Banana Republic vs Whistleblower In White House

Author: ebuc

Posts

Total: 40
Topic's author
#1
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Here we go again.  Banana Republic dictator  white house instructing Dept of National Intelligence { Maquire } to not release info given to them by whistle blower via inspector general and the Dept of Justice { attorney Barr } is backing the DNI in not releasing whistel blower info.

Now their all hunting the whiestle blower, even tho the whistel blower is supposed to be protected by the law.

News Alert for the brain dead and immoral in USA.

Banana Republic Dictators do not care about governemental laws.   Banana Republic dictators abhor govenrment laws and believe all such laws are exist to be broken by the dictator.





Topic's author
#2
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Quid pro quo or is quid pro crow?

Me thinks Trump is crowing again because he believes, as King{ dictator } he has the biggest _*_*_*_ oops. I mean ego of all the roosters in USA.






#3
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ebuc
Guilty until proven innocent. That's the banana republic legacy of the Saul Alinsky crazed left.
Topic's author
#4
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Guilty until proven innocent. That's the banana republic legacy of the Saul Alinsky crazed left.
There is a pattern of guilt with Trump adminstration that your ego and spirit is in denial of  This is typical of any cult member.

In the International Spy Museum in Washington, D.C., the Moscow Rules are given as:[2]
  1. Assume nothing.
  2. Never go against your gut.
  3. Everyone is potentially under opposition control.
  4. Do not look back; you are never completely alone.
  5. Go with the flow, blend in.
  6. Vary your pattern and stay within your cover.
  7. Lull them into a sense of complacency.
  8. Do not harass the opposition.
  9. Pick the time and place for action.
  10. Keep your options open.


#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ebuc
  1. "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."
  2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people."
  3. "Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy."
  4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
  5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
  6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
  7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
  8. "Keep the pressure on."
  9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
  10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."
  11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside."
  12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
  13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ebuc
Quid pro quo or is quid pro crow?
The only obvious quid pro quo was Biden using 1 billion dollars in tax funds to bail out his son.

Biden even bragged about it knowing you retards would allow him to get away with it.

Topic's author
#7
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
The only obvious quid pro quo was Biden using 1 billion dollars in tax funds to bail out his son.
A cult memmber of the Banna Republic Dictator repeating a false narative to diverge from truth facing here and now and so much agreegious and crimminal to democracy.

You have no grasp of moral integrity, empathy etc becuase you are careless and highest if not only priority is $$$ of the buckroo mentality,

God = Capaitlism = $$$ = Trump = maignant, narrcistic, racist white nationlistic supremacy and Putins bitch. Sad :--(

Moscow rules and the moscow rules are being excuted in USA by Trumpist cult members.  Will democrats fight fire with fire?

#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ebuc

Watch and weep. Your gods are fake.
Topic's author
#9
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Impeachment > prison > Jeffery Epsteiin
#10
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
It wasn't Biden, or even the US that began to push for the removal of Shokin. The UK and pretty much all of the G7 wanted him gone because he was incredibly corrupt. Shokin's 2nd in command quit because Shokin kept promising to clean up corruption and then would do nothing. 

Biden was the one that was finally able to push the government to get rid of Shokin, but pretending like he was somehow alone in wanting him gone is incredibly disingenuous. 

Additionally, Hunter joined the board of that company well into it's legal troubles and was likely never closely involved in it's affairs. The odds that Hunter would have been caught in any corruption investigation is extremely low. Therefore, Biden had no personal reason to want Shokin gone. 

Hunter getting a seat on that board was an attempt by that company to get some influence in america. Is that a bit shady, absolutely. Is it illegal, no. Did Biden pushing out his Shokin protect hunter? probably not as the reason he was being pushed out was because he wouldn't investigate corruption. 

The bottom line is that Hunter's part in this was the normal attempt of a company to buy influence in america (which i think should be illegal, but at the moment is incredibly common). Biden's part in this was to make the final push to get rid of a corrupt government official who most of the G7 wanted gone. 

The crap Trump is trying to sell is a conspiracy theory. 
#11
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
That is the weakest defense of the poor choices of Hunter Biden I have heard to date.

How can you take 50,000 dollars a month without a second thought?
#12
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't understand your point. Hunter certainly benefited from his father being in an important position. i don't disagree with that. I don't disagree that this is a shitty practice. But pretending that this is a scandal is weak. Virtually every politician and family member of politicians try to do this. I am not defending them. They all suck. 

But there is absolutely no evidence that Biden pushed for that prosecutor to be removed to help his son. In fact, since the prosecutor was corrupt and not investigating, pushing him out actually increased the odds of Hunter being investigated. 

