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.
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
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.
The one to watch is Guilliani. He is the epicenter of all this and he has been making some wild accusations. — NOS4A2
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
Someone here has a theory that a couple of these guys here are actually Russian. — Mark Dennis
I’m not sure it’s in America’s best interests to be meddling in Ukrainian affairs. — NOS4A2
As for America first, I’m not sure it’s in America’s best interests to be meddling in Ukrainian affairs. — NOS4A2
You only do it after your king is castled though and you fianchetto the queen side bishop. — Mark Dennis
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
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.
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.
About withholding aid, the legal issues are murky. Even Mulvaney was concerned about this. But there is no problem; Ukraine got the aid. — NOS4A2
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
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
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:
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.