Impeachment hearings

[_subgenius]

Jesus Christ, man. How many times does that need to be spelled out for you to have it sink in?

Could it be that Markk is a peddler of disinformation and that the truth does not suit that purpose?

I never considered Markk a Democratic Party Leader but Moksha makes a good argument for just that.

[_subgenius]

Yep, those Trump voters and their ‘concern about corruption’. Riggghhtt. ; )

Look at you and how you consider "all things subjective" just when it suits you.
One man's garbage is another man's DNC party platform.

[_subgenius]

...as defined at the time of the original document’s creation.

Except you literally argued that anything goes (awkward for ya on the whole 'reread').

But, speaking of "nice try"; here's to you and the idea that the writers of the Constitution had no idea for the interpretation of words. Like "arms" is to be exclusive to muskets and arrows; and "press" is only that which is on paper; and "speech" is only to be spoken: and so on.
So good luck as you strive for more erratic and inconsistent interpretations of the Constitution and whether things can truly be conveniently absolute and subjective to suit your mood du jour (and whatever the first page of your google search reveals...because scrolling diminishes credibility, amiright?).

[_EAllusion]

"Press" in the 1st amendment refers to publishing. "Press" as a term for journalism didn't develop until years after the Constitution was ratified. What the first amendment is saying is people are free to both speak and publish their opinions. They're separated out because publications were specifically targeted by Britain.

I've never heard anyone think "press" only refers to paper. I do, however, hear people think it only applies to journalism all the time.

[_EAllusion]

https://Twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 0635290624

Seems a little megalomanical. Just a touch.

[_Markk]

But you want me to answer your list of questions. ; )

I think you’re asking me if I believe that we need to ‘assume corruption and investigate’ folks for merely being related to other folks that engaged in common and legitimate business activities, if same are politically aligned in a manner that you don’t like. The answer to that would be, ‘No’.

You are incorrect ...my question could not be more clearer, it is not a yes or no question, it is a "who is" or "what is the persons name" question ..." who was the point man appointed by Obama to investigate the Ukraine?"

Unlike your own claims, you can find information about this literally everywhere. Google is your friend; use it. Here’s a random link:

https://theintercept.com/2019/11/21/son ... omat-says/

From the article:

“The two diplomats (Sondland and Volker), who exchanged calls and text messages with Giuliani all summer, worked with the president’s lawyer on the text of a statement Trump wanted Ukraine’s president to deliver on CNN, in which he would announce investigations of Burisma and supposed Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election.”

So, now you can answer my question directly, yes?

Where does that article show Trump asked Z to announce, or any Ukrainian to announce publicly on CNN the investigation of Biden?
The article is more about trying to discredit Sondland, and his testimony, than anything else. It is a he said she said article.


You forgot to paste the conclusion to the article...

All of which is to say that Sondland would have to have been living in a total information black hole to really have had no idea, in late July, that the aim of the sham investigation into Burisma he was working so hard to get Ukraine to announce was to tarnish Joe Biden, the Democrat seen by Trump as the main obstacle to his reelection.

This all boils down to what I have been saying all along.... If there is evidence that warrants an investigation of Joe, and his family and associates, then it show's Trump is more than justified in asking for an investigation of the corruption in the Ukraine that would include Biden. That is why I have been trying get anyone here to engage in the evidences, so far Honor is the only one who has tried, and so far has come short.

This all started before Joe said he was going to run, and if I remember correctly, Joe had said he was not going to run about the time this started, I would have to go back and look. There is no doubt there was corruption in the Ukraine with tax payer dollars during the Obama years, no doubt at all...and I will answer the question that you are ducking for obvious reasons, that Joe Biden was the point man for Obama to investigate the corruption in the Ukraine, not the DoJ. And he was also in charge of handing out billions in foriegn aid to the Ukraine...and on top of this, his son was working for a known corrupt company in the Ukraine.

My new question you will duck...."are you saying that Trump should not have wanted an investigation for corruption in the Ukraine?" That it was somehow okay for Obama to have a investigation in the Ukraine, with the person in charge of the investigation also giving money to that same corrupt government, but some how Trump can't?

[_EAllusion]

Markk has clearly spent a lot of time diving into the Ukraine scandal story, but seems totally unaware of the pressure to make an announcement of investigation as a primary goal.

I also think he is sincere. This is an object lesson in how disinformation works.

[_Markk]

Trump wanted help from a person that might be able to give information of where our taxpayer monies might be going and mishandled, it is not rocket science.

