Impeachment

[LongestHorn]

No. He didn’t. I worked at Apple when production began 6 years ago.

 

[Horn6721]

What LH did Trump not do?

Hadn't Apple intended to close or reduce than facility?

 

[LongestHorn]

Link?

 

[Garmel]

What LH did Trump not do?

He didn't commit quid pro quo with Ukraine.

 

[Horn6721]

LH
MY error. This is not a closing.What Apple is doing is to build a NEW huge facility
From Tim Cook
"“Apple is proud to bring new investment, jobs and opportunity to cities across the United States and to significantly deepen our quarter-century partnership with the city and people of Austin,” said Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO. “Talent, creativity and tomorrow’s breakthrough ideas aren’t limited by region or zip code, and, with this new expansion, we’re redoubling our commitment to cultivating the high-tech sector and workforce nationwide.”
Apple to build new campus in Austin and add jobs across the US


These are NEW jobs. LH. I am sure you hate that there are NEW good paying jobs for people of Texas.

 

[nashhorn]

Where in the heck does all this ‘debunked’ crap come from on the Biden? Who actually has done an investigation? I missed it.
And anyone who does not realize this is purely an attempt to win in 2020 is nuts.

 

[LongestHorn]

Yeah, I remember that announcement.

Last year.

But I see your point.

 

[Horn6721]

LH
thanks

 

[mchammer]

 

[horninchicago]

Turns out, from Tucker Carlson Tonight, Sondland's 4 lawyers who likely drafted his opening statement that left out the "bombshell" statement of no quid pro quo from the statement, are...Democrat donors. Anyone surprised?

 

[LongestHorn]

 

[Mr. Deez]

Where in the heck does all this ‘debunked’ crap come from on the Biden? Who actually has done an investigation? I missed it.
And anyone who does not realize this is purely an attempt to win in 2020 is nuts.

If someone hasn't conclusively proven wrongdoing by a Democrat, the media will frame it as "debunked." It's a rhetorical trick. They will treat a lack of proof as proof of the reverse. In other words, it's just another example of dishonest media bias.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Lulz. Yeah. Their “winning” faces say it all.

To be fair, Adam Schiff is making the same face.

 

[I35]

Adam Schitt has just announced new whistleblower tryouts will be held on Friday.

if you think you got what it takes to be a good liar then you can pick up your script at the CIA offense.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If someone hasn't conclusively proven wrongdoing by a Democrat, the media will frame it as "debunked." It's a rhetorical trick. They will treat a lack of proof as proof of the reverse. In other words, it's just another example of dishonest media bias.

That's the problem with collapsing 2 theories into "investigations". I've always heard the "debunked" term used in reference to the 2016 election Ukraine interference conspiracy theory. The theory is that it was Ukraine that interfered, not Russia. My assumption is that the theory assumes Ukraine hacked the DNC and framed Russia. That has been debunked if you believe the infamous 17 intelligence agencies and the Mueller indictments.

As for Joe Biden there hasn't been an investigation because he was executing the formal US Policy. Virtually everyone wanted Shokin removed, including at least 3 Republican Senators that called for his removal. The claim that Biden pushed for Shokin's removal because Hunter was on the board ignores key facts like the Burisma investigation was stalled and it was for a period long before Joe's son joined the company. The accusation of Biden corruption hasn't been debunked but rather is razor thin based on the public facts. Nobody disputes that Hunter joining the board was unethical.

 

[I35]

That's the problem with collapsing 2 theories into "investigations". I've always heard the "debunked" term used in reference to the 2016 election Ukraine interference conspiracy theory. The theory is that it was Ukraine that interfered, not Russia. My assumption is that the theory assumes Ukraine hacked the DNC and framed Russia. That has been debunked if you believe the infamous 17 intelligence agencies and the Mueller indictments.

As for Joe Biden there hasn't been an investigation because he was executing the formal US Policy. Virtually everyone wanted Shokin removed, including at least 3 Republican Senators that called for his removal. The claim that Biden pushed for Shokin's removal because Hunter was on the board ignores key facts like the Burisma investigation was stalled and it was for a period long before Joe's son joined the company. The accusation of Biden corruption hasn't been debunked but rather is razor thin based on the public facts. Nobody disputes that Hunter joining the board was unethical.

You’ve been pushing this for a while now and down playing Joe Biden’s role as a nothing burger.

