Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary'

[Somerville]

Here's a fun fact for those who really really 'know' that Joe Biden and his "drug addict son" Hunter were being paid tons of money by Burisma. NO PRESS ORGANISATION HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVE IT.

Numerous media outlets have reported that Hunter Biden was paid as much as $50,000 a month for his work with the Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings.

Verdict: Unsubstantiated

No available financial records show Burisma directly paid Hunter Biden. The $50,000-a-month figure stems from payments made to Biden by New York-based capital management firm Rosemont Seneca Bohai. Bank records show Rosemont Seneca Bohai received payments from Burisma, as well as dozens of other entities and individuals. It’s unclear why Rosemont Seneca Bohai was paying Hunter Biden.

 

[trouble13]

You asked me about evidence Trump's motives were political. I pointed out it's all around you and you just have to open your eyes and see it. One I did forget was the demand that Z do it on TV in person. If you can't accept the purpose for that isn't political, then you're trying HARD not to see it. Eyes wide shut.

And the bottom line is if Biden's relationship with Ukraine "warrants scrutiny" then fine. Call up the DoJ - Barr is on speed dial I bet - and make it happen. If Barr agrees there's a basis for the investigation, he can order it done. There are people who work for Barr in every embassy. Start there. Then they can send over an official request to Ukraine for evidence that's needed. Etc. None of that happened, but THAT is what a legitimate investigation looks like. Not calling up your buddy overseas in secret and in secret demand he put a U.S. citizen under investigation AND HAVE THE PRESIDENT OF THAT COUNTRY ANNOUNCE IT ON TV!

As far as I can tell, you really are at this stage, from above,

"Point is I don't know what anyone can want other than POTUS on a hot mic saying, "Of course I did this to harm Biden!!!" and if he did, the Trump fluffers would then find a way to say, "well it's good to do that!!" All the evidence anyone needs, and above is just the start, is laying right there on the table in full view"

Im pointing out that your positions contradict each other. If there is a pegitimate reason tp investigate Biden which there appears to be pne then the political benefits of it are irrelevant much pike yu saying that if Trump beoke some rule the political benefits are irrelevant.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

QUOTE=trouble13;1070891516]If this goes before the senate, Ciaramella is the first person that should be subpoenaed to testify before them and forced to answer that question. I would not even let let the proceedings go forward without his testimony.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Until Schiff's lie about meeting with Ciaramella was exposed, he was willing to have the guy appear. It's pretty clear now why Schiff doesn't want Ciaramella to appear to answer questions under oath.[/QUOTE]Schiff cant block a subpoena from the senate. If the senate asks him directly who he has contact with about this he will jave no choice but to answer or perjure himself. If Schiff lied it will be exposed

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Doc91478]

