It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ukraine: a far left wing 2 for 1?

page: 1
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Hunter Biden got kicked out of the military for coke use. After that when McDonalds wouldn’t trust you to make the fries. A major corporation will trust him with a 50K per month, remote job where he doesn’t speak the language.

So those actions lead to an investigation. I don’t understand why, because only a right wing conspiracist would think the above is a little wonky.

Then what happened: In Joe Biden’s own words and backed up by under oath testimony of Ukrainians. Biden said stop the investigation or me and the American tax payers’ money are getting on Air Force 2 and we are peacing our.

Did Joe Biden, decide this coarse of action on his own. Did he go Rogue? Did he figured Ukraine would cave so Ukraine would still get their money and Hunter Biden would escape punishment again because ‘who’s your daddy’. Did he have Obama permission to do this. Has one ‘journalist’ asked this question?

Biden was winning in the poles. The issues are: he’s not as left as most of the other democrats running, and that’s a problem. He was also obama’s VP and one cannot speak I’ll if the first black president, because that’s racist AF.

What do you do, it’s a day that ends in ‘Y’ so we j is that the orange Man is still bad. So, the Orange Man thinks he’s above the law. What law did Trump break? Have you heard one specifically mentioned? Neither have I, but we know he’s bad. That statement will satisfy about 50 percent of the Left’s base. Hopefully some independents and republicans finally get it i their racist, sexist, criminal heads that until you don’t vote, that will be the only way you can lose your racist, sexist, criminal label.

If you are a sane Democrat, you can see the corruption of Biden (probably staying away from what Obama knew, because you don’t want to be racist AF) . That means your choices are voting for the racist Trump which means you are a racist or move to the left and vote socialist

It’s a perfect 2 for 1



+3 more 
posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Biden has been proven to have 'pressured' the Ukrainians into doing what he wanted or he'd withold.

that is not even in doubt, the video itself says it all. He literally said "If you do not sack the prosecutor, I'm getting on the plane and you're not getting anything." then says "son of a bitch, he was fired!" to the guffaw of his audience.

But trump said "Look into it" and he's supposed to face impeachment.

lol
just LOL
the left.....



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: SocratesJohnson




In Joe Biden’s own words and backed up by under oath testimony of Ukrainians. Biden said stop the investigation or me and the American tax payers’ money are getting on Air Force 2 and we are peacing our.

Wrong, a guy was fired for not investigating corruption.
You've either just learned this right now or, knew it and repeat a lie, question is which is it?
If you are knowingly lying the question is, why?



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I asked this in another thread but it seems more appropriate for this one.

How does everyone get past the fact that as Vice President, Joe Biden had no control over whether money was withheld or not? It was up to Congress. He had no say in it. He was just acting as the point man for a larger group of western people and organizations and what they wanted.

He said this:


At a Council on Foreign Relations event in 2018, he recounted that he had threatened to withhold a "billion-dollar loan guarantee" unless Poroshenko followed through on what Biden said was a "commitment" to "take action against the state prosecutor."
"I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said.


But that's just him trying to talk himself up in front of a bunch of CFR stooges. Because the reality is that the prosecutor wasn't fired until months later.


Shokin was not actually terminated while Biden was in the country, as Biden's story made it sound. Ukraine's legislature voted to fire Shokin in March 2016; Biden's last visit to Ukraine before the firing was in December 2015.


Link

So that's just Biden lying to make himself seem more important than he was in front of a bunch of potential donors. I really don't like Joe Biden and I wish he was out of the 2020 race, but every accusation I can find has no basis once you start looking at what really happened.

It seems to me that Trump is running with every online conspiracy theory that takes the heat off of him. And the people who propagate these conspiracy theories online see his using them as validation. So it's just a self validating circle of BS.

Help me understand. Show me something that without a doubt proves Biden was acting unethically in regards to his son being on the board of Burisma.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks




How does everyone get past the fact that as Vice President, Joe Biden had no control over whether money was withheld or not? It was up to Congress.


Then how is it that people are claiming that Trump withheld money to try and pressure Ukraine into doing his bidding?



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat

Because those actions as President are a clear violation of 18 USC 601. Usurping Congress' power of the purse. Which is a federal crime and a violation of the constitution.


Last week, I wrote a post explaining why, if Trump used withholding of US aid as leverage to try to force the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, it would be an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress' power of the purse. Quite simply, it would be a case of the president trying to use federal funds for a purpose that had never been authorized by Congress—the only branch of government with the power to authorize federal spending.


Link

A vice President acting as the point man for a larger coalition of interests isn't the same as the President of the United States using his office to pressure a foreign country into digging up dirt on his political opponents. For one, the President has the ability (while illegal) to hold funds pending a favorable result. The Vice President doesn't.
edit on 30-9-2019 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks




For one, the President has the ability (while illegal) to hold funds pending a favorable result. The Vice President doesn't.



But Biden said "Call Obama" when questioned by the Ukrainians about withholding the aid, so it appears to be the exact same situation.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

It would only be a crime if he spent the Ukraine money somewhere else. The executive branch is not forced to spend money allocated by Congress. It just can't reallocate it.

As flatcoat, notes, the allegation is also the exact thing that Quid Pro Joe actually did and was stupid enough to brag about.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat

It isn't the same situation, at all. It seems that Biden was acting in accordance with what Congress and a large group of countries and organizations wanted.

Trump was acting alone and for his own political interests. That's the difference. Going as far as to backdoor the state department by sending his personal lawyer in a diplomatic role.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: underwerks

It would only be a crime if he spent the Ukraine money somewhere else. The executive branch is not forced to spend money allocated by Congress. It just can't reallocate it.

