Opinion: We Must Have Witnesses.

Good grief, you do realize the manuscript leaks came from someone somewhere in the NSC. Someone risked their job and reputation to get the information out because they felt someone should know. Obviously that’s way over your fat head.
Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Someone? You seriously don't know who it was? That someone was Lt. Colonel Vindman who told his CIA buddy Ciaramella, who use to work for Biden, so that the hero Lt. Colonel Vindman wouldn't risk his job.


Now all we need to confirm how all this started and please, don't argue that the WB is not relevant to this trial, is to call the WB whose identity which we all know, can be kept super secret. Was telling Ciaramella legal? What was the bias that Ciaramella had that the IG pointed out in his testimony? What was Adam Schiff's role in making recommendations to Ciaramella on how to handle what he was about to do and did Adam Schiff lie about not meeting Ciaramella.


Yep, soooo many questions to ask but none of the answers will get us to 67 votes to convict and in the end, we will know nothing more than we already know. President Trump had grave doubts that Ukraine had over come it's corrupt ways and how it favored Hillary in the election and no, I am not suggesting Ukraine hacked the DNC but the evidence is overwhelming that some in Ukraine worked against Trump being elected and we know this because it was Ukraine that provided the evidence against Manafort in an effort to discredit Trump.


Not that big a leap to wonder if Joe Biden was part of the effort to discredit Trump or at the very least was part of a corrupt effort by his son Hunter. If Hunter sat on the board of Burisma and Burisma as everybody acknowledges was corrupt, how do you not investigate Hunter? And if Ukraine did investigate Hunter and found no evidence of corruption, can we see that report please?

Good grief, you do realize the manuscript leaks came from someone somewhere in the NSC. Someone risked their job and reputation to get the information out because they felt someone should know. Obviously that’s way over your fat head.

Viva La Shifty Schiff Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Please point to the manuscript that has been leaked. I'm talking about the ACTUAL MANUSCRIPT. Link it. Not somebody's interpretation of what they read. Supposedly the line as of 2pm today is "The NYT saw a draft outline of the book."

As of this writing, I haven't seen it.

BTW, I'm reading Bolton's literary agent is the same one as James Comey's. We know how that turned out. "A higher calling". Shot down in flames.

This has all been covered in this forum.
And a lot of it was reported in September and October. Instead of researching these issues, y'all went with trump talking points. You know, the guy that has lied over 15,000 documented times.

Now you're throwing out perhaps and probablies. Shokin had many reasons to lie.
And something you don't seem to get was the investigation of Bursima was for a time period predating Hunter Biden's involvement with Bursima.

Did any of you finally catch on to a fact you all ignore? Ongoing, dormant, suspended, it doesn't matter what term you use to describe the status of the investigation.
Biden did not work for Bursima during the time frame of the investigation.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9147001.html

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/tr...n-and-ukraine/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/u...erference.html



"Merriam-Webster has not yet added the word “swiftboating” to its dictionary, but the Urban Dictionary and Taegan Goddard’s Political Dictionary have. The term refers to “the act of discrediting a political opponent by making exaggerated or outrightly false claims about his/her character and past actions.” If successful, this form of disinformation can falsely turn a decorated war hero into a traitor, as it did in the eyes of some voters for then-Senator and Navy veteran John Kerry in the 2004 presidential campaign. President Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani’s debunked narrative about Vice President Joe Biden and Ukraine fits the mold, but there is an important dimension that’s not been widely understood.

Even some of the best analysis that explains the falsity of the Trump-Giuliani allegations has fallen into a trap. The Trump-Giuliani allegations are called “exaggerated,” while others write that “no evidence has surfaced to support Mr. Trump’s claim.”

What’s missing from those types of assessments is evidence that actually points in the opposite direction. That became clearer to us as researchers when we prepared a chronology of events published on Just Security earlier today. The timeline covers developments from November 2013 to the present, including Biden’s work in Ukraine and Trump and Giuliani’s actions in what has become known as “Ukrainegate.”

The publicly available evidence suggests that the Vice President, working in tandem with other U.S. officials such as Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, pursued anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine that would increase the legal risks to the Ukrainian gas company, Burisma Holdings, where Biden’s son, Hunter, served on the board. The U.S. government’s efforts, led by Biden, explicitly and specifically targeted the office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine not only for its failure to pursue investigations – but also for blocking an investigation into allegations concerning the owner of Burisma.

One might hesitate to bring further attention to a smear campaign, as writing about it can help spread the disinformation itself. But the more complete record on Biden also reveals the nature of Trump and Giuliani’s offenses.

Here are the most important elements in the chronology relevant to this topic:

1. The Ukraine investigation of Burisma did not simply lie dormant at the time the U.S. vice president was calling for the ouster of the General Prosecutor. That office appears to have engaged in a cover-up to protect Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevskiy, from a British investigation.