What we know as facts.

*Burisma has a reputation of being very corrupt.
* Hired Hunter Biden for a ton of money.
* Hunter knows nothing about gas and oil.
* Hunter has never been able to hold down a job and was kicked out of the Military.
* Hunter can’t speak their language
* Devon Archer, John Kerry Sr & Junior, Heinz Jr, and Hunter Biden have control of a foreign slush fund with millions at Rosemont Senaca Bohai Bank records show.
*Burisma was being investigated for corruption.
*Joe Biden on video bragging about stopping the prosecutor that was investigating Burisma by getting him fired and threatened he would not give them Billions in funding aid if they don’t within 6 hours.
*The CEO of Burisma has just been indicted.

If that Prosecutor was corrupt then Joe would have wanted him to be the investigator because he would’ve accepted payments to stop the investigation.

You want us to believe that the prosecutor was more corrupt than Burisma? You can’t deny a single one of those facts.

 

[Joe Fan]

Hey SH,
Is this an abuse of power too against the Bidens?
DNA test shows Hunter Biden is father of Arkansas woman's baby

This part of the Hunter Biden story is even crazier in context. He was a customer of Ashley Madison (Bursima money, yo). He started banging his sister-in-law after his brother died in 2015 and while he was still married to the mother of his 3 children. Then he cheated on his former sister-in-law with some other female in Arkansas, which he denied but who we now know he knocked up. As he was bringing in only $86,000 per month from Burisma, it's easy to see how he could not fork out for any child support. He then dumped all of them to marry an Instagram model from South Africa 10 days after he "met her."

And dont forget he left a crack pipe in his rental car a few days before the election (along with a Delaware Attorney General badge, US Secret Service business cards and two ID’s belonging to Hunter Biden)

So definitely an honest, trustworthy guy. And his Burisma deal was legit. Totally

I did not see the debate, did any of the other candidates congratulate Joe on becoming a grandfather again?

Lastly, I think we all know where this is going, right? Cant wait to see Hunter in a dishdasha. Hookers and crack aint gonna pay for themselves.

 

[Joe Fan]

Speaking of Burisma, it's top guy (Nikolai Zlochevsky) was indicted on Nov 14 (but it wasn’t reported until yesterday). One of the items in the indictment revealed how Hunter Biden’s payments from Burisma were a “link that reveals how money is siphoned [from Ukraine].”
Hunter and "his partners" received $16.5 million "for their services."
Ukrainian MP Claims $7.4 Billion Obama-Linked Laundering, Puts Biden Group Take At $16.5 Million

Joe Biden’s son and his partners received $16.5 million from Burisma — Ukrainian MP

Ans as previously posted in here, last week former Ukrainian official Oleksandr Onyshchenko alleged Hunter Biden received “off the books” payments from Burisma in the millions. The question of where did this money end up is something Nunes keeps trying to put before Schiff's committee but Schiff will not allow it. Why not? BREAKING: Source Reveals Hunter Biden Took 'Off The Books' Payments From Burisma, Aided By FBI Coverup - CD Media

 

[Joe Fan]

I think it is still an open question whether all of this actually makes it to the Senate. Among the various reasons that it might not is that there is a high likelihood that Adam Schiff would be forced to testify under oath about his relationship with the whistleblower. Schiff definitely does not want that to happen as he has already told way too many lies. If it does move to the Senate and he is not compelled to testify under oath then it will be a sure sign that something was fixed behind the scenes. Just something to remember going forward and to see how it is dealt with.

 

[UTChE96]

I think it is still an open question whether all of this actually makes it to the Senate. Among the various reasons that it might not is that there is a high likelihood that Adam Schiff would be forced to testify under oath about his relationship with the whistleblower. Schiff definitely does not want that to happen as he has already told way too many lies. If it does move to the Senate and he is not compelled to testify under oath then it will be a sure sign that something was fixed behind the scenes. Just something to remember going forward and to see how it is dealt with.

I am looking forward to a Senate trial at this point. Schiff would be completely hosed. They should expand the scope to the Russia collusion investigation and call Hillary to testify.

 

[Joe Fan]

A thorough article about whether Schiff is correct that this purported "whistleblower" has a statutory right to anonymity

" .... The problem, many legal experts say, is that the committee chairman, a California Democrat, is wrong — no specific legal requirement to shield the whistleblower’s identity from the public exists.

