Ukraine

For stuff that is general.
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Ukraine

Post by Vince »

"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54400
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Ukraine

Post by GORDON »

Goddam trump.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
User avatar
Troy
Posts: 7156
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:00 am

Ukraine

Post by Troy »

Did it specific a crime? I’m on board with burning Hunter if he did something.

Glad the new government is going after corruption.

Also happy that the “aid” that was being discussed at these hearings is anti tank missiles to counter Russian tanks. Glad it was released.
Last edited by Troy on Wed Nov 20, 2019 10:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Ukraine

Post by Vince »

Ha! Twitter suspended the account that was tweeting this story out.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
User avatar
Troy
Posts: 7156
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:00 am

Ukraine

Post by Troy »

Now I’m confused - was this a legit article or was it fake news meant to distract from the Sondland testimony?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnew ... cna1087511

I'd like to hear Hunter testify either way for background to help explain the why the investigation even mattered in the impeachment hearings. Rudy too.
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Ukraine

Post by Vince »

Here's the original Ukrainian story. I should have better read the article the original referenced.

I think the truth lies somewhere in between. My suspicion is that someone used the phrase "indictment" in the definitive sense rather than the legal one and it took on a life of its own. Or it was an intentional campaign to get the press to report on what's actually happening in the Ukraine. Given all the press over the last week about Burisma and the claims from the press and Democrats in the hearings that all of that is a conspiracy theory pushed by Trump supporters. Would most people be shocked to learn that Ukrainian parliment members have not dismissed it as a hoax and want it investigated?

The US press has been really bad about trying to make bad news from the Ukraine disappear. Lutsenko, the "good one" as Biden called him after he had the previous prosecutor fired had stated that the US state department had given him a list of names that were part of a "no prosecute" list. He was asked about this by a reporter in the Ukraine and he clarified that the UN ambassador listed off the "do not prosecute" list orally. When he began to write them down, she said, "No, no. You misunderstand". Where he replied, "No, I understand perfectly."

I think it was Bloomberg that originally reported on this, and don't exactly remember how they worded it. But it started a game of telephone where other news outlets simply started saying that Lutsenko recanted that the ambassador gave him a "Do no prosecute" list, when that was not the case.

Also, the press keeps denying that there was Ukrainian meddling in the US election in '16 on behalf of Hillary. This was covered by the New York Times at the time it was happening. The convictions were overturned on procedural, not evidentiary grounds. I think it came down to who had the authority to bring the charges against them. They are currently looking at being retried.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 53728
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Ukraine

Post by TheCatt »

Thanks, again, for the fake news.
It's not me, it's someone else.
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Ukraine

Post by Vince »

Fiona Hill (and Dems) ignore the serious evidence of Ukrainian 2016 meddling
A Ukrainian court, in late 2018, concluded that two Ukrainian officials meddled in the election. And in 2018 House testimony, Nellie Ohr — who worked for Fusion GPS, the Clinton campaign opposition research firm that produced the lurid and discredited Steele dossier — conceded that a pro-Clinton Ukrainian legislator was a Fusion informant.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
User avatar
Troy
Posts: 7156
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:00 am

Ukraine

Post by Troy »

I recall her saying that it existed, but wasn't a top down directive to their political and military forces, as it was in Russia. She said that certain politicians "bet the wrong horse," (Hillary) but that there wasn't a directed movement. She walked through the differences and essentially concluded that equating the two would be a joke.

Her testimony was credible, and it made me feel good that someone like her was in charge of Russian policy for the State Department. I was wrong about who was going to be the better witness this morning. Near the end the Republicans were just yelling statements at her and then not even letting her answer. Rep. Mike Turner yelled a bunch of stuff, never wanted an answer, and then just stormed out of the room.
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Ukraine

Post by Vince »

I agree that she was a good witness for the Democrats. As I see more about her, I think she'd be destroyed if this moves to the Senate, though. She worked for the George Soros Open Society.

