U.S. Senate rejects Democratic bid for documents in Trump impeachment trial

[candide]

4 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

That's quite a story. Did they refuse to answer questions on the witness stand? Purgure themselves, or defy a subpoena? The crime here is murder

 

In the impeachment case - the entire world knows what was said on the call. The testimony of witnesses was none of them witnessed a crime, or impeachable offense, both parties to the call have stated they had no issues with the call. No crime. So what is this all about?  And the President will not be removed from Office. 

That was just to show your analogy was pointless.

[candide]

4 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

And why was Hunter Biden getting paid?

What has it to do with Biden asking to fire the "very good prosecutor" (lol)?

Fact is that Shokin was not investigating Burisma and the Obama administration was publicly complaining about it. 

Edited February 1, 2020 by candide

[heybruce]

Senator Alexander has confirmed Trump is guilty of what he is charged, but said he didn't think it warranted impeachment.  That is staggering; he is giving the greenlight to this and future Presidents to use the power of office, and US taxpayer money, to force other countries to interfere in US elections.

 

"And he (Sen Alexander) said in the interview that Trump had done exactly what Democrats had accused him of doing: He withheld military aid from Ukraine to pressure the country to investigate his political rival — a move he could not condone.

“I think he did something that was clearly inappropriate,” Alexander said. “I think it is inappropriate for the president to ask the leader of a foreign nation to investigate a leading political rival, which the president says he did. I think it is inappropriate at least in part to withhold aid to encourage that investigation.” " https://www.yahoo.com/news/alexander-convicting-trump-pour-gasoline-151645219.html

[candide]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

So it wasn’t an official DOJ announcement as you claimed. 
 

 

Are you still coming up with your ridiculous  assumption that the DOJ may be secretly investigating Biden without anyone knowing about it, including Graham? Come on!

The DOJ spokeswoman said Trump did not ask them to investigate Biden, I linked the Washington Examiner for her quote (you should like this media), please read the posts you reply to. Graham  also does not know of any investigation into Biden. 

OK, Let's phrase it in a different way: according to the current state of information, including of the Chair of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, there is no investigation into Biden. This unless a (ridiculous) conspiracy theory that the DOJ may secretly investigating Biden, in contradiction with its usual m.o. and without any understandable explanation for it, may be proven true.

Are you happy now?

Edited February 1, 2020 by candide

[simple1]

Drip, drip...

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-dept-acknowledges-24-emails-reveal-trumps-thinking-on-ukraine/2020/02/01/7deea84c-450e-11ea-b503-2b077c436617_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_evening_edition&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_evening

[Langsuan Man]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

Drip, drip...

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-dept-acknowledges-24-emails-reveal-trumps-thinking-on-ukraine/2020/02/01/7deea84c-450e-11ea-b503-2b077c436617_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_evening_edition&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_evening

Yes,  released minutes before midnight to comply with a court order.....so much for freedom of information...obstruct, obstruct, obstruct and if that doesn't work do your work in darkness 

[Ricohoc]

18 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Not one single witness to the call, not a single one, had any testimony to suggest the transcript was altered to reflect another truth. You are attempting to cast doubt on the trascript. The witnesses, all of them, included Lt Col Vindman disagree.

Vindman even admitted that he made up his conflict with the call.

 

https://www.statedepartmentwatch.org/2019/11/20/alexander-vindman-admits-making-up-parts-of-trump-call-summary/

 

And you correctly state that all of the hurt-feelings Democrat witnesses stated that the transcript was accurate.

[Ricohoc]

19 hours ago, candide said:

. . .

If it were not true, it would have been easy for Republicans to call witnesses to contradict the accumulated evidence.

. . .

Democrats in the House did not allow Republicans to call witnesses or to even have their day of witness testimony according to the Dem's House Rules.  That is established fact.

[Ricohoc]

13 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

And why was Hunter Biden getting paid?

Hunter already told the world in his interview.  Probably because his last name was Biden.

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/hunter-biden-admits-he-probably-got-high-paying-jobs-because-im-the-son-of-the-vice-president

 

A board member of Burisma stated the same.

