Unless you can find one time Biden expressed the desire to fire a prosecutor to protect his son from being prosecuted you are dealing with presumptions and fabrications.

I have never said Biden fired a prosecutor to protect his son. I have only mentioned the conflict of interest of Hunter Biden being brought on the board of a corrupt company while his father, the Vice President, was running point in that country. I don’t claim special insight into Biden’s thoughts and desires.

George Kent had the same concerns:

Rep. Stefanik: (03:32)
And you testified that it was because “Burisma had a poor reputation in the business,” and that you didn’t think it was appropriate for the US government to be co-sponsoring something with a company that had a bad reputation. Correct?

George Kent: (03:45)
Correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (03:46)
You are also aware, and you testified today, that Hunter Biden served on the board of Burisma.

George Kent: (03:52)
Correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (03:53)
And you also testified that you were indeed concerned about the appearance of conflict of interest.

George Kent: (03:57)
That’s correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (03:59)
And broadly, this is very important, you testified in your deposition that when the State Department evaluates for an assistance, it is appropriate for them to look at levels of corruption in countries.

George Kent: (04:11)
That’s correct.

Rep. Stefanik: (04:11)
And lastly, you also testified that, and this is your quote, “Issues of corruption have been part of high-level dialogue between US leaders and Ukrainian leaders, regardless of who is the US leader and who is the Ukrainian leader. And that is a normal issue of diplomatic discussion at the highest level.” Is that correct?

George Kent: (04:30)
That’s correct.

I have never said Biden fired a prosecutor to protect his son. I have only mentioned the conflict of interest of Hunter Biden being brought on the board of a corrupt company while his father, the Vice President, was running point in that country. I don’t claim special insight into Biden’s thoughts and desires. — NOS4A2

You've claimed that "it is a clear conflict of interest that deserves investigation"¹.

But then when it comes to Trump's conflict of interest suddenly investigations are no longer warranted and any further enquiry is a sham or a hoax? We should just take him at his word?

¹

DOJ IG Found FBI Officials Heading Russia Probe Did Not Act Out Of Anti-Trump Bias

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz did not find that the FBI officials in charge of the agency’s investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia were working to undermine President Donald Trump.


Unnamed officials told the New York Times and the Washington Post on Friday that while Horowitz’ report will criticize the errors he discovered in the early stages of the investigation, the inspector general will debunk Trump and his Republican allies’ accusation that the probe was borne and conducted out of anti-Trump bias.

The officials said Horowitz also found that the FBI did not open the investigation based on the infamous Christopher Steele dossier nor leaked information from the CIA, as Trump and other conservatives have also claimed.

The report will say that there were several errors in process to obtain a court approval to wiretap Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, such as relevant documents containing information that “should have been left out,” in the Times’ words, while also missing information that ought to have been included.

Horowitz found that a low-level FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, had altered a document in the application for the surveillance warrant, though he is not expected to conclude Clinesmith of did so out of opposition to Trump, nor that the document proves investigators improperly sought out the warrant.

The report will be made public on December 9.

Obviously Trump is under investigation here. There is an impeachment inquiry as we speak. I’m saying it’s a sham because of the process.

The one to watch is Guilliani. He is the epicenter of all this and he has been making some wild accusations.

What is silly, is that a company that is registered in Cyprus and through audits paid a figure of roughly about 70 million dollars in owed taxes in 2016, and is managed largely by Ukrainians whom have always been the subject of the 15 investigations carried outby the prosecutors offices over the years isn't being applauded for cleaning up house and paying all owed taxes in 2016 likely due to the diplomatic efforts of the Biden's in alleviating bipartisan concern over corruption in the Ukraine. Under normal circumstances this would be considered a political and diplomatic win for US foreign policy. All done without ever asking for investigations into political rivals back home. This should be a great American achievement. Burismas and other companies turning over new leaves, happened because of the bidens and the direction of the Obama administration and carried on by the Trump Administration which in the end gave the funds because the Ukrainians made sincere efforts to clean up their act and meet American Bipartisan demands. That right there is really America first. Not Trump whining about and trying to demonize what should truly be considered, a triumph for the USA.