US Embassy pressed Ukraine to drop probe of George Soros group during 2016 election

This tracks with a lot of the stuff I've been seeing about "Civil Society 2.0" that came out of the Clinton state department. Things I kind of understand, but at the same time really don't like. You want career diplomats that have the contacts and know how things work in other countries. They've been trying get things to the point where the state department is completely autonomous from the President (I've been trying to find the guy's name that stated that towards the end of Obama's 2nd term). And they've been using tax payer dollars to fund NGOs (like those of Soros) and I'm really mixed on how I feel about that funding. But I'm not mixed at all about the State Department not being autonomous from the President. It's pretty clear constitutionally who that power should rest with. I thought Obama was pretty crappy, but it was his authority to make crappy deals with other countries.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Ukraine

Post by Vince »

Vince wrote: I agree that she was a good witness for the Democrats. As I see more about her, I think she'd be destroyed if this moves to the Senate, though. She worked for the George Soros Open Society.

US Embassy pressed Ukraine to drop probe of George Soros group during 2016 election

This tracks with a lot of the stuff I've been seeing about "Civil Society 2.0" that came out of the Clinton state department. Things I kind of understand, but at the same time really don't like. You want career diplomats that have the contacts and know how things work in other countries. They've been trying get things to the point where the state department is completely autonomous from the President (I've been trying to find the guy's name that stated that towards the end of Obama's 2nd term). And they've been using tax payer dollars to fund NGOs (like those of Soros) and I'm really mixed on how I feel about that funding. But I'm not mixed at all about the State Department not being autonomous from the President. It's pretty clear constitutionally who that power should rest with. I thought Obama was pretty crappy, but it was his authority to make crappy deals with other countries.
Edit to say: I think we should be bringing people in that can shed light on how deep things went helping Hillary in the Ukraine. That's why Schiff doesn't want Chalupa to testify and has been blocking Republicans from calling her to testify.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54400
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Ukraine

Post by GORDON »

But it doesn't matter how dirty everyone else was before 2016. The question on the table is did trump quid pro quo trying to investigate it, right?
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
User avatar
Troy
Posts: 7156
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:00 am

Ukraine

Post by Troy »

If you wanted to impeach Hillary you should have voted for her!

I’m not totally sure about the procedure now. I heard 6-8 weeks just go get to a first vote? but I think if it goes to the Senate they can call more witnesses.

I also don’t know how much testimony outside the scope of Bill Clinton’s extracurricular life was allowed at the last one of these hearings.
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Ukraine

Post by Vince »

Troy wrote: If you wanted to impeach Hillary you should have voted for her!
Heheh... well, the problem is that Chalupa was contracted by the DNC and not Hillary's campaign.

On where the procedure goes now, I was going to ask everyone what they thought would happen next. Do you all think it's a forgone conclusion that they'll vote on it in the house now?
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Ukraine

Post by Vince »

"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
User avatar
Troy
Posts: 7156
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:00 am

Ukraine

Post by Troy »

Will be interesting to read the report when it comes out. Who he was covering up for and why. I bet a single lawyer, even lower level, can do some damage at the FBI.

Not a ton to do with Ukraine though?
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54400
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Ukraine

Post by GORDON »

Reading all y'alls commentary, this keeps reminding me of that Planned Parenthood stuff.

"Planned Parenthood is selling baby corpses."
"No they aren't! And they're just undifferentiated cells, there isn't a baby! And you have no proof of anything!"
"Well here's undercover footage I took of PP officials talking prices for intact fetal organs."
"That's illegal. We're charging you with wiretapping or whatever."

This all sounds like the same thing. Fuckers being dirty overseas, but now we have something to nail trump with because he sucks.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Ukraine

Post by Vince »

Troy wrote: Will be interesting to read the report when it comes out. Who he was covering up for and why. I bet a single lawyer, even lower level, can do some damage at the FBI.

Not a ton to do with Ukraine though?
Not sure if it'll have anything to do with the Ukraine or not. Probably not directly in the report. I put that here because it ties into my question about the impeachment. I'd considered a different thread for impeachment, but honestly think there's going to be so many intersecting points they should probably be together.

