How DARE Americans focus on Joe Biden steering over a billion dollars in aid money to Ukraine while his son bagged a sweetheart deal from their govern

[Chris0nllyn]

I just read the "transcript" again and ‘we need you to reciprocate more’ and ‘we want to buy those missiles really bad’ isn't there.

It's not?

The President: Well it is very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it's something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she ·doesn't do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.

President Zelenskyy: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her I also met and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and I'm very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

 

[Midnightrider]

Look, the entire testimony of the whistleblower is hearsay. He heard it from other people. We have found, over and over again that there are people even within the administration that want to see Trump go down. Who are these mysterious (or shall we say what the media always says "anonymous sources") sources this whistle blower is throwing out there? Are they going to come forward and testify?

This is a "his word against his word" situation that neither side can prove who's telling the truth. I don't give a damn if the IG finds this guy "credible", A lot of people believe Schiff to be credible, even though he outright lied about Trump's phone call. The whistleblower is passing on second-hand information that should never be taken on it's own as fact. This kind of thing needs to be corroborated by actual witnesses.

Lastly, who is this whistleblower that he is so important that White House officials trusted him with this information. I've heard that he works for the CIA. Did he walk into a room and say "let me know if you have any dirt on Trump. I'll be your fall guy and blow the whistle". How did it come about that these "officials" shared this information to this guy? Why would they share it with this guy? Why wouldn't they have filed a complaint?

This isn’t just some guy, this is the person trump appointed to have the authority to oversee and investigate intelligence Community whistleblower complaints. He is the official artiber of ‘credible’. Even the DNI differed to his expertise.

And not all of the whistleblower complaint allegations were third party. The claim said ‘much of’, not all. That leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

 

[PsyOps]

It's not?

You know, I really don't like doing this, but is English your first language? I mean you actually get "we need you to reciprocate more" out of "I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily". You do realize those to two sentences are polar opposites of each other?

And your interpretation of "we are almost ready to buy more Javelins" is "we want to buy those missiles really bad"?

I do realize why disagree on so many things. We don't even speak the same language.

While were hashing out our language barriers, what are your thoughts on Schiff's interpretation of Trump's phone call transcript?

 

[PsyOps]

This isn’t just some guy, this is the person trump appointed to have the authority to oversee and investigate intelligence Community whistleblower complaints. He is the official artiber of ‘credible’. Even the DNI differed to his expertise.

And not all of the whistleblower complaint allegations were third party. The claim said ‘much of’, not all. That leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

Well, this one is third party. It's hearsay. It's not rooted in facts that we can rely on to make an absolute determination about wrong-doing.

Does the IG know who these anonymous sources are? Has he had a chance to question them? It doesn't appear so. So, I don't know how he can conclude the WB is credible at all.

And I don't know what Trump appointing the IG has to do with anything. Many of the people Trump has appointed turned out not to work out. Are you suggesting everyone Trump appoints should do the absolute bidding of the president, even if it's wrong-doing?

 

[Midnightrider]

Well, this one is third party. It's hearsay. It's not rooted in facts that we can rely on to make an absolute determination about wrong-doing.

Does the IG know who these anonymous sources are? Has he had a chance to question them? It doesn't appear so. So, I don't know how he can conclude the WB is credible at all.

And I don't know what Trump appointing the IG has to do with anything. Many of the people Trump has appointed turned out not to work out. Are you suggesting everyone Trump appoints should do the absolute bidding of the president, even if it's wrong-doing?

Your refusal to accept reality is noted.

If not the appropriate authority, who should determine if a claim is credible?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

You know, I really don't like doing this, but is English your first language? I mean you actually get "we need you to reciprocate more" out of "I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily". You do realize those to two sentences are polar opposites of each other?

And your interpretation of "we are almost ready to buy more Javelins" is "we want to buy those missiles really bad"?

I do realize why disagree on so many things. We don't even speak the same language.

While were hashing out our language barriers, what are your thoughts on Schiff's interpretation of Trump's phone call transcript?