 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/ex-polish-president-kwasniewski-hunter-biden-burisma

 

It's fascinating that those who hate Trump want to investigate his family over trademarks and business that were already successful long before Trump was elected, but refuse to see their own hypocrisy when it comes to the Bidens.  Well, the main-stream media, the propaganda arm of the Democrats, has finally been forced to see it -- again.  I say 'again' because they initially reported on it when Biden was still the VP, and then it got very quiet.

[candide]

2 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

Democrats in the House did not allow Republicans to call witnesses or to even have their day of witness testimony according to the Dem's House Rules.  That is established fact.

They did call witnesses who testified. The ones who were rejected were the whistleblower and people who had not witnesses anything about what Trump did.

[candide]

2 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

Vindman even admitted that he made up his conflict with the call.

 

https://www.statedepartmentwatch.org/2019/11/20/alexander-vindman-admits-making-up-parts-of-trump-call-summary/

 

And you correctly state that all of the hurt-feelings Democrat witnesses stated that the transcript was accurate.

As often your biased source does not prove your point.

[candide]

2 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

Hunter already told the world in his interview.  Probably because his last name was Biden.

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/hunter-biden-admits-he-probably-got-high-paying-jobs-because-im-the-son-of-the-vice-president

 

A board member of Burisma stated the same.

 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/ex-polish-president-kwasniewski-hunter-biden-burisma

 

It's fascinating that those who hate Trump want to investigate his family over trademarks and business that were already successful long before Trump was elected, but refuse to see their own hypocrisy when it comes to the Bidens.  Well, the main-stream media, the propaganda arm of the Democrats, has finally been forced to see it -- again.  I say 'again' because they initially reported on it when Biden was still the VP, and then it got very quiet.

The DOJ is controlled by the Republicans, not by the Dems. Why do they cover up the Bidens?

(According to the current state of information, including of the Chair of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, there is no investigation into the Bidens. This unless a (ridiculous) conspiracy theory that the DOJ may secretly investigating the Bidens, in contradiction with its usual m.o. and without any understandable explanation for it, may be proven true).

[metisdead]

Posts using trolling memes have been removed. 

[JHolmesJr]

7 hours ago, simple1 said:

Drip, drip...

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-dept-acknowledges-24-emails-reveal-trumps-thinking-on-ukraine/2020/02/01/7deea84c-450e-11ea-b503-2b077c436617_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_evening_edition&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_evening

 

Feeling confident again, eh?

Remember what Trump said: the leaks are real, the news is fake.

Still feeling confident?

[Tippaporn]

20 hours ago, candide said:

Exactly! Actually the Obama administration was complaining that shokin was not investigating.....Burisma

"Sept. 24, 2015 – U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt excoriates officials in the Prosecutor General’s Office for stymying anti-corruption investigations, including those involving Burisma...

......the ambassador criticizes “officials at the PGO’s office” for not providing documents that were needed for the British investigation of Burisma owner Zlochevskiy and effectively allowing Zlochevskiy to transfer $23 million of what Pyatt says were Ukrainian taxpayer assets to Cyprus. In other words, Pyatt is critical of the prosecutor’s office for not aiding in investigations of Burisma’s owner, which was in line with Biden’s criticism that the office was blocking corruption investigations. Pyatt specifically called for the investigation and removal of officials who were involved in the failure to help the British authorities investigate Zlochevskiy....

 

Quote from the ambassador's statement in September 2015

"For example, in the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevskiy, the U.K. authorities had seized 23 million dollars in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people. Officials at the PGO’s office were asked by the U.K to send documents supporting the seizure.

Instead they sent letters to Zlochevskiy’s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a result, the money was freed by the U.K. court and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus.

The misconduct by the PGO officials who wrote those letters should be investigated, and those responsible for subverting the case by authorizing those letters should – at a minimum – be summarily terminated.”

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

Mods.  I'm posting a link to an independent French investigator who is investigating UkraineGate which deals not only with the Bidens but corruption in the Ukraine in general.  It is impossible for me to have this fact checked.  So, I bringing this to your attention as I do not want another suspension for linking to an "unapproved" source.  This investigative team is legit, French and so therefore not partial to an American or Ukrainian viewpoint but if in your view you find the source objectionable then by all means remove this post but please do not penalize me for attempting to uncover the real truth.

