holy hell that Ukraine stuff

[Truthy]

Has something changed recently? The BBC said that Ukrainian interference in the US election (rather than the Russians) was a widely debunked conspiracy theory.

This article is pretty good and I think covers all of it. Berzerker has linked to it a few times in this thread, but I'm not sure he's done more than read the headline.

In short, this now-infamous DNC lady Alexandra Chalupa and Ukraine's anti-corruption bureau (NABU) helped get Paul Manafort (Trump's campaign chair) arrested. And like the entire Ukrainian government assumed Trump would lose, so they snubbed him a few times. So it's a little sketchy. But they don't claim anything like "Ukraine colluded with the DNC to frame Russia and Trump"--what Trump and Berzerker have been saying (and that's also probably what the BBC was saying had been "widely debunked"). Also, Vogel (one of the authors) has written millions of times he thinks that's an extremely stupid theory. Guessing Berzerker doesn't realize that when he links to this article thinking it backs him up.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Giuliani was back in Ukraine this week trying to dig up more dirt on Biden. The normalization of this sort of corruption could be the most lasting legacy of this criminal administration. It is now OK to solicit foreign interference in our elections to help your side.

 

[Estebonrober]

This article is pretty good and I think covers all of it. Berzerker has linked to it a few times in this thread, but I'm not sure he's done more than read the headline.

In short, this now-infamous DNC lady Alexandra Chalupa and Ukraine's anti-corruption bureau (NABU) helped get Paul Manafort (Trump's campaign chair) arrested. And like the entire Ukrainian government assumed Trump would lose, so they snubbed him a few times. So it's a little sketchy. But they don't claim anything like "Ukraine colluded with the DNC to frame Russia and Trump"--what Trump and Berzerker have been saying (and that's also probably what the BBC was saying had been "widely debunked"). Also, Vogel (one of the authors) has written millions of times he thinks that's an extremely stupid theory. Guessing Berzerker doesn't realize that when he links to this article thinking it backs him up.

I've read that specific article like 4 times trying to divine why republicans link to it so much and I still can;t figure it out. Manafort was the essence of a corrupt political buffoon and got busted and called out for it. End of story.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I've read that specific article like 4 times trying to divine why republicans link to it so much and I still can;t figure it out. Manafort was the essence of a corrupt political buffoon and got busted and called out for it. End of story.

They have no other defense, so they link to things and hope no one follows the link. "Links build credibility no matter what" is the flip side of "citation required." The people who link things that don't actually support their position are the same ones who will demand a link to a weather site to prove it rained if you say 'Trump left muddy footprints all the way from the murder scene to the White House door.'

 

[Berzerker]

If you can't work that out from the context, I'm not going to help you.

even if Obama did do that, it doesn't retroactively make it legal for Trump to do it.

Maybe someone else can work it out, but retroactive means going back in time to change the legal status of something in the past. Now if it was legal for Obama and the laws haven't changed, it should be legal for Trump, and if its illegal for Trump then it was illegal for Obama.

Has something changed recently? The BBC said that Ukrainian interference in the US election (rather than the Russians) was a widely debunked conspiracy theory.

I'll be glad to help, Ukraine interfered in our election. I believe John Durham is investigating the extent of that interference.

Do you have any proof that one was dependent on the other? I have yet to see it. We have that proof with Trump.

I thought you wanted proof the billion $ resulted in personal gain. Long before Trump asked Ukraine to investigate their interference in our election the Obama administration was handing out a billion $ to fire a prosecutor who was looking into our Ukrainian friends. These people helped the Clinton campaign, they took down Manafort and probably helped Steele with his dossier.

Them attacking manafort was also defending themselves, so it's hard to figure out if it was interference. I agreed way early on that we need a system that can investigate people like Hunter. It is a damn shame that Trump proved himself as being unworthy. He doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.

It isn't hard, it was interference... their motives dont matter. I'm sure Russia interfered because they saw Clinton as a threat and were defending themselves from what they see as the continuing encroachment of Nato and the west peeling away their allies.

Trump loyalists.

The Democrats and Biden provided that cover. They were in Ukraine spreading our taxes around buying friends who helped them in the election before Trump asked Ukraine to investigate that interference.

This article is pretty good and I think covers all of it. Berzerker has linked to it a few times in this thread, but I'm not sure he's done more than read the headline.

Didn't I quote it?

In short, this now-infamous DNC lady Alexandra Chalupa and Ukraine's anti-corruption bureau (NABU) helped get Paul Manafort (Trump's campaign chair) arrested. And like the entire Ukrainian government assumed Trump would lose, so they snubbed him a few times. So it's a little sketchy. But they don't claim anything like "Ukraine colluded with the DNC to frame Russia and Trump"--what Trump and Berzerker have been saying (and that's also probably what the BBC was saying had been "widely debunked"). Also, Vogel (one of the authors) has written millions of times he thinks that's an extremely stupid theory. Guessing Berzerker doesn't realize that when he links to this article thinking it backs him up.

