Adam Schiff-Ukraine connection comes under scrutiny

[Gladiator]

What is the reasonable suspicion? Where did it come from? Is this suspicion different than the one liberals have about Ivanka Trump's sources of income?

It seems that Joe Biden should have some clear explanation of exactly how he acted independently to get a Ukraine prosecutor fired who was looking into his son's, Hunter Biden's, benefactor.


For Biden supporters to say that there was no criminal case, does not explain 3 Million Dollars over 5 years. I think Joe Biden owes an explanation if he wants to run for President. Maybe if he just wants to ride off into the sunset, it is OK.

Seems like a "Shady" Deal

We need to talk about Hunter Biden | Kate Aronoff | Opinion | The Guardian

//

 

[MauiMan]

Adam Schiff-Ukraine connection comes under scrutiny | Fox News

Adam Schiff's ties to Ukraine under the microscope
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who has played a leading role in investigating the Trump-Ukraine scandal, is facing questions about his own connection to a Soviet-born businessman who has raised money for his campaign and whose company has received lucrative defense contracts from Ukraine's government.
That man is Igor Pasternak, the founder and CEO of Worldwide Aeros Corp., which makes blimps for military and commercial customers. His business has also been involved in weapons manufacturing, working with the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense to produce a modified version of the M4 and M16 rifles, according to reports.

PELOSI DEFENDS SCHIFF AFTER BEING PRESSED ABOUT HIS 'PARODY' OF TRUMP'S UKRAINE CALL
In 2013, Pasternak (arms dealer) hosted a fundraiser in Washington for Schiff, who later came to embrace a strong stance in support of the United States sending military aid to Ukraine during its conflict with Russia.

“Before this time, Schiff rarely, if ever, mentioned Ukraine,” Fox News’ Laura Ingraham said on her show Thursday night, after detailing Schiff’s connection to Pasternak. “But after the fundraiser, he used multiple television appearances to basically demand that we send money and arms to them.”

This is yet more blow back from the failed impeachment attempt. I call it failed because it's just a matter of time until its thrown out.
This is something we should start to look into and know about. Seems more and more we are seeing corruption from the left wing relative to Russia/Ukraine. I recommend you guys take a good hard look into Pasternak and his dealings with Adam Schiff.

Thoughts? Think there is anything here or are these claims baseless?

Deflection.

 

[lwf]

Im not familiar with ivankas sources of incomes so i cant answer that. Joe biden is on tape saying he did something that may or mat not of been illegal. I see no issue with investigating that.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

That this may have been illegal has been debunked. It was not illegal.

 

[lwf]

It seems that Joe Biden should have some clear explanation of exactly how he acted independently to get a Ukraine prosecutor fired who was looking into his son's, Hunter Biden's, benefactor.


For Biden supporters to say that there was no criminal case, does not explain 3 Million Dollars over 5 years. I think Joe Biden owes an explanation if he wants to run for President. Maybe if he just wants to ride off into the sunset, it is OK.

Seems like a "Shady" Deal

We need to talk about Hunter Biden | Kate Aronoff | Opinion | The Guardian

//

Fair enough. I want to know the same about Trump's income, a man who actually is president. Should we open an investigation to force the IRS to make his tax returns public so we can see? Regardless of how much I'd like to know, is this legal?

 

[trouble13]

That this may have been illegal has been debunked. It was not illegal.

I have said all along that what he did most likely is typical slimeball influence peddling but not a criminal act. That however does not mean we should just assume that without investigating it to confirm that.
I have not seen anything that says it was debunked beyond some partisan opinions.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[lwf]

I have said all along that what he did most likely is typical slimeball influence peddling but not a criminal act. That however does not mean we should just assume that without investigating it to confirm that.
I have not seen anything that says it was debunked beyond some partisan opinions.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Not having evidence of an illegal act actually does mean that you should just assume that an illegal act was not committed without investigating to confirm it. I don't have evidence that Melania Trump is a Russian spy. I did hear a conspiracy theory that she is. Can I use this rumor to investigate her to confirm it? Or should I just assume that she isn't a Russian spy regardless of any lurid rumors I hear about her until and unless some actual evidence is found?

