Chat Forum
It is currently Fri May 29, 2020 11:57 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112844 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2555, 2556, 2557, 2558, 2559, 2560, 2561 ... 2822  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2019 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1152
BokJock wrote:
The Optimist wrote:
Image


Like too many times before I thought this from Onion or similar


The great thing about American politics at the moment is that it is almost impossible to tell what is a spoof by The Onion and what is a real headline.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1409
Location: Saint Paul
Seneca of the Night wrote:
The right men are moving into position:

Quote:
BREAKING: President Trump names Chad Wolf to be the next acting head of Homeland Security, the fifth person in the job for this administration.


https://twitter.com/AP/status/1190391240732397570


Quote:
After the ninth Director of Homeland Security, the tenth is FREE!


:lol: :lol: :((


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4818
Trump being a prized plum when it comes to helping his citizens in California.

"Sweep the forest floors you dumb plum, otherwise you get no more of that sweet sweet FEMA chedda that I want to use to build my wall"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:35 am
Posts: 6179
Location: England
Taranaki Snapper wrote:
Rudy Giuliani, "maladroit fraudgoblin"...

Quote:
Rudy Giuliani Had To Ask An Apple Genius To Unlock His iPhone Right After Trump Named Him Head Of The Cyber

With the growing number of bumbling mistakes that Rudy Giuliani makes as Donald Trump’s attorney, it’s easy to forget that in early 2017 the President enlisted the maladroit fraudgoblin to be the White House cybersecurity czar.

Precisely 26 days after Giuliani was tapped to advise Trump on the cyber, the former mayor went to a San Francisco Apple store and asked an employee to help him unlock his iPhone 6, according to a report from NBC News. Giuliani had reportedly locked himself out of his phone because he had entered his passcode wrong 10 times, disabling the device.

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/11/rudy ... the-cyber/



'maladroit fraudgoblin' is a wonderful phrase.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4818
the best people etc etc


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 8316
BokJock wrote:
the best people etc etc



He calls them dogs


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9286
Interesting view of the FBI's investigation of Flynn.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... hael-flynn

Quote:
That said, although Flynn had an ethical obligation to tell the truth, since it does not appear his deception covered up a crime or prevented the FBI from obtaining information it did not already have, I’m skeptical a jury would have found that Flynn had a legal obligation to do so. More disturbing, however, is the apparent lack of a legitimate reason to interview Flynn in the first place.

Was it the Logan Act, which prohibits negotiation by unauthorized persons (in this case Flynn) with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States (in this case Russia)? This rationale would have been troubling. It is not unprecedented, or even unusual, for members of an incoming presidential administration to unofficially discuss policy with the same foreign representatives they soon will be dealing with officially.

Flynn’s Kislyak conversations fall into this category. While they arguably constitute a technical violation of the Logan Act, there isn’t a prosecutor worth his salt who would consider criminalizing a conversation that would be legal in a few weeks. A jury likely would agree.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4818
Santa wrote:
Interesting view of the FBI's investigation of Flynn.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... hael-flynn

Quote:
That said, although Flynn had an ethical obligation to tell the truth, since it does not appear his deception covered up a crime or prevented the FBI from obtaining information it did not already have, I’m skeptical a jury would have found that Flynn had a legal obligation to do so. More disturbing, however, is the apparent lack of a legitimate reason to interview Flynn in the first place.

Was it the Logan Act, which prohibits negotiation by unauthorized persons (in this case Flynn) with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States (in this case Russia)? This rationale would have been troubling. It is not unprecedented, or even unusual, for members of an incoming presidential administration to unofficially discuss policy with the same foreign representatives they soon will be dealing with officially.

Flynn’s Kislyak conversations fall into this category. While they arguably constitute a technical violation of the Logan Act, there isn’t a prosecutor worth his salt who would consider criminalizing a conversation that would be legal in a few weeks. A jury likely would agree.


Flynn wasn't found guilty by a jury, he plead guilty himself

(haven't read the whole article, just your quote)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9286
BokJock wrote:
Santa wrote:
Interesting view of the FBI's investigation of Flynn.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... hael-flynn

Quote:
That said, although Flynn had an ethical obligation to tell the truth, since it does not appear his deception covered up a crime or prevented the FBI from obtaining information it did not already have, I’m skeptical a jury would have found that Flynn had a legal obligation to do so. More disturbing, however, is the apparent lack of a legitimate reason to interview Flynn in the first place.

Was it the Logan Act, which prohibits negotiation by unauthorized persons (in this case Flynn) with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States (in this case Russia)? This rationale would have been troubling. It is not unprecedented, or even unusual, for members of an incoming presidential administration to unofficially discuss policy with the same foreign representatives they soon will be dealing with officially.

