US Election 2020 - Pt 3

[Tokolotshe]

Oh, I just can't bare it when you correct me, Scudsucker.

I also cringe. I actually feel bad for the dude. It reminds me of those movies where the actor does something so obviously stupid digging the 'whole' deeper, you just feel like shouting out "Shut the **** up" out of empathy.

 

[ISP cash cow]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1313212655511826433

Of course, corruption is a super serious concern, it's totally not being used as a partisan cudgel to bash Trump...

If this was actually said in a criminal court, could the guy not post the transcript of the court case to prove his twitter feed

Well, if he himself is involved in the court case, which Burisma lost, then that would by some measure endorse the veracity of what he's saying, wouldn't it?

Also, checking on wikipedia:

Andrii Derkach - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It should be noted that Rosemont Seneca Partners was raided by the FBI in August.

TruNews

TruNews is the world's leading news source that reports, analyzes, and comments on global events and trends with a conservative, orthodox Christian worldview.

www.trunews.com

It is curious why something so salaciously newsworthy as this is being suppressed when the media industry is desperate for revenue...

If what he tweeted was actually said in a criminal court why does he not post the actual transcript from the court case to prove his facebook/twitter report of biden taking a bribe.

I have been googling and there is not much mentioned on this and when it does it is an opinion piece leading back to the facebook comment.

I would imagine if this was real, Fox and OAN would be all over it

 

[Emjay]

I see people are still triggered by Trump getting the Rona.

I remember when Chris Cuomo was infected and was caught outside of his home, with no mask, while he was supposed to be self quarantining. Not a single peep from a single person here, but now we are having literal melt downs from our MyBB TDS crowd and the Left MSM.

 

[CaptainOblivious]

If this was actually said in a criminal court, could the guy not post the transcript of the court case to prove his twitter feed


If what he tweeted was actually said in a criminal court why does he not post the actual transcript from the court case to prove his facebook/twitter report of biden taking a bribe.

I have been googling and there is not much mentioned on this and when it does it is an opinion piece leading back to the facebook comment.

Right, I would have preferred this. Perhaps he did not have easy access to the transcripts. In the past when news like this was reported, getting the actual transcripts took a while, perhaps there's some sort of red-tape that has to be navigated through or something.

I would imagine if this was real, Fox and OAN would be all over it

They already are, in various ways. Lots of this stuff is old news.

Again, the other article related to this story that I posted today:

State Dept. officials told they broke law by monitoring Americans during Ukraine scandal

Revelation undercuts impeachment testimony; conservative watchdog claims coverup.

justthenews.com

The conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch first raised concerns earlier this year that the U.S. embassy in Kiev run by then-Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch had created an "enemies list" by ordering the monitoring of social media accounts of prominent Americans last year when the Ukraine scandal about Joe and Hunter Biden first surfaced.


After a protracted legal fight, the State Department released memos to the group last month confirming the embassy did in fact monitor the accounts of 13 Americans, including Fox News personalities Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Lou Dobbs, the president's son Don Jr., his lawyer Rudy Giuliani as well as this reporter, whose articles in The Hill first shined a light on the Bidens' possible conflict of interests in Ukraine.

Why did Yavonovitch, one of the main witnesses in the Trump impeachment trial, feel it necessary to create a watch list of everyone who had an interest in reporting about what went on in the US embassy to Ukraine if nothing nefarious was actually going on?

 

[scudsucker]

An honest person would direct his responses to the person who suggested a bet.

*I* suggested the bet, this time around.

Xarog/captain oblivious can suggest conditions.... if he is still confident in his convictions.

You see how this "honesty" thing works, Xarog?

 

[CaptainOblivious]

I also cringe. I actually feel bad for the dude. It reminds me of those movies where the actor does something so obviously stupid digging the 'whole' deeper, you just feel like shouting out "Shut the **** up" out of empathy.

I've recently come to the conclusion that it has to be intentional...

 

[ISP cash cow]

Right, I would have preferred this. Perhaps he did not have easy access to the transcripts. In the past when news like this was reported, getting the actual transcripts took a while, perhaps there's some sort of red-tape that has to be navigated through or something.


They already are, in various ways. Lots of this stuff is old news.

Again, the other article related to this story that I posted today:

State Dept. officials told they broke law by monitoring Americans during Ukraine scandal

Revelation undercuts impeachment testimony; conservative watchdog claims coverup.

justthenews.com

Why did Yavonovitch, one of the main witnesses in the Trump impeachment trial, feel it necessary to create a watch list of everyone who had an interest in reporting about what went on in the US embassy to Ukraine if nothing nefarious was actually going on?

