Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Devin Nunes Met with Ex-Ukrainian Official to get dirt on Biden

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • It was also not unprecedented :
    William Wilson, Harry Hopkins,Oliver North, Henry Kissinger bypassed state : Rogers knew nothing of the secret negotiations of Kissinger to have diplomatic relations with Communist China .There were a lot of things Powell did not know Condoleezza Rice was doing .
    There is no benefit of having two channels if both know what the other is doing .

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ljadw View Post

      The reasons to have it secret from State and the Pentagon are obvious : Trump can't trust State and Pentagon .
      Yes, he could not trust that they could push the investigation of his rival by using as basis rumors that came out from corrupt (and some of them indicted now) Ukrainians. This is the only reasonable explanation.
      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ljadw View Post

        What the diplomats confirmed was, translated, that they were angry because Trump used a second channel which did not inform them .
        Trump could not trust the ambassador in Ukraine who did not accept the new president and preferred his predecessor,because his predecessor worked for Obama. while the new one was neutral .
        Poroshenko sabotaged Trump,and the ambassador knew it .
        Politico (January 2017 ) : Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire .
        Who was pou (president of Ukraine ) in 201 6 ? Poroschenko .Who was ambassador in Ukraine in 2016?Yovanovich . Who made Poroschenko pou ?Obama using CIA,USAID,Soros, State .Who knew everything Poroschenko was doing ? US embassy .Who organised Euromaidan ?
        Thus, Trump would be very foolish to use/inform State, Pentagon, the embassy .
        And I notice that you are all over the place because you started with Biden pressuring Poroshenko not to investigate the founder of Burisma and when you were confronting with the fact that the foundr of Burisma fled Uktaine while Biden was a board member of the company, you changed the tune to Obama and the US ambassador pressuring Poroshenko based on conspiracy theories that you promote out of your ass.
        Pathetic!


        As for the diplomats, the testimonies showed that there was no reason for Trump not to trust Yovanovitch, and that she was a victim of a smear campaign of corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs. Not to mention that here we have not just Yovanovitch, but everybody (including the Pentagon) being unaware of the changes in policies which contradict the stance of the US up until that time. So, at some point WITH YOVANOVITCH AND POROSHENKO in Ukraine, the country gets military aid when Trump is president and then suddenly and without explanation the aid is frozen.

        Last edited by pamak; 29 Nov 19, 15:23.
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
          It was also not unprecedented :
          William Wilson, Harry Hopkins,Oliver North, Henry Kissinger bypassed state : Rogers knew nothing of the secret negotiations of Kissinger to have diplomatic relations with Communist China .There were a lot of things Powell did not know Condoleezza Rice was doing .
          There is no benefit of having two channels if both know what the other is doing .


          You make no sense: There is a benefit from secrecy only when a president is involved in something shitty. William Wilson was an ambassador, so he was a member of the official channel. Hopkins had meetings with UK and USSR at a time when the US needed to preserve an image of neutrality. Moreover Hopkins went to the UK at a time when there was not a US ambassador there

          As for Oliver North, for sure there is suspicion there, and even the official version of his conduct does not claim that he did everything on behalf of the president which is the reason why he was also fired. You, on the other hand, do not claim such thing about Giuliani. Kissinger was a Secretary of State and member of the foreign policy team. As for Powell, you just make up things again. .Powell was also a Secretary of State, so he was a member of the government just like Rice.