Flynn’s Kislyak conversations fall into this category. While they arguably constitute a technical violation of the Logan Act, there isn’t a prosecutor worth his salt who would consider criminalizing a conversation that would be legal in a few weeks. A jury likely would agree.


Flynn wasn't found guilty by a jury, he plead guilty himself

(haven't read the whole article, just your quote)


Then it's no wonder your comment was silly. :o

Edit: was way too harsh. Apologies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15416
Location: South Oxfordshire
Santa wrote:
Interesting view of the FBI's investigation of Flynn.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... hael-flynn

Quote:
That said, although Flynn had an ethical obligation to tell the truth, since it does not appear his deception covered up a crime or prevented the FBI from obtaining information it did not already have, I’m skeptical a jury would have found that Flynn had a legal obligation to do so. More disturbing, however, is the apparent lack of a legitimate reason to interview Flynn in the first place.

Was it the Logan Act, which prohibits negotiation by unauthorized persons (in this case Flynn) with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States (in this case Russia)? This rationale would have been troubling. It is not unprecedented, or even unusual, for members of an incoming presidential administration to unofficially discuss policy with the same foreign representatives they soon will be dealing with officially.

Flynn’s Kislyak conversations fall into this category. While they arguably constitute a technical violation of the Logan Act, there isn’t a prosecutor worth his salt who would consider criminalizing a conversation that would be legal in a few weeks. A jury likely would agree.


It was an entirely voluntary interview wasn't it? He could have left at any time, and the interview wasn't even focused on him. If he'd told the truth he likely wouldn't have been charged with anything as this gentleman notes - but it was all about getting the background to the broader investigation.

Flynn got into trouble because he didn't want that info coming out , so he lied about it in an attempt to hinder the wider investigation. Hell, if he'd just had a lawyer in the room he could have managed that without placing himself in jeopardy. So, ultimately Flynn was convicted because he was thick.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 8316
Saint wrote:

Flynn got into trouble because he didn't want that info coming out , so he lied about it in an attempt to hinder the wider investigation. Hell, if he'd just had a lawyer in the room he could have managed that without placing himself in jeopardy. So, ultimately Flynn was convicted because he was thick.


This is typically the case for those ending up in jail, and Flynn had the advantages of an education and not being poor which are additional problems faced by a huge % of the prison population, and in the US he also has the advantage of being white


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9286
None of that really answers the point: why prosecute someone for lying about information you already have?

Quote:
Former special counsel Robert Mueller is not absolved in this. He should have recognized the insufficiency of the circumstances of Flynn’s interview, the weak predication, the lack of materiality of Flynn’s false statements. Instead, knowing the difficulty and expense of testing the matter in court, Mueller maneuvered to use the charge, not just to punish Flynn for his abominable behavior during the campaign, but to send a signal to other potential witnesses (and the nation) about the perils of lying to the FBI.

In doing so, Mueller made himself the final authority on Flynn’s “behavior” with no further check and balance on what civil libertarians ultimately may conclude was an injudicious use of Title 18 U.S.C. §1001 (false statements), the government’s most powerful tool.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4818
Where have you been Santa?

You prosecute because it is a witch hunt.

Probably the biggest ever!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 8316
BokJock wrote:
Where have you been Santa?

You prosecute because it is a witch hunt.

Probably the biggest ever!



No word of a lie this picture depicting the witches is available to buy on merchandise being sold by Team Trump, which suggests they think the Democrats are the witches, and it's the witches who do the hunting during a witch hunt. Which perhaps means we're being a little unfair to Trump, going by his team he doesn't actually know what a witch hunt is, and perhaps we should check what he actually means before mocking the moron

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4818
That is obviously from the Onion, Piquant.

Trump is a genius and knows exactly what a witch hunt is


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 8316
BokJock wrote:
That is obviously from the Onion, Piquant.

Trump is a genius and knows exactly what a witch hunt is



Would I lie to you? Also, and more importantly, I've never been on the Onion site


Image

it's not clear why Trump is being shown as Superman flying about below the witches, though presumably Superman fears witches who are green like Kryptonite

if you actually want to buy a copy head here


https://shop.donaldjtrump.com/products/ ... art-poster


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4818
forwarded the link to the wife - she was asking me what I wanted for my Happy Holiday present


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15416
Location: South Oxfordshire
Santa wrote:
None of that really answers the point: why prosecute someone for lying about information you already have?

