White House also involved in advising DNI not to share whistleblower complaint

a reply to: Grambler

Because that prosecutor was being pressured to leave by more than one other country because of corruption.
In fact the issue was that he (the prosecutor) was not pursuing corruption as aggressively has he should have been.
And the international community wanted him out because of THAT.

You guys have it all backwards or trumpwards I guess.

The world according to trump... not the world we all live in.

a reply to: matafuchs

Yeah, no.
That is not it at all.

His calls are all monitored and recorded or a stenographer takes everything down. Every call he makes.
It was not something that was inadvertently over heard and mistaken for something else and it was not from somewhere outside the trump administration.

The complaint was sent to the intelligence community's inspector general because it was so severe.
And the trump appointed IG says its a credible complaint and a big deal and when he goes to submit that to congress he is stopped and told to hide it instead. Cover it up.

Is this really what winning looks like guys?
Really?

a reply to: Extorris

He doesn't have any links to anything like that. He believes a rumor because it aligns with his beliefs.
Because they weren't investigating Hunter Biden.

Look trump has put out the word for his lackeys. Tune in to any conservative news station and you will hear them.
The lies about what this entails will continue until the transcripts or recordings are released.
And he cannot keep that from us. The supreme court will make him like they made Nixon.
Nixon tried to hide the tapes and congress told him no flippin way. Then he quit in disgrace.

a reply to: Sillyolme

that is a nice rant silly, wrong, again, but a nice rant.


seems so funny about your rants, they lack substance.


and when you are called out on it, you run hun.

why can't you defend your position with facts silly?

a reply to: Scepticaldem

So Hunter Biden having his daddy get him a job in Ukraine that he had no qualifications for seems ok to you?

Really? Thats what you think this is about.

Oh wow. Ok this is why I dont bother coming here too much any more.

Get a clue.

Not about that at all. Totally wrong.

Hey call me when you catch up.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

What Joe Biden did with the Ukraine is obstruction of justice

Wrong....
You guys dont have a clue what this is about and keep digging yourselves deeper into this hole.
I mean really a situation where you all have been more wrong is probably rare indeed.

Listen to trump though because he knows. ha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

a reply to: Extorris

Clear as mud. LOL

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Extorris

Clear as mud. LOL

Just like your morning rants. Clear as mud.

You guys got Trump this time!

Joe Biden comes off looking super shady in this whole situation and you guys are still going to try to elect him.....

Lolz🤪

originally posted by: Scepticaldem

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Extorris

Clear as mud. LOL

Just like your morning rants. Clear as mud.

You guys got Trump this time!

Joe Biden comes off looking super shady in this whole situation and you guys are still going to try to elect him.....

Lolz🤪

A President withholding military aide appropriated by congress, threatening the safety and security of another nation, to extort a foreign country for Kompramat to help with his Presidential election is a clear Abuse of Power by a sitting President.

DOJ can look into whether it was a good idea for the Joe Biden's son to accept a board position with an energy firm owned by an oligarch if it makes Trump supporters feel better, but politics aside Articles of Impeachment should be introduced in Congress immediately. Unlike the Russia collusion investigation with no smoking gun, this is clear as day an outrageous Abuse of Power and is textbook what the Founding Fathers envisioned Impeachment being employed for.

a reply to: Extorris

It's not about Biden's sons' position, it's about Biden threatening to remove aid to Ukraine unless the investigation into his son was halted. Huge difference.

Kompramat?? Lol. You do like the buzzwords.

A President asking for information from an ally that could uncover corruption in DC is perfectly legitimate.
If your President goes as far as setting traps with FBI plants into Biden's campaign, spying on him and illegally investigating him via a Special Counsel, then you might be on to something. Though I have to point out, not even that bothered you when the last President did it.

Meanwhile, if Biden has nothing to hide he has nothing to fear, right?

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Extorris

It's not about Biden's sons' position, it's about Biden threatening to remove aid to Ukraine unless the investigation into his son was halted.

That would be deflection if it was true. As it stands your deflection lacks any evidence that the firing was related to his son holding a board position on one of the companies owned by an Oligarch that was at one time being investigated.

There is however a world of factual, historical and documentary evidence that IMF, EU, several world leaders, the US administration and the general public inside Ukraine who were protesting on the streets ALL wanted Shokin removed.

I suppose you can show me where the IMF, EU, USA and it's people were demanding that Ukraine help Donald Trump win an election before he released the Military Financial Aid appropriated by the US Congress?

a reply to: Sillyolme

A damning timeline:

WASHINGTON—For weeks, lawmakers of both parties struggled to get answers over why the Trump administration delayed money Congress had appropriated to help Ukraine defend itself from the threat of Russian aggression.

www.wsj.com...

April 25: Mr. Biden launched his presidential campaign.

April 28: Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani tweeted about investigations in Ukraine, charging that the “media blackout of the investigations in Ukraine of alleged Democrat corruption” proves there is a “double standard.”

May 9: The New York Times reported that Rudy Giuliani planned to travel to Kiev to pressure the Ukrainian government to press ahead with investigations into Joe Biden and into possible interference in the 2016 U.S. election. Mr. Giuliani subsequently canceled the trip, which he says Mr. Trump knew about.

May 16: Ukraine’s prosecutor general told Bloomberg that he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden or his son.

June: Mr. Giuliani met in Paris with an official from the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office to discuss a possible Biden investigation.

