| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Trump Declassified Transcript of Ukraine's Zelensky Conversation | |
| 2019-09-25 | |
[WashingtonPost] PDF plus an article
| |
| Posted by:JohnQC |
| #22 Obvious. Joe Biden oversaw Ukraine politics, Hunter collected the money. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2019-09-25 21:39 |
| #21 Hunter Biden made money the same way that ex-politicians across the West make big $$$: they use their influence and promises of future influence to persuade companies involved in industries that critically depend on government policies to give them board seats and/or recurring income in the form of "consulting fees." Stock options + a quarterly payment are also included. A second scam is to create a "private equity fund" or "hedge fund" that, again, uses the promise of influence to attract major institutional investors. The pol gets a cut of the money raised in the form of "management fees", which typically amount to 2% of the total, plus 20% of any profits above a certain "hurdle" rate of return. This is known as the 2-and-20 scam. These are paid out to the partners, including the pol, regardless of whether the fund actually generates a return for its investors, let alone a return sufficient to offset the risk. Hunter Biden's China fund raised $1.5 BILLION in short order. This is for a man with zero investing experience, zero industry experience, and a cocaine habit. 2% of $1.5B = $30 million in "management fees" each year. For nothing except the promise of - obviously - his father's influence. |
| Posted by: Lex 2019-09-25 19:47 |
| #20 nope |
| Posted by: Frank G 2019-09-25 19:46 |
| #19 Just like Schröder in Russia, I guess. Nothing new here. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2019-09-25 19:41 |
| #18 He made money and offered his Expert Energy Industry Adviceâ„¢. But mostly he made money |
| Posted by: Frank G 2019-09-25 19:38 |
| #17 Soooo, what DID Hunter Biden do in Ukraine? |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2019-09-25 19:09 |
| #16 Isn't POTUS the chief law enforcement officer in the country? The AG works in his cabinet, not the other way around. The AG serves at the pleasure of POTUS. He can replace him at any time. Are the duties of the president not clearly defined in Article II of the Constitution? POTUS swears an oath to the Constitution. Its powers include making treaties with other nations, appointing federal judges, department heads and Ambassadors, and determining how to best run the country and run military operations. Does he not have the duty to talk and negotiate with foreign dignitaries and to make treaties? IMO, the Dems suffer from impeachment frenzy. It is making them crazy. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2019-09-25 16:16 |
| #15 What if this 'whistle-blower' is a feint? Excellent question. What if the whistle-blower's bias is in favor of Trump and against Pelosi? What if this whole thing is yet another trap to make the donkeycrats look like the fools that they truly are? |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2019-09-25 15:37 |
| #14 What if this 'whistle-blower' is a feint? |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2019-09-25 14:19 |
| #13 Something smells. I dunno if you noticed it, but the Whitehouse Staff's hearsay conversaytion summary has tracts nearly identical to the original un-classified transcript. This is only possible if they recorded a phone call between the Presidents (one of them their own). Or they have a god-like memory. In both cases, there has been a clear breach of the Espionage Act 1917-Pub. L. 65-24 by this whistleblower because the summary was released much BEFORE the de-classified transcript ! Moreover the Congresspersons supporting this fiasco are liable to be prosecuted too. I recollect the case of Jeffrey Alexander Sterling another CIA whistleblower and Snowden. |
| Posted by: Nautillus Bloome5155 2019-09-25 12:56 |
| #12 Complete joke. There is no evidence whatsoever - none, nada, nichego - of a quid pro quo request. If the Democrats continue to be this stupid wrt their idiotic smear campaigns against Kavanaugh and Trump, then the election will not be close. Trump will be re-elected easily. |
| Posted by: Lex 2019-09-25 12:55 |
| #11 Related: PJ Media analyzes the thing here. Thanks for the add-on from PJ Media. It provides a little more flesh-out than WAPO. So thanks. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2019-09-25 12:52 |
| #10 Latest "bombshell" not even a dud today. As The Kid said in The Quick and the Dead, "That was fast..." |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2019-09-25 12:46 |
| #9 POTUS: I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. Does this request constitute a "high crime"? A misdemeanor? Zelensky (POU): I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. So the request is actually redundant. POTUS is asking POU to do something that POU not only intended to do but already did. POTUS: Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... This was an unwise request. POU has people who are already looking into the matter. Stupid on POTUS's part, but certainly not a "high crime" or even a misdemeanor. Then POU makes a request of his own: POU: I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful · for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Both POTUS and POU are showing their lack of diplomatic savvy here. No need to waste an important high-level conversation with discussion of personnel matters. But again, there is no corrupt dealing on either side. This is simply political chitchat about political matters involving areas where each president has unquestioned authority to make decisions and changes as he sees fit. POTUS: I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Again, unwise to get into the weeds; also unnecessary. Giuliani's already in motion. Giuliani can introduce Barr to the appropriate Ukrainian counterparts. But the follow on comments show clearly that this declaration of a next step is not tied to any kind of policy change, favor, or granted request-- POTUS simply makes a benign prediction that Ukraine's economy will "get better." No quid pro quo. No strong-arming. No "high crime" or misdemeanor. POTUS: Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. After this, the conversation ends with pleasant generalities and best wishes. POU's promise is simply that he "want[s] to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation." Again, the reference ("the" investigation) is to an existing process that predated the conversation. It's in motion. There is no quid pro quo. POU is informing POTUS that it will continue. The Democrats are morons who have been completely outplayed. What a complete shitshow this is. Compare it to Obama's "hot mic" moment with Russian PM Medvedev in March 2012 during Obama's re-election campaign. THAT comment--"I'll have more flexibility [to screw our E. European allies and go back on our promise to supply them Patriot missiles]" represented atrocious judgment. Though, again, as with Trump, Obama's unwise, probably disastrous green light to Putin was perfectly within the range of duties of a sitting president. and by no means an impeachable offense. The entire impeachment process has become a joke. More like a Shitshow, Part 100. |
| Posted by: Lex 2019-09-25 12:41 |
| #8 I wouldn't go that far Frank G. It sounds to me like they did close a deal - but nothing was said that demonrats can use. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2019-09-25 12:39 |
| #7 and no quid-pro-quo, no "asked eight times", no nothing. Suck it Pelosi |
| Posted by: Frank G 2019-09-25 11:06 |
| #6 I did miss it. The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me. I imagine AOC is looking for a rope. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2019-09-25 11:00 |
| #5 Of course, the WaPo story leads off with - President Trump told his Ukrainian counterpart to work with the U.S. attorney general to investigate the conduct of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and offered to meet with the foreign leader at the White House after he promised to conduct such an inquiry, according to a newly-released transcript of the call. I didn't see Biden's name, in my quick scan. I'll check again. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2019-09-25 10:55 |
| #4 They've been there for quite a while, JQC. Since about November 7, 2016, if I remember correctly. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2019-09-25 10:53 |
| #3 WTF have they come to? They have embraced their inner Stalin. My theory was they would impeach Trump if they were certain they would lose 2020. Seems they think it is over. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2019-09-25 10:52 |
| #2 The Dem goatf&ck that has them apoplectic and wanting to hang someone without seeing any evidence? WTF have they come to? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2019-09-25 10:32 |
| #1 Finally, Trump's playing offense against all the trolls and buffoonery of the Deep State and their Democratic stooges. Bring it on. Bring them down. Expose them all. |
| Posted by: Lex 2019-09-25 10:26 |