You tell us. Why bury the phone call in a secure vault and prevent anyone you can from testifying? The whistleblower provided second hand information, we now have first hand information from Taylor, Sondland, and Yovanovich. If the Trump administration wanted to clear anything up they could of had Pompeo, Giuliani and Mulvaney come explain the whole thing to Congress.

~~~~~~
On the contrary, both Kent and Taylor swore under oath they did not have first hand information. All their testimony was based upon hearsay. In fact they have never met, talked or communicated with President Trump.

 

[JasperL]

What? You bought into Schiff's opening statement schtick.

More diversionary, fact free nonsense. It's a pattern!

 

[humbolt]

Always happy to bring a bit of levity into other people's drab and dreary lives.



And I'm just as sure that you will completely ignore the facts (no matter how many times they are presented) as long as the current edition of The Current Response And Position Bulletin tells you do do so.

Yep. I'm beginning to enjoy how the truth here is described as a narrative.

 

[JasperL]

Im pointing out that your positions contradict each other. If there is a pegitimate reason tp investigate Biden which there appears to be pne then the political benefits of it are irrelevant.

You quoted and ignored an entire paragraph that addresses this concern. That's fine, but doing it then repeating the point is BS:

"And the bottom line is if Biden's relationship with Ukraine "warrants scrutiny" then fine. Call up the DoJ - Barr is on speed dial I bet - and make it happen. If Barr agrees there's a basis for the investigation, he can order it done. There are people who work for Barr in every embassy. Start there. Then they can send over an official request to Ukraine for evidence that's needed. Etc. None of that happened, but THAT is what a legitimate investigation looks like. Not calling up your buddy overseas in secret and in secret demand he put a U.S. citizen under investigation AND HAVE THE PRESIDENT OF THAT COUNTRY ANNOUNCE IT ON TV!"

And guess what the House is doing with Trump? They opened up an official investigation in the U.S. They are calling the relevant witnesses to the wrongdoing to testify under oath, we just had a public hearing yesterday with witnesses under oath. You might have heard about it. If the House determines wrongdoing, they will draw up an 'indictment' and the House will vote, those votes recorded etc.

See, that's different than what Trump did. Barr is running around the world looking into the DoJ's investigation into Trump. Do you know why he can do that? Because it was done by.....the U.S. government! And we can hold them accountable if they broke any laws because they worked for the United States!!!

much pike yu saying that if Trump beoke some rule the political benefits are irrelevant.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

That much is true. What isn't is your bogus BOTH SIDES false equivalence.

 

[humbolt]

More diversionary, fact free nonsense. It's a pattern!

Indeed it is. First there was Mueller and Stormy, and now this. In the mean time, most of your potential candidates are running around expounding the virtues of spending $30 trillion we don't have. It must be frustrating.

 

[JasperL]

Indeed it is. First there was Mueller and Stormy, and now this. In the mean time, most of your potential candidates are running around expounding the virtues of spending $30 trillion we don't have. It must be frustrating.

How many ways can you avoid discussing the facts of the case against Trump? I guess we'll find out!

 

[Erod]

How many ways can you avoid discussing the facts of the case against Trump? I guess we'll find out!

There is no case. That sad clown show yesterday was even worse than when you put Mueller on the stand and he disappointed you terribly. This is already a dead end, just like the dossier, the Mueller investigation, Kavanaugh, collusion, Stormy Daniels, obstruction, Gorsuch, concentration border camps, etc, etc, etc....

You can't beat him in November, so you keep throwing these desperate Hail Marys. It's not working.

 

[humbolt]

WRONG Wrong. There was no open investigation of Burisma at the time Shokin was fired. Prove me wrong by providing a reliable source.

The investigation was charcterized by Ukraine as dormant, not closed. Ukraine's words - not mine. This was the result of the government telling Shokin to "back off". And again, those are not my words. That is like the ref in a recent NFL game telling a defenseman to "lay off" of Brady. He didn't tell the guy not to hit Brady. It is football, after all. He was telling him not to plant Brady into the turf. None of that changes the nature of the circumstances surrounding Biden's behavior anyway. What you might want to think about is that if your "narrative actually held any water, it would seem that Trump is perfectly innocent by the same standard and objective. Ukraine had resumed the investigation of Burisma entirely on it's own last February.

 

[JasperL]

There is no case. That sad clown show yesterday was even worse than when you put Mueller on the stand and he disappointed you terribly. This is already a dead end, just like the dossier, the Mueller investigation, Kavanaugh, collusion, Stormy Daniels, obstruction, Gorsuch, concentration border camps, etc, etc, etc....

You can't beat him in November, so you keep throwing these desperate Hail Marys. It's not working.

Not a fact anywhere in that nonsense. I get it - you like Trump, and nothing he can do will shatter your support for him. That's fine.

 

[humbolt]

How many ways can you avoid discussing the facts of the case against Trump? I guess we'll find out!

At least as many as you can avoid the bankruptcy of your assertions.

 

[JasperL]

The investigation was charcterized by Ukraine as dormant, not closed. Ukraine's words - not mine. This was the result of the government telling Shokin to "back off". And again, those are not my words. That is like the ref in a recent NFL game telling a defenseman to "lay off" of Brady. He didn't tell the guy not to hit Brady. It is football, after all. He was telling him not to plant Brady into the turf. None of that changes the nature of the circumstances surrounding Biden's behavior anyway. What you might want to think about is that if your "narrative actually held any water, it would seem that Trump is perfectly innocent by the same standard and objective. Ukraine had resumed the investigation of Burisma entirely on it's own last February.

Correct, those are the words of Shokin....