 

This link is to Part 2 of their investigation.  It discusses their findings as to whether or not Shokin's investigation into Burisma was truly dormant.  What they find is indeed eye-popping.  Their investigation also includes analysis of U.S. media reports upon the announcement of Shokin's removal.  Also, they did a comprehensive analysis of all media reports after the Trump/Zelensky call scandal broke on Sept. 23, 2019.  They found the Washington Post "hammering down this pro-Biden narrative" at least 20 times in the first four days (articles displayed in the video) using almost identical language to state that Shokin's investigation had been "dormant."  These articles were authored by 15 different journalists.  In the coming month of October there were at least another 30 articles by the Washington Post (articles also displayed in the video) and again using the same copy pasted claim that Shokin's investigation was dormant.

 

Also contained within the video is evidence which discusses former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt's excoriation of PGO officials.  Never did he mention Shokin (proven by videos of Pyatt's speech at the Odesa Financial Forum on September 24, 2015) and in fact he makes mention that the U.S. government wanted to work with Shokin (also shown in the video from the end of Pyatt's speech).  The Washington Post ran an article on October 2nd, 20219 with the headline:  "Correcting a media error:  Biden's Ukraine showdown was in November 2015."  The article opens with, "Pyatt kicked off the effort in a speech on Sept. 24, 2015 in which he blasted Shokin for "opening and aggressively undermining reform" and having "undermined prosecutors working on legitamate corruption cases."  Another example of a most egregious failure of journalist integrity as the story was entirely meant to mislead and protect Biden.

 

This investigation has been the most complete and intensive I've yet to see.  The first 3 parts have been completed and from the site they have Parts 4 thru 8 greyed out with captions of "Coming soon."  Each part is approximately an hour long, so those interested will need to invest some time.

 

To candide:  The Part 2 video, as well as Part 3 (where they interview a number of individuals with either expertise or direct knowledge) dives deep into how and why former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevskiy was able to recoup the seized $23 million from U.K. authorities and also how he was able to get all investigations into his company, Burisma, closed (within a mere 3 months) by the "solid" investigator Lutsenko, who had been recently imprisoned for corruption himself but also had zero legal experience.

 

All in all the many facts (facts, not hearsay, opinion, supposition, etc.) presented in the videos are quite damning regarding the Bidens.  I highly encourage those readers, who like myself have a burning desire to know the truth and not some spun up version propagated by corrupt individuals specifically to protect their criminality, to view this investigative series.

 

Also, I sincerely hope this post is not considered "off topic" as the topic subject matter regards the Dems demands for "documents" in the Senate trial.  Were the Dems demands for witnesses voted by the Senate in favour then the Bidens would most likely have become witnesses, in which case documents the Dems would like to keep hidden would have surfaced.  Also, as I've stated many times before, the above information is critical in determining Trump's true motives in requesting assistance into corruption originating in the Ukraine.  If the Bidens are indeed corrupt then the entire basis for the impeachment would utterly be blown to smithereens.  This information speaks to the core of the impeachment.  I remind readers again that Lindsey Graham has promised to invite Giuliani to testify in the Senate once the impeachment debacle has run it's course.

 

Edit:  forgot the link

 

https://ukrainegate.info/part-2-not-so-dormant-investigations/

 

Edited February 2, 2020 by Tippaporn

[Ricohoc]

2 hours ago, candide said:

They did call witnesses who testified. The ones who were rejected were the whistleblower and people who had not witnesses anything about what Trump did.

There were no witnesses allowed to be called by Republicans who testified in the Intelligence Committee of the House.  All were rejected. If you think there were any, please name them.

[candide]

24 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Mods.  I'm posting a link to an independent French investigator who is investigating UkraineGate which deals not only with the Bidens but corruption in the Ukraine in general.  It is impossible for me to have this fact checked.  So, I bringing this to your attention as I do not want another suspension for linking to an "unapproved" source.  This investigative team is legit, French and so therefore not partial to an American or Ukrainian viewpoint but if in your view you find the source objectionable then by all means remove this post but please do not penalize me for attempting to uncover the real truth.