          The only reasonable explanation for the anticipated benefit of this secrecy with Ukraine is that Trump was using the power of the office to do something that would not be tolerated by decent professionals, such as to dig dirt against his political opponent. It was not that Trump was at war with his Secretary of Defense ot his Secretary of State. Both support Trump and would not have a problem to push his policies through their departments regardless of the personal opinions at the lower ranks. Nor there was a case o establishing contact with controversial regimes or dictators whose profile and legitimacy should not be boosted as they publicly engage with high officials of the US government.
          Last edited by pamak; 29 Nov 19, 15:18.
          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • Decent professionals ??The State professionals are not decent .They are biased .
            Kissinger and Rice worked secretly to prevent state knowing what they were doing . And why could State not know what they were doing ?Because State would try to sabotage what the rivals were doing ,by leaking it .
            Professionals have NOT the right to not tolerate what the potus is doing,what the potus orders to do : if they disagree,they must resign, but they can not remain where they are and secretly oppose what their boss is doing : that would be treason .
            And,yes: the president has the right to dig dirt against his political opponents, especially if his political opponent is guilty . That's the essence of politics .Politics is using dirt . Give me ONE potus who did not dig dirt against political opponents,especially those in his own party.
            FDR did it, Blaine did it, Cleveland did it ,the media do it ..,Johnson did it . Stevenson did it . People love it .
            There was dirt against Eagleton,etc ..
            FDR was looking for dirt against Willkie,Spitzer for dirt against Bruno,and opposite .
            Atwater modernized the dirt searching ....
            Last edited by ljadw; 30 Nov 19, 03:40.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by pamak View Post

              And I notice that you are all over the place because you started with Biden pressuring Poroshenko not to investigate the founder of Burisma and when you were confronting with the fact that the foundr of Burisma fled Uktaine while Biden was a board member of the company, you changed the tune to Obama and the US ambassador pressuring Poroshenko based on conspiracy theories that you promote out of your ass.
              Pathetic!


              As for the diplomats, the testimonies showed that there was no reason for Trump not to trust Yovanovitch, and that she was a victim of a smear campaign of corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs. Not to mention that here we have not just Yovanovitch, but everybody (including the Pentagon) being unaware of the changes in policies which contradict the stance of the US up until that time. So, at some point WITH YOVANOVITCH AND POROSHENKO in Ukraine, the country gets military aid when Trump is president and then suddenly and without explanation the aid is frozen.
              The Ukrainian president said publicly that ovanovitch did not accept him as president and preferred Poroschenko . Thus Yovanovich a decent professional ?
              What would be the reaction of the US leftists if Corbyn won the British elections and after some months publicly said that the US ambassador opposed him and preferred Boris ?
              State and Pentagon do not need to know that the US policy is changing : they need to know what the potus is thinking they need to know . And that is as little as possible : Nixon did not inform State that he would change his China policy . For obvious reasons .
              Foreign policy is determined by the WH, not by State .

              Comment


              • The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ljadw View Post

                  The Ukrainian president said publicly that ovanovitch did not accept him as president and preferred Poroschenko . Thus Yovanovich a decent professional ?
                  What would be the reaction of the US leftists if Corbyn won the British elections and after some months publicly said that the US ambassador opposed him and preferred Boris ?
                  State and Pentagon do not need to know that the US policy is changing : they need to know what the potus is thinking they need to know . And that is as little as possible : Nixon did not inform State that he would change his China policy . For obvious reasons .
                  Foreign policy is determined by the WH, not by State .
                  The Ukrainian president was talking to Trump and would not challenge him when Trump made clear in the transcript that he did not like Yovanovitch. There is no evidence that Yovanovitch supported or peered Poroshenko, and this has been clear after all the testimonies we heard, including from people who were appointed in Ukraine by Trump.

                  And it does not makes sense that State and Pentagon ddi not need to know unless Trump and Giuliani were interested in hiding something. And you make no sense when you talk about Nixon's policy even though I reminded you that Kissinger was actually the Secretary of the State Department. Not to mention that here we have a case of not informing the executive branch AFTER the change of the policy regarding the military aid in Ukraine, and not before.

