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

a reply to: Extorris

The first line of your story...

The system designed to shield these truth-tellers from retaliation is still nascent, but the channel for them to make protected disclosures of wrongdoing is long-standing

Again, go back and read the Act. A EO was put in place by Obama but that is not a law. Also, the way it acts, is if the IG decides not to do anything the whistle blower can still go directly to the House and Senate Intel committees.

So I guess we will know who it is and what is it really about if there is a fire with all the smoke.

So, no matter what, the information can get to the House and Senate Intel committees. This is nothing but a distraction per usual.

a reply to: matafuchs

Several people on the call. Why did only one complain?

originally posted by: Extorris
a reply to: Grambler

Waiting for links. See last post.

Sorry i was doing a live stream debunking this nonsense.

I oosted an entire thread debunking this.

I dont have the government documents showing Hunter was being looked at, John solomon said in his article he was shown them by senior Ukrainian officals.

So I have his word like you have the deputy prosecutors word.

In addition, we know for a fact that investigagtion was at least oopne on paper until Biden forced the firing of the prosecutor; then the investigation went to the NABU that was closer connected to the embassy, and they buried the investigation.

We know that the new prosecutor that Biden called solid says in fact that investigation was buried, and he has now started looking at it and it looks like they never looked at payments hunter biden got.

We know he also had a problem with Biden exerting foriegn pressure on the investigation, and wants to talk to ag barr about it.

All in the thread I did and linked

The media is already backtracking on the whistle blower story

The latest 'smoking gun' Democrats have been clinging to in search of that ever-elusive Trump impeachment may have just imploded - after the Washington Post quietly reported on Friday evening that a July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky did not contain an explicit quid pro quo if Ukraine launched an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden's son as initially reported.

While President Trump did reportedly "pressure the recently elected leader to more aggressively pursue" the investigation, "Trump did not raise the issue of American military and intelligence aid that had been pledged to Ukraine, indicating there was not an explicit quid pro quo in that call."

www.zerohedge.com...

If there is no quid pro quo, there is no scandal. Whats the story, trump asked a country to investigate a crime? If Trump cant do this, explain the Obama admin and the dnc asking foreign officials to investigate crimes into trump?

Only their Obama manufactured evidence and had foreign governments help him spy on trump

So if there was no quid pro quo, this story is a dud that accomplished three things.

1. Proved the intel agency is still spying on trump, and reporting him for not crimes broken but political disagreements.

2. Resurrected the Biden Ukraine story for all to see more publicly than ever

3. Outed the media and dems as hypocrites for ignoring the Biden ukraine story for almost 5 years.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Extorris

Yes see the thread I linked above

I go through that entire article

You mean you do that trick where simple facts turn into BS?

I don't think you want me on whatever that thread is.

Everytime I correct a, ahem...Misstating of Fact...by you, you plug your ears and move goal posts and topics.

I will be happy to discuss with you on that thread if you plan on actually replying to posts where I cite, ahem, factual errors.. in your claims?

Btw your arrogance is not warranted

You want to do a whole thread of just me and you one this?

Your sis confident I’m in for it

Or would you prefer a video

Show me factual errors

You just post a guy saying no that didn’t happen and say your guy should be believed and not the people I post that say it did happen

Meanwhile you know if several people in Ukraine say trump refused aid unless they investigated Biden

And I post one person who says that’s not true,

You will not say well fair enough one person said it wasn’t true so it must not be

I don’t mind discussing things with you, but your opinion of yourself is very high and your smugness unwarranted for someone who is not disproving anything

a reply to: Grambler

If there is no quid pro quo, there is no scandal.

But the money was being held up. And, Rudy Giuliani said that if Trump demanded that the Ukrainians clean up their corruption issues or they wouldn't be receiving the funding, that's not illegal.

I wonder why he said that?

We also are told that there was an explicit promise and "multiple acts".

.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Extorris
a reply to: Grambler

Waiting for links. See last post.

Sorry i was doing a live stream debunking this nonsense.

I oosted an entire thread debunking this.

I dont have the government documents showing Hunter was being looked at, John solomon said in his article he was shown them by senior Ukrainian officals.

So I have his word like you have the deputy prosecutors word.

So I have the Deputy Prosecutor under the Chief Prosecutor at the time saying clearly that the investigation was shelved and not active.

You are claiming a journalist saw some papers fromm an unidentified "senior Ukrainian official"?

One is objectively severely more credible than the other.

Even with your weak claim, LINK PLEASE...at least share a link to the weak, journalist citing an un-named source?

originally posted by: Grambler
The media is already backtracking on the whistle blower story

The latest 'smoking gun' Democrats have been clinging to in search of that ever-elusive Trump impeachment may have just imploded - after the Washington Post quietly reported on Friday evening that a July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky did not contain an explicit quid pro quo if Ukraine launched an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden's son as initially reported.

While President Trump did reportedly "pressure the recently elected leader to more aggressively pursue" the investigation, "Trump did not raise the issue of American military and intelligence aid that had been pledged to Ukraine, indicating there was not an explicit quid pro quo in that call."

www.zerohedge.com...

For FS..

