Republicans want Hunter Biden, whistleblower to testify in open hearings

[Tippaporn]

9 minutes ago, stevenl said:

True, he does what he can to protect Trump. But regarding a Biden investigation, he is doing nothing.

You don't know that.  Policy is to not affirm or deny an ongoing investigation.  Barr is tight lipped.  The first part of your quote is simply your biased opinion.  No substance to the claim other than how you put facts together.  So true for you only.

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Exactly, why post not about Ukraine in a Ukraine thread as an answer to a Ukraine post.

 

It's called deflection. Accusing others of staying on topic is a bit rich btw.

It was a response to another member's post.  But you know that.  So you deliberately twist the facts to make a dishonest point.

[jany123]

21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Again, simply attack the source rather than disputing the evidence he uncovers.  Lovely, lovely, indeed.  Post some substance.

Lol.... there was no evidence implicating a Biden in any nefarious activity, as was noted in the article. Therefore no point disputing the article, leaving only the person arguing to dispute.

 

And... that person making the argument is a trump fanboy.... with his message being disseminated by other delusional  or deceptive fanboys.

 

ergo.... source disputed./ article refuted

[Becker]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Myth: Former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko retracted or recanted his claim that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch in 2016 identified people and entities she did not what to see prosecuted in Ukraine.

 

https://johnsolomonreports.com/debunking-some-of-the-ukraine-scandal-myths-about-biden-and-election-interference/

 

Scroll down to find the relevant passage.

John Solomon....

[Tippaporn]

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You're right. I did post my evidence to the wrong post of yours. My mistake.

Your mistake is in using that dishonest journalist, John Solomon to support your case.

Thanks for clarifying that, bristolboy.

 

Though I would disagree with your assessment of John Solomon.  Regardless of anyone's opinion of him he does produce a lot of excellent, factual information.  In all fairness you can't take that away from him.

[Becker]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Thanks for clarifying that, bristolboy.

 

Though I would disagree with your assessment of John Solomon.  Regardless of anyone's opinion of him he does produce a lot of excellent, factual information.  In all fairness you can't take that away from him.

Yes, we can. He does not "produce a lot of excellent, factual information" - quite the contrary.

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Lol.... there was no evidence implicating a Biden in any nefarious activity, as was noted in the article. Therefore no point disputing the article, leaving only the person arguing to dispute.

 

And... that person making the argument is a trump fanboy.... with his message being disseminated by other delusional  or deceptive fanboys.

 

ergo.... source disputed./ article refuted

I linked to information regarding the Biden corruption by a number of different sources, not just Solomon.  To say that there is no evidence is simply false.  If that's what you prefer to believe then by all means keep your head in the sand.

 

Doesn't matter.  It will all come out eventually.

[Thomas J]

10 hours ago, Sujo said:

Just what evidence could biden give regarding this investigation, how would he know anything that trump did?

Sujo,

 

This was the incident that prompted Trumps question to the Ukrainian Prime Minister.  The USA has given billions to Ukraine and it is I believe reasonable to inquire as to whether corruption was and still is a problem.  Certainly you would want to know the character of the person before you provided them with money. 
 

 

[Tippaporn]

Just now, Thomas J said:

Sujo,

 

This was the incident that prompted Trumps question to the Ukrainian Prime Minister.  The USA has given billions to Ukraine and it is I believe reasonable to inquire as to whether corruption was and still is a problem.  Certainly you would want to know the character of the person before you provided them with money. 
 

 

Not to mention that the money was deposited in a bank controlled by Burisma and that it simply vanished.

[stevenl]

16 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It was a response to another member's post.  But you know that.  So you deliberately twist the facts to make a dishonest point.

No, it was a response to my post. About Ukraine. See your post #80 in which you quoted my post and went off topic with Durham.

Again, deflecting.

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

No, it was a response to my post. About Ukraine.

Again, deflecting.

You are correct.  It was a response to your post.

 

What prompted my response was your comment that Barr is doing nothing.  Perhaps my misunderstanding that your comment re Barr was specific to a Biden Ukraine investigation whereas I took it to mean Barr's inaction in general.  My apologies.

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You are correct.  It was a response to your post.

 

What prompted my response was your comment that Barr is doing nothing.  Perhaps my misunderstanding that your comment re Barr was specific to a Biden Ukraine investigation whereas I took it to mean Barr's inaction in general.  My apologies.

Now we got that sorted, why do you think Barr is not doing a Biden Ukraine investigation?