I still don't get how you jump from point A to point Z.

Having a watch list of people does not mean anything was going on.

It means they may have "thought" something was going on but its not proof that something was going on.

Again the claim apparently was that it "was mentioned in court" about the bribe - a court transcript of where it was mentioned in court would easily show the evidence for that tweet

 

[Emjay]

What?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1313287779892301824

 

[CaptainOblivious]

I still don't get how you jump from point A to point Z.

Again the claim apparently was that it "was mentioned in court" about the bribe - a court transcript of where it was mentioned in court would easily show the evidence for that tweet

Since I am not familiar with what it takes to get a court transcript from Ukranian courts and what sorts of bureaucratic hoops one might have to jump through or costs one might have to incur, I'm not going to draw judgement on this one way or the other.

Having a watch list of people does not mean anything was going on.

It means they may have "thought" something was going on but its not proof that something was going on.

Yavonavitch broke the law to do it. You really think someone breaking the law in order to spy on private citizens isn't something concerning in its own right, regardless of whatever other considerations might be involved?

Not only that, but she appears to have lied about it after the fact while under oath:

Yovanovitch, an Obama-appointed ambassador who carried over to the new administration before Trump fired her, testified to House investigators that her embassy had asked for the monitoring after a column in The Hill quoted a Ukrainian prosecutor raising questions about her and the embassy in March 2019.

"So we, you know, we're interested in, you know, kind of keeping track of the story so that we would know what was going on," she testified, acknowledging she received a "finished product" from the mining of the social accounts. "Because, I mean, there's an interest, obviously, I had an interest since I was being directly attacked."

She acknowledged her embassy asked State officials in Washington to assist in the monitoring. When asked why the monitoring stopped, she blamed a lack of resources.

"What we were told is that the folks in Washington were too busy to do this, etc, etc.," she testified.

In fact, the unredacted email shows the monitoring of the 13 email accounts using a mining tool known as CrowdTangle was ordered stopped by a lawyer in the State Department because federal law prohibited the agency from targeting Americans.

"I understand the urgency of having these types of reports developed around emerging conversations, but I have asked [redacted] to delete the CrowdTangle list, which explicitly pulls this information from lists that include the personal accounts of American citizens, amongst others," the official wrote.

His admonition that the activity was "barred by law" was underlined and bolded for emphasis.

"We can use CrowdTangle to monitor terms as they pertain to Yovanovitch, but these search terms cannot be used to target a particular list if it includes American citizens," the email added.

Other unredacted emails also show that the search terms Yovanovitch's team sought to use included stories about herself as well as the liberal megadonor George Soros.

 

[scudsucker]

I also cringe. I actually feel bad for the dude.

Thanks. This makes me feel better about myself and about you.

 

[lumeer]

I see people are still triggered by Trump getting the Rona.

I remember when Chris Cuomo was infected and was caught outside of his home, with no mask, while he was supposed to be self quarantining. Not a single peep from a single person here, but now we are having literal melt downs from our MyBB TDS crowd and the Left MSM.

Chris Cuomo is not the president, who should lead by example.

Trump supporters are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with all their "but what about that time when [insert name] was seen without a mask".

 

[ISP cash cow]

Since I am not familiar with what it takes to get a court transcript from Ukranian courts and what sorts of bureaucratic hoops one might have to jump through or costs one might have to incur, I'm not going to draw judgement on this one way or the other.


Yavonavitch broke the law to do it. You really think someone breaking the law in order to spy on private citizens isn't something concerning in its own right, regardless of whatever other considerations might be involved?

Not only that, but she appears to have lied about it after the fact while under oath:

again it does not prove that Biden was bribed,

Yes it something completely concerning and does need its own judgement and court involvement but trying to use that as evidence to claim proof of Biden being bribed when there is "supposingly" an actual court saying that it found he was bribed seems a bit of "fake news" to me

 

[CaptainOblivious]

You did not even know the case involved him, and are willing to take as gospel a Tweet with zero sources? You can surely admit this is an extraordinarily low bar you've set?

This is not the first time that news from Ukraine has broken in this way, with it being ignored by the MSM.

You cited Wikipedia, not I.