See the following entries from the timeline (summarized here):

April 16, 2014, Sept. 24, 2015, and Feb. 11, 2016 – U.K. authorities freeze assets of Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevskiy, who challenges the freeze and wins, in part because the Prosecutor General’s Office didn’t provide necessary evidence and, according to Ambassador Pyatt, even “sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him.” Vitaliy Kasko, a former deputy prosecutor general who had worked under Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin and resigned in frustration at his stymying of corruption investigations, says the office’s probe into Burisma Holdings had been long dormant, including under Shokin’s predecessor, by the time Joe Biden issued his ultimatum in 2016. “There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against” Burisma owner Zlochevskiy, Kasko says. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015.”

Feb. 16, 2016 – Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin resigns, then returns to office before finally being ousted. The Kyiv Post reports later that it “wasn’t able to find any public comments that Shokin made about [Burisma] during his 14 months in office.”

2. In line with the EU, the IMF, and other Western donors, the U.S. government, led by Biden, publicly and privately called for Shokin to step down for his failure to address corruption.

See the following entries (summarized here):

Fall 2015 – Biden, along with the EU, publicly calls for the ouster of Prosecutor General Shokin for failure to work on anti-corruption efforts, according to many including congressional testimony by John E. Herbst, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine under George W. Bush.

Feb. 11, 2016 – Documenting Biden’s coordination with other administration officials on approach to Shokin.

3. Biden and Pyatt gave back-to-back speeches in 2015, in which the ambassador specifically castigated officials in the Office of the Prosecutor General for the Burisma cover-up and called for those officials to be investigated and removed from office for those actions.

See entry (summarized here):

Sept. 24, 2015 – Ambassador Pyatt excoriates officials in the Prosecutor General’s Office for stymying the anti-corruption investigation by UK authorities, including those involving Burisma.

4. The Special Prosecutor who replaced Shokin, Yuriy Lutsenko, initially took a hard line against Burisma

See the following entries (summarized here):

May 12, 2016 – Lutsenko’s initial hardline on Burisma demonstrates that Shokin’s ouster wasn’t, in fact, good for the company. On the contrary.

Feb. 11, 2016 – Daria Kaleniuk a leading Ukrainian anti-corruption advocate, says, “Shokin was not investigating. He didn’t want to investigate Burisma…And Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation.”

https://www.justsecurity.org/66290/t...-of-joe-biden/

Now you want to use the same narratives that have been debunked again..

Best case is your unintentional ignorance spreads lies and disinformation.

The worst case is you're all Russian bots.

Most likely is y'all are just every day lying liars.

You're probably right. Biden probably was working at the direction of the White House and the State Department when he threatened to withhold loan guarantees. And probably the Prosecutor fired, Victor Shokin, was slow walking the investigation into Burisma. (Hunter Biden was a director of Burisma.) In other words, Biden was more likely working against the best interests of his son.

So what would Shokin's motivation be to lie? Perhaps payoffs by Dmytro Firtash, a Ukrainian businessman who's holed up in Austria trying to avoid extradition to the USA. Shokin wrote an affidavit favorable to Firtash, to use in his extradition case:

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/7656...ryId=765653384

Firtash hired Republican attorneys Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing and consultant/translator Lev Parnas to try to get him off, undoubtedly because he thought they could pull some strings with the Trump administration.

Still, if you get Shokin testifying in front of the Senate, I think it could go either way in the court of public opinion. He'd probably paint a picture sympathetic to Trump that hurts Biden. Originally Posted by Tiny

Please point to the manuscript that has been leaked. I'm talking about the ACTUAL MANUSCRIPT. Link it. Not somebody's interpretation of what they read. Supposedly the line as of 2pm today is "The NYT saw a draft outline of the book."

As of this writing, I haven't seen it.

BTW, I'm reading Bolton's literary agent is the same one as James Comey's. We know how that turned out. "A higher calling". Shot down in flames. Originally Posted by gnadfly

The only ones who had access to the manuscript where members of the NSC while editing for national security classification, then there’s Bolton and his publisher and they didn’t send me a copy. But I’m certain it exists, and I believe there’s probably more coming.

So now a manuscript of John Bolton’s book has been leaked to the NYT.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/26/polit...ump/index.html

In it Bolton seems to say that yes, one of the aims of the Trump policy towards Ukraine was to nail down the corruption of the Biden’s.

The only way we can now be sure that President Trump will be rid of this whole impeachment thing is to get Bolton, The Biden’s, ( all of them), the whistleblower, and anyone else that has anything to say about this UNDER OATH IN A TRIAL.

Who cares if it takes 8 months. It has to be done. The Democrats plans include hoping that the Senate will vote to NOT have witnesses. That way they can say the trial was not fair, and use it against the President for his next 4 years.

My personal opinion is that President Trump was not about to hand over billions to the new government in Ukraine without knowing that the new President was dedicated to ending the cycle of corruption in Ukraine. When the Biden’s kept popping up, that was just a big bonus.

Like I said months ago. When you start turning over rocks, you never know what slugs will crawl out. Let’s get everybody under oath, and find out just how deep this really goes. Originally Posted by Jackie S

The likelyhood that Bolton's book and quotes are characterized accurately is about zero.

