President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Outlaw Pete

Cody montana wrote: »

How did that turn out for you?

If you'd been reading the thread you'd know:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Arguments about what should remain classified in Horowitz's report are delaying it's release again and now it's said it won't be out until the end of the month. Democrats doing their level best to see that impeachment remains the top story.

Overheal

mad muffin wrote: »

Oh sure. Debunked. Baseless. Conspiracy theory.

What did we learn today from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent?


State Department Official Raised Concerns About Hunter Biden in Ukraine

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent told Congress on Tuesday that in 2015 he raised concerns about Hunter Biden sitting Burisma Holding’s board.

The office of then-Vice President Joe Biden brushed him off.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/10/state-department-official-raised-concerns-about-hunter-biden-in-ukraine/

The truth will out. It always does.

I’m sure at this stage Nancy is having a meltdown and Schift (I love how McCarthy keeps calling him Schift) is banning his head against the sound absorbing wall inside the SCIF.

Having read the 2015 matter earlier today I'm not sure how you think that proves a Crowdstrike conspiracy? The person raised concerns that Biden sitting on any board of any company in any capacity in the Ukraine would be seen as a conduit to curry favor with Biden. The matter was raised while Beau was dying of cancer. Not really earth shattering, kind of like career officials asking 'is it really okay for the POTUS to own a hotel right down the road from the WH?'

Professor Moriarty

Blueshoe wrote: »

That's more of it.
CNN
NBC
Sure it's one sided muck.

The next guy will quote Fox ,Town hall or some other garbage to counter your "argument"

Where do you get your news?

peddlelies

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Where do you get your news?

TheHill.com is the best online news site imo. Very neutral, lack of sensationalism. Don't think there's many other news sites I'd hold in that regard.

Professor Moriarty

peddlelies wrote: »

TheHill.com is the best online news site imo. Very neutral, lack of sensationalism. Don't think there's many other news sites I'd hold in that regard.

Reuters is good.

Blueshoe

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Where do you get your news?

It's not really news though is it. Let's call a spade a spade. It's loosely biased spin on current events .

If I listened for example to CNN reporting on something and the listened to fox news report on the same incident I would get two different stories. The truth is somewhere in the middle .
That's an extreme example as it's American and obvious.

If I was listening to Rte news and they reported on something I immediately say to myself that's the angle rte reported. It's an update on an event but it's from the side they chose to take.
I am now informed about the event but don't know the full story or truth as I have gotten rtes version.

It's unavoidable.

A poster made some claims and used CNN and NBC links to back it up . Comical really

James Brown

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

See this is the crux of the issue .....

You say Trump was trying to "dig dirt" but that's just your narrative (or to be more precise, Schiff's narrative) about that phone call. There is nothing whatsoever to back up that claim though. On the contrary and yesterday I pointed this out in great detail but was told that this was just "complicating" the issue.

You see, if Trump was trying to "dig dirt" (as opposed to merely wanting Zelensky to cooperate with with Barr's investigation) then Zelensky would not have responded to the request by saying:



I mean, who would respond to a request for them to "dig up dirt" by saying they would do it openly and candidly? Makes no sense.



Well, they have a lot in common. Approved aid to the Ukraine was temporarily withheld for a time and the reason cited by both Trump and Biden concerned elements of corruption. Now, Trump didn't request that anyone was fired that had been involved in investigating a company which his son sat on the board of or anything, and where he earned a small fortune, but there's enough similarities to highlight the hypocrisy of the left for sure.

Seriously, what do you call Trump asking for help with an investigation into Biden? Barr is spoiled goods IMO. He's an official Rudy Giuliani. He has zero credibility AFAIC.

No. Obama admin, (in conjunction with the EU) did it because they didn't want tax payer money being wasted. The rest of your claim is debunked conspiracy theory.
Trump admin did it requesting the Ukrainian President openly speak about an investigation into Biden. To smear Biden in the public arena. Completely different circumstances.
There is no hypocrisy here and the language you use is a feeble attempt to create similarities were there are none.

Blueshoe wrote: »

All arguing and debating about this and that.
While in reality we only hear dribs and drabs and the opinions of "higher up" types who have an agenda one way or the other.

We are ants. We don't really know what is going on in the lives of the rich and powerful.