I would be fully in favor of stronger laws being put in place to restrict politicians and their families from profiting from public service. But Donald trump, a man who diverted military aircraft to stay at his resorts, a man who put his son in law and daughter into important positions despite them having no experience, to criticize others for trying to profit from their office is the absolute worst sort of hypocrisy. 
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Do you have any credible non biased sources claiming Shokin was not investigating Hunter?
#14
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Nevermind. From what I gathered Shokin was pretty shady himself. While not dropping the investigation into Burisma, Shokin was certainly granting questionable favors and immunity for some people involved. Was hunter one of those protected from investigation or not? I don't think we can say conclusively from the info out there right now. 

Because of that, it's probably going to be really hard to draw a conclusive quid-pro-quo where Biden traded aid to protect his son, even though the entire deal looks really bad.
#15
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Hunter in particular was ever under investigation. The company he sat on the board of was officially being investigated. 

I don't know what you consider to be an "non biased" source. I have a feeling we would disagree on who those are. 

Here is a link to a bloomberg article about it. I found several others that also discuss this if Bloomberg is "biased" in your opinion. 


Burisma Holdings was founded in 2002 by a corrupt oligarch with ties to the corrupt government of Ukraine. Hunter Biden was named a paid board member of Burisma Holdings in April 2014, 2 months after the UK had starting investigating Zlochevsky (the founder). 

Ukraine didn't really do anything to assist the British in their investigation of Zlochevsky. 

Shokin became prosecutor general in February 2015. Shokin took no action to pursue cases against Zlochevsky throughout 2015 according to his deputy at the time, Kasko. 

The U.S. stepped up its criticism in September 2015, when its ambassador to Ukraine, during a speech, accused officials working under Shokin of “subverting” the U.K. investigation.

Kasko resigned in February 2016, citing corruption and lawlessness in the prosecutor general’s office.

Officials in the US embassy in Kiev began pushing for Shokin to be removed and eventually Biden went to force the Ukrainian government to take more action and get rid of Shokin. 

I have yet to see any evidence that Hunter was actually closely involved in the actions of Burisma Holdings. He was put on the pay roll around the same time as several other high profile or connected people, likely in an attempt to curry some favor. Some others were a former president of Poland and the Director of the American CIA’s Counterterrorist Center in the George W. Bush administration.

It doesn't look to me like Hunter ever actually did much for the company and therefore would have risk of being caught up in a corruption investigation. Therefore Biden would have no motivation to go after a prosecutor to protect his son. 

This whole "scandal" is just an attempt to smear Biden. That being said, I still consider Hunter profiting off of his father being VP to be scummy. Although less so than Trump's directly profiting off of being president. 
#16
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I don't know what you consider to be an "non biased" source. I have a feeling we would disagree on who those are. 
It's fine, I was able to find the info.
#17
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Now that we have gotten the Biden portion out of the way. What is your opinion on Trump withholding 100's of millions of dollars that had already been approved by congress in order to extort a foreign government to smear his political rival?

Trump held back money, which he had no right to do (congress controls the power of the purse) to try to force Ukraine to dig up dirt to help him in an election. That is textbook abuse of power and an impeachable offense. One of the articles of impeachment against Nixon was for abuse of power. 
#18
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
“My complaint has always been, and I’d withhold again, and I’ll continue to withhold until such time as Europe and other nations contribute to Ukraine, because they’re not doing it,” Trump told reporters, ahead of his speech to the United Nations General Assembly.

This isn't a new position from Trump saying USA shouldn't be the ONLY or the MAIN nation providing aid in support of NATO.

Trump has been pressuring NATO members to pay the bill since 2016.
#19
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Ukraine isn't a member of NATO. I haven't seen any evidence that he was pressuring NATO members during the 2 months he held back the money.

Also, why would holding back money from Ukraine put any pressure on NATO members at all? They had nothing to do with the US decision to send aid. They are completely unrelated to this. The only people that would feel pressured are the Ukrainians. 

Trump admits that that he held back the money from Ukraine and then made repeated requests to the Ukrainians to try to dig up dirt on a political rival. Ukraine eventually agreed. Congress found out that trump was holding back the money. Then the money was released. 

There is no reason to think this was for any other reason than to extort Ukraine.
#20
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Ukraine isn't a member of NATO. 
This is why I deliberately used the words "in support of NATO", as it's clearly in NATO's interest to keep Ukraine as a buffer against Russian aggression.


NATO should clearly be contributing far more than they currently are considering Russia is far more of an immediate threat to them than the USA.

