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.

 

Ambassador Vovanovitch Admits Obama's Admin Knew About Hunter's Corruption

page: 3
51
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinner07
How exactly did she "score one for the team"?

In prepping for her conformation hearing she was asked a hypothetical question about Hunter Biden.... That's it right?

That is what you are talking about? not even a nothing nugget lol... except to you trumpfluffers


Wasn't "hypothetical", they used real time situations 😃 😃 😃 😃




posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinner07



According to the DOJ, President Trump never even asked AG Barr to look into it.
That is bizarre in a world where the President even for a moment thought there was a legitimate concern to be investigated.

After months of a shadow campaign involving Giuliani trying to gather "evidence", Pres. Trump never once consulted his AG?

Justice Department: Trump never asked Barr to talk to Ukraine
www.washingtonexaminer.com...

IMO this is in keeping with the important distinction that President Trump asked for a public announcement by the President of Ukraine, approved by Giuliani.

He was interested in a public statement he could use in the campaign, but there is no evidence he was ever sincere about an investigation.
a reply to: Caractacus

Exactly. They wanted the ambassador out of there to open up an easier avenue for either the announcement or an actual investigation into the Bidens...

My money is on just the announcement. they did not want a real investigation, just to look like onewas taking place




So you are suggesting she was in fact covering-up a potential scandal for Democrats 😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

What corruption?

Hunter Biden came to work for Burisma after any legal issues Burisma might have had. They hired him to help improve their company image and clean up their act so they could comply with Ukrainian and International law.

Also, according to what I've seen, Hunter never visited Ukraine. He was involved on the board advising on Legal and corporate strategy.

So what corruption are we talking about? What did he do that was illegal and he should go to jail for.

And before you complain about my political bias.



If they are guilty then stick them in jail. I don't care what political party they belong to.

Oh and funny enough. Trump is now calling Ukraine a corrupt country. Yet he wants this corrupt country to investigate Biden for him. Why would he trust anything Ukraine says about Biden?



edit on 15-11-2019 by grey580 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: carewemust
CNN gushing over some guy at a dinner table overhearing President Trump telling Sondland, "F*uck Ukraine. I want that damn investigation!" He was another of Schiff's "Secret Closed-door" witnesses.

I thought Schiff wasn't doing any more stuff in secret. What an Azzhole.


So, the important issue here is not that Trump obviously wasn’t seeking to have Biden investigated for legitimate reasons, but that a) CNN and b) Schiff.



The media always omits that the Investigation President Trump wanted, was into 2016 Election Interference by American interests operating out of Ukraine, and Biden corruption. The idiots only use the Biden aspect in their reports.


That’s because the idiots are only repeating what your favorite idiot said in the infamous phone call.

He asked for two things: a) the “Crowdstrike” server, which he thinks is in Ukraine because 4chan, and b) Bidens.

The only thing that has been presented as “Ukraine meddling” is the Ukraine providing dirt on Manafort, which according to Trump himself, didn’t affect his campaign AT ALL, because you know, Manafort is a great guy and all but he wasn’t really that involved and was only there for a month or so.

There was no “Ukrainian meddling” no matter how much you guys want there to be.


You can continue to believe that, or you can accept the FACT that there was indeed an attempt at helping Clinton beat Trump in 2016 - BY UKRAINE. Just accept the truth and move on, please. You look like a fool every time you deny that it happened.


Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko told Hill.TV’s John Solomon in an interview aired on Wednesday that he has opened a probe into alleged attempts by Ukrainians to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

“Today we will launch a criminal investigation about this and we will give legal assessment of this information,” Lutsenko said last week.

Lutsenko is probing a claim from a member of the Ukrainian parliament that the director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), Artem Sytnyk, attempted to influence the 2016 vote to the benefit of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.


Link



A 2017 investigation by Politico found that Ukrainian officials not only publicly sought to undermine Trump by questioning his fitness for office, but also worked behind the scenes to secure a Clinton victory.

Among other initiatives, Politico found, the Ukrainian government worked with a DNC consultant to conduct opposition research against Trump, including going after Manafort for Russian ties, helping lead to his resignation.


Link

These are but two. There are many, many more confirming the Politico story proving Democrat involvement with Ukraine officials in 2016.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The Conservative Treehouse, an openly biased opinion site, carefully structured a clip regarding the “gotcha” questions from Rep. Stefanik to fit their narrative that the Ambassador lied during testimony today. (Interestingly but not surprisingly, the end of the clip is a campaign ad for “Trump Pence 2020.”)

Here’s the two parts of the setup: Yovanovich stated that the Obama Administration had not brought up any issues with Hunter Biden and his position with the Burisma board in her prepared opening statement, but, later admitted that during her coaching for her Senate confirmation hearings in 2016, there was a practice question regarding Hunter Biden with a standard answer.