Well, if you can't believe a guy whose top deputies were caught with bags of cash and gems, and who Shokin protected from prosecution from his perch at the top of the PGO, and who had a perfect record of ZERO prosecutions of top people such as oligarchs or government officials, who can you believe?

 

[humbolt]

Correct, those are the words of Shokin....

Well, if you can't believe a guy whose top deputies were caught with bags of cash and gems, and who Shokin protected from prosecution from his perch at the top of the PGO, who can you believe?

I don't suppose you've ever looked to see who was serving on the Burisma board with Hunter. It's pretty interesting, to say the least.

 

[JasperL]

I don't suppose you've ever looked to see who was serving on the Burisma board with Hunter. It's pretty interesting, to say the least.

What does that have to do with the fact that Shokin was corrupt, and in fact stood squarely in the way of any efforts to clean up corruption in Ukraine, and you're relying this corrupt POS's self serving statements as facts in this case, all of them contradicted by people in his office?

The equivalent to your argument:"Those aren't my words, they're the words of the drug kingpin who says he's innocent!"

 

[bubbabgone]

You guys are so funny. Nice dig at an old lady who certainly appears to be far more intelligent than the Orange Grifter.

 

[bubbabgone]

Why are you writing such nonsense? Ambassador Taylor's aide overheard Trump speaking to Sondland on the phone and his question, as far as I understand it, was more in the nature of confirming what he had just heard because he couldn't believe the president would say such nonsense. Then today, the AP is reporting a second embassy aide who was at the table with Sondland has also confirmed the call.

AP source: 2nd US official heard Trump call with Sondland

Taylor's aide will be testifying to the inquiry next week. "The staffer Taylor testified about is David Holmes, the political counselor at the embassy in Kyiv, . . . Holmes is scheduled to testify Friday before House investigators in a closed session.

I repeated what Taylor said. Take it up with him.

 

[bubbabgone]

Probably an infection in that pouch I mentioned. I bet Nadler got stuck in there.

Whoa! That's gotta hurt.

 

[Cordelier]

Shokin was investigating Burisma. It's a matter of record.

Really? There was a case being actively prosecuted? I know there was the whole matter with Zlochevsky from when he was in the Yanukovych Government and double dealing - but that occurred before Biden became a director. Do you have any information to back up any allegations for things that occurred since 2014?

It seems to me that if the President had and was operating under such information, then he should have - indeed, would have - referred it to the Department of Justice.

 

[humbolt]

What does that have to do with the fact that Shokin was corrupt, and in fact stood squarely in the way of any efforts to clean up corruption in Ukraine, and you're relying this corrupt POS's self serving statements as facts in this case, all of them contradicted by people in his office?

The equivalent to your argument:"Those aren't my words, they're the words of the drug kingpin who says he's innocent!"

In essence, you're claiming tha we should look at the Biden circumstances and assume thst everything is peachy, but view arguably innocuous circumstances with regard to Trump as heinous.

Well, that's objectivity. :roll:

 

[humbolt]

Whoa! That's gotta hurt.

I'm sure, but it's her fault. She crammed Nadler back in there and let Schiff out. Of course, no one would believe the Schiff show has anything at all to do with something related to judicial principles, so...

 

[humbolt]

Really? There was a case being actively prosecuted? I know there was the whole matter with Zlochevsky from when he was in the Yanukovych Government and double dealing - but that occurred before Biden became a director. Do you have any information to back up any allegations for things that occurred since 2014?

It seems to me that if the President had and was operating under such information, then he should have - indeed, would have - referred it to the Department of Justice.

Ukraine resumed active investigation last February. One can reasonably conclude that there's some reason for that action. Just a look at the composition of the Burisma board should give you pause. Zlochevsky's daughter? Hunter, and a buddy? $50,000 a month to Hunter, and $166,000 a month to his firm. That's a lot of clams to people who have no experience in energy markets. And naturally, it didn't have a thing to do with Joe. Joe never knew anything about any of it. Not even a smidgen of corruption there. Joe's just trying to save Ukraine from fatal corruption. Have I ever told you that I'm the Duke of Franklin County?

 

[MTAtech]

I'm sure, but it's her fault. She crammed Nadler back in there and let Schiff out. Of course, no one would believe the Schiff show has anything at all to do with something related to judicial principles, so...

My irony meter is pegged. Mr. Kent testified yesterday that the narrative of corruption that Trump and Giuliani made against the Bidens was baseless but you think the people who lack principles are Schiff and Nadler.

What Biden requested, Kent said, was the removal of “a corrupt prosecutor general . . . who had undermined a system of criminal investigation that we built with American money to build corruption cases.” Shokin, Kent said, had “destroyed the entire ecosystem that we were trying to create,” and he credited Biden for leading a U.S. effort to combat corruption in Ukraine.
source

 

[JasperL]

In essence, you're claiming tha we should look at the Biden circumstances and assume thst everything is peachy, but view arguably innocuous circumstances with regard to Trump as heinous.

Well, that's objectivity. :roll:

In fact I've replied to you several times with a completely DIFFERENT position, and you know this. What I've said repeatedly is if there is a legitimate concern about Biden, CALL THE ****ING DOJ. We have an entire agency headed by Barr dedicated to looking into wrongdoing by Americans. If we need Ukrainian assistance in a legitimate investigation by DoJ, we can request it through normal channels. THAT. DID. NOT. HAPPEN. Instead we had the "investigation" headed up by Trump's personal attorney who also, by the way, was also representing, and paid at least $500,000 by, a bunch of now indicted thugs with business in Ukraine.

It's pretty stunning how unwilling you are to have an honest debate.