Cody montana wrote: » How did that turn out for you?
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Arguments about what should remain classified in Horowitz's report are delaying it's release again and now it's said it won't be out until the end of the month. Democrats doing their level best to see that impeachment remains the top story.
mad muffin wrote: » Oh sure. Debunked. Baseless. Conspiracy theory. What did we learn today from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent? State Department Official Raised Concerns About Hunter Biden in Ukraine Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent told Congress on Tuesday that in 2015 he raised concerns about Hunter Biden sitting Burisma Holding’s board. The office of then-Vice President Joe Biden brushed him off.https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/10/state-department-official-raised-concerns-about-hunter-biden-in-ukraine/ The truth will out. It always does. I’m sure at this stage Nancy is having a meltdown and Schift (I love how McCarthy keeps calling him Schift) is banning his head against the sound absorbing wall inside the SCIF.
Blueshoe wrote: » That's more of it. CNN NBC Sure it's one sided muck. The next guy will quote Fox ,Town hall or some other garbage to counter your "argument"
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Where do you get your news?
peddlelies wrote: » TheHill.com is the best online news site imo. Very neutral, lack of sensationalism. Don't think there's many other news sites I'd hold in that regard.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » See this is the crux of the issue ..... You say Trump was trying to "dig dirt" but that's just your narrative (or to be more precise, Schiff's narrative) about that phone call. There is nothing whatsoever to back up that claim though. On the contrary and yesterday I pointed this out in great detail but was told that this was just "complicating" the issue. You see, if Trump was trying to "dig dirt" (as opposed to merely wanting Zelensky to cooperate with with Barr's investigation) then Zelensky would not have responded to the request by saying: I mean, who would respond to a request for them to "dig up dirt" by saying they would do it openly and candidly? Makes no sense. Well, they have a lot in common. Approved aid to the Ukraine was temporarily withheld for a time and the reason cited by both Trump and Biden concerned elements of corruption. Now, Trump didn't request that anyone was fired that had been involved in investigating a company which his son sat on the board of or anything, and where he earned a small fortune, but there's enough similarities to highlight the hypocrisy of the left for sure.
Blueshoe wrote: » All arguing and debating about this and that. While in reality we only hear dribs and drabs and the opinions of "higher up" types who have an agenda one way or the other. We are ants. We don't really know what is going on in the lives of the rich and powerful. Squabbling over scraps and half truths. I'm guilty of it myself too
Blueshoe wrote: » It's not really news though is it. Let's call a spade a spade. It's loosely biased spin on current events . If I listened for example to CNN reporting on something and the listened to fox news report on the same incident I would get two different stories. The truth is somewhere in the middle . That's an extreme example as it's American and obvious. If I was listening to Rte news and they reported on something I immediately say to myself that's the angle rte reported. It's an update on an event but it's from the side they chose to take. I am now informed about the event but don't know the full story or truth as I have gotten rtes version. It's unavoidable
Outlaw Pete wrote: » That's about the Bidens. Has nothing whatsoever to do with what I linked to. That also does not 'debunk' what I linked to. That does not 'debunk' what I linked to either.
Blueshoe wrote: » It's not really news though is it. Let's call a spade a spade. It's loosely biased spin on current events . If I listened for example to CNN reporting on something and the listened to fox news report on the same incident I would get two different stories. The truth is somewhere in the middle . That's an extreme example as it's American and obvious. If I was listening to Rte news and they reported on something I immediately say to myself that's the angle rte reported. It's an update on an event but it's from the side they chose to take. I am now informed about the event but don't know the full story or truth as I have gotten rtes version. It's unavoidable. A poster made some claims and used CNN and NBC links to back it up . Comical really
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Well, it's about reading as much as you can from both sides and making your own mind up. The further away you go from the centre of the media, in either direction, the more lies you will read.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Seriously, what do you call Trump asking for help with an investigation into Biden?
Blueshoe wrote: » I agree. But some will post links from blatantly biased news "networks" and claim them to be 100% factual. They will stand by those articles and argue with anyone who questions them. It's kind of ridiculous and boring
Overheal wrote: » Burden of proof: someone contributes information from a news outlet that presents the information as factual and based on sourcing x y z. By all means, if you can debunk the reporting, debunk the reporting. By all means, criticize an article if it is thinly sourced or irrationally argued. But we’re deviating from the impeachment topic..
Overheal wrote: » I don’t really post anything from CNN much less for breaking news as they’ve been caught messing around before (in the Trayvon martin case they misrepresented the 911 audio). But we’re deviating from the impeachment topic..
mcmoustache wrote: » It's not challenged because it had bipartisan and international support as a policy.