There's absolutely nothing illegal NOR improper to coerce NATO to get other countries to contribute more.
#21
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
There is no reason to think this was for any other reason than to extort Ukraine.
The fact is this is not a slam-dunk for either side. The only real loser in all of this is Hunter Biden, and by extension, Joe due solely of having this driven in the media.

This is going to really hamper Joe's attempts to control the media narrative during a critical time of primary posturing, all but ensuring a Warren primary victory.
#22
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
There's absolutely nothing illegal NOR improper to coerce NATO to get other countries to contribute more.
Agreed. But there is no reason to believe that this is what trump was doing. His actions had no effect on NATO members. I haven't seen any evidence he communicated with NATO members about this during that 2 months. He certainly didn't do so publicly as no one knew Trump was doing this at the time. Even the US congress didn't know trump was doing this. It's hard to put pressure on NATO when you haven't told NATO what you are doing. 


The fact is this is not a slam-dunk for either side. The only real loser in all of this is Hunter Biden, and by extension, Joe due solely of having this driven in the media.
Not yet. Trump and his lackeys haven't had to answer any questions under oath yet. They have just been lying on cable news about it. Trump has had months now to try to frame joe biden and appears to have come up with little more than an insinuation of wrong doing. Dems have only known this happened for a matter of days and they haven't been given most of the information yet. 

Hunter is getting dragged for this a bit. But he isn't an elected official. I don't think it will have any long term affect on his life. Except maybe if Trump's attempt to frame him is the reason trump gets impeached. Then it could be a long term benefit to his life. 
#23
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Trump has had months now to try to frame Joe Biden and appears to have come up with little more than an insinuation of wrong doing.

Sadly, in the era of guilty before proven innocent, simply having your name in the news is enough. Biden is toast.
#24
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Biden is a terrible candidate. He is more right wing that Hilary Clinton was. He doesn't seem to remember what state he is in or what he is supposed to be talking about half of the time.

If this takes him down, it wont be fair. But we will all be better off with him out of the race. 

But we will also all be better off after trump is impeached. 

#25
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
But we will also all be better off after Trump is impeached. 

Well, you better start electing out the status quo in the Democrat party starting with Pelosi and Nadler as they have not yet and have signaled that they won't ever start impeachment proceedings. Most of the progressive wing are furious at them for not taking action.

#26
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Have you not glanced at the news today? The formal impeachment inquiry was announced yesterday. 
#27
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Reread what I posted. There is a huge difference between inquiries and proceedings. Go pull up some clips of disgruntled leftists who are pissed at Pelosi for not starting proceedings.

I guarantee you that if any member of the squad were speaker of the house, there would have been an impeachment vote yesterday.
#28
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I think you are incorrect. The investigation is the 1st step of the impeachment proceedings. Impeachment proceedings don't go directly to a vote. 


At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.

First, the Congress investigates. This investigation typically begins in the House Judiciary Committee, but may begin elsewhere. For example, the Nixon impeachment inquiry began in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The facts that led to impeachment of Bill Clinton were first discovered in the course of an investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached".

Third, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer, the President of the Senate who is also the Vice President of the United States. Conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds vote. The result of conviction is removal from office.

#29
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Pelosi is never going to reach the shores of the land of an impeachment vote.

Pelosi's Congress has been doing investigations into impeachment without formally declaring it as such for 3 years due to the bad optics. The rabid left have forced her to directly admit what her party has been obviously doing for the last 3 years but make no mistake. There is zero chance Pelosi will bring the vote to the floor. She has said numerous times that it will never happen while she is in power. If you are at all serious about impeachment, you need to look for ways to get around Pelosi. 
#30
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't think that makes any sense. I agree that Pelosi was doing her best to prevent this for the last few years. She thought initiating impeachment proceedings would energize Trumps base. But she no longer really had a choice. That ship has sailed. Even the moderates, who she thought she was protecting, started pushing her to impeach. At this point I don't think she has any chance of going back. 

The Mueller report showed at least 8 times trump committed a crime. Trump has now publicly said he asked the leader of Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden. That is also a crime. 

Now that the investigation phase of the impeachment has begun, it will certainly find that he has committed crimes. Since his guilt has been established there is no chance they could find otherwise. I don't see how Pelosi could possibly prevent a vote at that point. And then Trump will be impeached by the house. 

Whether or not the senate convicts and removes him from office is uncertain. It will depend on the details about Trump's interactions with Ukraine. If there is a smoking gun to be found that makes his criminality undeniable, then it is possible. However, they are such sniveling sycophants that even a smoking gun might not be enough.