Not news: Clinton campaign aided by Ukrainian government

[TexasTiger 12,811]

9 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don't think the leaks are from the investigation either, it's just the people investigating this does not have as much control over the information as the NTSB does.  I really don't think Trump and company leaked the Trump Jr email, do you?  I do believe the Trump media machine is fighting back aggressively with their own brand of the "truth".

I'll be glad when this Russian thing is over and the media finds something else to resist over.

Someone inside the meeting is leaking.

[I_M4_AU 7,772]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Someone inside the meeting is leaking.

I don't doubt that at all, but if the media was doing its job of reporting, this meeting would not have made the nightly news.  Not anything substantial in the information, just supposition.  It was reported to further the agenda of the resistance and it's working.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

24 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don't doubt that at all, but if the media was doing its job of reporting, this meeting would not have made the nightly news.  Not anything substantial in the information, just supposition.  It was reported to further the agenda of the resistance and it's working.

Not true. Kushner omitted it even from his revised, "corrected" form which is a violation of law. Junior talked about it. Tweeted about it. Lied about it. Hired a criminal defense attorney over it. 

Plus, Trump's unusual embrace of Putin invites theories as to why.

[DKW 86 7,411]

No one here has, is, or will defend Trump. trump is a clown. I wish to God that he was never elected, but then again Bernie wasnt on the ballot.

It is a testament to your immaturity that if someone even points out that there are people in the media, people in academia, people even in the Democrat Party telling you to not get your hopes up, or to not believe all the hype, that you, as per usual, have to resort to putting words in peoples' mouths and maybe even defaming those who are reasonably pointing out FACTS. Fact, so far, there isnt anything of any real evidence found. Feinstein, Waters, Greenwald, professors, academics, lawyers etc are all telling you there isnt anything there SO FAR. 

Dem Congressmen are telling you that back home NO ONE CARES. I hope Trump is forced out but I dont think Pence will be much better. I think a reading of the FACTS will tell any reasonable person that odds of Trump resigning or getting impeached is just about nil.The people at the meeting have said that all Veselnitskaya brought was extremely low value accusations of Clinton and some possibly fraudulent transactions. No one there said anything about emails even being discussed etc. The meeting itself is a throw away. The LIES ABOUT THE MEETING, now there is definite damage there, even now. 

WATCH THIS:
Tex, homey, When DF, MW, etc are openly saying, quoted numerous times with links on this forum, that there is no evidence of anything, Do you think they are defending Trump? Do you think that Democrat Leadership is lying to the American People? ?

All anyone on this forum has done is not defend Trump at all. All I have done is try and get the word of Democrat Leadership out there so others wont get their hopes raised and then likely smashed if nothing does come of this.

[DKW 86 7,411]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Plus, Trump's unusual embrace of Putin invites theories as to why.

Theories do not equate to hard evidence. Theories dont get into a courtroom or into an impeachment hearing.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

14 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Theories do not equate to hard evidence. Theories dont get into a courtroom or into an impeachment hearing.

No kidding. But you can't expect folks to ignore unprecedented behavior in regard to one of our all-time greatest adversaries especially when there is lie after lie covering up interactions.

 

[DKW 86 7,411]

Lying about the meeting still doesnt get to Trump or collusion. It looks bad as hell, but when they go to court or to the House Floor, you have to have facts. 

[homersapien 11,354]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Lying about the meeting still doesnt get to Trump or collusion. It looks bad as hell, but when they go to court or to the House Floor, you have to have facts. 

Thus, the investigation. 

And there are plenty of facts emerging in spite of the efforts to hide them.

[homersapien 11,354]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

No one here has, is, or will defend Trump. trump is a clown. I wish to God that he was never elected, but then again Bernie wasnt on the ballot.

It is a testament to your immaturity that if someone even points out that there are people in the media, people in academia, people even in the Democrat Party telling you to not get your hopes up, or to not believe all the hype, that you, as per usual, have to resort to putting words in peoples' mouths and maybe even defaming those who are reasonably pointing out FACTS. Fact, so far, there isnt anything of any real evidence found. Feinstein, Waters, Greenwald, professors, academics, lawyers etc are all telling you there isnt anything there SO FAR. 