The one to watch is Guilliani. He is the epicenter of all this and he has been making some wild accusations. — NOS4A2

Like this:

President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani remarked Saturday that he has “insurance” if the president tries to turn on him while defending their relationship amid the ongoing House impeachment inquiry.

Giuliani in a wide-ranging interview on Fox News declined to say if he has spoken with Trump in recent days, saying, "You can assume that I talk to him early and often."

He then touted what he called a "very, very good relationship" with Trump before knocking unspecified comments about him in the press, calling them "totally insulting."

"I’ve seen things written like he’s going to throw me under the bus. When they say that, I say he isn’t, but I have insurance," Giuliani told Fox News's Ed Henry.

It makes you look weak and unsure of your own position — Benkei

I have not the least concern for 'how I look'. And again, 'engaging' means 'feeding the troll'.

Someone here has a theory that a couple of these guys here are actually Russian. — Mark Dennis

My thoughts also. Tasked with monitoring a cluster of minor social media outlets of which this is one. Polite enough to not be banned, apparently flexible in certain respects, but ultimately, ruthelessly committed to the same disinformation campaign which is being fed to, and by, the GOP.

As far as why Russia supported Trump - it's not hard to see why Putin favoured a Trump presidency. Apart from whatever direct advantage can be gained by Trump’s obsequiousness and the possibility of Russia holding leverage over him, Trump is a one-man wrecking ball who is undermining the social cohesion and future economic prosperity of America with every act. You don't have to control him, he will wreck America purely by himself, with the help of his GOP lackeys and the Fox propaganda network. Russia would have been at a much greater disadvantage under a Clinton presidency, as it was likely to be disciplined and competent. Hence the ongoing support.

That’s an interesting way of looking at it. I suppose it helps when Burisma has your son on its board and is being payed 50000 a month for...well, I’m not too sure. But I think this is the sort of diplomacy we should be concerned about.

As for America first, I’m not sure it’s in America’s best interests to be meddling in Ukrainian affairs. Imagine if any leader told Trump to fire a prosecutor or he won’t get a loan.

I’m not sure it’s in America’s best interests to be meddling in Ukrainian affairs. — NOS4A2

Sticking our nose in other countries' affairs is what we do. It's our leitmotif. (Cue Imperial March.)

It’s getting interesting. The entirety of that interview is worth the watch.

As for America first, I’m not sure it’s in America’s best interests to be meddling in Ukrainian affairs. — NOS4A2

If Trump did that with congressional approval then their wouldn't be a problem; rounding back to my previous point that the illegal act originally committed was asking a foreign government to investigate a domestic political rival back home. It should have been the DOJ and the Exectutive branch simply does not have to the authority to just defy congress without comminicating it directly to congress.

I certainly didn't read at any point any news or white house or congressional publications stating that the trump administration asked for congresses opinion on putting extra conditions on the fund sent to Ukraine.

I'll be honest though; your line about "The USaa meddling in the Ukraine." Doesn't sound like something an american would say. Its certainly a very Russian thing to say though..

Doesn't he sound more like a Russian than an American? "Meddling" is quite an aggressive thick concept for a true America first supporter to be using nay? Speaking as a Scottish man engaged to an American so maybe my view is less biased than if I was born here or in Russia to be pointing that out but its a very curious and suspicious use of language.

Its not obnoxious and in your face, emotions worn freely with no lack of bravado which is what ive come to expect from American Trump supporters. It's just subversive and disruptive anti american wordplay to me which is so Russian. That and the affect of the way he speaks to me is very Russian. I've played many games of chess with people from all across the world and the typical american is to psychologically attack by making you think they have the utmost confidence in the belief they have already won. Russians don't do that, they are quiet, decisive and only speak to try and make you second guess your own moves. They also play extremely defensively but with strong counter attacks ready to punish mistakes.

Usually my matches with them are pretty drawn out but ive often found the best method is to lock key pieces into defending the king and aggressively but carefully pushing for the ground and spaces around the king with knights. I call it the "Don't stop at Stalingrad strategy". You only do it after your king is castled though and you fianchetto the queen side bishop.

