Ukraine Gate...Impeachment thread 2

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: Ukraine Gate...Impeachment thread 2

Post by _canpakes »

Markk wrote:
canpakes wrote:Markk, first you complained that Hunter Biden was paid too much for being a board member, and that he had no experience. Now you're implying that he was in charge of all legal issues at Burisma.

Have you decided to move away from your failed attempt to justify any salary based on your initial disingenuous description of Biden's position? And are you now OK with his level of pay given your characterization of Biden being head of the legal team (whatever that means to you) at Burisma?

Hey, by the way - why didn't Trump ask the DoJ to investigate all of this? You keep telling us that we need to do that; I'm so curious as to why Trump didn't think to do so.


Focus, LOL...

My position is that he was hired for who his is and his connections to Washington through his father. It was Burisma, and by default his mobster boss, that gave him his job description.

Focus

Focus, indeed. Your response didn’t answer either question from my post.

You’ve mentioned Hunter Biden’s pay level. What is it specifically about those salary dollars that has caused you to drone on and on about it? And why are you suddenly forgetting your earlier post asserting that Hunter Biden was hired to head up legal issues for Burisma, as opposed to merely be ‘a name’, on the board?

Merely pointing out that Burisma was headed up by a tax fraudster doesn’t indicate anything other than that fellow being a tax fraudster.

(I know that you won’t answer the other question, so just take a stab at this one.)
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: Ukraine Gate...Impeachment thread 2

Post by _canpakes »

Markk wrote:I also understand you hate Trump. But the bottom line is, motives aside, Trump did the right thing in wanting them investigated.

Too bad that Trump went about it the wrong way by trying to strongarm a foreign government, rather than ask the DoJ to investigate. Hence, the impeachment.
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: Ukraine Gate...Impeachment thread 2

Post by _Markk »

canpakes wrote:I’m surprised someone hasn’t said this sooner. : D

In another time I would probably show better board etiquette and not resort to engaging in what otherwise appears to be a pointless quest for pushing Markk to honestly appraise his position. This time around I’m just poking the subject with a stick for the sheer amusement of watching how a mind set on believing a thing will work so hard to appease its own pride and stubbornness.


LOL...By definition you are trolling.

Have you watched the video's, have you read into the other side.

The difference is that I know both sides and read both sides, while you just ignore the other side of the coin and admittedly troll and parrot, as I have me saying all along...at least you admit it now. If anything that is a milestone.

Have you watched the videos I pasted, read the book I suggested, or even read the book Honor suggested...they are very well put together and explain with documented back up. Honor's book explains overall corruption well, and while it reads like a James bond Movie at times..it paints a great word picture of corruption. Are they 100% accurate, no, nothing is? But they are very documented and easy to watch and read, and there are hundreds of facts that cannot be denied...let me know? Or, keep on trolling.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: Ukraine Gate...Impeachment thread 2

Post by _Markk »

canpakes wrote:
Markk wrote:I also understand you hate Trump. But the bottom line is, motives aside, Trump did the right thing in wanting them investigated.

Too bad that Trump went about it the wrong way by trying to strongarm a foreign government, rather than ask the DoJ to investigate. Hence, the impeachment.


And the acquittal, and the investigations into the Biden's and others move forward, by the DoJ (and others) as Trump said they would on the phone call.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: Ukraine Gate...Impeachment thread 2

Post by _Markk »

canpakes wrote:
In 2015, Shokin became the prosecutor general, inheriting the investigation. The Obama administration and other governments and non-governmental organizations soon became concerned that Shokin was not adequately pursuing corruption in Ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as "an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts". Among other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma and, according to Zlochevsky's allies, using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team – to the extent that Obama officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the company for possible money laundering.



This is a good one to move forward on...

Provide your back up for this and I will opine later tonight or tomorrow as time allows. I am glad you are finally offering something we can dig into.

Thanks
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Ukraine Gate...Impeachment thread 2

Post by _Chap »

Markk wrote:
Chap wrote:
Asking the question "If the Biden's are so obviously corrupt, as you claim, why has not Trump launched a DoJ investigation into them, given that he has the power to do so and would gain massively in electoral terms by getting a likely opponent discredited?", or variations thereof, is best seen as a kind of prophylaxis directed towards casual readers of Markk's posts. That question is particularly useful when put to someone who is likely to be impressed by the sheer mass of Markk's posts and the density of his links, and who, without reading them, might be tempted to think 'no smoke without fire'.
.


Chap, I have answered this question (LOL which seems to grow often, this time above with your answer) many times...what is my answer? I have expounded on it many times...provided back up etc.

Can you even explain to me what my answer is to the question?


After having performed the dreary task of skimming back through the previous thread, here are two versions of your reaction to the question:

viewtopic.php?p=1216511#p1216511


Markk wrote:Your answer to the question is that there was not enough evidence, my answer is there was, and he did not need to ask the DOJ.

Z was elected by the Ukrainian people to cleanup the corruption, that is what he ran on, and Trump is asking him to do what he was elected to do, why, because we were going to give them billions, and as the transcript reads, he asked Z to do "us" a favor, and I hope he does...and investigates any and all corruption including Joe and his son.


So there was plenty of evidence, but Trump thought it was more appropriate for corruption by a VPOTUS in office to be investigated by Ukrainians rather than the DoJ?

