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.

 

BOOM: Burisma Plead With US State Dept For Help, Invoked Hunter Biden

page: 13
74
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler




Trump did not do a quid pro quo


That's not what witness after witness are testifying.
They seem to have seen this whole thing a bit differently.


To say nothing of Trump's Chief of Staff saying it was Quid Pro Quo on National TV.

Q: To be clear what you just described is a Quid Pro Quo, It is funding will not flow unless there is an investigation into the DNC server...

A: We do that all the time with FP, and I have news for everybody, get over it! There is going to be political influence in Foreign Policy.

Did he say “we do it all the time” or “Trump does it all the time”? Small detail I know but does make a difference.


You will have to ask Mick what he meant be "we".


Trumps not the only person involved in FP, right.


Right. there is also Trump's personal Attorney and the rest of the "Shadow" diplomacy team he had working on the QPQ.




posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

It’s lot as simple as if joes guilty sounds is trump

Only anti trumpers are so thick as to claim any quid pro quo is illegal. If that’s the case, many many law makers would be in jail, because it happens all the time

The question is was the quid pro quo fro untoward reasons

Trump, who didn’t do a quid pro quo was investigating corruption and election interference

Biden and Obama admitted to doing a quid pro quo to fire a prosecutor who happened to be looking into Biden’s sons company

Yet for some reason the Dems and media not only say Obamas admin was perfectly fine, but trump should be impeached for daring to looking into that admins corruption


So, quid pro quo is legal, and you just flushed your own case against Biden.

Wow, if I may say so, you’re rusty G.


Show me one time anywhere saying a quid pro quo is is illegal

Why are you projecting the democrats argument to me?

I have said over and over and over quid pro quo’s are normal and not illegal

They can be illegal if you use it for personal gain, like to fire a prosecutor looking at your vp’s son



Wow. So your argument is that Obama should be impeached then?

Quid pro quos are normal unless you don’t agree with them, or more exactly, if you’re desperately trying to transform a quid pro quo into a tit-for-tat.

Weak sauce, boss.
edit on 6-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Extorris

Strange the Ukraine didn’t fire Shokin until they stood to lose one billion dollars

If he was so disliked by everyone, why did it take Biden’s threat to get the ball rolling on firing him?



?

The IMF threatened to withhold 40BN.

Ukrainians were demonstrating in the streets for Shokins removal.



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

Don’t matter because: Biden.



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Extorris

Two questions

1. Why did Bursima own lawyers say Shokin was investigating hem, and US officials spread disinformation he was corrupt?



One item of BS at a time.

I believe I know what you are referring to, but your statement is off in multiple ways.

Please explain with citation, links, dates and specifics.



Blue Star, using the Ukrainian embassy worker it had hired, eventually scored a meeting with Sevruk on April 6, 2016, a week after Shokin's firing. Buretta, Tramontano and Painter attended that meeting in Kiev, according to Blue Star's memos.

Sevruk memorialized the meeting in a government memo that the general prosecutor's office provided to me, stating that the three Americans offered an apology for the "false" narrative that had been provided by U.S. officials about Shokin being corrupt and inept.

"They realized that the information disseminated in the U.S. was incorrect and that they would facilitate my visit to the U.S. for the purpose of delivering the true information to the State Department management," the memo stated.

The memo also quoted the Americans as saying they knew Shokin pursued an aggressive corruption investigation against Burisma's owner, only to be thwarted by British allies: "These individuals noted that they had been aware that the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine had implemented all required steps for prosecution ... and that he was released by the British court due to the underperformance of the British law enforcement agencies."


thehill.com...



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Extorris

Strange the Ukraine didn’t fire Shokin until they stood to lose one billion dollars

If he was so disliked by everyone, why did it take Biden’s threat to get the ball rolling on firing him?



?

The IMF threatened to withhold 40BN.

Ukrainians were demonstrating in the streets for Shokins removal.


Strange then that they didn’t fire him until Biden told them they wouldn’t get the billion dollars until they fired shokin



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
The ten minute memorandum of the call is incomplete (by twenty minutes) and witnesses are filling in the parts that were left off... the parts that sound a bit like crimes... the crimes that show quid pro quo. No!, not even that dignified latin phrase This deserves no such respect. What the memorandum and subsequent testimony is showing is a many layered story of extortion. Ongoing pay for play awards, promised audiences, status, gimmie, gimmie dirt, it doesn't even need to be true. Like this story where every fact is bastardized and twisted then repeated and regurgitated until people believe it.
Until you turn on the overhead lights.

What do you say about trump's man, the one who donated a million dollars to his campaign and who, funny enough, was awarded an ambassadorship because he did, who says that the phone calls and activity of trumps lawyer was in fact quid pro quo? This is trump's guy. No way to call him a never trumper or paint him as biased in any way.



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

From your source:



BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Who fired Shokin again?

Some folks seem to keep forgetting.



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 01:47 PM
link   
NM
edit on 6-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Nope.

Those are John Solomon's fake docs. That is NOT a memo, but his notes/statements that he was hired to compile.

No date no official doc no nothing. Solomon has been working with/for Rudy and with/for the Oligarch that was employing the two now indicted associates etc.

Solomon is not a source and the doc he cites is just stupid not credible.

HINT: Did you notice "Opinion Contributor" next to his name on that link of yours?
"The Hill" moved his reporting to "Opinion" because it was so much BS. When the BS didn't stop, they asked him to leave. He is no longer there.


edit on 6-11-2019 by Extorris because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Silly, honestly, if Trump had stated to Zelensky POINT BLANK that he wanted an investigation of Biden for political reasons, that is STILL within the President’s power.