I dont know if Ukraine hacked the Dems to help them cover up for an internal leak and frame Russia, but its possible. I never claimed the article supported that theory, I said it showed collusion between the Dems and Ukrainians to interfere in the election. But at least 'a little sketchy' is more truthy than claiming it was debunked

I've read that specific article like 4 times trying to divine why republicans link to it so much and I still can;t figure it out. Manafort was the essence of a corrupt political buffoon and got busted and called out for it. End of story.

Read it again, the article shows the Dems were working with Ukrainians before Manafort became an issue. It looks like you're okay with Ukrainians helping to bring Manafort down because he was corrupt, but when Trump asks Ukraine to investigate corruption or Russia to publish emails exposing corrupt Democrats its the end of democracy, Mom and apple pie.

 

[Ajidica]

Read it again, the article shows the Dems were working with Ukrainians before Manafort became an issue.

Manafort has always been a shady crook, and any presidential candidate with even a passing familiarity with basic human decency would have sent him back to political Siberia as soon as they could have.
Perhaps hiring the guy who lobbied for Ferdinand Marcos, Mobutu Sese Seko, Ukrainian kleptocrats, and Angolan blood-diamond traffickers was ALWAYS A TERRIBLE IDEA.

 

[Berzerker]

That doesn't change the fact the Dems were soliciting Ukrainian help interfering in our election before Manafort got involved.

 

[Truthy]

Didn't I quote it?

I dont know if Ukraine hacked the Dems to help them cover up for an internal leak and frame Russia, but its possible. I never claimed the article supported that theory, I said it showed collusion between the Dems and Ukrainians to interfere in the election. But at least 'a little sketchy' is more truthy than claiming it was debunked

I'm pretty sure you've explicitly said you think that's what happened. Or at least strongly implied it. And yes, I do think the stuff in the article is "a little sketchy." And I think Trump's military aid shenanigans with Ukraine were extraordinarily sketchy

truthy

Roll credits

edit: thanks for the 500th like @El_Machinae

 

[Berzerker]

I'm pretty sure you've explicitly said you think that's what happened. Or at least strongly implied it. And yes, I do think the stuff in the article is "a little sketchy." And I think Trump's military aid shenanigans with Ukraine were extraordinarily sketchy

Roll credits

Where did I say the article claimed Ukraine hacked the Dems to frame the Russians? You accuse me of just reading headlines to articles I've linked and quoted and you're relying on pretty sure recollections? Just quote me. Oh wait, you did:

"I dont know if Ukraine hacked the Dems to help them cover up for an internal leak and frame Russia, but its possible. I never claimed the article supported that theory, I said it showed collusion between the Dems and Ukrainians to interfere in the election."

Now the reason I think thats possible is because it makes sense, if you're John Podesta and you find out someone leaked your emails to wikileaks, what would you do? Shift the blame, make the story about someone else, keep red baiting Hillary's opponents. Dont let the FBI have the evidence, ask your friends at Crowdstrike to do the analysis and tell everyone it was the Russians and Trump is Putin's puppet. Yeah, thats the ticket... Its possible, I'll leave the door open far enough to take a peak.

So you think the article is wrong? I thought you were calling the collusion a little sketchy, but you seem to be claiming the allegation of collusion made in the article is a little sketchy. Are you saying the Politico article was debunked too?

How do you feel about Biden waving a billion $ at Ukraine to fire a prosecutor for refusing to investigate his son's company? Isn't that the line of BS the Dems tossed at us? Yeah, that damn prosecutor was too easy on Burisma! Fire him! Or maybe he wasn't easy enough. Maybe he was looking into the money pouring into the country from the west and we didn't like that so we got rid of him. We sent a message to the other prosecutors, dont mess with us or Joe will show up with a billion $ to fire them too.

edit: isn't Crowdstrike a Ukrainian company? Isn't that why Trump was asking the Ukrainian Prez to do us a favor and look into it, maybe locate the server he thinks might be hidden in Ukraine?

While I'm on the subject of John Podesta:

America the Great!

 

[FriendlyFire]

America the Great!

Everytime you post a Jimmy Dore video I want to to remember what he thinks of Trump and Trump supporters.
Just keep that in your mind exactly what Trump and hes supporters are.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: This is not a video wars thread. Please keep any accompanying videos brief and to the point.

 

[Estebonrober]

Read it again, the article shows the Dems were working with Ukrainians before Manafort became an issue. It looks like you're okay with Ukrainians helping to bring Manafort down because he was corrupt, but when Trump asks Ukraine to investigate corruption or Russia to publish emails exposing corrupt Democrats its the end of democracy, Mom and apple pie.

