues?

I'm not done but I don't have the time right now to respond to your long drivel that contained nothing factual. Despite all the documentation I've given you that explains congressional subpoenas, you've shown yourself to either be too dense to get it, or you simply want to spread bullshit for the sheep.

I figure that one needs to use you're own form of discussion for it to ever sink into your head.

If you weren't too broke to, I would tell you to pay closer attention. I am talking about the phone call. No, it isn't debatable, here are the documents:

https://www.scribd.com/user/259237201/JohnSolomon/uploads

'“The U.S. government had open-source intelligence and was aware as early as February of 2019 that the Ukrainian government was planning to reopen the Burisma investigation,” Solomon said.

This is long before the president ever imagined having a call with President [Volodymyr] Zelensky,” he added, calling the development a “significant shift in the factual timeline.”'

https://www.westernjournal.com/document-shows-ukraine-reopened-probe-hunter-bidens-company-trump-phone-call-report/

Again, are you trying to say Trump some how got high level officials from several agencies to lie for him and cover up some other transcript you claims exists? You just got done arguing a subpoena is not the same as a legal document, but I am ignorant eh? HAHA!

Also I love the fact that you mirror my language calling you a parrot as you literally accuse me of being a parrot in the same breath. Very convincing cupcake.

Usually when someone says "the transcript is not completely accurate" it's for practical reasons like people talking over each other, words that are not clear, etc. Nothing to get paranoid about, standard phrases.

When Trump says in that phone call "I'd like to ask you a favor..." that just plain does not come across like strong arming the other person. The Ukraine president has confirmed this.

But you say you know better. Thanks for your concern, but I'll take the word of the Ukraine president over your word.

Talking about the phone call being a quid pro quo. Pay attention. I know it's hard for you but I was talking about the phone call which is what triggered all this. As for Ukraine not knowing, that's certainly debatable unless you've been in a cave and not paying attention to what's been coming out about what was going on prior to the phone call.

The transcript says right on it that it's not completely accurate so once again you show your ignorance of the facts. I'm coming to the conclusion you don't know what's going on at all but just parrot talking points like a good little sheep.

Attacking a source is not a valid form of debate when you refuse to address any of the content. Independent news media is far more reliable than CNN, ABC, etc. I hear ABC just released new footage of the Kurds being slaughtered in Syria though.



Only one problem with your fairy tale. Ukraine first of all reopened the investigation in like April. Second Ukraine was not even informed the funds were being held up, thus it is literally impossible for there to have been a quid pro quo, implied or otherwise. Also the transcript is fake now? What part of your cavernous anus did you pull that from? Do you really think Trump was able to get dozens of people across several agencies to lie for him to cover up "the real transcript? I hear Tony The Tiger is opening a whistle blower filing too.

It would be interesting to take 100 random recorded conversations between national leaders and tabulate how often each mentioned things he would like the other to help him with. Basically, it would be every single conversation, wouldn't it?

Someone says they'd like to buy something from you and you immediately tell them you want them to do a favor for you though. If you have a problem comprehending how that isn't a quid pro quo, then I feel sorry for you cause you must be damn easy to manipulate and take advantage of.

If Trump had just said he'd like a favor and didn't say "though", then maybe (although it's still a stretch to not see what's there unless you support dear leader in all things regardless) one could try and make the argument it wasn't.

Here's something I noted that I haven't seen anyone clue into yet. When it comes to manipulating the media, he's brilliant. One day he said the transcript was an exact word for word record of the call or something like that. Of course all the media jumped on that and pointed out it's not. And they've kept doing that since then. It wouldn't surprise me if, assuming the "real" one gets released, it turns out to be a bit different and it's different enough that it muddies the water. Course with Trump I wouldn't past him to forge some transcript but I guess we'll see what happens.

Really. You know, the transcript is public, and there is nothing there to support your claim (bolded).

Perhaps you are implying that his mentioning Biden was inappropriate because Biden is a potential adversary in the upcoming election?

Well, maybe all his conversations with foreign leaders should be secret, fully encrypted, and with no ability for them to be decoded. Would that work?

It's not that the request was made, it's how he did it and that he tied aid to it. If he had gone through official channels and made it about corruption in general, none of this would be happening now.

Ah, a "Hunter Biden investigation" wasn't exactly what Trump requested of Zelensky, and I rather doubt that's what this is really about.

But regardless of that detail, I'm good with whatever Zelensky's investigators come up with. And it's nice to know that you agree there's nothing wrong with Trump's request.

Unlike the Dems who would impeach him for such a request.

Calling it the "Hunter Biden investigation" is the trash part.  They probably did bribe the prosecutor to not investigate them.  

We've already looked into it though.

Ukraine has already looked into it, at least twice by two different president/prosecutors.

Now, apparently Ukraine is looking into it again.  If nothing comes back, will you believe we've got the story straight and nothing happened?  I doubt it.

Yeah, that could be garbage. Might not be, but could be.

Hey, I've got a great idea! How about if Trump just asks Zelensky politely to look into the whole thing a bit?

We'd get the straight story then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epik_(domain_registrar)

Ahahaha. The trash source is trash.

Loonies grasping at straws. Can't wait for Trump to be impeached over all this bullshit

"BREAKING: Burisma Paid Former Ukrainian President Poroshenko $100mm To Suppress Hunter Biden Investigation in 2017, Bribed FBI agents Ignored Evidence, US Embassy In Kyiv Neck Deep In Corruption"

https://creativedestructionmedia.com/investigations/2019/10/18/breaking-burisma-paid-former-ukrainian-president-poroshenko-100mm-to-suppress-hunter-biden-investigation-in-2017-bribed-fbi-agents-ignored-evidence-us-embassy-in-kyiv-neck-deep-in-corruption/

He was explicit in saying Ukraine wouldn't get the loan if they didn't fire their prosecutor.

That's what you're saying right?

I totally agree with you if so.  It was definitely explicit.  If Ukraine didn't fire their 'AG', the US would not be loaning them a billion+ dollars.