- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: White House Ukraine Expert Vindman Sought to “Correct” Transcript of Trump Call
Posted on 10/30/19 at 8:14 pm to bmy
Posted on 10/30/19 at 8:14 pm to bmy
Don't know why it's so bizarre or hard to grasp....it's an allegation of corruption between Ukranian parties and a member of the U.S. govt....on Ukrainian soil. And if Ukranian corruption was uncovered THEN our govt (Justice Dept) would investigate potential related violations of our law, again, stemming from the violation of Ukrainian law. Maybe that's the part you're not giving appropriate presumption to. How do we prosecute corruption in Ukraine by one of our politicians if there's no case of corruption in Ukraine having been proved?
And my problem with spygate is it was contrived basis from which to build a case.
And my problem with spygate is it was contrived basis from which to build a case.
1
Posted on 10/30/19 at 8:15 pm to bmy
quote:
He trusts them to investigate the origins of Mueller but not this?
Doesn't add up.
Check the timeline, Feb 14, 2019 · William Barr was sworn in as attorney general and took charge of the Justice Department. Giuliani was already in the middle of it while Sessions slept.
quote:
"There's a reason I'm in the middle of this," Giuliani said. "It emerges from the corruption of how they tried to hide this for years, including trying to cover up Biden for years. I got this because the FBI wouldn't take it. The Ukrainians who came to me back in November of 2018 and then subsequently have told this to five other people who could testify to it, told me that we -- we have been trying to get to you for over a year, year and a half. We have solid evidence of collusion. Not Russian, Ukrainian. Not with Trump, with Hillary and the DNC."
Posted on 10/30/19 at 8:20 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman
Limbaugh says this guy is the Whistleblower's snitch
Posted on 10/30/19 at 8:57 pm to ImaObserver
quote:
Bear in mind that the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch was "fired" after she was found to be obstructing investigations into corruption, including repeatedly denying Ukrainian officials visas to enter the United States. The Ukranian officials wanted to hand over to Trump administration officials, evidence of the Obama administration's misconduct. It would therefore appear logical that the Ukranians would seek alternate paths to transmit their message.
The DEputy Secretary of State, John Sullivan, said that Giuliani ran a smear campaign against Yovanovitch because she was not cooperating with Giuliani's efforts to get Ukraine to open an investigation against Biden.
quote:
Marie Yovanovitch was "fired" after she was found to be obstructing investigations into corruption, including repeatedly denying Ukrainian officials visas to enter the United States. The Ukranian officials wanted to hand over to Trump administration officials, evidence of the Obama administration's misconduct.
That doesn't pass the smell test. The Prosecutor General of Ukraine couldn't get in contact with the U.S. to give them evidence of Obama's misconduct.
That's laughable.
Posted on 10/30/19 at 9:06 pm to texridder
quote:
That doesn't pass the smell test. The Prosecutor General of Ukraine couldn't get in contact with the U.S. to give them evidence of Obama's misconduct.
That's laughable.
Not laughable if the Prosecutor General was a Poroshenko guy. Poroshenko got his job because he was the Obama/American administration candidate over the EU candidates. Yovanovitch was a tried and true Democrat, Bill Taylor should have never been given the Ukraine gig, he was a Neo-Con never Trumper, and has more loyalty to Ukraine than the US, in my opinion.
Posted on 10/30/19 at 9:10 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
What would including these details have changed about the transcript?
This, Shapiro was reporting that Vindman himself said the addition of the supposed omissions wouldn't have changed the tone or tenor of the conversation.
Posted on 10/30/19 at 9:28 pm to davyjones
quote:
How do we prosecute corruption in Ukraine by one of our politicians if there's no case of corruption in Ukraine having been proved?
Did you forget about the Mueller report?
Posted on 10/30/19 at 9:41 pm to bmy
So you'd suggest our DOJ simply assume Biden engaged in corrupt acts over in Ukraine and slide right into criminal investigation here based on assumed acts over there? Think: "predicate". Assume the predicate for an investigation by DOJ is foregone conclusion. Wouldn't that be something that you'd condemn? I don't think this particular angle suits your overall position.
And Mueller Report: it was about possible crimes that would have been originated and/or consummated on American soil. "On American soil" being operative words. Using improper or illegal information here in our country. Or "collusion" by a party sitting right here in the USA.
ETA...it should also be noted that the President did in fact offer to enlist the assistance of the DOJ to Uk's president.
And Mueller Report: it was about possible crimes that would have been originated and/or consummated on American soil. "On American soil" being operative words. Using improper or illegal information here in our country. Or "collusion" by a party sitting right here in the USA.
ETA...it should also be noted that the President did in fact offer to enlist the assistance of the DOJ to Uk's president.