I mean; just a hypothesis but an interesting one I feel.

So if Trump throws Giuliani under the bus then his insurance is to release damaging information about Biden? :brow:

Here's Putin's 'mission accomplished':



'Thank God nobody is accusing us of interference in the American elections. Now they're accusing Ukraine'. Job done - nice work, Republicans.

You only do it after your king is castled though and you fianchetto the queen side bishop. — Mark Dennis

A kingside castle?

The rest will have to wait till tomorrow. Interesting thoughts.

Depends really on whether or not you are playong as black and what the opening moves are.

As a rule if, I'm playing white I can afford to wait until black castles so I can choose whether or not to castle the opposite side and positions bishops or knights into outlost positions and getting the queens and rooks on the enemy kings side.

Anyway we shouldnt get too side tracked there but happy to talk chess with you via DM.

But it's neither here nor there. We're more than capable enough on these boards to put out correct information and argue against alternative narratives.

Speculating about people's motives and backgrounds may lead to the inference you don't have a counter argument. After all, even Russian apparatchick could be right.

Yeah, I'm afraid that most sensibilities have been lost in regards to the issue. I say if you don't like what Nosferatu is saying then leave him be.

Btw, @NOS4A2, the nick definitely checks out:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosferatu_(word)

Unless you can find one time Trump expressed the desire to “damage a political rival and help his re-election campaign”, you are dealing with presumptions and fabrications. Actually Trump has repeatedly expressed he needs no help, and has expressed his motives as to why he held back the aid. But none of these show up in your accusations. Why is that? — NOS4A2

Intent almost never can be proved by people saying it out loud, it is inferred from actual behaviour. This is quite common. If you shoot someone but never said "I'm going to kill you" to the victim, people are not going to require you having said that in order to establish your intent and convict you for murder.

In other words, your requirement that he should've been explicit is not supported by how law is practised.

We are free to speculate however I'm still waiting to the counters on my non "might be Russian" points so if my arguments are weak then no one is saying that to me yet.

If Trump did that with congressional approval then their wouldn't be a problem; rounding back to my previous point that the illegal act originally committed was asking a foreign government to investigate a domestic political rival back home. It should have been the DOJ and the Exectutive branch simply does not have to the authority to just defy congress without comminicating it directly to congress.

I certainly didn't read at any point any news or white house or congressional publications stating that the trump administration asked for congresses opinion on putting extra conditions on the fund sent to Ukraine.

I'll be honest though; your line about "The USaa meddling in the Ukraine." Doesn't sound like something an american would say. Its certainly a very Russian thing to say though.

About withholding aid, the legal issues are murky. Even Mulvaney was concerned about this. But there is no problem; Ukraine got the aid. Second, it was the OMB, not Trump, who withheld the funds. This a matter of policy, and not limited to Ukraine:

“ It is incumbent on all federal agencies to properly use funds provided by Congress,” said Rachel Semmel, the OMB spokeswoman. “In an effort to ensure accountability, OMB has requested the current status of several foreign assistance accounts to identify the amount of funding that is unobligated. On behalf of American taxpayers, OMB has an obligation to ensure their money is being used wisely.”

http://archive.is/n8YCG

Trump’s reservations about handing over tax-payer dollars to a country rife with corruption is fully warranted, is in America’s best interests, and in fact is the right thing to do.

Intent almost never can be proved by people saying it out loud, it is inferred from actual behaviour. This is quite common. If you shoot someone but never said "I'm going to kill you" to the victim, people are not going to require you having said that in order to establish your intent and convict you for murder.

In other words, your requirement that he should've been explicit is not supported by how law is practised.

It is also common to under-emphasize situational explanations while over-emphasizing internal explanations for someone’s behavior. It’s a common bias.

Trump was explicit regarding his intentions, and exactly zero of his explicit intentions involved finding political dirt or the 2020 elections. This aspect in particular was invented whole cloth.

