Was Hunter Biden qualified to serve on the Board of a Ukraine gas Company?

Typical H... apologist , and biden apologist - tis ok for the DPST's to commit corruption crimes - they'r on "My side" .
Typical narrative bound Mom's basement DPST!

Originally Posted by HoeHummer

thank you valued hummer!

are you saying Nadler is incompetent???? lol! Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I am but more importantly, that's what Pelosi thinks. You did watch the Mueller fiasco, right? What other reason could there be to take away an impeachment inquiry from the Judiciary committee where it has always been before and will now return to actually write the articles of impeachment?

Assuming Joe Biden's actions in the Ukraine were not done in any way to favor his son, Joe Biden did nothing wrong. Used the power, financial or otherwise, of the U.S. to get something done in a foreign country. Just as Trump did by withholding aid from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.

You think it reeks of corruption. Fine. I for one have no problem with the incident being investigated. Please take a minute to read the following. My advice is to research the subject in question before reaching a conclusion. From what I've read on the subject, there is absolutely no link between Joe Biden and Hunter Biden working at Burisma and Joe Biden's actions having an impact on Hunter Biden. Just as there is no proof the Ukraine interfered in the 2016 elections.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...asis-quicktake Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I guess that depends on your definition of proof. I guess a Ukrainian court apologizing for interfering in the election doesn't count?


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/w...-manafort.html


https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ackfire-233446


I agree that it was Russia that did the hacking and set up all the false internet sites but to say that Ukraine didn't "interfere" in the election is putting your head in the sand. Did Ukraine interfere at the same level to the same degree as Russia? No but they did interfere and anybody paying attention knows that.


Yeah, I think Trump went off on a tangent claiming that Ukraine had the DNC server and they did the hacking but this sincere if misguided belief, is what lead Trump down the path he took. In his mind, he believed that Ukraine interfered "enough" to cause him problems and he was bound and determined to find out "the truth". I think Trump sincerely believes that Joe Biden is corrupt and the video of Biden and his illegal quid pro quo supports that notion and IMHO is a prima facie case for further investigation of Biden.


While I'm at it, let's take a look at the charge of bribery. The Dem's say that Trump bribed Zelensky that if Z doesn't say he will "look into" the Bidens, Z won't get a meeting and he won't get military aide, all of which he got but Dem's say "yeah, but, but".


It would seem to me that one would have to ask the person supposedly being bribed if they thought they were being bribed, right? So has Z said he felt pressured, bribed? Nope. To the contrary, Z has said he didn't even know aide was being held up and what is the worst that Trump was asking for? An investigation that may or may not have helped Trump. How can one argue that Trump would be helped by an investigation if as Dem's say, there is nothing to find? Couldn't that actually hurt Trump if nothing was found? I think that could and would be argued by Democrats.


Now if corruption by Biden was found, would that provide an alternative that Trump asked this favor for more than his personal gain and that it was for the country, to save the country from electing a man that might just be impeached right after his election? Wouldn't it in fact be in the best interest of the country to find out before he is possibly elected?


Did Trump bribe Z to do something illegal, unethical? An investigation into corruption in one of the most corrupt countries in the world before we give them any more money? I don't think so but what about the fact that it is calling for an investigation of his political rival? Ok, that would be bad if it came out of thin air without any reasonable argument that corruption could exist and if as in Schiff's parody, Trump said "I want dirt on Joe Biden even if you have to make it up", Hell yes that would be a bribe and impeachable, no question but that isn't what happened no matter how many times Schiff repeats his parody for which he should have been censured by the House. Now it appears that Schiff has lied about having never meet the WB. Don't we need to resolve that question?

As H.... paid for the Steele dossier and subsequent actions!
Good post - HF - Makes good sense

DPST's will never permit their blinded selves to look at the matter rationally

TDS and hatred prevail.

I guess that depends on your definition of proof. I guess a Ukrainian court apologizing for interfering in the election doesn't count?


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/w...-manafort.html


https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ackfire-233446


I agree that it was Russia that did the hacking and set up all the false internet sites but to say that Ukraine didn't "interfere" in the election is putting your head in the sand. Did Ukraine interfere at the same level to the same degree as Russia? No but they did interfere and anybody paying attention knows that.