As flatcoat, notes, the allegation is also the exact thing that Quid Pro Joe actually did and was stupid enough to brag about.


As I showed in the post above, what Biden said happened is proved to be false because the prosecutor wasn't fired until months later. It was just a lie by Biden to make him seem more important in front of potential donors.

And whether or not Trump was successful in withholding funds from Ukraine, it's still a violation of 18 USC 601 to try.


Section 601 pretty clearly covers this quid pro quo scheme. The aid money is a "payment or benefit of a program of the United States," one that is "made possible… by an act of Congress" (which appropriated the money). An investigation of the president's most likely Democratic opponent in the 2020 general election is obviously a "thing of value (including services)" that benefits a candidate or a political party; in this case, Trump and the GOP. At the time Trump made the call, Biden was the leading contender for the Democratic nomination, even though Elizabeth Warren may have caught up to him since then. And, if Trump made the quid pro quo threat at all, he surely did so knowingly and with full awareness of the potential political advantages. Finally, Section 601 criminalizes attempted use of funds as leverage to gain political support, not just successful efforts to do so. Even if Trump's pressure tactics failed to achieve their goals, he still violated 601.


It's a violation not only to allocate money earmarked by congress somewhere else, but also to stop it from going to it's intended location.
edit on 30-9-2019 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 11:08 AM
link   
It's not a violation, because it was done as part of a rescission process. Just like the administration has done for foreign aid the last three summers... Fake scandal. Nothing like Quid Pro Joe saying "do this or this".



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

The process you speak of isn't applicable to Trump in this situation.



rescission - The cancellation of budget authority previously provided by Congress. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 specifies that the president may propose to Congress that funds be rescinded. If both Houses have not approved a rescission proposal (by passing legislation) within 45 days of continuous session, any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation.


Link

Trump didn't propose any of this to Congress before the call with the Ukrainian President.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

The problem with building a big lie is all the pesky facts that get in the way. Like that the Ukraine wasn't the only country affected, that the administration used the same process last summer, that the rescission took place well after the phone call, that rescission is a recognized process, etc etc. But low info lefty's wil lap the story up, and the media knows it.

The administration called for a halt for accounting, and timed it to extend the freeze after with possible rescission afterwards which would grant the 45 days. It never went to a vote because the funds for the Ukraine and other countries have already released.

Are you being obtuse?



link


edit on 30-9-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 11:29 AM
link   
The best case for Biden is that the Obama administration was run with such poor judgment as to allow father intervene where son is involved. Worst case there was some high level corruption.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Are you being obtuse?


Not being obtuse at all. You would have a point if Donald Trump had went through with the rescission package, but he didn't. So it doesn't apply here.


Last Thursday, President Donald Trump stood down on what's called a rescission package that would have canceled about $4 billion of funds from the budget for the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development. The White House's Office of Management and Budget, which Mulvaney once led, had ordered a freeze on those programs and pushed for them to be cut and returned to the Treasury.


Link

Without the discretion that a rescission package provides, Trump is in violation of 18 USC 601. You are deliberately misrepresenting what has taken place. The ability to alter where the funds earmarked by Congress go is only legal when rescission has taken place. And in this case, it hasn't. As the evidence shows.
edit on 30-9-2019 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Lol... So his crime is that he actually released the funds for foreign aid (again not just the Ukraine) after the OMB audit was concluded instead of pushing through with rescission by sending it to a vote? Hang em high! You've got him this time!



also from your link:



Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress demanded that the White House stand down, saying the cuts would harm vital U.S. national security and foreign policies.

While the White House agreed, OMB quietly mandated that the State Department keep in place caps on spending for these programs -- allowing the department to spend only 2% of the funds each day.

....
The administration has committed more than $1.5 billion in security assistance to Ukraine in response to that aggression, including lethal weapons that Trump agreed to provide that his predecessor, President Barack Obama declined to, as well as capabilities to better secure its borders and ensure cooperation with NATO.


edit on 30-9-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

No, his crime is circumventing Congress' power of the purse. Which without the protection that a rescission provides, is a violation of Federal law and the constitution.

It's all laid out in the article I linked a few posts above. And it's from a conservative publication.

If you can't provide evidence of what Joe Biden has done without bringing up Donald Trump, then that pretty much says it all...
edit on 30-9-2019 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: underwerks

Lol... So his crime is that he actually released the funds for foreign aid (again not just the Ukraine) after the OMB audit was concluded instead of pushing through with rescission by sending it to a vote? Hang em high! You've got him this time!



also from your link:



Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress demanded that the White House stand down, saying the cuts would harm vital U.S. national security and foreign policies.

While the White House agreed, OMB quietly mandated that the State Department keep in place caps on spending for these programs -- allowing the department to spend only 2% of the funds each day.

....
The administration has committed more than $1.5 billion in security assistance to Ukraine in response to that aggression, including lethal weapons that Trump agreed to provide that his predecessor, President Barack Obama declined to, as well as capabilities to better secure its borders and ensure cooperation with NATO.



That doesn't change anything. None of the protections rescission provides are applicable if he didn't go through with the rescission..
edit on 30-9-2019 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:14 PM
link   
The OMB froze ALL the foreign aid money while it conducted an audit in preparation for an incoming rescission request. The audit lasted six days. 3 Aug- 9 Aug. During those six days Trump decided not to send a rescission decision to Congress and released the funds.

Scandalous...

edit on 30-9-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: RadioRobert
If you can't provide evidence of what Joe Biden has done without bringing up Donald Trump, then that pretty much says it all...



Here you go. No mention of He Who Must Not be Named




new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join