[jany123]

21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I linked to information regarding the Biden corruption by a number of different sources, not just Solomon.  To say that there is no evidence is simply false.  If that's what you prefer to believe then by all means keep your head in the sand.

 

Doesn't matter.  It will all come out eventually.

Yes yes... you have been including multiple links. Quite right. Even hannity... kudos on that’s.... and yet more from you in support of my original aspersions in regards to your posts.... which was;

 

1 hour ago, jany123 said:

Lovely lovely.... linking multiple articles by John Solomon... whilst accusing others of BS... lol

The point made easy: your accusing others of BS whilst relying on known right wing trump mouthpieces. Irony anyone?

 

[Tippaporn]

18 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Now we got that sorted, why do you think Barr is not doing a Biden Ukraine investigation?

We don't know.  It's Justice Dept. policy to not announce, affirm or deny on-going investigations.  It was requested by Trump to Zelensky that Barr meet with the Ukrainians.  I would highly doubt that if Barr has done so laready or intends to if he hasn't already that he would hold a press conference about it.

[Laza 45]

6 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Note ???? to self: Must buy more popcorn for the Biden testimony! ???? 

,,,save your popcorn for the impeachment.. 

[stevenl]

16 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

We don't know.  It's Justice Dept. policy to not announce, affirm or deny on-going investigations.  It was requested by Trump to Zelensky that Barr meet with the Ukrainians.  I would highly doubt that if Barr has done so laready or intends to if he hasn't already that he would hold a press conference about it.

You know better than that. They're very vocal about other investigations to protect Trump.

[Sujo]

54 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Sujo,

 

This was the incident that prompted Trumps question to the Ukrainian Prime Minister.  The USA has given billions to Ukraine and it is I believe reasonable to inquire as to whether corruption was and still is a problem.  Certainly you would want to know the character of the person before you provided them with money. 
 

 

Nothing wrong with going after corruption. But its how you do it. 

 

You cannot ask a foreign govt to investigate a political rival. There are legal and illegal ways to do it. Trump chose the latter.

 

Congress had approved the money. Trump cannot hold it upon ukraine govt agreeing to say its investigating biden, who was already cleared.

 

So just what evidence can biden provide in relation to what trump did.

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Yes yes... you have been including multiple links. Quite right. Even hannity... kudos on that’s.... and yet more from you in support of my original aspersions in regards to your posts.... which was;

 

The point made easy: your accusing others of BS whilst relying on known right wing trump mouthpieces. Irony anyone?

 

The libs have so overused the tactic of accusing anyone supportive of Trump with a variety of different labels without ever providing indisputable evidence supportive of their claims that the tactic become so apparent as being just that; a tactic.  Perhaps the finest recent example is Hillary accusing Tulsi Gabbard of being groomed by the Russians.  She knows she has zero evidence but the libs don't even bother to question the hollow accusation.

 

So if you want to accuse Solomon and Hannity of being right wing Trump mouthpieces then that's your business.  Just be aware that a lot of other people are too smart to fall for the BS.

[jingjai9]

Hereye hereye hereye... welcome to the greatest show on earth - The USA in 2019. We've got drama, clown acts, donkeys and elephants. 

 

The democrats and Republicans have solidly ensconced themselves as the pawns of the ruling class now known as the donor class. If someone writes or speaks against your agenda, don't examine the facts, discredit the critics as bufoons and their source as fake news. And get ready to throw the next punch.

 

The media keeps us divided reporting talking points disguised as news, delivered by anchors and "epxerts" who were long ago bought off. Trump serves as ringmaster for the show while the can (legislative business of the congress) is kicked down the road one more time. So it goes, the strangle hold of the corporate coup de' etat. 2020 will not be the year of normal vision, it will be the year of tunnel vision. 

[Sujo]

Wish some of you would stop deflecting to what you think biden may have done. It is irrelevant.

 

Its about what trump did.

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The libs have so overused the tactic of accusing anyone supportive of Trump with a variety of different labels without ever providing indisputable evidence supportive of their claims that the tactic become so apparent as being just that; a tactic.  Perhaps the finest recent example is Hillary accusing Tulsi Gabbard of being groomed by the Russians.  She knows she has zero evidence but the libs don't even bother to question the hollow accusation.

 

So if you want to accuse Solomon and Hannity of being right wing Trump mouthpieces then that's your business.  Just be aware that a lot of other people are too smart to fall for the BS.