Yeah, I think Trump went off on a tangent claiming that Ukraine had the DNC server and they did the hacking but this sincere if misguided belief, is what lead Trump down the path he took. In his mind, he believed that Ukraine interfered "enough" to cause him problems and he was bound and determined to find out "the truth". I think Trump sincerely believes that Joe Biden is corrupt and the video of Biden and his illegal quid pro quo supports that notion and IMHO is a prima facie case for further investigation of Biden.


While I'm at it, let's take a look at the charge of bribery. The Dem's say that Trump bribed Zelensky that if Z doesn't say he will "look into" the Bidens, Z won't get a meeting and he won't get military aide, all of which he got but Dem's say "yeah, but, but".


It would seem to me that one would have to ask the person supposedly being bribed if they thought they were being bribed, right? So has Z said he felt pressured, bribed? Nope. To the contrary, Z has said he didn't even know aide was being held up and what is the worst that Trump was asking for? An investigation that may or may not have helped Trump. How can one argue that Trump would be helped by an investigation if as Dem's say, there is nothing to find? Couldn't that actually hurt Trump if nothing was found? I think that could and would be argued by Democrats.


Now if corruption by Biden was found, would that provide an alternative that Trump asked this favor for more than his personal gain and that it was for the country, to save the country from electing a man that might just be impeached right after his election? Wouldn't it in fact be in the best interest of the country to find out before he is possibly elected?


Did Trump bribe Z to do something illegal, unethical? An investigation into corruption in one of the most corrupt countries in the world before we give them any more money? I don't think so but what about the fact that it is calling for an investigation of his political rival? Ok, that would be bad if it came out of thin air without any reasonable argument that corruption could exist and if as in Schiff's parody, Trump said "I want dirt on Joe Biden even if you have to make it up", Hell yes that would be a bribe and impeachable, no question but that isn't what happened no matter how many times Schiff repeats his parody for which he should have been censured by the House. Now it appears that Schiff has lied about having never meet the WB. Don't we need to resolve that question? Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Zelensky is not going to go against Trump, knowing that he held up aid once and would in all likelihood do it again. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

You keep forgetting the main point. Trump has the right to stop payment of financial aid to a country. Trump has the right to ask a foreign country to investigate a possible crime by an American in that country. But combining the two is definitely unethical. Call it quid pro quo or bribery.

https://medium.com/discourse/bribery...e-81151981ae38

I'm not sure why you continue the argument. You have your opinion of what the facts indicate and I have mine and we will not reach a resolution. In all likelihood Trump will be impeached but not convicted. Who becomes the winner and loser in this will be interesting to see. Polls still are about 50-50 supporting or not supporting impeachment. Of course, Trump cites a non-existent poll stating support for impeachment is in the 20s.

"Support for Impeachment is dropping like a rock, down into the 20’s in some Polls. "

I guess that depends on your definition of proof. I guess a Ukrainian court apologizing for interfering in the election doesn't count?


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/w...-manafort.html


https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ackfire-233446

I would tend to believe our Intelligence Community over any other source.

I agree that it was Russia that did the hacking and set up all the false internet sites but to say that Ukraine didn't "interfere" in the election is putting your head in the sand.


Do you think the CIA isn't doing enough? Were they lying when they breifed the Senate? I would tend to believe our Intelligence Community over any other source.

Did Ukraine interfere at the same level to the same degree as Russia? No but they did interfere and anybody paying attention knows that.


Who else would you trust is paying enough attention to report the truth? I would tend to believe out Intelligence Community over any other source.

Yeah, I think Trump went off on a tangent claiming that Ukraine had the DNC server and they did the hacking but this sincere if misguided belief, is what lead Trump down the path he took. In his mind, he believed that Ukraine interfered "enough" to cause him problems and he was bound and determined to find out "the truth".

He's hearing it from Putin that Ukraine interfered.

I think Trump sincerely believes that Joe Biden is corrupt and the video of Biden and his illegal quid pro quo supports that notion and IMHO is a prima facie case for further investigation of Biden.