Squabbling over scraps and half truths. I'm guilty of it myself too

Common on an internet discussion board.

Professor Moriarty

Blueshoe wrote: »

It's not really news though is it. Let's call a spade a spade. It's loosely biased spin on current events .

If I listened for example to CNN reporting on something and the listened to fox news report on the same incident I would get two different stories. The truth is somewhere in the middle .
That's an extreme example as it's American and obvious.

If I was listening to Rte news and they reported on something I immediately say to myself that's the angle rte reported. It's an update on an event but it's from the side they chose to take.
I am now informed about the event but don't know the full story or truth as I have gotten rtes version.

It's unavoidable

Well, it's about reading as much as you can from both sides and making your own mind up. The further away you go from the centre of the media, in either direction, the more lies you will read.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That's about the Bidens. Has nothing whatsoever to do with what I linked to.



That also does not 'debunk' what I linked to.



That does not 'debunk' what I linked to either.

You didn't 'link' to anything when I replied with those

duploelabs

Blueshoe wrote: »

It's not really news though is it. Let's call a spade a spade. It's loosely biased spin on current events .

If I listened for example to CNN reporting on something and the listened to fox news report on the same incident I would get two different stories. The truth is somewhere in the middle .
That's an extreme example as it's American and obvious.

If I was listening to Rte news and they reported on something I immediately say to myself that's the angle rte reported. It's an update on an event but it's from the side they chose to take.
I am now informed about the event but don't know the full story or truth as I have gotten rtes version.

It's unavoidable.

A poster made some claims and used CNN and NBC links to back it up . Comical really

Yeah but you didn't actually quote what news sources you use. I quoted multiple sources as that's the stem of journalistic integrity, sourcing information and confirming it through multiple sources.

Blueshoe

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, it's about reading as much as you can from both sides and making your own mind up. The further away you go from the centre of the media, in either direction, the more lies you will read.

I agree.

But some will post links from blatantly biased news "networks" and claim them to be 100% factual. They will stand by those articles and argue with anyone who questions them.
It's kind of ridiculous and boring

Outlaw Pete

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Seriously, what do you call Trump asking for help with an investigation into Biden?

Cody posted and said that Laura Cooper was being interviewed today and that she knew concerns about Ukraine corruption were not legit. I posted my link in reply and said I'd be interested in what she had to say and you replied and said that it was debunked conspiracy theory. What I am asked of you is a link to show that what I posed was debunked as you claimed.

Overheal

Blueshoe wrote: »

I agree.

But some will post links from blatantly biased news "networks" and claim them to be 100% factual. They will stand by those articles and argue with anyone who questions them.
It's kind of ridiculous and boring

Burden of proof: someone contributes information from a news outlet that presents the information as factual and based on sourcing x y z. By all means, if you can debunk the reporting, debunk the reporting. By all means, criticize an article if it is thinly sourced or irrationally argued.

I don’t myself regard certain outlets as news: like the daily caller (founded by Tucker Carlson - not a journalist, very slanted, and at times has peddled his own ‘news’ on his show), or Project Veritas who’ve not only been debunked but convicted of crimes for distortion. I don’t really post anything from CNN much less for breaking news as they’ve been caught messing around before (in the Trayvon martin case they misrepresented the 911 audio). Alt rights like Brietbart, I’ve never seen journalism from, just reblogs and Re-frames and outrage posting. I don’t even bother with fact checked sites anymore because the people who need that splash of cold water just decry it as fake news so what’s the effort for

But we’re deviating from the impeachment topic..

mcmoustache

What's the basis for the Crowdstrike server in Ukraine theory? I've looked online but most of the stuff on it comes from very dodgy sites. I found an explanation on forbes but it doesn't explain the origin.

Overheal

I’d also like to know this.

Blueshoe

Overheal wrote: »

Burden of proof: someone contributes information from a news outlet that presents the information as factual and based on sourcing x y z. By all means, if you can debunk the reporting, debunk the reporting. By all means, criticize an article if it is thinly sourced or irrationally argued.

But we’re deviating from the impeachment topic..

That's all that happens. Articles back and forth. Nothing else. My point.

mcmoustache

Overheal wrote: »

I don’t really post anything from CNN much less for breaking news as they’ve been caught messing around before (in the Trayvon martin case they misrepresented the 911 audio).