They did the same thing to Kavanaugh, and the depths of the perversion of the left should not be fed.

There has not been any evidence proffered that Trump did anything that would rise to he level of impeachment. Impeachment requires that house provide proof of the misdeeds supporting the impeachment. It is not up to the Senate to investigate but to judge, and pushing the investigation upon them is unconstitutional. Carrying this on ad infinitum is hugely destructive to this country.

Let us hear the evidence proffered by the house.
Let the Senate vote.
Let the people judge those that proffered the evidence, and those that voted, this fall.

That is how the constitution was set up.

If the left's summary of trump was true, he'd lose in a landslide. He won't, because the left is thoroughly disgusting.

This is when Trump got interested in Ukraine...



Good ol' quid pro Joe. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Bullshit....Joe leading Trump in swing states.

That has been proven as nonsense.

This has all been covered in this forum.
And a lot of it was reported in September and October. Instead of researching these issues, y'all went with trump talking points. You know, the guy that has lied over 15,000 documented times.

Now you're throwing out perhaps and probablies. Shokin had many reasons to lie.
And something you don't seem to get was the investigation of Bursima was for a time period predating Hunter Biden's involvement with Bursima.

Did any of you finally catch on to a fact you all ignore? Ongoing, dormant, suspended, it doesn't matter what term you use to describe the status of the investigation.
Biden did not work for Bursima during the time frame of the investigation.


Now you want to use the same narratives that have been debunked again..

Best case is your unintentional ignorance spreads lies and disinformation.

The worst case is you're all Russian bots.

Most likely is y'all are just every day lying liars.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

You either didn't understand my post or you won't accept any statement that doesn't say you're correct with 100% certainty. That is, everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is a Russian bot or a liar.

Where did I quote a narrative that's been debunked?

Can you say with absolute certainty that Shokin was bribed by Firtash to say whatever the three stooges (Giuliani/Parnas/Fruman) told him to? I'm asking because you don't like me using the word "perhaps." Or maybe you believe the opposite. I'm dead wrong on that, it's been debunked as you say, because you saw some other explanations thrown out by Rachel Maddow or Laurence O'Donnell, who are always right. And Republicans are always wrong.

I've got no idea what point you're trying to make about the timing. Hunter Biden was appointed a director of Burisma in April, 2014. Joe Biden and others in the USA started putting pressure on Ukraine to remove Shokin in the fall of 2015. Shokin was removed on March 29, 2016. While as I've said here, I don't believe Biden working on removing Shokin had anything to do with Hunter, and Shokin should have been removed, the timing in no way supports the case you're trying to make.

Pam Blondi, who is obviously the bad cop on Trump’s team, just crucified the Biden’s.

I thought I knew a lot about the Biden’s corruption, but she just laid out things that makes you wonder why all of the Bidens aren’t in Leavenworth.

Pam Blondi, who is obviously the bad cop on Trump’s team, just crucified the Biden’s.

I thought I knew a lot about the Biden’s corruption, but she just laid out things that makes you wonder why all of the Bidens aren’t in Leavenworth. Originally Posted by Jackie S

You want to hear Hunter, pressure your Senator to vote “ Yes” for witnesses to be called, It only takes 51 Senators to hear both sides.

I was expecting Bondi to rip her dress open and expose her Dixie tattoo and scream Crowdstrike.

Viva La Shifty Schiff

Urkraine has said the Bidens haven't broken any laws there. What probable cause is there that hasn't been debunked? Biden's threat to withhold loan guarantees (not even the same as Congress appropriated funds for an ally's defense money) was official policy. He didn't just come up with it. I'm not retelling the story. Y'all can look it up yourselves.



Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

You are a stupid fuck. He wanted the prosecutor fired who was fucking up his son's gravy train.

Go back to sucking cock - Assup says that is what you are best at, though he said your mother likes to take it up the ass and so does he.

The Trump team just eviscerated the Biden’s. I bet Obama will tell Schumer to end this nightmare.

The Trump team just eviscerated the Biden’s. I bet Obama will tell Schumer to end this nightmare. Originally Posted by bambino

Schumer has to big of an ego

The Trump team just eviscerated the Biden’s. I bet Obama will tell Schumer to end this nightmare. Originally Posted by bambino

I’ll bet he won’t. It’s looking more and more like witnesses are on the way.

Btw. there’s a rumor Hunter Biden wasn’t employed by Burisma during the investigation by Ukraine, well, the lack of any investigation would be more accurate.

I’ll bet he won’t. It’s looking more and more like witnesses are on the way.

Btw. there’s a rumor Hunter Biden wasn’t employed by Burisma during the investigation by Ukraine, well, the lack of any investigation would be more accurate. Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Looks more and more like they won’t. Hunter was employed by

Burisma a year after his dad was out of office. You and your rumors.

This isn’t a rumor:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HhrLWL7jzPY

Bullshit....Joe leading Trump in swing states.

That has been proven as nonsense. Originally Posted by WTF

Nonsense? What that idiot is basically doing is describing a bribe.