Of course, Rep. Stefanik then Gish gallops away using the rest of her time to speechify about “the Obama Administration’s concerns about Hunter Biden, bladabladablah.”

These facts were made available IN THE AMBASSADORS DEPOSITIONS during the impeachment investigation. This fact was known and has been known to every member of that Committee.

Stefanik got a series of yes-or-no questions answered, and then launched into her carefully prepared and utterly nonsensical spiel.

It’s standard political hack rhetoric, and not even well presented, as the Rep was holding up a piece of paper reading off every word.


Like Schiff reading his made-up telephone call dictation? At least she had facts, not fantasy.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: HalWesten

I’m really not concerned with “looking like a fool” to you.

I’ve read the Politico article. I mentioned Manafort.

I submit that your “and many more” is BS.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: HalWesten

I’m really not concerned with “looking like a fool” to you.

I’ve read the Politico article. I mentioned Manafort.

I submit that your “and many more” is BS.


Really? Just on the first two pages of a Google search are a dozen. You might want to start accepting the fact that you're wrong about this. Just admit it. It only hurts for a little while.

By the way, it's also funny that you believe only I think you're a fool.


edit on 15-11-2019 by HalWesten because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: HalWesten

Facts provided by the impeachment investigation, that everyone in the room was already aware of.

Facts presented in a misdirecting way in order to create a sound-byte for the right-wing media.

Those facts?

Yeah, Schiff is a ... special case. He and Pelosi both.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: HalWesten

I’m really not concerned with “looking like a fool” to you.

I’ve read the Politico article. I mentioned Manafort.

I submit that your “and many more” is BS.


Really? Just on the first two pages of a Google search are a dozen. You might want to start accepting the fact that you're wrong about this. Just admit it. It only hurts for a little while.



I should accept the fact that I’m wrong because I don’t agree with you?

Nah. I’m good.

I can get a million links proving Bigfoot and Trump is a Genius too. And I’m certain that at least one of those is fake.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: HalWesten

Facts provided by the impeachment investigation, that everyone in the room was already aware of.

Facts presented in a misdirecting way in order to create a sound-byte for the right-wing media.

Those facts?

Yeah, Schiff is a ... special case. He and Pelosi both.


Come on, you're not a stupid guy. Both sides twist facts and fiction to suit their arguments. But what I'm not seeing from the Dems in this situation so far are actual, first-hand facts. Why not? Because they would prove what we have been saying all along, that this is an attempt to remove a duly-elected president because of political goals. That strategy is why this and every other attempt to "get" Trump will and has failed. Don't bother with the "next week the truth comes out" garbage, that's just a very poor tactical maneuver. You don't weaken your case by bringing out people that can't help you first, you hit hard with everything you have at the beginning to prove your case. They're not doing that, it's almost like the Dems are working really hard to lose this fight.

You're fighting a losing battle, there's no way in hell this fiasco gets any better for the Dems because that's exactly what it is - a fiasco. In fact, I won't predict it because anything can happen, but I would not be surprised in the least if the Dems not only lose the House next year but they also lose seats in the Senate.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: HalWesten

I’m really not concerned with “looking like a fool” to you.

I’ve read the Politico article. I mentioned Manafort.

I submit that your “and many more” is BS.


Really? Just on the first two pages of a Google search are a dozen. You might want to start accepting the fact that you're wrong about this. Just admit it. It only hurts for a little while.



I should accept the fact that I’m wrong because I don’t agree with you?

Nah. I’m good.

I can get a million links proving Bigfoot and Trump is a Genius too. And I’m certain that at least one of those is fake.


Well I have to give you credit, you really believe the crap you're shoveling. I don't give a rat's ass whether you believe me or not, or even care what you think about me or my view of you, what I do care about is your constant, insistent way of ignoring the truth. When a solid source quotes the actual entity that published the report of the 2016 meddling in favor of Hillary, and you deny it, it proves you don't care about the truth and you're just here to stir things up. Congrats, you're really good at it.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:48 PM
link   
You got it. Just like when the Mueller Investigation dredged up things on the Clintons, Obama and their administrations the impeachment hearings will do the same.

Then when the left loses the POTUS and Congress in 2020 they can blame...the people not themselves.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: HalWesten

No, I would not say that I am stupid. Too stubborn sometimes, but not stupid.

Yes, everybody lies. No, I don’t see it as both “sides” lying, because as I look across the political landscape at effects I don’t see a difference between the Democrats and Republicans ... what I see is that they both 1) perpetuate their own power 2) care nothing about those their power is exerted over and 3) act against all the premises of our country and our Constitution which are LIMITS on power not LICENSE.