Trump was saying that the US helps Ukraine out a ton but that's not reciprocal.

...I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing ... but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.

Let me put it another way for you because you clearly misread it.

"The US does a lot for Ukraine. The US is very very good to Ukraine, but it's not reciprocal because of the things happening in Ukraine right now."

My interpretation is that Trump complained that Ukraine is not reciprocating the help the US gives them. Right after that, Ukraine's President said they'd buy more Javelin's. I'm not willing to dismiss it all because you want to squabble over "missile" or "javelin". I don't know what you and MR argued about previously in this thread, but I'm just pointing out that what you claimed wasn't there, in fact, is.

You want to have a good discussion, we can, but being a dick because you clearly misread the transcript makes no one want to engage in one.

Are you talking about Schiff's "parody"? I think it's BS and Schiff can and should be able to make a case without making it a "clear" (in his words) parody. The American people want facts, not his made-up fantasy "parody" and I think this is the problem with being overly partisan.

 

[Gilligan]

, but being a dick

ahh..your particular specialty, young child... ;-) Maybe you will grow up someday.

Call me "Bill" now. It's what you do..

 

[Chris0nllyn]

So, I don't know how he can conclude the WB is credible at all.

The complaint came before Trump released the transcript, yes? It's dated August 12.

While the complaint includes a few different things, one thing it does include, is details of Trump's call with Zelensky. Trump released the transcript of his call with Zelensky on September 24.

The complaint says that Trump:

• initiate or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden;

• assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election originated in Ukraine , with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike, which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the DNC’s networks in 2016; and

• meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem.

From the transcript:

There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike

Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it.

Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call.

Would you agree that the transcript that came out weeks after the complaint matches pretty well with the complaint?





But you can't see why someone would find it credible despite the complaint matching very well with the transcript Trump declassified weeks after the complaint was made?

 

[GURPS]

My interpretation

You should have stopped here .......

 

[Gilligan]

You should have stopped here .......

He can't.

 

[Kyle]

 

[Midnightrider]

Well, this one is third party. It's hearsay. It's not rooted in facts that we can rely on to make an absolute determination about wrong-doing.

Does the IG know who these anonymous sources are? Has he had a chance to question them? It doesn't appear so. So, I don't know how he can conclude the WB is credible at all.

And I don't know what Trump appointing the IG has to do with anything. Many of the people Trump has appointed turned out not to work out. Are you suggesting everyone Trump appoints should do the absolute bidding of the president, even if it's wrong-doing?

Take off your orange glasses and read this.
The ICIG investigated and determined the claim credible. The ICIG knows both the whistleblower and the sources and he considers the whistleblower a SME on the subjects described in the complaint. He says that the whistleblower had access to all the documents and sources.
He also put a hold on all records and documents related to the call.

I would quote from the document but I can’t find a true text version.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Gilligan]

Ruh roh Joe....

https://www.dailywire.com/news/repo...facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=cnews

 

[Gilligan]

More...

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...WKjKxZnBvfH-drLngUaCPWQuven8_K8uKjtHwWLWHS-dI

 

[Midnightrider]

More...

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...WKjKxZnBvfH-drLngUaCPWQuven8_K8uKjtHwWLWHS-dI

How does that excuse trump doing the same thing Mo?

If it was wrong then, it’s wrong now, right Mo?

 

[Gilligan]

Ahh..peace and quiet.

 

[MiddleGround]

ahh..your particular specialty, young child... ;-) Maybe you will grow up someday.

Call me "Bill" now. It's what you do..

 

[PsyOps]

But you can't see why someone would find it credible despite the complaint matching very well with the transcript Trump declassified weeks after the complaint was made?

And I keep asking... Credible in what sense? That our president actually had the nerve to have a phone conversation with another country's president? That there was this quid quo pro? That Trump was trying to get "dirt on a political presidential opponent"? Yes, "credible" that there was a call between Trump (our president) and Zelenski (Ukraine president). Yes, "credible" that Trump asked Zelensky asked to check into possible corruption that Joe Biden and his son allegedly engaged in. Yes, "credible" that Trump asked the Ukraine to contribute more to their own defense and to the UN. I'm at a loss as what crime was committed here. What is impeachable about this?