July 21: Ukrainians voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Zelensky’s party in parliamentary elections, cementing the political newcomer’s power.

July 25: Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky spoke by phone. The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Mr. Trump urged Mr. Zelensky about eight times to talk to Mr. Giuliani about an investigation into Mr. Biden’s son, according to people familiar with the matter.

August: Mr. Giuliani met with Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Mr. Zelensky, in Madrid. The two also spoke by phone later in the month. Mr. Giuliani described Mr. Yermak as “very receptive” and said the aide told him Mr. Zelensky would “get to the bottom of all this.”

Late August: The Trump administration began reviewing $250 million in foreign aid to Ukraine, meant to help the country ward off Russia.

Aug. 29: Mr. Trump canceled his planned trip to Poland to deal with Hurricane Dorian. He had been scheduled to meet with Mr. Zelensky there. Mr. Yermak later called Mr. Giuliani to ask whether the president’s decision to cancel his trip was related to Mr. Zelensky; Mr. Giuliani says in an interview he assured him it wasn’t.

Sept. 12: The Trump administration released foreign aid to Ukraine.

www.wsj.com...

a reply to: Extorris
I guess late august(non specific so it could have been the 31st?) to sept 12th is "weeks"

not so damning in washington dc time

was congress still in recess at that time?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris
I guess late august(non specific so it could have been the 31st?) to sept 12th is "weeks"

The funds were allocated in 2018 and scheduled for disbursement before end of Fiscal 2019 (Sept 30th).

July 21st was the Ukrainian Elections, the money was expected to be released after that.

He only put an official hold on the funds when Congress asked why the money hadn't been disbursed.

So yes, Weeks.

a reply to: Extorris
nope
nothing of the sort
it show the review started in "late august"
not sooner?

unless you have specific documents showing trump held it up, how do we know it did not get to them until late august?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act
Passed in Aug 2018 allocating 250 Million to Ukraine by the end of fiscal year (Sept 30 2019)

Increases authorized funding by $50 million above the FY 2019 budget request to $250 million, provided that the
additional funds are used for lethal defensive equipment.

UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE
UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE
010 UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE... 250,000

www.congress.gov...

a reply to: Extorris
So when did it arrive for review?

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Extorris

It's not about Biden's sons' position, it's about Biden threatening to remove aid to Ukraine unless the investigation into his son was halted.

That would be deflection if it was true. As it stands your deflection lacks any evidence that the firing was related to his son holding a board position on one of the companies owned by an Oligarch that was at one time being investigated.

There is however a world of factual, historical and documentary evidence that IMF, EU, several world leaders, the US administration and the general public inside Ukraine who were protesting on the streets ALL wanted Shokin removed.

I suppose you can show me where the IMF, EU, USA and it's people were demanding that Ukraine help Donald Trump win an election before he released the Military Financial Aid appropriated by the US Congress?

You really can't see past your nose on this.
None of this is new. There is only manufactured 'news'.

Schiff and the Democrats were talking about Trump colluding with Ukraine to interfere in an election way back in May this year - all related to Gulliani's (cancelled) trip to Ukraine to discuss Biden and what the New York Times reported as an effort by Biden to force the Ukrainians to fire the prosecutor in charge of investigating his sons company.

www.realclearpolitics.com...

Why is this a story now? Because of someone who didn't actually hear anything saying they heard this discussed 2nd hand???

Or could it be that the report is about to land on FISA abuse???

From May this year:

The New York Times reported last week that while Vice President Biden threatened to withhold U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine if it's leaders did not dismiss the country’s top prosecutor, his son Hunter was a member of the board of a Ukrainian energy company owned by an oligarch under investigation by the same state prosecutor.

What exactly is wrong with the President putting pressure on Ukraine to reveal what it knows about Biden's corruption?..and why is this a story now when the efforts of the Trump admin have been known for some time?
Sounds like 'getting ahead of the story'.

originally posted by: UKTruth

Why is this a story now? Because of someone who didn't actually hear anything saying they heard this discussed 2nd hand???

Because Military aid to Ukraine was held up by the WH in an usual manner that neither the GOP or Dems could explain while simultaneously Trump had the US State Department arrange meetings between Senior Aides of the Ukraine PResident and his personal Attorney Rudy Giulliani to pressure them to re-open an investigation and assist Trump's campaign for President.

Because of a Whistleblower Complaint that an IG appointed by Trump deemed "Credible and Urgent" where the WH stepped in and had the DNI refuse to turn it over to the intelligence oversight committee as the law demands.

Followed by the President eventually admitting that he "discussed" Joe Biden and Son on the call with the President of Ukraine while he was holding up their military aid and suggested he should take a meeting with Rudy Giulliani.

Just today Trump suggested the two issues were indeed related and that nothing was wrong with that.

Geez, you should read the news if you are unclear why this an issue.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris
So when did it arrive for review?

It didn't. It's not a normal process for the WH to place a review on approved funds. They took that pro-active step, it did not "arrive for review".

Review is an unusal step after it's been appropriated by congress and signed off in a Fiscal budget.

The Pentagon announced it would send the funds on June 18th 2019.

Then it took until August 28th when Lindsay Graham and other GOP senators publicly asked where the hell the money was.

The Trump admin then officially said they would place a hold and review it.

www.defense.gov...

www.rferl.org...