                  And you contradict yourself when you accuse Bidens of suspicious activity when they does things within their rights and authority but somehow you try to defend Trump's and Giuliani's conduct by using as an excuse the claim that they were acting within the boundaries of their rights and presidential authority.
                  My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                  Comment


                  • Kissinger was NOT secretary of state when Nixon went to Peking . And it is a FACT that State did know nothing of Kissinger's preparations of Nixon's visit to Peking .Kissinger's secret visits to China prove that here also state was not informed before the change of US China policy
                    It is also a FACT that the Pou complained about the US ambassador ,saying : she admires Poroshenko and she does not accept me as a president well enough .
                    This alone was a reason to fire Yovanovich from the diplomatic service . She has not the right to pursue a private,personnel policy in Ukraine . She was there to execute the orders of the Secretary of State,who received them from the potus .
                    After the German capitulation the possessions of the nazi supporters were partially/totally confiscated .
                    After Euromaidan the possessions of Zlochevsky ,also a loser, some one who supported a loser, would normally also be confiscated and given to the henchmen of Poroshenko, but this did not happen, because Zlochevsky hired father and son Biden,to protect him .And Poroshenko had to be satisfied with some crumbs .
                    The fact that Zlochevsky paid millions to Hunter and did not pay bribe money to the family of Poroshenko,is telling : he knew that Poroshenko was going after him ,but he paid the Bidens,because he knew where the real power was in Ukraine : it was in Washington and Poroshenko would obey Biden . Not the opposite .Poroshenko was that corrupt that the Ukrainians, who are realistic people and know that corruption is the lubricating oil that makes everything operating,had finally enough of him ,and elected a totally unknown actor without political experience .
                    If the Bidens had given Poroshenko a free hand, Poroshenko would have taken Burisma .

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                      Kissinger was NOT secretary of state when Nixon went to Peking . And it is a FACT that State did know nothing of Kissinger's preparations of Nixon's visit to Peking .Kissinger's secret visits to China prove that here also state was not informed before the change of US China policy
                      It is also a FACT that the Pou complained about the US ambassador ,saying : she admires Poroshenko and she does not accept me as a president well enough .
                      This alone was a reason to fire Yovanovich from the diplomatic service . She has not the right to pursue a private,personnel policy in Ukraine . She was there to execute the orders of the Secretary of State,who received them from the potus .
                      After the German capitulation the possessions of the nazi supporters were partially/totally confiscated .
                      After Euromaidan the possessions of Zlochevsky ,also a loser, some one who supported a loser, would normally also be confiscated and given to the henchmen of Poroshenko, but this did not happen, because Zlochevsky hired father and son Biden,to protect him .And Poroshenko had to be satisfied with some crumbs .
                      The fact that Zlochevsky paid millions to Hunter and did not pay bribe money to the family of Poroshenko,is telling : he knew that Poroshenko was going after him ,but he paid the Bidens,because he knew where the real power was in Ukraine : it was in Washington and Poroshenko would obey Biden . Not the opposite .Poroshenko was that corrupt that the Ukrainians, who are realistic people and know that corruption is the lubricating oil that makes everything operating,had finally enough of him ,and elected a totally unknown actor without political experience .
                      If the Bidens had given Poroshenko a free hand, Poroshenko would have taken Burisma .
                      Kissinger WAS a National Security Advisor when he was preparing the Chinese trip, so he was a member of the government and the point stands


                      https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/finding...-council-files

                      NSC Officials

                      During the Nixon Administration, the officials of the NSC were:
                      • Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
                        Henry A. Kissinger (1969 - 1974)


                      It is also a FACT that the Ukrainian president was having a conversation to Trump when the latter expressed his feelings about Yovanovitch, so ignoring the need that the Ukrainian leader had to pander Trump at a time when he wanted a White House meeting and more military aid is just stupid.

                      And no there was no reason given for firing Yovanovitch, nor do people who worked with her corroborate that Yovanovitch supported Poroshenko. Every person who has a little bit of brain can understand why there is not such corroboration despite of the "complaints" you mentioned. As I said the Ukrainian president was simply pandering Trump ad it was TRUMP who brought her name during their conversation telling that certain things will happen to her.