But we’re deviating from the impeachment topic..

Just on CNN...


Does anybody here actually watch it for news? I hear about it a lot as if we're all getting our information from there but it's hard to imagine anyone in Ireland watching it. I can understand posting a clip that someone finds on youtube of an interview or something but not actually using it as their source. American news formats are kind of weird to an Irish media consumer, in my opinion.

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's not challenged because it had bipartisan and international support as a policy.

Exactly, tackling corruption in Ukraine has bipartisan and international support and that's why there is nothing at all wrong with Trump asking the Ukraine to cooperate with an ongoing investigation which involves the Ukraine in that regard. If the left wish to moan about one, then they should also moan about the other, but they don't because they don't like who is in the Oval at the moment and also who is in the crosshairs of the current investigations by the DOJ.

If he was just concerned about corruption in Ukraine, I doubt there wouldn't be any legal issue although plenty would rightly point at the hypocrisy. It was the specific request to investigate a political rival that took it into the territory of illegality.

As has been said to you multiple times now, running for president does not make someone immune from investigation and had Biden not bragged about what he had done, and his son not made a fortune from sitting on the board of a Ukrainian gas company (which he sat on as a direct result of Biden's position as Vice President of the United States) and the ex Ukraine prosecutor (Shokin) not been fired at the behest of Biden and not testified that he was fired because he was investigating corruption at that gas company ... well then maybe nobody would really care for the very reasons you cite .. but these are the inconvenient facts and therefore Trump would remiss not to ask for Zelensky to look into the firing to see if maybe there was a benefit to Biden which may have motivated the request. Maybe in future he won't be so quick to go around bragging about using a $1billion loan guarantee as leverage to have foreign officials fired.

James Brown

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Cody posted and said that Laura Cooper was being interviewed today and that she knew concerns about Ukraine corruption were not legit. I posted my link in reply and said I'd be interested in what she had to say and you replied and said that it was debunked conspiracy theory. What I am asked of you is a link to show that what I posed was debunked as you claimed.

You didn't answer what you selectively quoted.

2 Republican senators refute Trump’s Ukraine-Biden conspiracy theory

...saying he and other lawmakers “believed the prosecutor wasn’t doing nearly enough to root out corruption — not because he was doing too much.”

This isn’t terribly surprising. Johnson and Portman were two of three GOP senators who co-signed a bipartisan 2016 letter to Ukraine’s then-president calling for him to “press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General’s office and judiciary.” Four days later, Shokin resigned (although he didn’t officially leave until the following month when Ukraine’s Parliament voted him out).

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/7/20903398/trump-biden-ukraine-portman-johnson-impeachment

Trump's conspiracy theories thrive in Ukraine, where a young democracy battles corruption and distrust
We talked with two dozen leaders and investigators in Ukraine. They all agree the claims against Joe and Hunter Biden are baseless. Yet they persist.
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/world/2019/10/10/trumps-biden-ukraine-natural-gas-conspiracy-theory-false-but-alive/3851728002/

The Invention of the Conspiracy Theory on Biden and Ukraine
How a conservative dark-money group that targeted Hillary Clinton in 2016 spread the discredited story that may lead to Donald Trump’s impeachment.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-invention-of-the-conspiracy-theory-on-biden-and-ukraine

duploelabs

mcmoustache wrote: »

What's the basis for the Crowdstrike server in Ukraine theory? I've looked online but most of the stuff on it comes from very dodgy sites. I found an explanation on forbes but it doesn't explain the origin.

I'm noticing tumbleweed in response

Overheal

Blueshoe wrote: »

That's all that happens. Articles back and forth. Nothing else. My point.

Well fruitful discussion requires everyone to have the same set of facts - then, everyone can debate their opinions

Overheal

mcmoustache wrote: »

Just on CNN...


Does anybody here actually watch it for news? I hear about it a lot as if we're all getting our information from there but it's hard to imagine anyone in Ireland watching it. I can understand posting a clip that someone finds on youtube of an interview or something but not actually using it as their source. American news formats are kind of weird to an Irish media consumer, in my opinion.

Nah. Haven’t watched it since Newtown. They seemingly ignored lots of other news to cover a whole summer of Malaysian airlines

James Brown

mcmoustache wrote: »

Just on CNN...