Quote:
Former special counsel Robert Mueller is not absolved in this. He should have recognized the insufficiency of the circumstances of Flynn’s interview, the weak predication, the lack of materiality of Flynn’s false statements. Instead, knowing the difficulty and expense of testing the matter in court, Mueller maneuvered to use the charge, not just to punish Flynn for his abominable behavior during the campaign, but to send a signal to other potential witnesses (and the nation) about the perils of lying to the FBI.

In doing so, Mueller made himself the final authority on Flynn’s “behavior” with no further check and balance on what civil libertarians ultimately may conclude was an injudicious use of Title 18 U.S.C. §1001 (false statements), the government’s most powerful tool.


Because he lied to the FBI. That made anything else he might say potentially suspect; it could also lead to other people lying in future when the FBI don't have the information already, in which case the job gets a whole lot harder.

As for Mueller being the final authority, that's lauighable. He brought criminal charges, and Flynn chose to plead guilty rather than going before a judge and jury, who would have been, by default, the final authority. It's not like Mueller just pronounced him guilty and locked him up

The prosecution was a stratightforwrdas decision, but the point that was actually raised wa what was the basis for the interview? Whcih, as it was a bacground voluntary interview is null and void.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9286
Saint wrote:
Santa wrote:
None of that really answers the point: why prosecute someone for lying about information you already have?

Quote:
Former special counsel Robert Mueller is not absolved in this. He should have recognized the insufficiency of the circumstances of Flynn’s interview, the weak predication, the lack of materiality of Flynn’s false statements. Instead, knowing the difficulty and expense of testing the matter in court, Mueller maneuvered to use the charge, not just to punish Flynn for his abominable behavior during the campaign, but to send a signal to other potential witnesses (and the nation) about the perils of lying to the FBI.

In doing so, Mueller made himself the final authority on Flynn’s “behavior” with no further check and balance on what civil libertarians ultimately may conclude was an injudicious use of Title 18 U.S.C. §1001 (false statements), the government’s most powerful tool.


Because he lied to the FBI. That made anything else he might say potentially suspect; it could also lead to other people lying in future when the FBI don't have the information already, in which case the job gets a whole lot harder.

As for Mueller being the final authority, that's lauighable. He brought criminal charges, and Flynn chose to plead guilty rather than going before a judge and jury, who would have been, by default, the final authority. It's not like Mueller just pronounced him guilty and locked him up

The prosecution was a stratightforwrdas decision, but the point that was actually raised wa what was the basis for the interview? Whcih, as it was a bacground voluntary interview is null and void.


So you would go for aggressive prosecution in all cases? Any exercise of prosecutorial discretion, like where the lie didn't actually result in any information being withheld because you already had it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15416
Location: South Oxfordshire
Santa wrote:
Saint wrote:
Santa wrote:
None of that really answers the point: why prosecute someone for lying about information you already have?

Quote:
Former special counsel Robert Mueller is not absolved in this. He should have recognized the insufficiency of the circumstances of Flynn’s interview, the weak predication, the lack of materiality of Flynn’s false statements. Instead, knowing the difficulty and expense of testing the matter in court, Mueller maneuvered to use the charge, not just to punish Flynn for his abominable behavior during the campaign, but to send a signal to other potential witnesses (and the nation) about the perils of lying to the FBI.

In doing so, Mueller made himself the final authority on Flynn’s “behavior” with no further check and balance on what civil libertarians ultimately may conclude was an injudicious use of Title 18 U.S.C. §1001 (false statements), the government’s most powerful tool.


Because he lied to the FBI. That made anything else he might say potentially suspect; it could also lead to other people lying in future when the FBI don't have the information already, in which case the job gets a whole lot harder.

As for Mueller being the final authority, that's lauighable. He brought criminal charges, and Flynn chose to plead guilty rather than going before a judge and jury, who would have been, by default, the final authority. It's not like Mueller just pronounced him guilty and locked him up

The prosecution was a stratightforwrdas decision, but the point that was actually raised wa what was the basis for the interview? Whcih, as it was a bacground voluntary interview is null and void.


So you would go for aggressive prosecution in all cases? Any exercise of prosecutorial discretion, like where the lie didn't actually result in any information being withheld because you already had it?


I'm not a federal prosecutor, but I simply don't see anything controversial about this. It's a common tactic used by federal prosecutors and has been going on for years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15416
Location: South Oxfordshire
In other news, Donny has lost the latest round of his attempts to keep his tax records under wrap, and is now going to appeal to SCOTUS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9286
Saint wrote:
Santa wrote:
Saint wrote:
Santa wrote:
None of that really answers the point: why prosecute someone for lying about information you already have?