The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act establishes rules for whistleblowers to report on waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption in a lawful manner, and it, along with presidential directives, provides legal protections against reprisals and punishment. Anonymity, however, is not one of those guarantees.

“There is no language in the statute as written — or amended — that gives a whistleblower from the intelligence community the statutory right to anonymity,” Cully Stimson, a former Pentagon official and the head of the Heritage Foundation’s National Security Law Program, told the Washington Examiner. "That’s separate and distinct from whether Congress wants to make the decision to not provide the name — that’s at the discretion of the chairman.”​

ANALYSIS: Despite Schiff’s claims, whistleblower has no 'statutory right' to anonymity

 

[Joe Fan]

And here is Charlie Hurt on Alex Vindman

 

[Joe Fan]

Apparently CBS was the first network to cut off the hearings
https://nypost.com/2019/11/19/cbs-first-major-tv-network-to-bail-on-impeachment-hearings/

 

[Horn6721]

I just watched "part" of Biden's performances this past week including parts of the debate.
Anyone who thinks Trump wanted corruption of Ukraine investigated before we sent money because he feared Biden as a candidate is mental.
my God Why doesn't his family stop him?

 

[bystander]

Apparently CBS was the first network to cut off the hearings
https://nypost.com/2019/11/19/cbs-first-major-tv-network-to-bail-on-impeachment-hearings/

Must not truly be "breaking" news anymore...

Yahoo believes Sundland's testimony was a game-changer:

House Democrats ponder expanding impeachment probe after Sondland 'game changer' testimony


Can someone please point to anyone's sworn testimony indicating 1) "I heard Donald Trump offer the quid pro quo to the Ukrainians" or 2) "I heard Donald Trump order us (or someone) to specifically withhold aid and tell the Ukrainians they won't get it until they investigate the Biden's."

 

[Joe Fan]

Must not truly be "breaking" news anymore... Yahoo believes Sundland's testimony was a game-changer:...

I think that was someone at Yahoo who said "let's use an online thesaurus for a word or phrase to use other than "bombshell" "

 

[Joe Fan]

I am looking forward to a Senate trial at this point. Schiff would be completely hosed. They should expand the scope to the Russia collusion investigation and call Hillary to testify.

Hunter Biden under oath too, front and center
No way he hangs himself before that, is there?

 

[bystander]

Hunter Biden under oath too, front and center
No way he hangs himself before that, is there?

I don't believe Schiff has a shred of worry about what happens in the Senate. He has his headlines. He has Yahoo and other outlets bludgeoning cyberspace with the game-changing narrative. Once in the Senate they will merely say the Republicans protected a crook because they are Nazi's and racists. There is nothing that will change that scenario because the American people are hopelessly emotionally immature.

 

[OUBubba]

You’ve been pushing this for a while now and down playing Joe Biden’s role as a nothing burger.

What we know as facts.

*Burisma has a reputation of being very corrupt.
* Hired Hunter Biden for a ton of money.
* Hunter knows nothing about gas and oil.
* Hunter has never been able to hold down a job and was kicked out of the Military.
* Hunter can’t speak their language
* Devon Archer, John Kerry Sr & Junior, Heinz Jr, and Hunter Biden have control of a foreign slush fund with millions at Rosemont Senaca Bohai Bank records show.
*Burisma was being investigated for corruption.
*Joe Biden on video bragging about stopping the prosecutor that was investigating Burisma by getting him fired and threatened he would not give them Billions in funding aid if they don’t within 6 hours.
*The CEO of Burisma has just been indicted.

If that Prosecutor was corrupt then Joe would have wanted him to be the investigator because he would’ve accepted payments to stop the investigation.

You want us to believe that the prosecutor was more corrupt than Burisma? You can’t deny a single one of those facts.

This falls flat based upon the fact that the prosecutor that was not invsestigating Burisma at the time is the one that the free world wanted to replace. Bringing in a new prosecutor was like shuffling the deck a little and it might have led to a new prosecutor who would investigate them. It actually highlights that, while it may have been inappropriate, there was nothing "untoward" going on.

 

[OUBubba]

Once in the Senate they will merely say the Republicans protected a crook because they are Nazi's and racists.

I mean there's at least some truth there. I don't think it's Nazi's/racists. I think it's my team/your team. He could literally gun down someone on 5th avenue and not be convicted in that senate.