While I'm at it, let's take a look at the charge of bribery. The Dem's say that Trump bribed Zelensky that if Z doesn't say he will "look into" the Bidens, Z won't get a meeting and he won't get military aide, all of which he got but Dem's say "yeah, but, but".


It would seem to me that one would have to ask the person supposedly being bribed if they thought they were being bribed, right? So has Z said he felt pressured, bribed? Nope. To the contrary, Z has said he didn't even know aide was being held up and what is the worst that Trump was asking for? An investigation that may or may not have helped Trump. How can one argue that Trump would be helped by an investigation if as Dem's say, there is nothing to find?

All the POTUS wanted was a campaign slogan. Even something as little, and stupid, as just saying the Bidens were under investigation. That was enough, in his mind, to help him.

Couldn't that actually hurt Trump if nothing was found?

He really doesn't think that far. I would argue he just doesn't think at all.


I think that could and would be argued by Democrats.


Now if corruption by Biden was found, would that provide an alternative that Trump asked this favor for more than his personal gain and that it was for the country, to save the country from electing a man that might just be impeached right after his election? Wouldn't it in fact be in the best interest of the country to find out before he is possibly elected?


Did Trump bribe Z to do something illegal, unethical? An investigation into corruption in one of the most corrupt countries in the world before we give them any more money? I don't think so but what about the fact that it is calling for an investigation of his political rival? Ok, that would be bad if it came out of thin air without any reasonable argument that corruption could exist and if as in Schiff's parody, Trump said "I want dirt on Joe Biden even if you have to make it up", Hell yes that would be a bribe and impeachable, no question but that isn't what happened no matter how many times Schiff repeats his parody for which he should have been censured by the House. Now it appears that Schiff has lied about having never meet the WB. Don't we need to resolve that question? Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Zelensky is not going to go against Trump, knowing that he held up aid once and would in all likelihood do it again. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

I second your point. Zelensky is smart enough to know that he should say he wasn't pressured.


You keep forgetting the main point. Trump has the right to stop payment of financial aid to a country. Trump has the right to ask a foreign country to investigate a possible crime by an American in that country. But combining the two is definitely unethical. Call it quid pro quo or bribery.

https://medium.com/discourse/bribery...e-81151981ae38

I'm not sure why you continue the argument. You have your opinion of what the facts indicate and I have mine and we will not reach a resolution. In all likelihood Trump will be impeached but not convicted. Who becomes the winner and loser in this will be interesting to see. Polls still are about 50-50 supporting or not supporting impeachment. Of course, Trump cites a non-existent poll stating support for impeachment is in the 20s.

"Support for Impeachment is dropping like a rock, down into the 20’s in some Polls. " Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Zelensky is not going to go against Trump, knowing that he held up aid once and would in all likelihood do it again. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.


So then you are left arguing that Z is a liar. Sure you want to go with that?


You keep forgetting the main point. Trump has the right to stop payment of financial aid to a country. Trump has the right to ask a foreign country to investigate a possible crime by an American in that country. But combining the two is definitely unethical. Call it quid pro quo or bribery.



You can call it anything you want. Can you prove it in a trial by saying Z is a liar and Trump asked him to do something unethical meaning something he would not other wise be inclined to do. I don't think he would hesitate to start a new investigation or that it would be seen as unethical and I think he already has.


The "main point" is that even if Trump has done what Dem's accuse him of ( a big if in my opinion ) and it is unethical, immoral, wrong, in your opinion, was it illegal and did it rise to the level of an impeachable offense and the Republicans have said no, it doesn't. So now as we all seem to have known for a while now, it will be left up to the voters in 2020 which correct if I'm wrong, you agree with, right?



https://medium.com/discourse/bribery...e-81151981ae38

I'm not sure why you continue the argument.



And here you are continuing the argument. Are you asking yourself why you keep doing something you find fault in me doing?




You have your opinion of what the facts indicate and I have mine and we will not reach a resolution.



What can I say, I don't give up easily. Call it a character flaw if you must



In all likelihood Trump will be impeached but not convicted.