 

[ludin]

Having connections in a foreign country is not a problem. Threatening to sever those connections if said foreign country doesn't open an unprompted investigation into your political opponent is a crime.

so biden and obama should be investigated for such crimes good thing to know.

 

[MauiMan]

Adam Schiff-Ukraine connection comes under scrutiny | Fox News

Adam Schiff's ties to Ukraine under the microscope
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who has played a leading role in investigating the Trump-Ukraine scandal, is facing questions about his own connection to a Soviet-born businessman who has raised money for his campaign and whose company has received lucrative defense contracts from Ukraine's government.
That man is Igor Pasternak, the founder and CEO of Worldwide Aeros Corp., which makes blimps for military and commercial customers. His business has also been involved in weapons manufacturing, working with the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense to produce a modified version of the M4 and M16 rifles, according to reports.

PELOSI DEFENDS SCHIFF AFTER BEING PRESSED ABOUT HIS 'PARODY' OF TRUMP'S UKRAINE CALL
In 2013, Pasternak (arms dealer) hosted a fundraiser in Washington for Schiff, who later came to embrace a strong stance in support of the United States sending military aid to Ukraine during its conflict with Russia.

“Before this time, Schiff rarely, if ever, mentioned Ukraine,” Fox News’ Laura Ingraham said on her show Thursday night, after detailing Schiff’s connection to Pasternak. “But after the fundraiser, he used multiple television appearances to basically demand that we send money and arms to them.”

This is yet more blow back from the failed impeachment attempt. I call it failed because it's just a matter of time until its thrown out.
This is something we should start to look into and know about. Seems more and more we are seeing corruption from the left wing relative to Russia/Ukraine. I recommend you guys take a good hard look into Pasternak and his dealings with Adam Schiff.

Thoughts? Think there is anything here or are these claims baseless?

Yes, let’s attack Adam S**t! He is obviously the problem, not Trump!

 

[trouble13]

Not having evidence of an illegal act actually does mean that you should just assume that an illegal act was not committed without investigating to confirm it. I don't have evidence that Melania Trump is a Russian spy. I did hear a conspiracy theory that she is. Can I use this rumor to investigate her to confirm it? Or should I just assume that she isn't a Russian spy regardless of any lurid rumors I hear about her until and unless some actual evidence is found?

The caveat to what your saying is reasonable suspicion. If that exists that warrants a closer look.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[dixon01767]

Attempted Hobb's Act extortion under color of official right.

Information isn't "property".

 

[HAL9000]

Information isn't "property".

U.S. v. Arena

1. " Property"
The Hobbs Act, by its terms, encompasses violence against property. See 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (commission or threat of physical violence against persons "or property"); United States v. Zappola, 677 F.2d 264, 268 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 866 (1982) (noting that common understanding of extortion includes injury to property); 91 Cong. Rec. 11,845 (1945) (Act designed to penalize acts of "violence to personal property"). The concept of "property" under the Hobbs Act is an expansive one. See, e.g., Town of West Hartford v. Operation Rescue, 915 F.2d 92, 101 (2nd Cir. 1990); United States v. Tropiano, 418 F.2d 1069, 1075 (2nd Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1021 (1970). While often the property involved is an existing physical asset, the concept is not limited to tangible things, but includes intangible assets such as rights to solicit customers and to conduct a lawful business. See, e.g., United States v. Margiotta, 688 F.2d 108, 134 (2nd Cir. 1982) (continuation of insurance business), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 913 (1983); United States v. Daley, 564 F.2d at 648 (employees' jobs and contractors' future job assignments); United States v. Tropiano, 418 F.2d at 1075-76 (right to do business in a given area or to bid for contracts); United States v. Anderson, 716 F.2d at 450 (right of doctor to continue to perform abortions).

 

[Deuce]

So anyone want to talk about how the Jewish guy got the label “shifty” from our completely stable genius?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Same tune, different verse.

Every time Trump gets caught doing something wrong, they always come up with some allegation of a key player on the other side doing the same or worse. There is no substance to these allegations, but that doesn't matter. All that matters is the allegation.

This tune is is called "Whataboutism" and the strategy is quite simple: Simply accuse the other side of whatever they accuse you of.

 

[lwf]

so biden and obama should be investigated for such crimes good thing to know.

When did Obama or Biden ever ask a foreign country to open an unprompted investigation into a political opponent?