Quote:
Former special counsel Robert Mueller is not absolved in this. He should have recognized the insufficiency of the circumstances of Flynn’s interview, the weak predication, the lack of materiality of Flynn’s false statements. Instead, knowing the difficulty and expense of testing the matter in court, Mueller maneuvered to use the charge, not just to punish Flynn for his abominable behavior during the campaign, but to send a signal to other potential witnesses (and the nation) about the perils of lying to the FBI.

In doing so, Mueller made himself the final authority on Flynn’s “behavior” with no further check and balance on what civil libertarians ultimately may conclude was an injudicious use of Title 18 U.S.C. §1001 (false statements), the government’s most powerful tool.


Because he lied to the FBI. That made anything else he might say potentially suspect; it could also lead to other people lying in future when the FBI don't have the information already, in which case the job gets a whole lot harder.

As for Mueller being the final authority, that's lauighable. He brought criminal charges, and Flynn chose to plead guilty rather than going before a judge and jury, who would have been, by default, the final authority. It's not like Mueller just pronounced him guilty and locked him up

The prosecution was a stratightforwrdas decision, but the point that was actually raised wa what was the basis for the interview? Whcih, as it was a bacground voluntary interview is null and void.


So you would go for aggressive prosecution in all cases? Any exercise of prosecutorial discretion, like where the lie didn't actually result in any information being withheld because you already had it?


I'm not a federal prosecutor, but I simply don't see anything controversial about this. It's a common tactic used by federal prosecutors and has been going on for years.


Fair enough. And, you're correct, as a general practice it is common. They question is, is this charging decision in line with others. The 23 year veteran non-partisan guy reckons it was unduly harsh. There's something a little Weissmannian about it.


Last edited by Santa on Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15416
Location: South Oxfordshire
Santa wrote:
Saint wrote:
Santa wrote:
Saint wrote:
Quote:
Former special counsel Robert Mueller is not absolved in this. He should have recognized the insufficiency of the circumstances of Flynn’s interview, the weak predication, the lack of materiality of Flynn’s false statements. Instead, knowing the difficulty and expense of testing the matter in court, Mueller maneuvered to use the charge, not just to punish Flynn for his abominable behavior during the campaign, but to send a signal to other potential witnesses (and the nation) about the perils of lying to the FBI.

In doing so, Mueller made himself the final authority on Flynn’s “behavior” with no further check and balance on what civil libertarians ultimately may conclude was an injudicious use of Title 18 U.S.C. §1001 (false statements), the government’s most powerful tool.


Because he lied to the FBI. That made anything else he might say potentially suspect; it could also lead to other people lying in future when the FBI don't have the information already, in which case the job gets a whole lot harder.

As for Mueller being the final authority, that's lauighable. He brought criminal charges, and Flynn chose to plead guilty rather than going before a judge and jury, who would have been, by default, the final authority. It's not like Mueller just pronounced him guilty and locked him up

The prosecution was a stratightforwrdas decision, but the point that was actually raised wa what was the basis for the interview? Whcih, as it was a bacground voluntary interview is null and void.


So you would go for aggressive prosecution in all cases? Any exercise of prosecutorial discretion, like where the lie didn't actually result in any information being withheld because you already had it?


I'm not a federal prosecutor, but I simply don't see anything controversial about this. It's a common tactic used by federal prosecutors and has been going on for years.


Fair enough. And, you're correct, as a general practice it is common. They question is, is this charging decision in line with others. The 23 year veteran non-partisan guy reckons it was unduly harsh.[/quote]

And loads of other non-partisans thought otherwise. There will always be disagreements between prosecutors,, but this was not controversial at the time, except for GOP acolytes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9286
Saint wrote:
And loads of other non-partisans thought otherwise. There will always be disagreements between prosecutors,, but this was not controversial at the time, except for GOP acolytes


Interested to know who you think the non-partisan commentators were. I didn't come across many.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9286
First transcripts are out. Looks like it's around the high crime and misdemeanor of getting rid of the ambassador. Shocking stuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
Santa wrote:
Saint wrote:
And loads of other non-partisans thought otherwise. There will always be disagreements between prosecutors,, but this was not controversial at the time, except for GOP acolytes


Interested to know who you think the non-partisan commentators were. I didn't come across many.


They have been shot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15806
https://www.iol.co.za/news/world/smuggl ... l-36563169

It is a great wall. A beautiful wall.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5576
Location: A gaf in Bracknell
Maybe that’s why he’s proposing it in states not connected to Mexico. At least those pesky New Mexicans won’t do this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6229
How to piss $10 billion up against a wall?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22860
Flockwitt wrote:
How to piss $10 billion up against a wall?