So you do see the "main point". Some of what I said must have gotten through.


Who becomes the winner and loser in this will be interesting to see.


And that will be Nov. 5th 2020 and not sooner, right?


Polls still are about 50-50 supporting or not supporting impeachment. Of course, Trump cites a non-existent poll stating support for impeachment is in the 20s.


The man does see things a bit different than most but AGAIN the only thing that matters until Nov. 5th 2020 is, will 20 Republican Senators vote to convict and I think by now we ALL agree they will not but I'll bet we'll all continue to argue this for the foreseeable future.


"Support for Impeachment is dropping like a rock, down into the 20’s in some Polls. " Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Support is dropping by all accounts in those states most important like Wisconsin and it's Independents where the drop seems to be most.


https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...-for-democrats


The most salient point in the article



“After three years, the country was sick of hearing about Russia, and now the average American either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about the case we’re making on Ukraine,” said one Democratic fundraiser.


In other words "so what if he did what they say he did". Kinda says it all.


It appears to me that the number of people in favor of impeachment is about the same number that were for impeachment before a word about Ukraine was ever spoken. Another indication that nobody cares about what did or didn't happen in Ukraine. I think you know that to be the case.

Do you think the CIA isn't doing enough? Were they lying when they briefed the Senate? I would tend to believe our Intelligence Community over any other source.


Dude, did you miss the part where I agreed that it was Russia that did the hacking and played a much, much bigger role in election interference but that Ukraine did on a smaller scale?

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

But on the broader question of whether I have 100% trust in our Intelligence community, I'd have to say no. The fact that the FBI has people being fired and under investigation left and right kinda puts a kink in my "confidence" in the Intel community. I also happen to think that John Brennan and Clapper might be in handcuffs after the Durham report but maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.

“After three years, the country was sick of hearing about Russia, and now the average American either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about the case we’re making on Ukraine,” said one Democratic fundraiser.


In other words "so what if he did what they say he did".

Do you take those who say what you quote to mean they don't care if he broke the law? Or, do you take them to mean that he didn't break the law, therefore they don't care?

Kinda says it all.


It appears to me that the number of people in favor of impeachment is about the same number that were for impeachment before a word about Ukraine was ever spoken. Another indication that nobody cares about what did or didn't happen in Ukraine. I think you know that to be the case.




Originally Posted by HedonistForever

https://history.house.gov/Historical...l-Act-of-1974/


Historical Highlights
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
July 12, 1974

Frustrated with President Richard M. Nixon’s impoundment of congressionally appropriated funds, Congress reasserted its budget authority. By shifting the federal government’s fiscal year from July 1 to October 1, Congress gained the time to respond to the President’s annual budget message and properly legislate federal spending. The act created both the House and Senate Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO was charged with gathering data and estimates and supplying the committees with proper information to assist the federal budget process.

White House Officials Worried Freezing Ukraine Aid Could Break The Law https://n.pr/34oJXlq


White House Officials Worried Freezing Ukraine Aid Could Break The Law

The funds Trump wanted to freeze had to be used by Sept. 30, Sandy said. If they weren't, "they basically expire and they return to the Treasury."

Ultimately the White House released the Ukraine assistance in early September. Trump and aides had wrought a policy over the year aimed on extracting concessions from Ukraine's leader.

In exchange for a meeting and the military assistance, witnesses have said, Trump wanted Ukraine's president to announce investigations that Trump thought might help him in the 2020 election.

by Philip Ewing

I also don't have 100% confidence in the Intelligence Community. That's why I stated "tend" to believe them over an investigative reporter.

But on the broader question of whether I have 100% trust in our Intelligence community, I'd have to say no.

Do you think the CIA is doing enough to keep us safe?

What else do you think they can do?


The fact that the FBI has people being fired and under investigation left and right kinda puts a kink in my "confidence" in the Intel community.

Is the FBI under the same jurisdiction as the Intelligence Community? Yes, both report to the Director of National Intelligence.

How dysfunctional do you think the Intelligence Community is?