The Presidency is a political office.



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You


Hunter Biden did not own Burisma


Quote where I said he owned it.

You


Joe Biden did not act and could not act on his own against Shokin, and frankly, this is the last time I’ll repeat it for you.


Quote where I said Biden acted that way.

Biden used his official position to pressure government officials to fire a prosecutor looking into his son’s company. As in the company his son was working for.

It’s not about Biden’s authority. It’s about Biden using his official position. As in “your not going to get the money if that prosecutor is not fired by the time I leave here in six hours.” Where did that dead line come from?
edit on 6-11-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

He said six hours lol... the man was still in office until March of the following year.
There are so many holes in this story we could drain spaghetti.
Its truly a nothing burger because none of the accusations are correct and none of the time frames meet up.

Giuliani expected people to skim over the details and just grab the parts he was pushing.
Biden, corrupt...
But thats not what people did and it is why Giuliani has become another trump puppet laughing stock that no one is paying attention to any more.



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

It’s lot as simple as if joes guilty sounds is trump

Only anti trumpers are so thick as to claim any quid pro quo is illegal. If that’s the case, many many law makers would be in jail, because it happens all the time

The question is was the quid pro quo fro untoward reasons

Trump, who didn’t do a quid pro quo was investigating corruption and election interference

Biden and Obama admitted to doing a quid pro quo to fire a prosecutor who happened to be looking into Biden’s sons company

Yet for some reason the Dems and media not only say Obamas admin was perfectly fine, but trump should be impeached for daring to looking into that admins corruption


So, quid pro quo is legal, and you just flushed your own case against Biden.

Wow, if I may say so, you’re rusty G.


Show me one time anywhere saying a quid pro quo is is illegal

Why are you projecting the democrats argument to me?

I have said over and over and over quid pro quo’s are normal and not illegal

They can be illegal if you use it for personal gain, like to fire a prosecutor looking at your vp’s son



Wow. So your argument is that Obama should be impeached then?

Quid pro quos are normal unless you don’t agree with them, or more exactly, if you’re desperately trying to transform a quid pro quo into a tit-for-tat.

Weak sauce, boss.


I cant tell if you are just trolling or are so oblivious to the goings on in this country that you are sounding so unbelievably uniformed.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO IMPEACH TRUMP OVER THIS!!!!!

you keep making it seem like well Republicans are saying Obama is guilty therefore trump must be.

Its the exact opposite. Democrats are saying trump is guilty, yet Biden and Obama were innocent. They are the ones saying this quid pro quo (which it isnt one) is a crime.

They are the ones trying to desperately transform this

Yet you project it on to people saying the democrats are corrupt hypocrites.

Again, quid pro quos are not themselves illegal.

A president can say " We wont send you the money until you dismantle youre nuclear weapons" Thats a legit quid pro quo.

A president can say "We will not send you the money unless you cooperate into our investigation of corruption involving your country" thats legit.

It is not legit to say "We will not give you the money until you fire the prosecutor looking into to my VP's son"

Now is that proof of a crime? no

But it is evidence that warrants an investigation. The fact the dems are saying trump trying to investigtae that is a crime is corrupt.
edit on 6-11-2019 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: neutronflux

He said six hours lol... the man was still in office until March of the following year.
There are so many holes in this story we could drain spaghetti.
Its truly a nothing burger because none of the accusations are correct and none of the time frames meet up.

Giuliani expected people to skim over the details and just grab the parts he was pushing.
Biden, corrupt...
But thats not what people did and it is why Giuliani has become another trump puppet laughing stock that no one is paying attention to any more.


No.

The crime. Biden used his office for personal gain.

Biden is the one that said if that prosecutor is not fired by the time I leave in six hours, your not getting the money.

Why would Biden make such a statement on video? Where did the time line he claimed he imposed come from?



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

So now how many dozens of people heard the call, and all of them have kept silent about the trancript only being one third except a few anti trumpers?

What garbage! Volker said their was no quid pro quo.

Morrison, who the media was claiming would be devestating for trump, said there was nothing inaccurate, and the transcript was accurate.

The desperation of you all is getting more funny by the minute; now we have to believe the transcript was faked.

Even though the Ukrainian president backed it up and said there was no quid pro quo.

Even though the money was sent without the quid being given.

Meanwhile, when Biden admits a quid pro quo, you are perfectly fine with it.



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Extorris

Strange the Ukraine didn’t fire Shokin until they stood to lose one billion dollars

If he was so disliked by everyone, why did it take Biden’s threat to get the ball rolling on firing him?



?

The IMF threatened to withhold 40BN.

Ukrainians were demonstrating in the streets for Shokins removal.


Strange then that they didn’t fire him until Biden told them they wouldn’t get the billion dollars until they fired shokin


He was fired 3 months after Biden made that demand.

Jesus..At least pretend to care about facts.



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

LOL ... neither, I know when you start talking about me, you’ve got nothing in terms of an argument.

One more time, and then I’m done with you too.

Quid pro quos are legal for Presidents, according to you.

Whether Trump or Obama.

Biden didn’t have the authority to do anything not authorized by Obama.

But EVEN IF HE HAD, according to you, quid pro quos are just fine (and I agree.)



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

From your source:



BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR


And?

The fact he is an opinion contributor means what, that we cant believe the memos he was given by interim prosecutor sevruk?

Pathetic even by your standards.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join