Does anybody here actually watch it for news? I hear about it a lot as if we're all getting our information from there but it's hard to imagine anyone in Ireland watching it. I can understand posting a clip that someone finds on youtube of an interview or something but not actually using it as their source. American news formats are kind of weird to an Irish media consumer, in my opinion.

It's a big talking point for the Trump admin. CNN is fake news so any story that comes out that puts Trump in a bad light is fake and any network broadcasting it also fake. CNN is a big news network so the Trumpeters put a lot of energy into knocking CNN.

mad muffin

No there is nothing to Biden. Nothing at all.


https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-...krainian-government-torpedo-joe-bidens-story/

Within a week of Shokin’s firing, Burisma’s legal team met with Ukrainian officials and according to the Ukrainian government’s official memo of the meeting, offered “an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures” about the Ukrainian prosecutor.

peddlelies

duploelabs wrote: »

I'm noticing tumbleweed in response

Here's what I know about it.

The FBI and the DHS were denied investigative access to the server. The DNC hired and paid a third party, "crowdstrike", which was set up by a Ukrainian who lives in America. Crowdstrike have some marks on their record, they had to walk back certain reports where they wrongly blamed Russia.

After that I have no idea. I do think it's strange a third party was used. If roles were reserved, and Trump had denied FBI/DHS access and used a third party questions would be asked too you'd have to imagine.

Outlaw Pete

duploelabs wrote: »

You didn't 'link' to anything when I replied with those

Can't believe I have to do this ....

I posted a link to an article and a user claimed that it was debunked in this post. Okay, got that?

Then I replied to that post and requested a link which debunked what I had posted.

YOU then replied to that post with three links none of which debunked the article I posted.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Exactly, tackling corruption in Ukraine has bipartisan and international support and that's why there is nothing at all wrong with Trump asking the Ukraine to cooperate with an ongoing investigation which involves the Ukraine in that regard. If the left wish to moan about one, then they should also moan about the other, but they don't because they don't like who is in the Oval at the moment and also who is in the crosshairs of the current investigations by the DOJ.



As has been said to you multiple times now, running for president does not make someone immune from investigation and had Biden not bragged about what he had done, and his son not made a fortune from sitting on the board of a Ukrainian gas company (which he sat on as a direct result of Biden's position as Vice President of the United States) and the ex Ukraine prosecutor (Shokin) not been fired at the behest of Biden and not testified that he was fired because he was investigating corruption at that gas company ... well then maybe nobody would really care for the very reasons you cite .. but these are the inconvenient facts and therefore Trump would remiss not to ask for Zelensky to look into the firing to see if maybe there was a benefit to Biden which may have motivated the request. Maybe in future he won't be so quick to go around bragging about using a $1billion loan guarantee as leverage to have foreign officials fired.

You need to figure out the difference between holding federal funds for national policy reasons and holding federal funds for personal reasons. That's what sets these cases apart.

duploelabs

peddlelies wrote: »

Here's what I know about it.

The FBI and the DHS were denied investigative access to the server. The DNC hired a third party, "crowdstrike", which was set up by a Ukrainian who lives in America. Crowdstrike have some marks on their record, they had to walk back certain reports where they wrongly blamed Russia.

After that I have no idea. I do think it's strange a third party was used.

Federal IT is outsourced constantly. Sure Accenture have an entire internal company dedicated to it

duploelabs

mcmoustache wrote: »

You need to figure out the difference between holding federal funds for national policy reasons and holding federal funds for personal politically partisan reasons. That's what sets these cases apart.

FTFY

Overheal

peddlelies wrote: »

Here's what I know about it.

The FBI and the DHS were denied investigative access to the server. The DNC hired and paid a third party, "crowdstrike", which was set up by a Ukrainian who lives in America. Crowdstrike have some marks on their record, they had to walk back certain reports where they wrongly blamed Russia.

After that I have no idea. I do think it's strange a third party was used. If roles were reserved, and Trump had denied FBI/DHS access and used a third party questions would be asked too you'd have to imagine.

Using third parties isn’t that strange though is it? Not many computer scientists in the echelons of either Party. What is it that Crowdstrike did for the DNC that is nefarious?