I also happen to think that John Brennan and Clapper might be in handcuffs after the Durham report but maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Do you think the Senate was misinformed in their briefings about Ukraine's involvement in the election?



https://www.the-american-interest.co...lding-reality/

Rebuilding Reality

In the impeachment process, partisan politics define almost everything.

Still. We simply cannot allow blatant disregard for truth. It destroys clear-sightedness. Vladimir Putin’s Russia is an American problem. Ukraine—whatever its flaws—is not. Ukraine has always represented a strategic opportunity to help to contain malign Kremlin influence. Vladimir Putin has a vision of more Russia and less America in Europe, and elsewhere. Other and even more formidable adversarial forces advance their hostile visions, too.

JEFFREY GEDMAN, FRANCIS FUKIYAMA, & CHARLES DAVIDSON

https://history.house.gov/Historical...l-Act-of-1974/


Historical Highlights
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
July 12, 1974




White House Officials Worried Freezing Ukraine Aid Could Break The Law https://n.pr/34oJXlq


White House Officials Worried Freezing Ukraine Aid Could Break The Law



by Philip Ewing Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Above is what I get when I hit the quote button. What I didn't get when I hit the quote button, were the questions you asked me so I'll have to do it this way. Your questions are in blue



Originally Posted by HedonistForever
But on the broader question of whether I have 100% trust in our Intelligence community, I'd have to say no.

Do you think the CIA is doing enough to keep us safe?


I have no earthly idea what the CIA is doing. What I suspect pertinent to these conversations is that John Brennan in his hatred for Trump and his zeal to have him removed from office committed illegal acts. We'll have to wait and see if Durham agrees. I do think in most of these agencies FBI, CIA, DOJ, the vast majority of the people are doing their jobs without bias. People like James Comey, Clapper, Brennan, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Bruce Ohr and to many more to list had one thing in mind other than doing their job and that was get Trump at any cost even if it meant putting their own jobs and freedom on the line.

What else do you think they can do?


Perform their duties without trying to set people up like Comey did when he admittedly quite brazenly, that he sent FBI persons, one being Strzok, into the White House to interview General Flynn without going through proper channels because he thought he would take advantage of Trump and would never have thought to do that to Obama.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoUty12IEWA

The fact that the FBI has people being fired and under investigation left and right kinda puts a kink in my "confidence" in the Intel community.

Is the FBI under the same jurisdiction as the Intelligence Community? Yes, both report to the Director of National Intelligence.



I like how you ask and answer your own questions, Saves me time.

How dysfunctional do you think the Intelligence Community is?


I think a couple of people at the top namely Brennan were corrupt. I have no reason to believe that they are dysfunctional in any matters other than their hatred for Trump.


I seem to have conflated two of your post. I'm very confused at this point but here are additional questions you asked.



Originally Posted by HedonistForever


“After three years, the country was sick of hearing about Russia, and now the average American either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about the case we’re making on Ukraine,” said one Democratic fundraiser.


In other words "so what if he did what they say he did".

Do you take those who say what you quote to mean they don't care if he broke the law? Or, do you take them to mean that he didn't break the law, therefore they don't care?


I would say both opinions are held by some. I'm of the opinion that he didn't break the law which I've laid out ad nauseam according to SpeedRacer

[QUOTE=HedonistForever;10618633 92]Above is what I get when I hit the quote button. What I didn't get when I hit the quote button, were the questions you asked me so I'll have to do it this way. Your questions are in blue



Originally Posted by HedonistForever
But on the broader question of whether I have 100% trust in our Intelligence community, I'd have to say no.

Do you think the CIA is doing enough to keep us safe?


I have no earthly idea what the CIA is doing. What I suspect pertinent to these conversations is that John Brennan in his hatred for Trump and his zeal to have him removed from office committed illegal acts. We'll have to wait and see if Durham agrees. I do think in most of these agencies FBI, CIA, DOJ, the vast majority of the people are doing their jobs without bias. People like James Comey, Clapper, Brennan, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Bruce Ohr and to many more to list had one thing in mind other than doing their job and that was get Trump at any cost even if it meant putting their own jobs and freedom on the line.