That's not accurate. Trump wanted the Ukraine to investigate two things. The first was to look into the conspiracy theory that Ukrainians had worked to undermine his presidential campaign. That was largely built on false claims sown by Russian operatives deflecting from their own actions by claiming the firm Democrats retained to investigate the hack into their emails - Crowdstrike - has a secret Clinton serve. This false story is that this secret non-existent server contains the missing Clinton emails and they are being kept hidden because they are damning. It's a cooked up fake story. It's also combined with the very real fact a member of his campaign (Manafort) was exposed as having received corrupt money from corrupt President Yanukovych which has been recast into theories journalists in Ukraine were framing Manafort to hurt Trump and help Clinton. It's all ____.

Link regarding Crowdstrike: https://www.politifact.com/article/2019 ... ring-his-/

The second was he had been fed information from Giuliani that Joe Biden was guilty of bribing Ukrainian leadership to benefit Biden's son's client so he was asking the Ukraine to publicly investigate Joe Biden.

In neither is Trump's concern about public funds being misused. They are both aimed at his own personal political interests. It takes projection to read into his statements that he was interested in protecting the American taxpayer. Mostly he talks like a child calling people bad, and what they did bad.

I am not sure what "public statement " you are talking about, and if you can give me a link, so I understand the context of what you are asking, I will certainly answer your question.

Trump wanted a public statement made that the Ukraine was investigating Joe Biden. It was actually scheduled to happen but when the whistleblower story broke, the aid was released and the CNN interview cancelled.

Trump asked Z. to give "us" information on the possibility that a sitting VP, who was in charge of rooting out corruption, was actually corrupt, based on many of the the evidences, and more that I have laid out here, that you duck and probably haven't even read. Like, why was the VP's son working for a known gangster/mobster, and corrupt goverment official that was funneling millions from his own goverment, which much of which was foreign aid, all the while the VP was in charge of giving out the much of that foreign aid.

Biden wasn't tasked with rooting out corruption. He was assigned managing US relations with Ukraine for the executive branch. It was a diplomatic and foreign relations assignment. You keep misrepresenting this by asking who the US assigned to investigate Ukraine where you think the answer is Joe Biden but that's an ignorant, poorly understood portrayal of Biden's responsibilities. You should stop putting it that way.

As to Hunter Biden, he clearly was hired onto the board of directors for Burisma because his last name and connections were viewed as providing Bursima and it's president with some protection or benefits. Hunter certainly benefited from it in what is an unfortunate but common shady aspect of how connections and influence are abused.

But that's not the same as saying Hunter Biden was successfully able to influence his dad and US policy to actually do things that were not in US interests but were in the interest of Burisma. And that's critical.

For the last time, Biden wasn't using US aid to benefit Hunter. He presented the US position that LOAN GUARANTEES were being withheld unless they removed the corrupt PG Shokin. Shokin was so corrupt there were active protests in the streets before this seeking his removal as well as an assassination attempt. He was corrupt as ____. His claiming he was just about to start an investigation into Burisma before being sacked is ____. His deputy has verified this. His replacement has verified this. The anti-corruption organizations in Ukraine have verified this. Everyone who isn't tied up in his corruption or trying to seek to help Trump out have verified Shokin was corrupt, not investigating Burisma but instead holding up the investigation, and that his removal hurt the president of Burisma rather than helped him.

Jesus Christ, man. How many times does that need to be spelled out for you to have it sink in?

I read through this...a lot to address...especially the last paragraph in regards to times lines and monies received. I will opine later if I get a chance, or tomorrow at the latest...need to start my day. Go back if you have the time to read the timelines ( I have pasted many times) of archer meeting with Joe at the white house, monies deposited into his and Hunters LLC account by Burisma, and then their being giving Jobs with Burisma with inflated salaries. ....this specifically in regards to your writing..."For the last time, Biden wasn't using US aid to benefit Hunter."



Thanks

[_Markk]

Markk has clearly spent a lot of time diving into the Ukraine scandal story, but seems totally unaware of the pressure to make an announcement of investigation as a primary goal.

I also think he is sincere. This is an object lesson in how disinformation works.

There is a lot of disinformation on both sides, that what they do best, it is called "spin". The trick, in my opinion, is understanding this. The whole impeachment was a political event with both sides knowing the outcome....

I have to run, but this, spin and disinformation deserves a thread on it's own.

[_honorentheos]

Go back if you have the time to read the timelines ( I have pasted many times) of archer meeting with Joe at the white house, monies deposited into his and Hunters LLC account by Burisma, and then their being giving Jobs with Burisma with inflated salaries. ....this specifically in regards to your writing..."For the last time, Biden wasn't using US aid to benefit Hunter."

If you can't understand how Shokin's removal works against the idea Joe Biden acted to benefit Burisma, you aren't in a position to argue what degree of influence Burisma was able to gain from their hiring Hunter and Devan Archer to their board of directors. You can't seem to handle the facts with enough comprehension to be a good faith participant in the dialog. You've become too easily distracted by vague assumptions conflated into substance of equal weight as actual facts to have a conversation based on facts.