Trump is the duly-elected President. As such, as a balancing factor, the Constitution gives the House the power of impeachment as a tool to correct the actions of a President gone wrong. Keep in mind the structure, it only takes 51% of the House to impeach and there is no limitation on what an officer can be impeached FOR. SO, impeachment is given to the House, the most direct representation of the PEOPLE in our government, as a stick to correct.

By the same token, only the SENATE has the power to remove. The Senate is the representative of the STATES and is an equalizing body (every State gets two and only two) serving as both a check on the other chamber (the House) but also on the President or other civil officers (like Judges).

Now, of course, the Framers were aware of political parties, BUT THEY DID NOT CODIFY THEIR EXISTENCE IN THE CONSTITUTION. This is a key factor in understanding my position ... the structure of our government is supposed to function IN SPITE OF the political parties.

Ask yourself how many times, for what periods of years, does the same party hold the Executive and the Congress. Rarely more than four in the modern era. That allows for two turnovers of the House, one of the Executive and 2/3 of the Senate.

Therefore, arguably, the most “powerful” body is intended to be the Senate and that squares with the sole ability to REMOVE insuring that regardless of political party, only at extreme need would an elected or appointed position be removed (as 2/3 is almost impossible to get with two parties)

I’m not interested in the Dems “winning.” I’m not even rooting for them. The current Democratic Party is endangering civil liberties (which is really my only interest in politics) by granulating and diffusing the arguments for human rights into a dozen special interest groups rather than working for equity for all involved.

They have to impeach Mr. Trump now. This was a dumb thing to hang it on. At a minimum they have to keep the House and gain the Senate, or they will have utterly lost.

Of course, like the REpublcians, the core of the issue is that they are all AUTHORITARIANS. They want to CONTROL others. That’s psychotic. Americans know at a deep level that we cannot give any of them power for any period of time. We switch it up ... and my point is, that’s the way the Framers intended it to work.

Managed chaos.

Sorry for the length.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: HalWesten

Ah, I see the worm has turned.

No, I don’t care about what you think or what you believe either. You don’t even really exist to me except as words on a screen. A fiction.

I’ve looked at the material you are talking about, evaluated it, looked at different angles, and have come up with the OPPOSITE interpretation from you.

You can write that off as that I am crazy or that I am intentionally dishonest, but you cannot say that I have not considered my position carefully and arrived at my conclusions based on the facts.

Other than that... thanks for the chat.



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Veryolduser
Is it just me or does Ambassador Marie Vovanovitch look like Ghislaine Maxwell with red hair and glasses?

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Ghislaine maxwell was Jeffery Epstein girlfriend
Anybody?
She looks like Blasey Ford to me ... with red hair. She even had the glasses and the crybaby little girl attitude.
edit on 16-11-2019 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jason79
a reply to: Gryphon66

The DOJ has zero authority to launch in investigation in a foreign country.


Either does the President of the Untied States.

That is kind of the whole thing.



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: HalWesten

You can continue to believe that, or you can accept the FACT that there was indeed an attempt at helping Clinton beat Trump in 2016 - BY UKRAINE. Just accept the truth and move on, please. You look like a fool every time you deny that it happened.


Facts speak for themselves and require neither insults or ALL CAPS.



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shawmanfromny

It is insignificant to everyone except ardent Trump supporters. You guys are really starting to appear desperate.

Where’s the DOJ investigation of the Bidens? Surely if Mr. Trump were concerned enough about possible crimes of two American citizens that he tried to get a foreign power to investigate them, surely the DOJ has been working on this for what, two years?

What’s the results of that investigation? Because making ridiculous money is not a crime.

... and neither is being Biden’s son.





posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinner07



Uhhh...have you not seen the Dems for 3 years now try anything to impeach Trump? That is the meaning of desperate.
a reply to: highvein
nope have you? first I have seen of it.

I have heard the word over the last few years but when have they tried to impeach trump for the last 3 years?


Right after the election, hell, they even spied on him during his campaign for counter intelligence. The order was delivered to McCain personally after their greatest fears fell through. The Dem leadership are dying off left and right, and McCain was apart of that die off. They know what will be exposed and theirs hearts fail.



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: HalWesten

No, I would not say that I am stupid. Too stubborn sometimes, but not stupid.


Yes, I recognize the stubbornness and I freely admit to the same in myself. It's an endearing quality most of the time.


Yes, everybody lies. No, I don’t see it as both “sides” lying, because as I look across the political landscape at effects I don’t see a difference between the Democrats and Republicans ... what I see is that they both 1) perpetuate their own power 2) care nothing about those their power is exerted over and 3) act against all the premises of our country and our Constitution which are LIMITS on power not LICENSE.