What else do you think they can do?


Perform their duties without trying to set people up like Comey did when he admittedly quite brazenly, that he sent FBI persons, one being Strzok, into the White House to interview General Flynn without going through proper channels because he thought he would take advantage of Trump and would never have thought to do that to Obama.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoUty12IEWA

The fact that the FBI has people being fired and under investigation left and right kinda puts a kink in my "confidence" in the Intel community.

Is the FBI under the same jurisdiction as the Intelligence Community? Yes, both report to the Director of National Intelligence.



I like how you ask and answer your own questions, Saves me time.

How dysfunctional do you think the Intelligence Community is?


I think a couple of people at the top namely Brennan were corrupt. I have no reason to believe that they are dysfunctional in any matters other than their hatred for Trump.


I seem to have conflated two of your post. I'm very confused at this point but here are additional questions you asked.



Originally Posted by HedonistForever


“After three years, the country was sick of hearing about Russia, and now the average American either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about the case we’re making on Ukraine,” said one Democratic fundraiser.


In other words "so what if he did what they say he did".

Do you take those who say what you quote to mean they don't care if he broke the law? Or, do you take them to mean that he didn't break the law, therefore they don't care?


I would say both opinions are held by some. I'm of the opinion that he didn't break the law which I've laid out ad nauseam according to SpeedRacer



______________________________ _____________________________
Above is what I get when I hit the quote button AND THEN remove the open bracket, forward slash, QUOTE, close bracket at the end of your post. Previously, when I highlighted your notes in red it meant, obviously, I wanted you to notice that which you wrote.

Then I would enter my notes within your text in blue. I noticed this was done in the past here and other forums so I kept the standard. But then I noticed you started using blue, or SoeedRacerXXX made notes in your posts and I wanted to interject. Thats when red and blue turned into purple.

Anyways, the way I've done it, as above, keeps the color scheme in tact but not the diference in who posted what unless I added the red line. Signaling the start of my new post. Wfeeew. It takes a little effort to "close quote" each noteworthy piece within one post but I have done it before. I might do that in your first thread so you know what I mean.

Okay! I like your style.

There are always going to be extremists when it comes to polarizing charachters. Those that you mention, and others, to be doing more than just their job, could be working outside the law. I think they would consider themselves martyrs rather than outlaws.

In my "humble" opinion (IMHO), I don't think you should make a habit of relying on FOX. Even their business "news" is under a dim light. But, again, that's IMHO.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...erview-1068400

Comey: FBI told Flynn he could have lawyer in interview

Flynn acknowledged in court on Tuesday that he had not been tricked by the FBI by not being told he could not lie, and that he knew lying to FBI agents was a federal crime.

When you want to post a youtube video; there is an icon at the top of the message board, on the second line (at least on my device) that has the "You HD" with white and red verticle backgrounds. Click it, or tap it in my case, and enter the last charachters after the forward slash. I use the share video link from the arrow in the video and always like to center my videos.


As the principal advisor to the president, the DNI is head of the FBI and CIA. The POTUS doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to intelligence. (Normally I would slyly insert a simple lack of intelligence joke about the POTUS, but you've shown some style and erudition so I'll hold back.) Remember when he tried to get John Ratcliffe as DNI? Need I say more? I think that, since the POTUS has little inclination for intelligence (sorry I just couldn't help it as I write my thought), the staff and administrators in all departments of the government have to do things they wouldn't normally do. Like tell him he just can't tear up an official Whitehouse document.

In closing, I do think he broke a major law and it's a shame that anyone would think it's okay that an ally would suffer needlessly for such a selfish reason. I can already hear the "whataboutism" in my head. Clinton's impeachment. He lied to Federal investigators about an affair. Hillary. Well, she didn't get caught. He did.

I'll give your thread a read now.








[

eccieuser9500


In my "humble" opinion (IMHO), I don't think you should make a habit of relying on FOX. Even their business "news" is under a dim light. But, again, that's IMHO.