Dem Congressmen are telling you that back home NO ONE CARES. I hope Trump is forced out but I dont think Pence will be much better. I think a reading of the FACTS will tell any reasonable person that odds of Trump resigning or getting impeached is just about nil.The people at the meeting have said that all Veselnitskaya brought was extremely low value accusations of Clinton and some possibly fraudulent transactions. No one there said anything about emails even being discussed etc. The meeting itself is a throw away. The LIES ABOUT THE MEETING, now there is definite damage there, even now. 

WATCH THIS:
Tex, homey, When DF, MW, etc are openly saying, quoted numerous times with links on this forum, that there is no evidence of anything, Do you think they are defending Trump? Do you think that Democrat Leadership is lying to the American People? ?

All anyone on this forum has done is not defend Trump at all. All I have done is try and get the word of Democrat Leadership out there so others wont get their hopes raised and then likely smashed if nothing does come of this.

Irony

YOU are the one having a conniption over the continuing drip of new information while Mueller's investigation is still in progress.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Lying about the meeting still doesnt get to Trump or collusion. It looks bad as hell, but when they go to court or to the House Floor, you have to have facts. 

They need a lot of facts to get past a corrupt, pathetic Congress as well as a court. No one I know has argued otherwise. There is plenty known justifying an investigation. Let's allow it to unfold before claiming there's no evidence. Meanwhile, the news media has a duty to report relevant info that they obtain.

[DKW 86 7,411]

Once again, Democrats in the know say they have seen no evidence supporting this. We have other things to work on now. Lets go do that and come back after the investigation is over. BUT SO FAR...This is still a nothing burger. You have to have FACTS to go do something in court or HOR. So far, according to Feinsein and others, they have nothing. 

Lets put our time into something more profitable LIKE WINNING ELECTIONS.

DF, MW, etc are openly saying, quoted numerous times with links on this forum, that there is no evidence of anything.
Do you think they are defending Trump? 
Do you think that Democrat Leadership is lying to the American People? 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

BS.  

Show us an example.   

You're so partisan, you don't see your own bias or others on here like you:

You crow about there being enough to justify an investigation of the people in the Trump campaign:

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

Thus, the investigation. 

And there are plenty of facts emerging in spite of the efforts to hide them.

There was also enough to justify an investigation of Hillary's emails and private server. But the facts of that investigation didn't matter to you. 

Just before the election, you posted this article saying that Hillary's email controversy was a bullsh** story:

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/153691-the-real-clinton-email-scandal-is-that-a-bull-story-has-dominated-the-campaign/

 

 

[homersapien 11,354]

48 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

You're so partisan, you don't see your own bias or others on here like you:

You crow about there being enough to justify an investigation of the people in the Trump campaign:

There was also enough to justify an investigation of Hillary's emails and private server. But the facts of that investigation didn't matter to you. 

Just before the election, you posted this article saying that Hillary's email controversy was a bullsh** story:

You're full of it.  I am not partisan in my perspective, I am not even a Democrat.  

There's more than enough to justify an investigation into the Trump campaign and their connections to Russia.  Are you seriously suggesting there's not?   If so, then let's parse that chain of thought in detail, OK?

And you don't know s*** about how I feel about Hillary.  I have no problem whatsoever in conducting investigations into her e-mail issues.  I think that has already happened and I think the worst has been found.  But if you and the Republicans want to keep on pursuing it, I say have at it!  It serves her right for being so arrogant or ignorant.

So quit telling me what I think about anything.  

Just ask.  I'll tell you.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

57 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You're full of it.  I am not partisan in my perspective, I am not even a Democrat.  

There's more than enough to justify an investigation into the Trump campaign and their connections to Russia.  Are you seriously suggesting there's not?   If so, then let's parse that chain of thought in detail, OK?

That's a straw man. I want pointing out the difference in your reaction when one side is being investigated versus the other. 

Isn't this what you asked for earlier?

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

BS.  

Show us an example.   