First, I'll talk about whether I think the impeachment will move ahead. I'm not so convinced Pelosi will let it move ahead. It will depend on a few things. The polls from some of the battleground states have been surprising. Since the impeachment started, he's actually gone up in the Trump vs X polls for some of them. The pols have much more detailed polling information (they pay crap tons of money on it), so they probably know best if it's due to the impeachment or the general view of all the Democrat candidates has dropped. I suspect it's just starting to feel like a pile on for a lot of people. At least for the ones that are persuadable. They are also likely the ones paying the least attention to either the primary or the actual impeachment hearings.

Pelosi would like to do something to stop Trump from winning in 2020. That's the second most important thing to her. The first is her remaining Madame Speaker. She will definitely wait until this report comes out before making a decision on impeachment. I'd heard there will be two referrals in this report. Unsourced, but the same source had said this report was coming out in the next 3 weeks which is panning out. If this report can be summarized in a short concise manner and is very sympathetic to Trump, a lot of people might simply see this impeachment as an extension of what the establishment has been doing since he took office (in their eyes).

The other thing that will play a role is what Pelosi knows about how the Republicans intend to handle things. If it looks like McConnel will just do a quick down vote on it, she will move ahead. If she gets word that they'll be doing a long drawn out hearing which will tie up every Senator running for President for that entire time and/or they have as much to hide with this stuff as I suspect, then Pelosi will kill this. They'll do some sort of show vote to condemn Trump but not send it forward.

Here's where it might tie into the Ukraine. The FISA warrant for the tap on Carter Page raised some questions because it looked like the sole evidence for it was the Steele Dossier. Then they looked at the warrant and saw it also cited a Yahoo! article as a basis for it. And it turned out that the Yahoo! article was using the still unreleased Steele Dossier as its source. So the warrant used the same source as two separate pieces of evidence. DNC operative Chalupa was in the Ukraine meeting some of the contributors to the Steel Dossier. So she was involved with the Steel Dossier. Also, an email from her on Wikileaks showed she was working with Michael Isikoff before his Yahoo! story was published. She was the conduit between him and his Ukrainian sources.

So via Chalupa, the DNC facilitated a news article that was needed to collaborate the dossier in order to get a FISA warrant for the FBI. If there was any coordination between Chalupa and this FBI resource, then the narrative becomes "FBI secretly and illegally works with DNC to take down Trump", and the election pretty much ends then. Trump wins.

As I write that last part, I think if things reached that level of damage (I don't suspect that worse case scenario will be the one we're treated to) for the Democrats and FBI, then they they may go ahead and vote on the impeachment in the House because they will not be able to damage their party any further by doing so. It will just be a matter of whether or not it would create legal exposure for anyone not exposed yet and if they want to protect that person.

The next few weeks should be fun to watch!
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 65258
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

Ukraine

Post by Leisher »

GORDON wrote: Reading all y'alls commentary, this keeps reminding me of that Planned Parenthood stuff.

"Planned Parenthood is selling baby corpses."
"No they aren't! And they're just undifferentiated cells, there isn't a baby! And you have no proof of anything!"
"Well here's undercover footage I took of PP officials talking prices for intact fetal organs."
"That's illegal. We're charging you with wiretapping or whatever."

This all sounds like the same thing. Fuckers being dirty overseas, but now we have something to nail trump with because he sucks.
This is a fair point, and I agree.

I'm so fucking sick and tired of people excusing things because someone has their favorite letter behind their name.

If the evidence is there to prove Trump, Giulliani, Hillary, Barrack, Joe, Hunter, whomever broke the law, then prosecute them! Who gives a fuck who is on "trial"!?
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Ukraine

Post by Vince »

Horowitz reportedly finds FBI lawyer falsified FISA doc; WaPo stealth-deletes Strzok connection
The Post, hours after publishing its story, conspicuously removed the portion of its reporting that the FBI employee involved was underneath Peter Strzok, the FBI's since-fired head of counterintelligence.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Post Reply