 

[lwf]

The caveat to what your saying is reasonable suspicion. If that exists that warrants a closer look.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I agree. And a rumor does not qualify as reasonable suspicion.

 

[trouble13]

I agree. And a rumor does not qualify as reasonable suspicion.

I dont know what rumor your talking about the video of Biden telling his audience that he threatened to withhold aid unless they fired the guy. That admission alone is enough to give a person reasonable suspicion.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[dixon01767]

U.S. v. Arena

Information isn't property and even if it was, Trump committed no "violence to personal property".

 

[dixon01767]

I dont know what rumor your talking about the video of Biden telling his audience that he threatened to withhold aid unless they fired the guy. That admission alone is enough to give a person reasonable suspicion.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

That and the statement from the prosecutor in question who was told by the President that he was fired because he wouldn't back off the Burisma investigation.

 

[HAL9000]

Information isn't property and even if it was, Trump committed no "violence to personal property".

It's an intangible asset.

 

[dixon01767]

It's an intangible asset.

You cant do violence to an intangible asset.

 

[HAL9000]

You cant do violence to an intangible asset.

The Hobbs Act encompasses violence against property, it doesn't require violence against property. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

 

[Iron_Merc]

Rhetorical question. Read the posts on this board if you want to get an idea how desperate they are. And yes, they are desperate, to the point that they are flailing and making imbecilic posts to try to deflect from what has come out the last 2 weeks about Trump that is undeniably un-American and corrupt as Hell.

Too bad they are failing.

Ummm no. Trump is going to easily move on from this impeachment effort. As I called from the beginning, it will serve to expose corruption in the democratic party.. That being said it's time to accept Trump as your president and move on with your life.

Republicans had a small victory today and Schiff had nothing to say to the press... not looking good for dems... sorry that's just the Gods honest Truth.

 

[MTAtech]

Ummm no. Trump is going to easily move on from this impeachment effort. As I called from the beginning, it will serve to expose corruption in the democratic party.. That being said it's time to accept Trump as your president and move on with your life.

Republicans had a small victory today and Schiff had nothing to say to the press... not looking good for dems... sorry that's just the Gods honest Truth.

It's not about "Democratic corruption." Trump pressuring a foreign country to investigate his domestic rivals and then orchestrated a cover-up and is continuing to obstruct the investigation by denying the House impeachment inquiry documents and witnesses.

Your narrative is also false. 58% of the public wants this inquiry and the more Trump obstructs the more people will decide that removal from office is warranted.

 

[dixon01767]

U.S. v. Arena
1. " Property"
The Hobbs Act, by its terms, encompasses violence against property. See 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (commission or threat of physical violence against persons "or property"); United States v. Zappola, 677 F.2d 264, 268 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 866 (1982) (noting that common understanding of extortion includes injury to property); 91 Cong. Rec. 11,845 (1945) (Act designed to penalize acts of "violence to personal property"). The concept of "property" under the Hobbs Act is an expansive one. See, e.g., Town of West Hartford v. Operation Rescue, 915 F.2d 92, 101 (2nd Cir. 1990); United States v. Tropiano, 418 F.2d 1069, 1075 (2nd Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1021 (1970). While often the property involved is an existing physical asset, the concept is not limited to tangible things, but includes intangible assets such as rights to solicit customers and to conduct a lawful business. See, e.g., United States v. Margiotta, 688 F.2d 108, 134 (2nd Cir. 1982) (continuation of insurance business), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 913 (1983); United States v. Daley, 564 F.2d at 648 (employees' jobs and contractors' future job assignments); United States v. Tropiano, 418 F.2d at 1075-76 (right to do business in a given area or to bid for contracts); United States v. Anderson, 716 F.2d at 450 (right of doctor to continue to perform abortions).

Information isn't property and even if it was, Trump committed no "violence to personal property".

It's an intangible asset.

You cant do violence to an intangible asset.

The Hobbs Act encompasses violence against property, it doesn't require violence against property. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

There is no violation of the Hobbs act.

 

[HAL9000]

There is no violation of the Hobbs act.

Before we continue, and I take the time write a long post explaining Trump's violation to you in full.

Do you, A: Understand that the Hobbs Act doesn't require violence against property, and B: Accept that information can be sold?