This post was edited on 10/30/19 at 9:55 pm
Posted on 10/30/19 at 11:31 pm to davyjones
quote:
So you'd suggest our DOJ simply assume Biden engaged in corrupt acts over in Ukraine and slide right into criminal investigation here based on assumed acts over there? Think: "predicate". Assume the predicate for an investigation by DOJ is foregone conclusion. Wouldn't that be something that you'd condemn? I don't think this particular angle suits your overall position.
I think the US should lead investigations into their own officials who may be abusing their authority or using their position for gain even when in another country. They could, for example, use something like the investigations outlined in the 2008 FBI Guidelines which created a new type of investigation called an “assessment.” Assessments permit physical surveillance, database searches, interviews, racial and ethnic mapping, and the recruitment and tasking of informants without any factual or criminal predicate
Here are a few examples of why your scenario makes little sense:
-The 2012 Secret Service prostitution scandal:
Prostitution is legal in Columbia but not in the US. Should the US have been incapable of investigating their conduct because of it is legal in Columbia and their government would have no reason/desire to investigate? That seems absurd.
- Military misconduct overseas:
Let's say there were allegations of potentially criminal misconduct among Marines while out in the field somewhere in the Middle East. Should that be investigated? Or would we require the other country to investigate it before we got involved.
- Barr going to Italy to investigate the origins of the Mueller investigation:
Did we wait on Italy to investigate that issue first? Should we have? Of course not.
Posted on 10/30/19 at 11:59 pm to bmy
quote:
- Barr going to Italy to investigate the origins of the Mueller investigation:
Did we wait on Italy to investigate that issue first? Should we have? Of course not.
Barr, or more specifically "the Attorney General," is precisely who Trump offered to Uk's president. Thus the force of the DOJ. That doesn't sound like an end around to me, trying to avoid DOJ involvement.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 1:40 am to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
Can you give the Cliff's on this. Does this mean that important information was left off the original transcript or is Vindman trying to inject additional information on the transcript? Is he suggesting that information has intentionally been left off?
When the transcript says its not a verbatim copy of the conversation.....its a friggin disclaimer. Its like a translation, the transcript may have missed an uh or an ah, or a fart for that matter. It certainly is not some altered version of the conversation as this clown is portraying, something he is openly stating he would have like to do like inserting pay for play into the text.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 8:02 am to texridder
quote:
A call made for the personal political gain of Trump.
Or could it possibly be that Biden broke the law?
Posted on 10/31/19 at 8:08 am to bmy
quote:
Why didn't Trump just have a US investigation opened up into the conduct of Biden?
How do you know the DOJ hasn't?...
Posted on 10/31/19 at 8:11 am to texridder
quote:
Now, with the added verbiage, it becomes clear that the purpose of the call was to get an investigation started against Biden.
A call made for the personal political gain of Trump.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 8:12 am to texridder
quote:
That doesn't pass the smell test
Its rare that anything passes the smell test in DC these days.
Everything has been cry wolf against Trump. From Congress to the media.
Yet you are surprised when the American Public doesn't believe the latest cried wolf?
The House should vote to impeach... The Senate will acquit. This will galvanize the republican base. Map will turn red and we will have 4 more years of bullshite and nothing getting done in Congress.
Hope this sums everything up.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 8:19 am to davyjones
quote:
Barr, or more specifically "the Attorney General," is precisely who Trump offered to Uk's president. Thus the force of the DOJ. That doesn't sound like an end around to me, trying to avoid DOJ involvement.
We have an active investigation open into the issues Barr was looking at. Care to address the other items or the scenario below?
(A US ambassador is accused of taking money in a foreign counrey in exchange for giving access to policymakers.. you believe we should wait for that foreign country to investigate it?)
Posted on 10/31/19 at 8:51 am to bmy
BMY and Davy, I have enjoyed reading your exchange. It is refreshing to watch two thoughtful and intelligent posters — discussing an issue like adults.
BMY, I often agree with you substantively, so please take an editorial comment in context. When engaging with a worthwhile poster, it might be best to drop the emojis and sarcasm.
BMY, I often agree with you substantively, so please take an editorial comment in context. When engaging with a worthwhile poster, it might be best to drop the emojis and sarcasm.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 8:53 am to AggieHank86
quote:
BMY and Davy, I have enjoyed reading your exchange. It is refreshing to watch two thoughtful and intelligent posters — discussing an issue like adults.
BMY, I often agree with you substantively, so please take an editorial comment in context. When engaging with a worthwhile poster, it might be best to drop the emojis and sarcasm.
You are such a douche.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 8:53 am to AggieHank86
Oh.. moving from Hanksplaining to Hankteaching... or perhaps Hankmentoring?
Just messing with you.
Just messing with you.
Posted on 10/31/19 at 8:58 am to AggieHank86
Page 7 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News