I reckon Seneca and me together have come close to this over the last 30 years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 2:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1409
Location: Saint Paul
Santa wrote:
First transcripts are out. Looks like it's around the high crime and misdemeanor of getting rid of the ambassador. Shocking stuff.


To quote Ali's Choice

Quote:
Dumb post


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 2:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1409
Location: Saint Paul
Chilli wrote:
https://www.iol.co.za/news/world/smugglers-sawing-through-new-sections-of-donald-trumps-border-wall-36563169

It is a great wall. A beautiful wall.


Sawzalls are the dog's nuts. I borrowed one from a mate last year to take out an internal basement wall. Went through sheetrock, studs, nails etc like a knife through hot butter.

Not surprised they go through Trump's fence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 2:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:04 am
Posts: 9478
managed to get an indian guy in the background this time, every other rally he used black people

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 2:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5890
Who is he trying to convince having those dipsticks wear that T shirt? Even the edited transcripts show him coercing the Ukrainians.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 3:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6690
Biden admits directly threatening on holding back aid to get a prosecutor removed within 6 hours that was investigating corruption etc involving his sons company and possibly Biden. No problem Creepy Joe as VP you can do this?

Trump asks for this to looked at and thats corruption? :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 3:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17435
kiwinoz wrote:
that was investigating corruption etc involving his sons company and possibly Biden



Nope.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6690
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
that was investigating corruption etc involving his sons company and possibly Biden



Nope.


Really?

Quote:
The top Ukrainian prosecutor has said he will re-examine cases involving a petrol company linked to the son of US presidential hopeful Joe Biden, as Ukraine continues to be at the centre of an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
The move came after repeated calls from Trump - Biden's political rival - for Ukraine to look into the Biden family's business dealings in the country.
The previous Ukrainian investigation had looked at a firm, Gasholding Burisma, which had Hunter Biden on its board.
Ukraine's top prosecutor has pledged to investigate cases linked to a company connected to US presidential hopeful Joe Biden.
(AP/AAP)
Joe Biden was vice-president at the time. The investigation was cancelled in 2016.
"We will look through all the proceedings which were either stopped or split off," said prosecutor Ruslan Ryaboshapka in Kiev today.
Some 15 cases would be examined to see wh7ether any had not proceeded according to the law, he said.

https://www.9news.com.au/world/ukraine- ... c647905e93


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 6:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17435
kiwinoz wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
that was investigating corruption etc involving his sons company and possibly Biden



Nope.


Really?

Quote:
The top Ukrainian prosecutor has said he will re-examine cases involving a petrol company linked to the son of US presidential hopeful Joe Biden, as Ukraine continues to be at the centre of an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
The move came after repeated calls from Trump - Biden's political rival - for Ukraine to look into the Biden family's business dealings in the country.
The previous Ukrainian investigation had looked at a firm, Gasholding Burisma, which had Hunter Biden on its board.
Ukraine's top prosecutor has pledged to investigate cases linked to a company connected to US presidential hopeful Joe Biden.
(AP/AAP)
Joe Biden was vice-president at the time. The investigation was cancelled in 2016.
"We will look through all the proceedings which were either stopped or split off," said prosecutor Ruslan Ryaboshapka in Kiev today.
Some 15 cases would be examined to see wh7ether any had not proceeded according to the law, he said.

https://www.9news.com.au/world/ukraine- ... c647905e93


The investigation, such as it was, had stalled at the time he was removed. Also, his removal was requested by US State officials in Kiev who viewed him as obstructing efforts to remove corruption.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 8:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5576
Location: A gaf in Bracknell
kiwinoz wrote:
Biden admits directly threatening on holding back aid to get a prosecutor removed within 6 hours that was investigating corruption etc involving his sons company and possibly Biden. No problem Creepy Joe as VP you can do this?

Trump asks for this to looked at and thats corruption? :lol:

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 8:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8536
houtkabouter wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Biden admits directly threatening on holding back aid to get a prosecutor removed within 6 hours that was investigating corruption etc involving his sons company and possibly Biden. No problem Creepy Joe as VP you can do this?

Trump asks for this to looked at and thats corruption? :lol:

:lol:


he could not get it more wrong if he tried.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112844 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2555, 2556, 2557, 2558, 2559, 2560, 2561 ... 2822  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A5D5E5, BillW, Bing [Bot], charltom, DOB, EverReady, Gavin Duffy, Google Adsense [Bot], Gordon Bennett, iarmhiman, Leinster in London, Mr Mike, ovalball, Vleis and 83 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group