 

This link is to Part 2 of their investigation.  It discusses their findings as to whether or not Shokin's investigation into Burisma was truly dormant.  What they find is indeed eye-popping.  Their investigation also includes analysis of U.S. media reports upon the announcement of Shokin's removal.  They did a comprehensive analysis of all media reports after the Trump/Zelensky call scandal broke on Sept. 23, 2019.  They found the Washington Post "hammering down this pro-Biden narrative" at least 20 times in the first four days (articles displayed in the video) using almost identical language to state that Shokin's investigation had been "dormant."  These articles were authored by 15 different journalists.  In the coming month of October there were at least another 30 articles by the Washington Post (articles also displayed in the video) and again using the same copy pasted claim that Shokin's investigation was dormant.

 

Also contained within the video is evidence which discusses former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt's excoriation of PGO officials.  Never did he mention Shokin (proven by videos of Pyatt's speech at the Odesa Financial Forum on September 24, 2015) and in fact he makes mention that the U.S. government wanted to work with Shokin (also shown in the video from the end of Pyatt's speech).  The Washington Post ran an article on October 2nd, 20219 with the headline:  "Correcting a media error:  Biden's Ukraine showdown was in November 2015."  The article opens with, "Pyatt kicked off the effort in a speech on Sept. 24, 2015 in which he blasted Shokin for "opening and aggressively undermining reform" and having "undermined prosecutors working on legitamate corruption cases."  Another example of a most egregious failure of journalist integrity as the story was entirely meant to mislead and protect Biden.

 

This investigation has been the most complete and intensive I've yet to see.  The first 3 parts have been completed and from the site they have Parts 4 thru 8 greyed out with captions of "Coming soon."  Each part is approximately an hour long, so those interested will need to invest some time.

 

To candide:  The Part 2 video, as well as Part 3 (where they interview a number of individuals with either expertise or direct knowledge) dives deep into how and why former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevskiy was able to recoup the seized $23 million from U.K. authorities and also how he was able to get all investigations into his company, Burisma, closed by the "solid" investigator Lutsenko, who had been recently imprisoned for corruption himself but also had no legal experience (within a mere 3 months).

 

All in all the many facts (facts, not hearsay, opinion, supposition, etc.) presented in the videos are quite damning regarding the Bidens.  I highly encourage those readers, who like myself have a burning desire to know the truth and not some spun up version propagated by corrupt individuals specifically to protect their criminality, to view this investigation series.

 

Also, I sincerely hope this post is not considered "off topic" as the topic subject matter regards the Dems demands for "documents" in the Senate trial.  Were the Dems demands for witnesses voted by the Senate in favour then the Bidens would most likely have become witness , in which case documents the Dems would like to keep hidden would have surfaced.  Also, as I've stated many times before, the above information is critical in determining Trump's true motives in requesting assistance into corruption originating in the Ukraine.  If the Bidens are indeed corrupt then the entire basis for the impeachment would utterly be blown to smithereens.  This information speaks to the core of the impeachment.  I remind readers again that Lindsey Graham has promised to invite Giuliani to testify in the Senate once the impeachment debacle has run it's course.

 

Edit:  forgot the link

 

https://ukrainegate.info/part-2-not-so-dormant-investigations/

 

It's true that Pyatt did not directly name Shokin but the general prosecutor's office. Who was the general prosecutor at that time?

Sorry, but I don't follow your rationale: Dem senators tried to endanger Biden's position by requesting witnesses and documents, and the Republicans actually saved Biden, not Trump? It doesn't make sense.

By the way, your source the blogger Berruyer has been constantly supporting Russian narratives and is suspected of being part of the Russian disinformation network.

But in case it's true, please petition the DOJ. As I always said, I have nothing against an lawful official investigation into Biden.

[candide]

2 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

There were no witnesses allowed to be called by Republicans who testified in the Intelligence Committee of the House.  All were rejected. If you think there were any, please name them.

Deflection. There were three committees.

[Ricohoc]

2 hours ago, candide said:

The DOJ is controlled by the Republicans, not by the Dems. Why do they cover up the Bidens?

(According to the current state of information, including of the Chair of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, there is no investigation into the Bidens. This unless a (ridiculous) conspiracy theory that the DOJ may secretly investigating the Bidens, in contradiction with its usual m.o. and without any understandable explanation for it, may be proven true).