About withholding aid, the legal issues are murky. Even Mulvaney was concerned about this. But there is no problem; Ukraine got the aid. — NOS4A2

Definitely murky legal issues about the aid. What isn't so "Murky" is the mounting evidence that President Trump attempted to use that aid to extort and coerce a foreign entity to investigate a domestic political rival back here in the USA. These impeachment deposition transcripts both private and public are damning to this.

Also, the thing about Watergate and the Clinton impeachment most people seem to forget; is that the easiest articles if impeachment to file and convict on are obstruction and intimidation charges during the investigative and judicial process.

Nixon shot himself in the foot over the initial charges with what he did after they were first laid out.

Clinton was only acquitted because what he initially did wasn't illegal it was just very telling of his moral constitution by caving into a flesh weakness in office. He obstructed too though.

All the evidence corroborates that the initial charges against Trump are true and now his propaganda machine is attempting to gaslight the nation over the mounting and substantial testimony to date clearly shown in the public transcripts from non partisan and partisan sources on both sides.

At this point in time the articles of impeachment being written up and each will come with an argument and will require a defence. I don't think the Republicans are taking this seriously but hopefully the silent senators will recognise the truth when they hear it in their own forum.

I’m not aware of Trump coercing anyone. The alleged victim, the Ukrainian president, has said on numerous occasions that no one pressured him. There is no talk of withholding aid in exchange for politically motivated investigations any of the available transcripts. So that accusation is hokum.

Further, that he withheld aid for political dirt and to help his campaign in 2020 is completely fabricated. The primaries haven’t even occurred yet, so Trump’s political opponent in 2020 is as of yet unknown. Rudy Guilliani claims he found out about the Bidens before ol’ Joe decided to run.

About watergate, I suspect that Trump’s opponents in the DNC and in the press are literally live-action role playing their Watergate fantasies. I worry they are trapped in a mass hysteria and they are ruining the country to cover-up their crimes.

Trump was explicit regarding his intentions, and exactly zero of his explicit intentions involved finding political dirt or the 2020 elections. This aspect in particular was invented whole cloth. — NOS4A2

And yet several witnesses, who were heard behind closed doors so they could not influence each other, each testified as to what they believed his intent to be and each of them stated the same: quid pro quo. The call itself makes his intent quite explicit:

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. — Zelensky

I would like you to do us a favor though... — Trump

It's only hokum if somehow a large number of common dictionary meanings changed over night while no one was looking; but when I hear phrases like "Didnt care about US foreign policy" and "Sought to further his own political agenda" in the testimonies which are common phrases used from multiple witness testimonies live in public for all to see I know exactly what to think. There is nothing right or justified about the presidents actions. He has only used the presidency to enrich himself and the fickle hyenas he and his friends all are.

Also it's not exactly easy for the Ukrainian president to come out and say he is being bullied by the US president. Would make him look weak so why the hell would he ever say that? What the people around him are saying is that it was definitely coercive. This is being said by individuals within both the Ukranian and US governments, Trumps government!

America first seems to have gone out the window in your "American" beliefs. Seems more like its Trump first, then America. He never bought the USA he doesnt own it. Ths president is meant to be the peoples most powerful servant. America is not meant to serve the president.

You steer very clear from the obstruction charge discussion I have noticed.

цугцванг

And yet several witnesses, who were heard behind closed doors so they could not influence each other, each testified as to what they believed his intent to be and each of them stated the same: quid pro quo. The call itself makes his intent quite explicit:

They each testified to their presumptions, sure, but not to any such fact. Surely they were convinced that he had such motivations just as you guys are, but it was more likely they were convinced of it from some aspect of reporting or dem propaganda than Trump himself. In fact, Trump explicitly said the opposite: no quid pro quo.

It does make his intent explicit. The favor is in reference to finding out what happened in 2016, specifically Ukraine’s meddling. He also stated his intention that he wanted Zelensky to speak to the Attorney General regarding these efforts. No where does Trump state he will withhold aid if they do not comply. Two expressions of intent, none of which have anything to do with finding political dirt or the 2020 elections.