Zerohedge is not the media, it is Propaganda for hire.

Treat your own credibility better than that.

originally posted by: Grambler

Btw your arrogance is not warranted

You want to do a whole thread of just me and you one this?

Your sis confident I’m in for it

Or would you prefer a video

Show me factual errors

Still waiting. Links to Documents or claims

originally posted by: Grambler

Who says the investigation was not going on into bidens son?

Not the offical documents handed over by the new prosecutor showing hunter was a target.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Grambler
The media is already backtracking on the whistle blower story

The latest 'smoking gun' Democrats have been clinging to in search of that ever-elusive Trump impeachment may have just imploded - after the Washington Post quietly reported on Friday evening that a July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky did not contain an explicit quid pro quo if Ukraine launched an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden's son as initially reported.

While President Trump did reportedly "pressure the recently elected leader to more aggressively pursue" the investigation, "Trump did not raise the issue of American military and intelligence aid that had been pledged to Ukraine, indicating there was not an explicit quid pro quo in that call."

www.zerohedge.com...

For FS..

Zerohedge is not the media, it is Propaganda for hire.

Treat your own credibility better than that.

It quotes the Washington post

Perhaps read before you comment

It’s shows the lack of your credibility

a reply to: Extorris

Well I posted it in the op of my other thread

I posted it on your comment on my other thread

You didn’t look at it either time

So I guess I have to post it again for you a third time here

The general prosecutor’s official file for the Burisma probe — shared with me by senior Ukrainian officials — shows prosecutors identified Hunter Biden, business partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.

thehill.com...

a reply to: Extorris

Since Washington Post URLs are not "clickable", you have to use other news outlets that report what the Washington Post says. That is, if the ATS poster wants to reference the source of what he/she is posting.

a reply to: Extorris

You have the deputy prosecutor

I have Shokin the prosecutor, and a reporter that has seen documents from Ukrainian officials

I also have the new prosecutor letsenko saying he wants to talk to ag Barr about Joe Biden’s influence, and saying he’s found payments to hunter that weren’t investigated

I also have an USA investigation showing hunter received payments of up between 5000 and 25000 at least once a month

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Extorris

Since Washington Post URLs are not "clickable", you have to use other news outlets that report what the Washington Post says. That is, if the ATS poster wants to reference the source of what he/she is posting.

Exactly

But I get lectured about credibility from a guy who can’t even read to see it’s a quote from the Washington post

a reply to: Grambler

Why do you keep posting completely unrelated facts?

You said you had proof the investigation was ACTIVE.

And then you post some bit about Joe Biden Jr. being on a list of people to follow up with?

The #2 Prosecutor at the time that was working with the Ousted Prosecutor has said clearly the investigation was shelved, not being pursued, at the time Biden called for the Prosecutor to step down.

You can't support your claim.

Shall I quote you again so you understand what you said?

a reply to: ErEhWoN

LOL . your using CNN as a Source for this Story ? What a Freakin' Joke ................

a reply to: Extorris

You asked for the quote about the documents, I gave it to you

You have been showed the entire thread on this i did

You have seen the article I posted that shows this

YOU. DONT. READ.


Again I will post it

Shokin told me in written answers to questions that, before he was fired as general prosecutor, he had made “specific plans” for the investigation that “included interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.”

thehill.com...

That’s the #1 prosecutor saying that

So I have as much proof as you do

And if there is any doubt then there is no defense of Biden

Biden knew there was on paper an active investigation into his son, and who the head prosecutor was

He wouldn’t be aware of the specifics unless some sort of corruption was going on

Besides that, We have conflicting reports of whether or not the investigation was going on

We know after the prosecutor was fired the case was either then closed or never reopened

We know the current prosecutor has a problem with that, and thinks hunters got payments that need to be investigated

We know that USA investigations back that up

We know that the current prosecutor who Biden called solid also thinks Biden interference is worth looking into and discussing with ag Barr

The has all been provided on the op of the other thread, and the article I posted here


You act so arrogant and yet you don’t read the info provided

So, leftists are cool with Biden threatening Ukraine to drop an investigation into his son, but are outraged at Trump asking the Ukrainians to investigate Biden's son?
Hmm.

One thing to say to the the lefties...

If Biden has nothing to hide then he has nothing to worry about. Right?

a reply to: Grambler

Of course you don't have the documentation showing any charges against Hunter Biden.

That's what trump is trying so hard to get. That's why he is making promises that have his staff troubled.

And the Inspector General you guys are oh soooooo fond of is saying the information is troubling. I think that's a euphemism myself.

You guys who continue to support Trump are not only out of your mind, but completely hypocritical. Had Obama done something like this, you would lose your minds.

www.theatlantic.com...

The president of the United States reportedly sought the help of a foreign government against an American citizen who might challenge him for his office......

As the Ukrainian Interior Ministry official Anton Gerashchenko told the Daily Beast when asked about the president’s apparent requests, “Clearly, Trump is now looking for kompromat to discredit his opponent Biden, to take revenge for his friend Paul Manafort, who is serving seven years in prison.”

Deflect all you want. If true this is a blatant abuse of power and most certainly needs a formal investigation.