At the time that the Bidens were reaping millions on their last name, the DOJ was controlled by the Obama Administration; and the news articles originally published were done during the 2016 campaign and immediately after the election.

 

There's no way to know if the current DOJ is investigating the Bidens because they don't usually announce investigations into citizens unless indictments are returned by a federal grand jury.

[Ricohoc]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

Deflection. There were three committees.

The Intelligence Committee was charged by Pelosi with conducting the Impeachment Investigation.  That was the Democrats' first and second wrong steps in the process, which caused them to have powerless subpoenas.  That's the only committee that counts when it came to the impeachment investigation.  

 

Nadler (Judiciary, and where impeachment investigations are supposed to be held) had already botched the Mueller testimony (with Mueller's help), so Pelosi was forced to give it to Schiff in the Intelligence Committee.

[candide]

6 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

At the time that the Bidens were reaping millions on their last name, the DOJ was controlled by the Obama Administration; and the news articles originally published were done during the 2016 campaign and immediately after the election.

 

There's no way to know if the current DOJ is investigating the Bidens because they don't usually announce investigations into citizens unless indictments are returned by a federal grand jury.

Republicans controlled for 3 years.

 

According to the current state of information, including of the Chair of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, there is no investigation into the Bidens. This unless a (ridiculous) conspiracy theory that the DOJ may secretly investigating the Bidens, in contradiction with its usual m.o. and without any understandable explanation for it, may be proven true).

[WalkingOrders]

On 2/2/2020 at 1:46 AM, heybruce said:

Doesn't matter.  I would speculate that Burisma thought they would get more than they did, but no one has come up with evidence they got anything for the money.  However that's not our problem.

The son of an American VP was getting 85G a month, from a corrupt Ukrainian energy company, while is Father was pointman on US-Ukraine policy, and you say the reason for his payment does not matter?

 

Pretend for a moment Donald J Trump was never born. This would still be your contention?

 

Not our problem? Until this corruption is rooted out and exposed, and justice is served it most certainly is a problem for the USA, if that is who you meant by "our". It most certainly is our problem. 

 

The mear exposure of this, in a manner that expressed a sincere desire to have it looked into, led to the Impeachment of the President.

 

So let's keep digging.

[Eric Loh]

9 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

The son of an American VP was getting 85G a month, from a corrupt Ukrainian energy company, while is Father was pointman on US-Ukraine policy, and you say the reason for his payment does not matter?

 

Pretend for a moment Donald J Trump was never born. This would still be your contention?

 

Not our problem? Until this corruption is rooted out and exposed, and justice is served it most certainly is a problem for the USA, if that is who you meant by "our". It most certainly is our problem. 

 

The mear exposure of this, in a manner that expressed a sincere desire to have it looked into, led to the Impeachment of the President.

 

So let's keep digging.

I think this link dispel your concern. Sure this link has been posted but sometimes it takes patience to convince that there really nothing to see here. I did my bit if this help you. 
https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-gas-company-burisma-holdings-joe-bidens-son-hunter-explained-2019-9

[Tippaporn]

On 2/2/2020 at 2:49 PM, candide said:

  

On 2/2/2020 at 2:08 PM, Tippaporn said:

Mods.  I'm posting a link to an independent French investigator who is investigating UkraineGate which deals not only with the Bidens but corruption in the Ukraine in general.  It is impossible for me to have this fact checked.  So, I bringing this to your attention as I do not want another suspension for linking to an "unapproved" source.  This investigative team is legit, French and so therefore not partial to an American or Ukrainian viewpoint but if in your view you find the source objectionable then by all means remove this post but please do not penalize me for attempting to uncover the real truth.

 

This link is to Part 2 of their investigation.  It discusses their findings as to whether or not Shokin's investigation into Burisma was truly dormant.  What they find is indeed eye-popping.  Their investigation also includes analysis of U.S. media reports upon the announcement of Shokin's removal.  Also, they did a comprehensive analysis of all media reports after the Trump/Zelensky call scandal broke on Sept. 23, 2019.  They found the Washington Post "hammering down this pro-Biden narrative" at least 20 times in the first four days (articles displayed in the video) using almost identical language to state that Shokin's investigation had been "dormant."  These articles were authored by 15 different journalists.  In the coming month of October there were at least another 30 articles by the Washington Post (articles also displayed in the video) and again using the same copy pasted claim that Shokin's investigation was dormant.

