White House: Ukraine aid held up in part over election probe

a reply to: Extorris

OH.

That's what I wanted to know. Thanks.

originally posted by: PurpleFox

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Time out ... I have a question. Why did the President think that Ukraine had the "Crowdstrike" server?

.

Better question: Why should a "Crowdstrike" server even exist. We know it does, but why?

BINGO!!!!!!


the answer here is it shouldn't exist...

It did exist - but I do seriously wonder why anyone still thinks it does. If there was any thing incriminating on it, it was destroyed long ago.

a reply to: RadioRobert

HFA and the DNC’s scheme of compensating a third party through a straw-man intermediate and conduit to prevent the public from learning of their role in the transaction was the conduct of which the defendants in United States v. Benton, 890 F.3d 697 (8th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, No. 18-442, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 1966 (Mar. 18, 2019), were convicted. The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld those convictions.

"Coolege Reagan Foundation v. FEC, from FEC.gov

a reply to: proximo

That is the essence of my original question. Is Mr. Trump operating in his phone call on a conspriacy theory or actual credible intelligence.

That would make a difference.

“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”

FEC Chair Ellen L. Weintraub

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Extorris

OH.

That's what I wanted to know. Thanks.

Don’t believe everything you hear, unless you like being misinformed.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Now, can you answer the question or not? Because I'll be honest with you, if what Mr. Trump did with Zelensky is a campaign finance violation worthy of impeachment ... then what Clinton's campaign did is CERTAINLY against the same law.

If not, why not. Quick answer is fine, not BS ad hom.

I definitely think what was done was against the law. That's why the Clinton campaign spent a year denying they had any idea where the dossier came from until the FBI released the financials for FusionGPS.

I'm not sure asking a treaty-bound country for assistance into an investigation into that conduct somehow constitutes an FEC violation or criminal conduct of any kind.

Holding foreign assistance money over countries' heads to leverage our interests happens all the time.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Thanks. I must have misread your earlier statement.

One of the obvious differences is that Trump is on the record asking Zelensky directly, and Hillary Clinton has enough "plausible deniability" to avoid criminal action (probably.)

That still doesn't mean that its not the same thing in essence. If it's wrong, it's wrong.

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Extorris

OH.

That's what I wanted to know. Thanks.

Don’t believe everything you hear, unless you like being misinformed.

Thanks, I don't. I do not follow Trump-specific material as I said.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RadioRobert

Thanks. I must have misread your earlier statement.

One of the obvious differences is that Trump is on the record asking Zelensky directly, and Hillary Clinton has enough "plausible deniability" to avoid criminal action (probably.)

That still doesn't mean that its not the same thing in essence. If it's wrong, it's wrong.

One is fraudulently paying campaign money (funneled through intermediaries to hide it) to Russians for political dirt under the auspices of "legal services", and the other is arguably fulfilling his constitutional role as Chief Executive to get cooperation with a DOJ probe into potentially criminal activity.

If investigating wrong-doing by political opponents is automatically "election tampering" , we should probably shut down the impeachment "inquiry" , don't you think? First presidential impeachment inquiry without a floor vote to keep minority members out of the process? Isn't that "election tampering"? Are they disclosing to the FEC all the federal government's money they've spent the last three years investigating as "things of value" to their campaigns? Are they lining up to resign for election interference? Lol

Of course not. They are (at least ostensibly) engaged in the duties of their office to investigate wrong-doing. That the outcome may have political ramifications is (again, ostensibly) incidental.

Saying, do me a favour and cooperate with Barr in a DOJ investigation isn't going to be criminal or a "political contribution", even if there will naturally be a political consequence.

a reply to: RadioRobert

There's a lot of assumptions in what you're presenting. IF there is an on-going DOJ investigation regarding "the Crowdstrike server" and the Biden boys, and IF Mr. Trump had asked for cooperation with that investigation, you would have a better point.

He didn't do that. It's not that clear-cut.

However, I have said before and I will say it again. The President is given extraordinary diplomatic powers, and of all the matters to go after him for toward impeachment, the "Ukraine thing" is about the weakest I could imagine.

And further, if he's guilty of a crime for doing so, someone at Clinton HQ sure as hell was guilty of the same thing and more.