                      You again spread BS propaganda wit ZERO EVIDENCE. And again, you show your inability to explain why Zlochevsky had to flee Ukraine even though Biden was protecting him as you claimed. You cannot even construct a conspiracy theory. And no, you have no evidence that Zlochevsky was paying Biden. The latter was paid by Burisma and the contract was valid even after Zlochevsky fled Ukraine and his assets were frozen. And no, confiscation of one's wealth comes only after a conviction on court which did not happen.





                      Last edited by pamak; 30 Nov 19, 12:25.
                      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by pamak View Post

                        Kissinger WAS a National Security Advisor when he was preparing the Chinese trip, so he was a member of the government and the point stands


                        https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/finding...-council-files

                        NSC Officials

                        During the Nixon Administration, the officials of the NSC were:
                        • Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
                          Henry A. Kissinger (1969 - 1974)


                        It is also a FACT that the Ukrainian president was having a conversation to Trump when the latter expressed his feelings about Yovanovitch, so ignoring the need that the Ukrainian leader had to pander Trump at a time when he wanted a White House meeting and more military aid is just stupid.

                        And no there was no reason given for firing Yovanovitch, nor do people who worked with her corroborate that Yovanovitch supported Poroshenko. Every person who has a little bit of brain can understand why there is not such corroboration despite of the "complaints" you mentioned. As I said the Ukrainian president was simply pandering Trump ad it was TRUMP who brought her name during their conversation telling that certain things will happen to her.

                        And no, you have no evidence that Zlochevsky was paying Biden. T And no, confiscation of one's wealth comes only after a conviction on court which did not happen.




                        You have NO PROOF that the Ukrainian president was pandering Trump : the FACT is that the Ukrainian president complained about the US ambassador in a conversation with the US president . Something that never had happened before .Besides, there was no need for the Ukrainian president to pander Trump .
                        In Ukraine there is NO need for a conviction on court to confiscate one's wealth .Zlochevsky confiscated wealth that belonged to the people of Ukraine, without the intervention of a court .
                        Zlochevsky IS Burisma and no one else had the authority to hire an American to do nothing and to pay him $ 2.4 million .Poroshenko did the same : both were thiefs who stole wealth fron the Ukrainian people .Poroshenko wanted the billions of Zlochevsky . Zlochevsky kept his billions thanks to the intervention from the US vicepresident . And as there is nothing for free in this world, the son of the vicepresident received $ 2.4 million . I nor you would have received $ 2.4 million from Zlochevsky .
                        About Kissinger : you try to obfuscate the point ,which is that Nixon used a secret channel for his contacts with China, as Kennedy and FDR used a secret channel for their contacts with the Kremlin.Always keeping State in the dark .
                        The truth is that the potuus can not trust State . Neither the Pentagon .
                        The policy of State is to decide the US foreign policy and to take it away from the WH.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                          You have NO PROOF that the Ukrainian president was pandering Trump : the FACT is that the Ukrainian president complained about the US ambassador in a conversation with the US president . Something that never had happened before .Besides, there was no need for the Ukrainian president to pander Trump .
                          In Ukraine there is NO need for a conviction on court to confiscate one's wealth .Zlochevsky confiscated wealth that belonged to the people of Ukraine, without the intervention of a court .
                          Zlochevsky IS Burisma and no one else had the authority to hire an American to do nothing and to pay him $ 2.4 million .Poroshenko did the same : both were thiefs who stole wealth fron the Ukrainian people .Poroshenko wanted the billions of Zlochevsky . Zlochevsky kept his billions thanks to the intervention from the US vicepresident . And as there is nothing for free in this world, the son of the vicepresident received $ 2.4 million . I nor you would have received $ 2.4 million from Zlochevsky .
                          About Kissinger : you try to obfuscate the point ,which is that Nixon used a secret channel for his contacts with China, as Kennedy and FDR used a secret channel for their contacts with the Kremlin.Always keeping State in the dark .
                          The truth is that the potuus can not trust State . Neither the Pentagon .
                          The policy of State is to decide the US foreign policy and to take it away from the WH.
                          I do not need proof. I provide arguments and need arguments in response to mine instead of stupid and unsupported conspiracy claims.. And do not dare to talk about proof when you spread conspiracy theories about Biden. Based on all accounts from the testimonies, the Ukrainians needed to pander Trump. You do not know what Zlochevsky did or did not do when courts in Ukraine or abroad have not ruled against him. If you want to talk about your impressions, then be consistent because Trump appears also to be corrupt and we even have court decisions describing his "non-profit" abuse which redirected the wealth of people to Trump's business affairs.