The narrative going around the media and the left is that Trump tried to dig up dirt on Biden. Nothing like this ever happened. Asking Zelenski to check into an investigation of corruption, that was stopped by Joe Biden, is not digging for dirt of a an opponent. Suggesting that our president shouldn't be concerned that a presidential candidate was involved in corruption is digging dirt, and not a legal matter is absurd.

Do you really believe Trump committed an illegal act here? Do you really believe our president should never call another country's president and make deals with them? Look, democrats were calling for impeachment on the mere hint that Trump had the nerve to call another national leader. This is just another trick from the endless barrel of tricks democrats will fail at trying to take this president down. Democrats will lose as a result. Americans, like me, are fed up that they are so obsessed with getting Trump out, that it only makes me more motivated to vote for him.

 

[Midnightrider]

And I keep asking... Credible in what sense? That our president actually had the nerve to have a phone conversation with another country's president? That there was this quid quo pro? That Trump was trying to get "dirt on a political presidential opponent"? Yes, "credible" that there was a call between Trump (our president) and Zelenski (Ukraine president). Yes, "credible" that Trump asked Zelensky asked to check into possible corruption that Joe Biden and his son allegedly engaged in. Yes, "credible" that Trump asked the Ukraine to contribute more to their own defense and to the UN. I'm at a loss as what crime was committed here. What is impeachable about this?

The narrative going around the media and the left is that Trump tried to dig up dirt on Biden. Nothing like this ever happened. [B{Asking Zelenski to check into an investigation of corruption, that was stopped by Joe Biden, is not digging for dirt of a an opponent. Suggesting that our president shouldn't be concerned that a presidential candidate was involved in corruption is digging dirt, and not a legal matter is absurd. [/B]

Do you really believe Trump committed an illegal act here? Do you really believe our president should never call another country's president and make deals with them? Look, democrats were calling for impeachment on the mere hint that Trump had the nerve to call another national leader. This is just another trick from the endless barrel of tricks democrats will fail at trying to take this president down. Democrats will lose as a result. Americans, like me, are fed up that they are so obsessed with getting Trump out, that it only makes me more motivated to vote for him.

You say ‘nothing like that ever happened’ but you also describe exactly that happening and say ‘there is nothing wrong with him doing it if he did’. So the reality is that something like that did happen, you have just accepted the president’s narrative about what that was.

If this was all above board and simply a request to look into corruption, why didn’t it go through official channels? Why use the president’s personal lawyer?

 

[PsyOps]

Take off your orange glasses and read this.
The ICIG investigated and determined the claim credible. The ICIG knows both the whistleblower and the sources and he considers the whistleblower a SME on the subjects described in the complaint. He says that the whistleblower had access to all the documents and sources.
He also put a hold on all records and documents related to the call.

I have read it. All it says is that Trump had the nerve to have a phone conversation with the Ukraine president, and that he asked to check into corruption. Sure, that's "credible", and so what! There is no credibility that Trump did anything illegal and impeachable. The fact that you want something to be illegal doesn't make it so. As I said with Chris... the narrative is that Trump was trying to "dig up dirt on a potential presidential opponent". This is an outright lie. Trump was asking to check into an investigation of corruption that Joe Biden put to a stop; and it's a coincidence that his son worked for this company. How is this digging for dirt? The "dirt" came from Biden's own mouth that he did this. There was corruption by Burisma. Hunter Biden did work for Burisma. Joe Biden bragged about witholding $1 billion in loans to force the lead investigator be fired to stop the investigation (I've already proved that to you). And you're focused on what Trump might have done wrong? What about Biden? Nothing illegal here? And you're telling me to remove my "orange glasses"? My God, you have blinders on about who actually committed a crime here. Biden could become president. You better believe that you people pushing this impeachment over our president asking to investigate into corruption, you will get this in return if/when Biden becomes president.