I did, because it was convenient to do so, but the information I was looking for I was familiar with from other sources, so I wasn't taking Wikipedia's word for it, but then you took what I quoted as a reason to say that I should believe the rest of what's in the article, and I reject this reasoning.

This doesn't stop Trump and his support base saying all sorts of arguably outlandish stuff, why would this particular thing give them pause? Trump by his own admission is happy to rail against the fake media, and it seems a bit odd to imply that they are effectively cowed by the existence of biased media.

I would imagine that insofar as there is actually criminal case to be answered for, that the people such as Barr who head the DoJ must speak carefully so as to not sabotage the prospects that the case will prevail in court.

But if you pay close attention to what Trump has said, he has not been shy about suggesting that there are problems that have to be addressed. The most recent example was the presidential debates when Trump was asking Biden why his family's getting money from politically connected Russian oligarchs.

I am looking into it, as I was not paying attention at the time. I do tend to try and look at things before commenting on them, hence why I at least knew who court case involved. I struggle to fathom how much stock people are willing to put in a Tweet. If that's considered an adequate source, then I'd be comfortable suggesting that whatever would replace the so-called fake news will be even worse.

Well, when you feel that you have made yourself familiar with the situation so that you have a feel for the playing field, let's revisit this question, shall we?

 

[scudsucker]

This is not the first time that news from Ukraine has broken in this way, with it being ignored by the MSM.


I did, because it was convenient to do so, but the information I was looking for I was familiar with from other sources, so I wasn't taking Wikipedia's word for it, but then you took what I quoted as a reason to say that I should believe the rest of what's in the article, and I reject this reasoning.


I would imagine that insofar as there is actually criminal case to be answered for, that the people such as Barr who head the DoJ must speak carefully so as to not sabotage the prospects that the case will prevail in court.

But if you pay close attention to what Trump has said, he has not been shy about suggesting that there are problems that have to be addressed. The most recent example was the presidential debates when Trump was asking Biden why his family's getting money from politically connected Russian oligarchs.


Well, when you feel that you have made yourself familiar with the situation so that you have a feel for the playing field, let's revisit this question, shall we?

About that bet?

Are you just going to ignore it?

 

[CaptainOblivious]

again it does not prove that Biden was bribed,

Yes it something completely concerning and does need its own judgement and court involvement but trying to use that as evidence to claim proof of Biden being bribed when there is "supposingly" an actual court saying that it found he was bribed seems a bit of "fake news" to me

The emails show State Department officials under Trump openly worried a year before the 2020 election that the emerging storyline that Vice President Joe Biden may have engaged in a conflict of interest by presiding over Ukraine policy while his son worked for a corrupt Ukrainian gas company might prove to be "the mother load [sic] and main thread to play out, possibly thru Nov. 2020."

If Biden cannot give a good reason for his demanding that Poroshenko get rid of Shokin (hint: he can't) when Shokin was investigating Burisma, then the constellation of facts are arranged such that presuming innocence is no longer plausible. If Biden does not explain himself, then he actually starts to look hella guilty, wouldn't you say?

 

[scudsucker]

If Biden cannot give a good reason for his demanding that Poroshenko get rid of Shokin (hint: he can't) when Shokin was investigating Burisma, then the constellation of facts are arranged such that presuming innocence is no longer plausible. If Biden does not explain himself, then he actually starts to look hella guilty, wouldn't you say?

* ahem.

About that bet.....?

 

[CaptainOblivious]

About that bet?

Are you just going to ignore it?

Lol, so impatient. I missed Copacetic's response somehow and only saw incidentally in the process of getting this:

Better yes, the real test will be how the media and the left treat it in the USA. Who wants to take a bet.

Ok.

What are the terms?

*I* suggested the bet, this time around.

Xarog/captain oblivious can suggest conditions.... if he is still confident in his convictions.

You see how this "honesty" thing works, Xarog?

I see how your idea of this "honesty" thing works. Can't say I'm impressed.

 

[Emjay]

Lol, so impatient. I missed Copacetic's response somehow and only saw incidentally in the process of getting this:

I see how your idea of this "honesty" thing works. Can't say I'm impressed.

Stop giving him attention.

 

[scudsucker]

I see how your idea of this "honesty" thing works. Can't say I'm impressed.

So I am offering you the chance to decide the terms, and you think *I* am being dishonest here?

Xarog, you choose the terms. You choose the conditions. You specify everything.

But.

You need to abide by the terms, this time, if we agree to the terms.

 

[scudsucker]

Stop giving him attention.

Ok Emjay.