Since I research literally every issue I comment on, I wouldn't say I rely on Fox as my only source of information but it is my primary viewing source and I know for a fact from talking to my Democratic friends ( yes I do have them ) who watch MSNBC that they are completely unaware of anything that plays against what MSNBC is reporting and what Fox is reporting with the "Joe Biden quid pro quo" video as an example. "No, I haven't seen that was the common answer".


https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...erview-1068400

Comey: FBI told Flynn he could have lawyer in interview

That's what you call a headline that lays out the narrative you want told but then when you read the article, you get a different more complete story which I will give them credit for telling "the whole truth"

but Comey also says officials told Flynn the interview would be faster without one.
“I believe the deputy director volunteered to him that you are welcome to have somebody present from the White House Counsel’s Office,” Comey told lawmakers on Monday, according to a transcript released Tuesday. “And I think he said, in substance, there’d be no need for that.”

But by all accounts and what we have since learned by Comey's own admission, they were there to hopefully catch him in a perjury trap because the Logan Act wasn't going to cut it as a charge. Why Flynn decided to not tell the truth about something he was authorized to do and did not break any law, is beyond me and we'll probably never know why he did that. What I do know is that his talk with the Russian Amb. did not break the law but the "deep state" ( sorry, I couldn't help myself ) did not want Flynn in the position of NSA.




As the principal advisor to the president, the DNI is head of the FBI and CIA. The POTUS doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to intelligence. (Normally I would slyly insert a simple lack of intelligence joke about the POTUS, but you've shown some style and erudition

Thanks, right back atcha.

so I'll hold back.) Remember when he tried to get John Ratcliffe as DNI? Need I say more?


Yes you would but please don't.


I think that, since the POTUS has little inclination for intelligence (sorry I just couldn't help it as I write my thought), the staff and administrators in all departments of the government have to do things they wouldn't normally do. Like tell him he just can't tear up an official Whitehouse document.


But a person working in the White House, Mr. Anonymous can?


In closing, I do think he broke a major law and it's a shame that anyone would think it's okay that an ally would suffer needlessly for such a selfish reason.


Suffer needlessly? That's seems to be a stretch. They still had the very weapons that some believe holds Russia back, the Javelins that Trump gave Ukraine and I'll remind you Obama didn't. So Who did Ukrainians "suffer" more under, Obama, 14,000 dead or Trump, probably less than a handful since major fighting has halted.


I can already hear the "whataboutism" in my head.


Whataboutism serves the purpose of pointing out hypocrisy.


Clinton's impeachment. He lied to Federal investigators about an affair. Hillary. Well, she didn't get caught.


Yet. She isn't out of the woods yet and I would argue that she did get caught by Trey Gowdy in his interview with James Comey that I posted when Comey admitted that Hillary had lied to a Congressional committee but Comey decided not to prosecute because Hillary was his choice.


He did. Meaning Bill


Which I still believe was a bullshit move, impeached over lying about a consensual sexual encounter. While nobody should lie under oath, without an underlying crime and there was none, I do not believe these things should be prosecuted. Just my opinion.


I'll give your thread a read now.


What? You commented on a thread before reading it? Pelosi would love you.


I think we are just going to have to get use to and work around each others "style"

eccieuser9500



In my "humble" opinion (IMHO), I don't think you should make a habit of relying on FOX.


Who should I rely on, the media that has told me for 3 plus years that Trump is a Russian asset groomed by the KGB for 20 years as the modern day Manchurian Candidate?


Or my personal favorite, that Melanie is a Russian "Honeypot" sent to make sure Trump is kept in line. These are the people I should be listening to?


Or perhaps the people telling me that detention centers like the ones set up in the Obama administration, you know, the famous picture of "kids in cages" taken in 2014, are actually "concentration camps" in the Trump administration where women and kids are forced to drink from toilets which are actually water fountains in an all in one?


https://www.sfgate.com/technology/bu...g-14066074.php





Or told me there was no crisis at the border with a million people trying to cross?


Or that there was a Muslim ban in Trumps EO that only covered 6 out of the 50 predominately Muslim countries and less than 8% of the 1.8 billion Muslims in the world?




Who exactly should I be listening to for honest news?