While I agree with your sentiments, there are three distinctly different major parties that we have to choose from; Democrat, Republican and Libertarian. Each has positives and negatives, however the current Democrat party has fallen to extreme liberals bordering on and in some cases completely crossing the line to socialist. Their goal is to strip our fundamental rights (Bill of Rights) and change our Constitution dramatically. That's not fake news, that has been their goal for decades and has been stated so by many of their members. Many of the Democrats in power now don't believe those limits pertain to them and that's what makes them dangerous. But their ability to convince people that they will provide everything for everyone is why they are still in power in areas. The House, large cities, etc. Their demographic will follow them to the end of the earth if necessary, even if it is unconstitutional. You don't see that as much on the Right as you do the Left. Of course there are exceptions on both sides.


Trump is the duly-elected President. As such, as a balancing factor, the Constitution gives the House the power of impeachment as a tool to correct the actions of a President gone wrong. Keep in mind the structure, it only takes 51% of the House to impeach and there is no limitation on what an officer can be impeached FOR. SO, impeachment is given to the House, the most direct representation of the PEOPLE in our government, as a stick to correct.


Not exactly, they are not given free reign to impeach at will, there has to be egregious circumstances. If you read what Mason and Madison tried to define what actions were deserving of impeachment and ended up with the "high crimes and misdemeanors" phrase to cover extreme actions that harm the People or the ability for the president to do his job. This was pointed out here.


By the same token, only the SENATE has the power to remove. The Senate is the representative of the STATES and is an equalizing body (every State gets two and only two) serving as both a check on the other chamber (the House) but also on the President or other civil officers (like Judges).


Correct, with the Chief Justice of the SC presiding. That's also where, as you know, it becomes a legal process like a courtroom. But in actuality it shouldn't even be at this point because there was no crime committed, the entire process is being held over a phone call that had no damning verbage by Trump. Nothing. So while Clinton actually lied in court under oath, which I wouldn't have impeached him for if I had been in charge, he actually committed a crime. That could have been dealt with after his presidency was over though, it would have been politically smarter because now we have a debacle that's being perpetrated by a bunch of sniveling sore losers.

IF Mueller's investigation had discovered actual crimes I wouldn't have been against this but it didn't. If they had, you can bet they would have gone for the jugular and not hemmed and hawed around it to let congress deal with it. I believe Mueller did so because he knew the Democrats would go for blood and that takes all of the pressure off him. The fact that Comey refused to indict Hillary was just the beginning of this whole thing. It was, and I don't believe anyone of sound mind and common sense can dispute this, to make sure Trump wasn't elected. The LAST thing they wanted was Trump getting in and spoiling their free ride and control.


Now, of course, the Framers were aware of political parties, BUT THEY DID NOT CODIFY THEIR EXISTENCE IN THE CONSTITUTION. This is a key factor in understanding my position ... the structure of our government is supposed to function IN SPITE OF the political parties.


I agree with that 100%. The problem is not the Constitution or the party itself, it's the members of the party, any party. It just happens to be what we see today that is the lion's share of the problem. If Republicans were acting the same way you better believe I'd be on the phone with my Republican representatives telling them to knock it off. It's unnecessary and dangerous to our Republic.

(snip)


I’m not interested in the Dems “winning.” I’m not even rooting for them. The current Democratic Party is endangering civil liberties (which is really my only interest in politics) by granulating and diffusing the arguments for human rights into a dozen special interest groups rather than working for equity for all involved.


Agreed, which is why you should be completely against this impeachment process. The original accusation, Russian involvement with Trump, has been thoroughly debunked and proven wrong. As part of that scheme to keep Trump out of office, several people's Constitutional Rights were stomped on and that should make you furious at the Dems for doing that. Regardless of anything else, first and foremost our Constitutional Rights are paramount. Nixon was wrong in covering up the theft of DNC property, just as the Dems were wrong in trying to prevent Trump from winning by using false information and falsified FISA information verification.


They have to impeach Mr. Trump now. This was a dumb thing to hang it on. At a minimum they have to keep the House and gain the Senate, or they will have utterly lost.

Of course, like the REpublcians, the core of the issue is that they are all AUTHORITARIANS. They want to CONTROL others. That’s psychotic. Americans know at a deep level that we cannot give any of them power for any period of time. We switch it up ... and my point is, that’s the way the Framers intended it to work.


To keep their power, yes, that's what has to be done. That doesn't make it right though. But that is what's wrong with the process, people that believe they deserve the power and will do anything to keep it shouldn't have it in the first place. Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Nadler, Waters, Harris, the whole bunch of them are in it for nothing but the power over people and to a large extent so are most of the Republicans. The majority of both parties are career power-hungry, corrupt people that should not be in that position.

And to respond to your second reply, I don't think you're crazy, I just think you are stubbornly refusing to look at the facts from a logical perspective. We both have our opinions but I will not stop correcting someone when I know the facts dispute what they are saying. To do otherwise would be to stick my head in the sand and I won't do that because then we all lose.

And I've run out of space to type anymo



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join