 

Also contained within the video is evidence which discusses former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt's excoriation of PGO officials.  Never did he mention Shokin (proven by videos of Pyatt's speech at the Odesa Financial Forum on September 24, 2015) and in fact he makes mention that the U.S. government wanted to work with Shokin (also shown in the video from the end of Pyatt's speech).  The Washington Post ran an article on October 2nd, 20219 with the headline:  "Correcting a media error:  Biden's Ukraine showdown was in November 2015."  The article opens with, "Pyatt kicked off the effort in a speech on Sept. 24, 2015 in which he blasted Shokin for "opening and aggressively undermining reform" and having "undermined prosecutors working on legitamate corruption cases."  Another example of a most egregious failure of journalist integrity as the story was entirely meant to mislead and protect Biden.

 

This investigation has been the most complete and intensive I've yet to see.  The first 3 parts have been completed and from the site they have Parts 4 thru 8 greyed out with captions of "Coming soon."  Each part is approximately an hour long, so those interested will need to invest some time.

 

To candide:  The Part 2 video, as well as Part 3 (where they interview a number of individuals with either expertise or direct knowledge) dives deep into how and why former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevskiy was able to recoup the seized $23 million from U.K. authorities and also how he was able to get all investigations into his company, Burisma, closed (within a mere 3 months) by the "solid" investigator Lutsenko, who had been recently imprisoned for corruption himself but also had zero legal experience.

 

All in all the many facts (facts, not hearsay, opinion, supposition, etc.) presented in the videos are quite damning regarding the Bidens.  I highly encourage those readers, who like myself have a burning desire to know the truth and not some spun up version propagated by corrupt individuals specifically to protect their criminality, to view this investigative series.

 

Also, I sincerely hope this post is not considered "off topic" as the topic subject matter regards the Dems demands for "documents" in the Senate trial.  Were the Dems demands for witnesses voted by the Senate in favour then the Bidens would most likely have become witnesses, in which case documents the Dems would like to keep hidden would have surfaced.  Also, as I've stated many times before, the above information is critical in determining Trump's true motives in requesting assistance into corruption originating in the Ukraine.  If the Bidens are indeed corrupt then the entire basis for the impeachment would utterly be blown to smithereens.  This information speaks to the core of the impeachment.  I remind readers again that Lindsey Graham has promised to invite Giuliani to testify in the Senate once the impeachment debacle has run it's course.

 

Edit:  forgot the link

 

https://ukrainegate.info/part-2-not-so-dormant-investigations/

 

 

It's true that Pyatt did not directly name Shokin but the general prosecutor's office. Who was the general prosecutor at that time?

Sorry, but I don't follow your rationale: Dem senators tried to endanger Biden's position by requesting witnesses and documents, and the Republicans actually saved Biden, not Trump? It doesn't make sense.

By the way, your source the blogger Berruyer has been constantly supporting Russian narratives and is suspected of being part of the Russian disinformation network.

But in case it's true, please petition the DOJ. As I always said, I have nothing against an lawful official investigation into Biden.

If you had watched the video you would have been made aware of facts which would have prevented you from making the point you make above.  Here, for example, is a Sept. 27, 2019 article by Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post with the headline: A quick guide to Trump's false claims about Ukraine and the Bidens. Within the article Kessler writes:

 

"In September 2015, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt publicly criticized Shokin’s office for thwarting a British money-laundering probe into Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky."

 

This is patently false as the British money laundering probe, ultimately resolved in favour of Zlochevskiy and resulting in his recouping of the $23 million, occurred under the former prosecutor, Vitaly Yarema.  Yarema was, in fact, forced to resign over this very incident of his corrupt handling of the case, thereby paving the way for Shokin to assume the position of 13th Prosecutor General of Ukraine.