If he was just concerned about corruption in Ukraine, I doubt there wouldn't be any legal issue although plenty would rightly point at the hypocrisy. It was the specific request to investigate a political rival that took it into the territory of illegality.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Cody posted and said that Laura Cooper was being interviewed today and that she knew concerns about Ukraine corruption were not legit. I posted my link in reply and said I'd be interested in what she had to say and you replied and said that it was debunked conspiracy theory. What I am asked of you is a link to show that what I posed was debunked as you claimed.
2 Republican senators refute Trump’s Ukraine-Biden conspiracy theory ...saying he and other lawmakers “believed the prosecutor wasn’t doing nearly enough to root out corruption — not because he was doing too much.” This isn’t terribly surprising. Johnson and Portman were two of three GOP senators who co-signed a bipartisan 2016 letter to Ukraine’s then-president calling for him to “press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General’s office and judiciary.” Four days later, Shokin resigned (although he didn’t officially leave until the following month when Ukraine’s Parliament voted him out).https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/7/20903398/trump-biden-ukraine-portman-johnson-impeachment
Trump's conspiracy theories thrive in Ukraine, where a young democracy battles corruption and distrust We talked with two dozen leaders and investigators in Ukraine. They all agree the claims against Joe and Hunter Biden are baseless. Yet they persist.https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/world/2019/10/10/trumps-biden-ukraine-natural-gas-conspiracy-theory-false-but-alive/3851728002/
The Invention of the Conspiracy Theory on Biden and Ukraine How a conservative dark-money group that targeted Hillary Clinton in 2016 spread the discredited story that may lead to Donald Trump’s impeachment.https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-invention-of-the-conspiracy-theory-on-biden-and-ukraine
mcmoustache wrote: » What's the basis for the Crowdstrike server in Ukraine theory? I've looked online but most of the stuff on it comes from very dodgy sites. I found an explanation on forbes but it doesn't explain the origin.
Blueshoe wrote: » That's all that happens. Articles back and forth. Nothing else. My point.
mcmoustache wrote: » Just on CNN... Does anybody here actually watch it for news? I hear about it a lot as if we're all getting our information from there but it's hard to imagine anyone in Ireland watching it. I can understand posting a clip that someone finds on youtube of an interview or something but not actually using it as their source. American news formats are kind of weird to an Irish media consumer, in my opinion.
duploelabs wrote: » I'm noticing tumbleweed in response
duploelabs wrote: » You didn't 'link' to anything when I replied with those
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Exactly, tackling corruption in Ukraine has bipartisan and international support and that's why there is nothing at all wrong with Trump asking the Ukraine to cooperate with an ongoing investigation which involves the Ukraine in that regard. If the left wish to moan about one, then they should also moan about the other, but they don't because they don't like who is in the Oval at the moment and also who is in the crosshairs of the current investigations by the DOJ. As has been said to you multiple times now, running for president does not make someone immune from investigation and had Biden not bragged about what he had done, and his son not made a fortune from sitting on the board of a Ukrainian gas company (which he sat on as a direct result of Biden's position as Vice President of the United States) and the ex Ukraine prosecutor (Shokin) not been fired at the behest of Biden and not testified that he was fired because he was investigating corruption at that gas company ... well then maybe nobody would really care for the very reasons you cite .. but these are the inconvenient facts and therefore Trump would remiss not to ask for Zelensky to look into the firing to see if maybe there was a benefit to Biden which may have motivated the request. Maybe in future he won't be so quick to go around bragging about using a $1billion loan guarantee as leverage to have foreign officials fired.
peddlelies wrote: » Here's what I know about it. The FBI and the DHS were denied investigative access to the server. The DNC hired a third party, "crowdstrike", which was set up by a Ukrainian who lives in America. Crowdstrike have some marks on their record, they had to walk back certain reports where they wrongly blamed Russia. After that I have no idea. I do think it's strange a third party was used.
mcmoustache wrote: » You need to figure out the difference between holding federal funds for national policy reasons and holding federal funds for personal politically partisan reasons. That's what sets these cases apart.
peddlelies wrote: » Here's what I know about it. The FBI and the DHS were denied investigative access to the server. The DNC hired and paid a third party, "crowdstrike", which was set up by a Ukrainian who lives in America. Crowdstrike have some marks on their record, they had to walk back certain reports where they wrongly blamed Russia. After that I have no idea. I do think it's strange a third party was used. If roles were reserved, and Trump had denied FBI/DHS access and used a third party questions would be asked too you'd have to imagine.