What has anything you posted in this thread got to do with what trump did and the evidence against him.

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

You know better than that. They're very vocal about other investigations to protect Trump.

And which investigations would those be?  Can you list one, other than the investigation into the genesis of the Russia hoax?  And if so, what information about any specific investigation has been leaked (reports of Barr and Durham's recent movements don't count as there is no news of substance regarding what any their meetings were about or whom they met with)?  Even the well known investigation into the origins of the Russia hoax?  Fact is you don't hear boo.

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

And which investigations would those be?  Can you list one, other than the investigation into the genesis of the Russia hoax?  And if so, what information about any specific investigation has been leaked (reports of Barr and Durham's recent movements don't count as there is no news of substance regarding what any their meetings were about or whom they met with)?  Even the well known investigation into the origins of the Russia hoax?  Fact is you don't hear boo.

every govt agency has confirmed russia interfered. But you know better.

 

Now, back to the topic. 

 

What has that got to do with why trump is being investigated and the evidence against him.

[Tippaporn]

13 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Wish some of you would stop deflecting to what you think biden may have done. It is irrelevant.

 

Its about what trump did.

I follow the facts.  They speak for themselves.  As Rep. John Kennedy said in the earlier vid I posted, the request by Trump to Zelensky and the Biden affair are inextricably linked.  You can insist until doomsday that it's only about "what Trump did."  It's not a good enough answer for many people and they will not settle for it, period.

[jany123]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

All of what your wrote is pure BS.  Only the IG is prohibited from revealing his identity.  Neither is he protected from taking the stand.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3033

 

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=29&f=treesort&fq=true&num=125

 

If you have legal sources to back your nonsense post it.  

Once again calling others out on BS.... unfortunately your link does not support your claim.

 

It is required that witnesses be protected. “Protected” could be via a bullet proof vest, but it could also be via being excused any need to testify. You don’t need hindsight to work out which method provides the best option for the hero’s safety.

 

regardless of the level of protection, it’s clear that protection is mandated by the government, requiring the government itself to protect. Ergo federal witness protection programs

 

From your link www.law 3)

to take due regard for the protection of intelligence sources and methods in the preparation of all reports issued by the Inspector General, and, to the extent consistent with the purpose and objective of such reports, take such measures as may be appropriate to minimize the disclosure of intelligencesources and methods described in such reports; and

 

[Tippaporn]

16 minutes ago, Sujo said:

What has anything you posted in this thread got to do with what trump did and the evidence against him.

This thread is about the Bidens and the whistle blower.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

I follow the facts.  They speak for themselves.  As Rep. John Kennedy said in the earlier vid I posted, the request by Trump to Zelensky and the Biden affair are inextricably linked.  You can insist until doomsday that it's only about "what Trump did."  It's not a good enough answer for many people and they will not settle for it, period.

The impeachment investigation is on what trump did. Its not whether biden is guilty of anything.

 

What part of that do you not understand.

 

If they want biden there are proper legal ways to do it. Go for it.

 

But this is about what trump did. It matters not what biden did or didnt do.

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Once again calling others out on BS.... unfortunately your link does not support your claim.

 

It is required that witnesses be protected. “Protected” could be via a bullet proof vest, but it could also be via being excused any need to testify. You don’t need hindsight to work out which method provides the best option for the hero’s safety.

 

regardless of the level of protection, it’s clear that protection is mandated by the government, requiring the government itself to protect. Ergo federal witness protection programs

 

From your link www.law 3)

to take due regard for the protection of intelligence sources and methods in the preparation of all reports issued by the Inspector General, and, to the extent consistent with the purpose and objective of such reports, take such measures as may be appropriate to minimize the disclosure of intelligencesources and methods described in such reports; and

 

The whistle blower isn't an intelligence source.

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

This thread is about the Bidens and the whistle blower.

No. This thread is about the bidens and wb giving evidence in the trump impeachment investigation.

 

So i ask again. What evidence could they have that would assist congress on what trump did.

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No. This thread is about the bidens and wb giving evidence in the trump impeachment investigation.

 

So i ask again. What evidence could they have that would assist congress on what trump did.

Trump asked Zelensky to investigate corruption because either a) he wanted to harm his political rival or b) he wanted to investigate legitimate corruption by a political rival.  To answer the question of "what Trump did" one needs to know if the Bidens were corrupt.  It would show that b), not a), is the case.

 

Your problem, and that of a lot of people here, is that you consider a) as the only option.