 

This journalistic error is so blatantly false due to the fact that the timelines of when the Prosecutor Generals held office so obviously disprove the reporter's statements that one has to consider possible explanations for it.  One may be shoddy investigative work.  Another would be a deliberate attempt to smear Shokin, thus supporting Bidens claim of Shokin as a corrupt prosecutor and his claim that he did nothing wrong in withholding the $1 billion in aid.  But perhaps more importantly to discredit any possible notion that Trump was justified in requesting an investigation into Biden, which was critically needed in order for the charge of quid pro quo to have any merit.  I leave it to the readers to decide which explanation seems more plausible.  For myself, it is most obvious.

 

As to your next statement in which you are obviously casting doubt on the well respected source, Olivier Berruyer, here is Wikipedia's entry.  From the entry (bold emphasis mine):

 

Olivier Berruyer presents his Les Crises site as a counterweight to the mainstream media guilty in his eyes of creating “consent” among citizens, instead of “helping them to form their own opinion." Olivier Berruyer pleads for impartial information, stripped of any bias, considering that this is not currently the case. During an interview at RT, it [sic] expresses the fact that "the citizens have the impression of being very well informed", when in reality, we are subjected according to him "the dogma of the politically correct". If he excludes "conspiracy and the fact that people are pulling the strings", he nevertheless highlights the impact of this dogmatist tendency, especially on international issues. A problem he sums up in one sentence: "In the media, there is no conspiracy, there are people who think the same."

 

I, myself, am fully in support of people forming their own opinions with impartial, unbiased information.  I sincerely hope that all here are in agreement on that point.  Unfortunately, these days one has to be extremely careful as to information upon which opinions must be based since so much published is deliberately (in my view) false.

 

It must be understood, though it should be too obvious to have to state, that those who speak truth will be vilified and perhaps even worse by those who have much to lose by having their misdeeds brought to light.  And also by those who have "drunk the kool aid" to the point where they firmly and sincerely believe in the false narratives fed them.  To further emphasize this point I'll provide this line from Berruyer's entry, in which the well-established French MSM news outlet Le Monde, among others, was taken to court by Berruyer for defamation and other complaints.

 

"Le Monde is condemned (by the court) for the article by Adrien Senecat in which he accused Olivier Berruyer of having deleted hundreds of erroneous articles and of spreading false news."

 

He has also won other cases, one in which they were accusing Olivier Berruyer of having had the "will to distort the facts, to attack or to deceive, at least as regards Russian-Ukrainian questions."

 

Forgive me if the subject of Berruyer is "off topic" but it is "on topic" as it relates to the credibility of a source providing information regarding the "on topic" discussion of the Bidens as they relate to Trump's impeachment.

 

For what it's worth, I have never had a political bent and have always kept politics at bay with a ten foot pole.  Way too much BS for me.  I only began posting here after the impeachment charade launched by Pelosi, Schiff and others which, to me, went way over the top.  My first half dozen or so replies to other posters were ended with the statement, "You're being played."  Given the many instances of false reporting being exposed by the established MSM I will again state that "you're being played" into believing so many false narratives.  Good luck to all sorting it out for themselves.  Not a problem for me.

 

In any case, hopefully this will finally put the nail in the conspiracy coffin of "unsubstantiated charges" regarding the Bidens and the false narrative that the Burisma case was dormant under Shokin.

[Tippaporn]

25 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I think this link dispel your concern. Sure this link has been posted but sometimes it takes patience to convince that there really nothing to see here. I did my bit if this help you. 
https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-gas-company-burisma-holdings-joe-bidens-son-hunter-explained-2019-9

Link no working for me.  It takes me to the site and this article:  A Ukraine gas company tied to Joe Biden's son is at the center of Trump's impeachment

 

No video, a blurry pic, and no body text . . . just the headline.

 

BTW, did you watch the videos?

[Tippaporn]

33 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I think this link dispel your concern. Sure this link has been posted but sometimes it takes patience to convince that there really nothing to see here. I did my bit if this help you. 
https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-gas-company-burisma-holdings-joe-bidens-son-hunter-explained-2019-9

I entered only this portion of the link into the search bar ukraine-gas-company-burisma-holdings-joe-bidens-son-hunter-explained-2019-9/ and the article came up.  I just read it.