Riiiiight ....


viewtopic.php?p=1217408#p1217408

Markk wrote:wHY. DIdN't. Trump Ask. The. DoJ. tO. iNvEsTigaTe. tHe. BidENs?

Because he did not need to? (rhetorical), as I wrote in the beginning of this circle, "why is there air in a basketball?" It is equally a stupid but obvious question with a equally obvious answer. There is air in a basketball so it can bounce, and Trump did not ask the DoJ, because he did not have to, he is President and it is his job to make sure we, our country, are not giving money away to a corrupt Ukraine, and he acted accordingly, legally, and has been acquitted for any wrong doing, as accused by his politically enemies.

He had Rudy looking into the corruption before Biden announced his run for President. He then asked the President (Z.) of the Ukraine, in a transcribed phone call, who FYI, was recently elected by the the Ukrainian people to root out the corruption (see Sondland testimony) that had taken place under the Biden and Obama watch. Trump then asked Z. to look into it on "our " behalf, and told President Z. that both Rudy and the DoJ would look into it more, as the whistle blower testified. And as you are most likely unaware of (or refuse to acknowledge), today, the DoJ and others are looking into the corruption that occurred under Obama's and Biden's watch, which President Trump took the lead on, per his legal right.

In other words he did his job, and has no legal or constitutional requirement to ask the DOJ to first look into goverment corruption, but he did anyway after setting the table. There are other likely reasons I did not discuss much, like inheriting a "Washington" that has more leaks than Swiss cheese has holes. He obviously trusted Rudy enough to start the ball rolling, who is obviously more than qualified as a prosecutor...that is not even debatable given his record.


So once more Trump 'has no legal or constitutional requirement to ask the DOJ to first look into goverment corruption'. The first time we were told that he asked the Ukrainians instead, so that's OK, but now we are told as well that in fact 'he did anyway after setting the table'.

So Trump HAS in fact ordered the DoJ to conduct an investigation into alleged corruption by the Bidens? Really?

Oh sorry, I forgot: LOL
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: Ukraine Gate...Impeachment thread 2

Post by _canpakes »

Markk wrote:
canpakes wrote:I’m surprised someone hasn’t said this sooner. : D

In another time I would probably show better board etiquette and not resort to engaging in what otherwise appears to be a pointless quest for pushing Markk to honestly appraise his position. This time around I’m just poking the subject with a stick for the sheer amusement of watching how a mind set on believing a thing will work so hard to appease its own pride and stubbornness.


LOL...By definition you are trolling.

Nope. I’m just persistent. : D
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: Ukraine Gate...Impeachment thread 2

Post by _canpakes »

Markk wrote:
canpakes wrote:
In 2015, Shokin became the prosecutor general, inheriting the investigation. The Obama administration and other governments and non-governmental organizations soon became concerned that Shokin was not adequately pursuing corruption in Ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as "an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts". Among other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma and, according to Zlochevsky's allies, using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team – to the extent that Obama officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the company for possible money laundering.



This is a good one to move forward on...

Provide your back up for this and I will opine later tonight or tomorrow as time allows. I am glad you are finally offering something we can dig into.

Read the other posts from the same general posting time.

I suspect that this would be a situation where several dozen folks say one thing - what I’m posting - and one or two Russian-aligned and corrupt folks will say another - what you are posting.

Hmmm ... who to trust ...
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: Ukraine Gate...Impeachment thread 2

Post by _canpakes »

Markk wrote:I know what this means ...

"Biden, joining the board, will be in charge of the legal unit..."

And what this means...

"paint a picture of a director who provided advice on legal issues,..."

...

So in your mind if he was not a lawyer, while being in charge of legal affairs for Burisma...what was he doing there that is somehow okay?

Markk, first you complained that Hunter Biden was paid too much for being a board member, and that he had no experience. Now you're implying that he was in charge of all legal issues at Burisma.

Have you decided to move away from your failed attempt to justify any salary based on your initial disingenuous description of Biden's position? And are you now OK with his level of pay given your characterization of Biden being head of the legal team (whatever that means to you) at Burisma?
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: Ukraine Gate...Impeachment thread 2

Post by _Markk »

canpakes wrote:Read the other posts from the same general posting time.

I suspect that this would be a situation where several dozen folks say one thing - what I’m posting - and one or two Russian-aligned and corrupt folks will say another - what you are posting.

Hmmm ... who to trust ...


Canpakes,

I am asking you to back up what you just asserted in bold. It is apparent all you can do is troll and not provide back up for your assertions.

In regards to your cut and paste, which you refuse to offer any back up, I offer the following.

Shoklin, during his time as PG, initiated more than 46 thousand criminal investigations. Also...Over 1300 anti corruption cases in his administration, that he inherited. This is around 3 times as much as his two predecessors.

See the data at about 13:55 seconds into this video....watch the whole video, in that it deals with this subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBQycscF08A

He ordered a seizure of 23 Million for the owner of Burisma, and had 6 open case against Mykola Zlochevsky at the time Biden had him fired.

I am asking you to back up what you put in bold, it is just false.


In 2015, Shokin became the prosecutor general, inheriting the investigation. The Obama administration and other governments and non-governmental organizations soon became concerned that Shokin was not adequately pursuing corruption in Ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as "an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts". Among other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma and, according to Zlochevsky's allies, using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team – to the extent that Obama officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the company for possible money laundering.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
Post Reply