It really really doesn't.

 

[rah]

I thought you wanted proof the billion $ resulted in personal gain. Long before Trump asked Ukraine to investigate their interference in our election the Obama administration was handing out a billion $ to fire a prosecutor who was looking into our Ukrainian friends. These people helped the Clinton campaign, they took down Manafort and probably helped Steele with his dossier

You thought wrong, My question was.........
Do you have any proof that one was dependent on the other? I have yet to see it. We have that proof with Trump.

I'm still waiting for you to provide it.

 

[El_Machinae]

They took down Manafort for internal reasons. If my husband was beating me, and I slipped evidence of his fraud to his business rival, then you know why I did it.

Also, test your intuitions of timelines. Do you remember The Ledger being slipped out before or after Republicans were defending theTrump Tower meeting as legit?

 

[Berzerker]

Nancy Pelosi wants to impeach Trump for a phone call to Ukraine when she refused to impeach Bush for war crimes. Huh? Oh yeah, Nancy Pelosi is complicit in those war crimes. She knew we were torturing people and did nothing.

You thought wrong, My question was.........
Do you have any proof that one was dependent on the other? I have yet to see it. We have that proof with Trump.

I'm still waiting for you to provide it.

you asked me about personal gain:

"you have no proof that Obama used government funds to bribe a foreign government for personal gain."

A billion $ bribe resulted in the personal gain of many people, including Hunter Biden and his boss. I already explained what Obama would have gained, at a minimum, his legacy. A Trump win killed it. Did you know Burisma was meeting with our State Dept around the same time Ukraine fired that prosecutor? The VP's son's company was lobbying the Obama administration for better treatment, they got it. Then they told us they fired the prosecutor because he wasn't prosecuting Burisma. lolwut?

Now, your argument appears to be: it was okay for Obama/Biden to bribe Ukraine because it served a policy goal. Well, then Trump can bribe Ukraine for his policy goal of investigating Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. Didn't the Obama administration and Clinton campaign use the policy goal of investigating Russian interference as an excuse to spy on Trump?

It really really doesn't.

The article said Chalupa started working to gather dirt on Trump in late '15 and/or early '16 - the same time frame the Clinton campaign was telling the media to promote Trump. That isn't a coincidence. When did Manafort get taken down with the black ledger? The summer of '16... The Dems had already spent months looking into Trump.

They took down Manafort for internal reasons. If my husband was beating me, and I slipped evidence of his fraud to his business rival, then you know why I did it.

Also, test your intuitions of timelines. Do you remember The Ledger being slipped out before or after Republicans were defending theTrump Tower meeting as legit?

The guy who disclosed the ledger said he did it to nail Trump. That wasn't internal politics, it was about helping Clinton win. Regardless, it interfered in our election and there were Ukrainians opposed to getting involved but many people in the country were dependent on Obama and Biden and the gravy train we were funding.

 

[Arakhor]

Nancy Pelosi wants to impeach Trump for a phone call to Ukraine when she refused to impeach Bush for war crimes. Huh? Oh yeah, Nancy Pelosi is complicit in those war crimes. She knew we were torturing people and did nothing.

As I recall, she was against impeaching Trump at all. Then again, if the US actually cared about war crimes, they'd have closed Guantanamo a long time ago.

 

[AmazonQueen]

As I recall, she was against impeaching Trump at all. Then again, if the US actually cared about war crimes, they'd have closed Guantanamo a long time ago.

Nor does Trump oppose the use of torture. He actively supports it.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ys-us-president-in-first-television-interview

 

[Arakhor]

Well, of course he does. Liberal tears and all.

 

[Estebonrober]

The article said Chalupa started working to gather dirt on Trump in late '15 and/or early '16 - the same time frame the Clinton campaign was telling the media to promote Trump. That isn't a coincidence. When did Manafort get taken down with the black ledger? The summer of '16... The Dems had already spent months looking into Trump.



.

Its not illegal to look into your political opponent? Its illegal to extort them with your power as president into doing so. So the only possible thing Chalupa could possible be guilty of is the same thing Flynn was guilty of and that's working as an unregistered foreign agent, though thus far the FBI does not seem to think the case is worth pursuing. If Republicans disagree I'm sure the senate could have the FBI look closer.

You are throwing squirrels out to keep yourself from having to admit that Trump is a serial criminal.

Trump is a serial criminal. You're a pathetic hack to still be defending this crap.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Giuliani was back in Ukraine this week trying to dig up more dirt on Biden. The normalization of this sort of corruption could be the most lasting legacy of this criminal administration. It is now OK to solicit foreign interference in our elections to help your side.

The "official" reason he is there is to help coordinate a defense to the Impeachment/Removal trial in the Senate with their Ukrainian contacts... which doesn't actually sound any better than the first thing... but that's the best they can come up with.