 

When I show you an example of hypocrisy where you posted a VOX article about Hilary's email controversy being bullsh** you somehow take that as me inferring that the investigation of people in the Trump campaign isn't justified. You're insinuating something I never said or even suggested.

 

57 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And you don't know s*** about how I feel about Hillary.  I have no problem whatsoever in conducting investigations into her e-mail issues.  I think that has already happened and I think the worst has been found.  But if you and the Republicans want to keep on pursuing it, I say have at it!  It serves her right for being so arrogant or ignorant.

So quit telling me what I think about anything.  

Just ask.  I'll tell you.

For someone who didn't have a problem with the Hillary investigation, do you think it's a good idea to post an article saying the Hillary email controversy was a bullsh** story?

[DKW 86 7,411]

On 7/15/2017 at 8:42 PM, homersapien said:

Unless you want to specify specific arguments being made by anyone on this forum - or even by someone else in the media - that's a straw man argument.

It's tiresome - the non-intellectual equivalent of watching someone masturbate.

And the Democrats can't demand impeachment all they want, they can't do it. It will be the Republicans who must decide to remove him from office, and I think it will happen.

This entire thread leading up to homey making his prediction of guaranteed impeachment for collusion needs to be seen by some just for context. Here you go. Please read the last 2 pages. All anyone in this thread is talking about is collusion. Now homey, as is his want 24/7/365, is now weaseling out of his factless, baseless "guarantee."

[homersapien 11,354]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

This entire thread leading up to homey making his prediction of guaranteed impeachment for collusion needs to be seen by some just for context. Here you go. Please read the last 2 pages. All anyone in this thread is talking about is collusion. Now homey, as is his want 24/7/365, is now weaseling out of his factless, baseless "guarantee."

Man, you are crazy.  

This is a written forum.  Everything that's been said can be retreived.  All you have to do is cut and paste it.

Either show me the sentence where I said anything resembling your claim - "guaranteed impeachment for collusion", or shut the **** up.

You are making a fool of yourself. 

[DKW 86 7,411]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Man, you are crazy.  

This is a written forum.  Everything that's been said can be retreived.  All you have to do is cut and paste it.

Either show me the sentence where I said anything resembling your claim - "guaranteed impeachment for collusion", or shut the **** up.

You are making a fool of yourself. 

[homersapien 11,354]

That's evasion David.

Show us where I said Trump will be impeached for collusion, or stop lying about it.

[DKW 86 7,411]

On 7/16/2017 at 11:36 AM, DKW 86 said:

WATCH THIS:
Tex, homey, When DF, MW, etc are openly saying, quoted numerous times with links on this forum, that there is no evidence of anything, Do you think they are defending Trump? Do you think that Democrat Leadership is lying to the American People? ?

All anyone on this forum has done is not defend Trump at all. All I have done is try and get the word of Democrat Leadership out there so others wont get their hopes raised and then likely smashed if nothing does come of this.

 

Homey, it would kill you or Tex to ever answer a question here. It is just what you do.

It is 6 months later and we are still waiting for you to answer this...

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Bump........

[Tiger Sue 325]

On 1/16/2018 at 4:40 AM, DKW 86 said:

Homey, it would kill you or Tex to ever answer a question here. It is just what you do.

It is 6 months later and we are still waiting for you to answer this...

Tex will call you dishonest and not back  it up.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

On 7/12/2017 at 7:41 PM, Auburnfan91 said:

Manafort’s work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC’s arm for engaging expatriate Democrats around the world.

In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. While her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities — including Ukrainian-Americans — she said that, when Trump’s unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump’s ties to Russia, as well.

She occasionally shared her findings with officials from the DNC and Clinton’s campaign, Chalupa said. In January 2016 — months before Manafort had taken any role in Trump’s campaign — Chalupa told a senior DNC official that, when it came to Trump’s campaign, “I felt there was a Russia connection,” Chalupa recalled. “And that, if there was, that we can expect Paul Manafort to be involved in this election,” said Chalupa, who at the time also was warning leaders in the Ukrainian-American community that Manafort was “Putin’s political brain for manipulating U.S. foreign policy and elections.”