                          You do not know the level of authority Zlochevsky had, and more importantly you confuse the authority to hire with who is paying the person who is hired. It is not the founder of a corporation who pays from his pocket the people who are hired.


                          About Kissinger, it is you who tries to obfuscate the point when yo try to present him as a person who was not part of Nixon's government. And i already explained the situation with FDR. The latter had reasons to use an unofficial channel when the US was a neutral country at a time when the USSR was at war with Germany and at a time when many Americans did not welcome a new involvement in a new European war . Still, you ASSUME again that his cabinet members were kept in the dark. The Lend Lease was not kept secret even though there were many people who objected to the idea of having the US becoming involved in a second war

                          http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/day...t/july-1941-8/

                          Presidential envoy and adviser Harry Hopkins met with USSR Premier Joseph Stalin in Moscow to discuss Lend-Lease aid on July 30, 1941.

                          And again, doing something because you can, does not negate the fact that this behavior raises suspicions when there is no good explanation for that behavior. And with Trump negotiating with a friendly country about uncontroversial (according to his claim) things like fighting corruption and making decisions about the military aid (which by the way even Obama was reluctant to provide during his presidency) does not cut it. On the other hand, when one sees the transcript then he can realize the nature of the controversial deal Trump was seeking which involved the use of the office powers in exchange of having foreign leaders deliver to him dirt against Trump's political opponent.
                          Last edited by pamak; 30 Nov 19, 15:47.
                          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                          Comment


                          • Hopkins was already operating as FDR's secret envoy BEFORE LL .State did not know what Hopkins and Kissinger were doing . That is a fact .If State knew it, the next day it would be published in the NYT .The only who knew were FDR/Nixon/Hopkins and Kissinger . Hull and Rogers were in the dark .
                            And, as there is no law forbidding the potus to use private citizens as secret envoys, Trump had allright to use Giuliani as secret envoy . He did only what other presidents had done .
                            Trump was asking the Ukrainian president to investigate the claims ( which are true ) that the US vicepresident had protected an Ukrainian criminal (Zlochevsky ) against the attemps by an other Ukrainian criminal ( Poroshenko ) to take from him his billions for the price of 2.4 million dollars to be paid to the son of the vicepresident.
                            While one can argue that the protection given by Biden sr was legal,as criminal Poroshenko was an ally of Obama and criminal Zlochevsky an ally of Putin, the second part ( the $ 2.4 million ) is obvious illegal .as a federal official can not accept/receive remuneration for the work he is doing,except his monthly salary he receives from the American taxpayer .And this for obvious reasons .The Bidens received money from Zlochevsky and this was illegal .
                            Trump, potus, has every right to ask the Ukrainian president to investigate this , That,later, this would hurt the political activities of Biden, is irrelevant .
                            Last edited by ljadw; 01 Dec 19, 08:29.

                            Comment


                            • Meanwhile two of Schiff's staffers have been found to be tied to the Atlantic Council, which is funded by ...Burisma .

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                                Meanwhile two of Schiff's staffers have been found to be tied to the Atlantic Council, which is funded by ...Burisma .
                                Source?
                                We are not now that strength which in old days
                                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X