Anyone else think Mulvaney gets fired over this?

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Time out ... I have a question. Why did the President think that Ukraine had the "Crowdstrike" server?

It is a conspiracy theory based on ignorance and bitterness.

Crowdstrike analysed the hacked DNC data and exposed Russian/Fancy bear finger-prints.

Trump would like to see crowd-strike punished for it.

Why Trump thinks a "server" exists or why it would be Ukraine get's deep in the weeds of out there conspiracy boards.

When you don’t know about crowd strike retractions regarding the dnc hack. Yet your TDS just won’t stop www.google.com...

CrowdStrike was laughed at by all of the information security field for their assessment and had to walk back most of their claims quietly.

If you want more links and your not happy with the source use google and take your pick.


To add insult to injury it was the DNC who refused the FBI access to their hacked sever. Why? They used CrowdStrike who has links to Hillary Clinton and was a big donor for her. Crowd strikes conclusions was backed up by the fbi only because they had to accept the conclusion but like magic once the information security assessment evidence came out from CrowdStrike most in the industry laughed at the results. The left has been repeatedly using the dnc hack as evidence for Russian collusion yet ignores this fact. To make it even more interesting Debbie Wassermann Shultz hired the DNC head of IT a Pakistani national who tried to flee the country after the FBI started to look into the case. Debbie left the DNC to campaign with Hillary in the election. But before that she threatened a DC police chief who found a computer hidden in a supply closet connected to the DNC network saying he had no right to it and it was an employees computer. Debbies DNC Head of IT was fired and she kept paying him after out of her own pocket!

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Oraculi

so we can expect a Biden arrest soon?

Why do you say that? Have you heard anything about the US government investigating the Bidens?

Have you a reliable source that says they are not ?

I wonder how future Presidents are going to conduct foreign relations after the Democrats make all contact with foreign leaders suspect and grounds for impeachment ... and than when Republicans go even further the next time they are out of power.

Talk about separation of powers; are we seeing an end to the supremacy of the Executive Branch of government? The legislative branch has been abdicating power to the executive for decades, especially after 911; I hope it turns out for the better as they decide to exert more power... but I fear it won't.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RadioRobert

There's a lot of assumptions in what you're presenting. IF there is an on-going DOJ investigation regarding "the Crowdstrike server" and the Biden boys, and IF Mr. Trump had asked for cooperation with that investigation, you would have a better poin t.

t

Well, I mean, it's an ongoing thing concerning foreign interference in 2016, and the original investigation. As Crowdstrike is obviously related to that (they alleged Russian hacking, and action was taken based on those claims), I don't see the problem. I don't know what investigation is or has been active in the Biden case. And if the crimes were taking place in the Ukraine, I don't see an issue saying, "I've heard bad things. What's happening with that?"

a reply to: Gryphon66

You have to back to look at media earlier this year. New Ukraine government tried to get damning info against the DNC (that the prior UKR admin colluded with) to the U.S. State Dept. State didn't want to see it. Rudy went to get it, gave it to Trump who gave it to Barr. Prosecutor Durham is handling the criminal investigation aspects now.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Now, can you answer the question or not? Because I'll be honest with you, if what Mr. Trump did with Zelensky is a campaign finance violation worthy of impeachment ... then what Clinton's campaign did is CERTAINLY against the same law.

If not, why not. Quick answer is fine, not BS ad hom.

Holding foreign assistance money over countries' heads to leverage our interests happens all the time.

Holding Military Aid from a foreign country to extort personal campaign contributions from a foreign government in the form of fake Kompramat happens never, until now.

The fact that a POTUS has to circumvent the entirety of government to secretly appoint his personal attorney as his proxy and Lead Diplomat on Ukraine is your first hint that something ultra-unethical was going on.

It was never that Ukraine was refusing to provide information, it was that Rudy was frustrated the information provided did not support the debunked conspiracy theories Trump wanted to peddle for his 2020 Presidential Campaign.

This is the most sick and blatant abuse of power we have ever seen by a US President.

originally posted by: Myrtales Instinct
Anyone else think Mulvaney gets fired over this?

that was coming regardless
everyone in that admin is on a countdown clock