Alexandra Chalupa was doing this work BEFORE the DNC emails were hacked and BEFORE Manafort even joined Trump's campaign

Once Wikileaks published the hacked DNC e-mails, it showed that Chalupa was communicating with the DNC about what she was doing and finding. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Switching to the current Ukraine story...........

Here's Adam Schiff's tweet just 2 weeks after the "whistleblower" complaint was made to the IG about the Trump-Ukraine call:

Hold on a second, Aug. 28 is when Schiff's tweet was made? The "whistleblower" complaint was made Aug. 12 to the IG.

 

The WashPo reported on Sep. 23  about Trump freezing Ukraine aid and specifically noted that the IG informed the House and Senate intelligence committees of the complaint's existence on Sep. 9

Quote

Mid-August is also when a whistleblower from the intelligence community filed a complaint regarding Trump and Ukraine to Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson. Atkinson informed the House and Senate intelligence committees of the complaint’s existence Sept. 9 — the same day three House committees launched an investigation to determine whether Trump and his lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, had improperly pushed Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-ordered-hold-on-military-aid-days-before-calling-ukrainian-president-officials-say/2019/09/23/df93a6ca-de38-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html

 

So if the House and Senate intelligence committees were first told by the IG on Sep. 9 about the complaint's existence, why was Adam Schiff's tweet on Aug. 28 basically what the complaint was about?

Also, look who responded to Adam Schiff's Aug. 28 tweet:

 

[DKW 86 7,411]

Biden brags about Freezing Funding for Ukraine to get "What he wants done"...the Prosecutor Investigating Hunter Biden Fired.

FLASHBACK, 2018: Joe Biden Brags At CFR Meeting About Withholding Aid To Ukraine To Force Firing Of Prosecutor

Trump wants to freeze funding to Ukraine to get what he wants done, to get the information on the Investigation into Hunter Biden, or to get the Investigation Restarted.  

I am having a hard time deciding who is more corrupt here. Trump only asked about the corruption. Hunter Biden and Joe Biden seem to be bragging about being actively involved and getting paid off big time.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

In August 2016, the New York Times reported on a "secret ledger"  in Ukraine that tied Manafort to undisclosed payments from a former Ukraine president's administration. The NYT received that info from Ukraine's NABU(National Anti-Corruption Bureau). Shortly after that NYT's story broke, Manafort resigned from Trump's campaign:

Quote

Manafort, 67, had drawn scrutiny after recent reports linked him to former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, a Vladimir Putin ally whose ouster led to the Russia’s intervention in Ukraine.

The New York Times reported on Sunday that secret ledgers showed $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments had been designated for Manafort from the Yanukovych administration. In a statement Monday, Manafort called the report “unfounded, silly and nonsensical,” and said he had never taken an “off-the-books cash payment” nor worked for the governments of Ukraine or Russia.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/19/trump-senior-aide-manafort-resigns-after-being-pushed-aside.html

 

Even though you can argue the  intentions of the NABU were good (exposing Manafort's corruption), giving that info to the NYT  directly impacted a presidential campaign and was an attempt to influence the 2016 election in favor of Clinton. Anyone arguing that interference from an ally country is good are being disingenuous and proving that election interference is ok if it favors the candidate they support. Nobody supporting Ukraine's interference would have been ok with it if they had tried to hurt the Clinton campaign and not Trump. People defending Ukraine would have a much different tone if the roles were reversed.

Ukraine hurting Trump = GOOD

Russia hurting Hillary = BAD

Also, just because Ukraine is an ally doesn't mean they're above board. Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Their government has been corrupt for years. It was the Obama administration that supported the previous president of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, even though he didn't have a good track record of fighting corruption and Poroshenko even went so far as to strip his political opponent of his citizenship in 2017:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-saakashvili-citizenship/ukraine-president-strips-one-time-ally-saakashvili-of-citizenship-idUSKBN1AB2DG

Ukraine and Russia appear to have used the 2016 U.S. election as a surrogate battle in their tense relationship. Yet the Democrats approved of Ukraine influencing the 2016 election because they wanted to make sure Trump didn't beat Hillary but it didn't work.