 

It's absolutely pathetic.  Worse than pathetic.  For one, the Business Insider reporter, John Haltiwanger, who is a Senior Politics reporter, obviously did not do any research.  Many references to mere reports from other news outlets.  So many facts which are flat out wrong.  And, importantly, so many facts left out which would tell a much different tale.  Simply unbelievable.  Good Lord!!

 

I can't remember exactly where in the Olivier Berruyer videos I watched but there was a segment where he analysed MSM news reports and attempted to contact the reporters of some of the articles.  No response from any of them.  I'm not surprised.

[Eric Loh]

24 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I entered only this portion of the link into the search bar ukraine-gas-company-burisma-holdings-joe-bidens-son-hunter-explained-2019-9/ and the article came up.  I just read it.

 

It's absolutely pathetic.  Worse than pathetic.  For one, the Business Insider reporter, John Haltiwanger, who is a Senior Politics reporter, obviously did not do any research.  Many references to mere reports from other news outlets.  So many facts which are flat out wrong.  And, importantly, so many facts left out which would tell a much different tale.  Simply unbelievable.  Good Lord!!

 

I can't remember exactly where in the Olivier Berruyer videos I watched but there was a segment where he analysed MSM news reports and attempted to contact the reporters of some of the articles.  No response from any of them.  I'm not surprised.

Why ain’t the DOJ or AG charging HB. You have a theory? 

 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

Why ain’t the DOJ or AG charging HB. You have a theory? 

 

As far as I can make out it's due to too much corruption.  It is documented fact that certain Ukrainians were trying to get documentation of corruption to the U.S. Justice but were stymied and failed.  Also, documented evidence that the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine were denying visas for these individuals to come to the U.S. to testify.  No conspiracy . . . documentation exists.

 

Shokin himself was denied a visa though he had been to the U.S. before. Say what?!?!

 

The corruption runs deep.  Very deep.

 

What I thought was interesting watching the videos was to see the corruption in the Ukraine exposed and explained.  Details of how it worked.  Corruption anywhere in the world works similarly.  I came away with the realization that corruption in the U.S. works the same way as it does in the Ukraine.  Evidence of how money paid to the Bidens was laundered.

 

Anyway, I know you don't want to believe any of it.  Watch the videos.  If you do not, cannot, then what else can I or anyone do to show and prove the truth?

[Eric Loh]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

As far as I can make out it's due to too much corruption.  It is documented fact that certain Ukrainians were trying to get documentation of corruption to the U.S. Justice but were stymied and failed.  Also, documented evidence that the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine were denying visas for these individuals to come to the U.S. to testify.  No conspiracy . . . documentation exists.

 

Shokin himself was denied a visa though he had been to the U.S. before. Say what?!?!

 

The corruption runs deep.  Very deep.

 

What I thought was interesting watching the videos was to see the corruption in the Ukraine exposed and explained.  Details of how it worked.  Corruption anywhere in the world works similarly.  I came away with the realization that corruption in the U.S. works the same way as it does in the Ukraine.  Evidence of how money paid to the Bidens was laundered.

 

Anyway, I know you don't want to believe any of it.  Watch the videos.  If you do not, cannot, then what else can I or anyone do to show and prove the truth?

We still waiting for Giuliani promises to release more damaging dirt on the Bidens. He did promised Trump as soon as his plane touched the tarmac that he has a lot more dirt than expected. I believed that was on early Dec. What’s holding him? Already Feb. 

[Tippaporn]

21 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

We still waiting for Giuliani promises to release more damaging dirt on the Bidens. He did promised Trump as soon as his plane touched the tarmac that he has a lot more dirt than expected. I believed that was on early Dec. What’s holding him? Already Feb. 

I've mentioned a number of times that Lindsey Graham has promised to have him testify in front of the Senate after the vote.  Whether it happens or not I can't say.  I don't trust politicians.

 

OAN did a special series back in December in conjunction with Giuliani.  Three 50-minute episodes, so lots of information.  They were able to get some of the Ukrainians to the U.S.  They properly put them under oath and deposed them.  The truth is out there.  But if people don't want to see it they won't.  Only when the information eventually becomes mainstream, can no longer be spun or denied, will people finally understand.  I, nor anyone else, can force another to see what they choose for themselves not to see.  A little thing called free will which we're all blessed with.

 

Edited February 3, 2020 by Tippaporn