This is an actual document of an actual indictment against four individuals indicted on campaign finance violations. Two of them, Parnas, and Fruman, are represented by Rudy Giuliani. The rest of us are trying to digest what this document contains. Page 8 of the indictment, for example, indicates that Parnas was seeking the removal of the then U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine.
Please allow those of us who want to find the truth, the time to read the document.
Thank you.
(10-10-2019, 12:39 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Biden busted, it's all coming together.
FTA: Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden received $900,000 for lobbying activities from Burisma Group, Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada member Andriy Derkach said citing investigation materials.
Derkach publicized documents which, as he said, "describe the mechanism of getting money by Biden Sr." at a press conference at Interfax-Ukraine's press center in Kyiv on Wednesday.
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-co...17936.html
NeverTrumpers and lefties hardest hit.
Just to be clear, there wasn't a direct payment to Joe Biden. There was a payment to Rosemont Seneca Partners, an international consulting firm, and Hunter Biden owns an interest in that firm.
I think that is correct.
Has Derkach proven that the money went to Joe Biden?
I read the linked articles, and I don't see any evidence cited that the money went to Joe Biden. It seems to be one guy in the Ukrainian Parliament that is saying a payment was made to Rosemont Seneca, and he thinks the money went to Joe Biden, but he doesn't cite any actual evidence and I don't see how he could possibly know whether money went from Rosemont Seneca to Joe Biden.
(10-10-2019, 03:52 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]This is an actual document of an actual indictment against four individuals indicted on campaign finance violations. Two of them, Parnas, and Fruman, are represented by Rudy Giuliani. The rest of us are trying to digest what this document contains. Page 8 of the indictment, for example, indicates that Parnas was seeking the removal of the then U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine.
Please allow those of us who want to find the truth, the time to read the document.
Thank you.
And what does it have to do with this thread? Unless you're inferring that Ukraine is still corrupt, and Trump had every right to address the issue mentioned in his phone call. In any case, these indictments are a matter of proper identification of source...person or business. Heck, the entire House at this point, has foreign financing connections. In addition, let us not forget about Clinton and the Saudi Kingdom. But, it's all well and good because the contribution ledgers were properly documented and reported. Riiiight! An elected official would just get fined, but because these are "regular joe" they'' possibly do a few month time.
(10-10-2019, 03:52 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]This is an actual document of an actual indictment against four individuals indicted on campaign finance violations. Two of them, Parnas, and Fruman, are represented by Rudy Giuliani. The rest of us are trying to digest what this document contains. Page 8 of the indictment, for example, indicates that Parnas was seeking the removal of the then U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine.
Please allow those of us who want to find the truth, the time to read the document.
Thank you.
Did the former ambassador have the time turner? Im confused.
(10-10-2019, 04:33 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (10-10-2019, 12:39 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Biden busted, it's all coming together.
FTA: Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden received $900,000 for lobbying activities from Burisma Group, Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada member Andriy Derkach said citing investigation materials.
Derkach publicized documents which, as he said, "describe the mechanism of getting money by Biden Sr." at a press conference at Interfax-Ukraine's press center in Kyiv on Wednesday.
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-co...17936.html
NeverTrumpers and lefties hardest hit.
Just to be clear, there wasn't a direct payment to Joe Biden. There was a payment to Rosemont Seneca Partners, an international consulting firm, and Hunter Biden owns an interest in that firm.
I think that is correct.
Has Derkach proven that the money went to Joe Biden?
Its not bribery if u put it in your kids name. Rememer that.
(10-10-2019, 04:58 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-10-2019, 03:52 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]This is an actual document of an actual indictment against four individuals indicted on campaign finance violations. Two of them, Parnas, and Fruman, are represented by Rudy Giuliani. The rest of us are trying to digest what this document contains. Page 8 of the indictment, for example, indicates that Parnas was seeking the removal of the then U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine.
Please allow those of us who want to find the truth, the time to read the document.
Thank you.
Did the former ambassador have the time turner? Im confused.
(10-10-2019, 04:33 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Just to be clear, there wasn't a direct payment to Joe Biden. There was a payment to Rosemont Seneca Partners, an international consulting firm, and Hunter Biden owns an interest in that firm.
I think that is correct.
Has Derkach proven that the money went to Joe Biden?
Its not bribery if u put it in your kids name. Rememer that.
Yes, but it says "Joe Biden received $900,000," but there's no evidence of that, not even in the linked articles. Rosemont Seneca is an international consulting company which did some business in the Ukraine, and HUNTER Biden owns an interest in Rosemont Seneca. But that's as far as it goes, so far.
Unless I am wrong, which is always possible, especially with me, there is nothing new in this story except for this one guy in the Ukraine making this charge without producing any evidence. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I just don't see it.
No, you don't follow.
Harry Potter, really?
C'mon man, you are 35 years old.
Marie Yovanovitch, former Ambassador to the Ukraine, referred to on page 8 of the U.S. v Parnas et als indictment, appears to be testifying today. She is on the hill, and it is unclear whether she will be blocked from testifying. She is a former ambassador, not a current one, as she was "recalled". So does the State Department or the White House have any leverage here? We shall see.
EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland, was blocked yesterday from testifying by the State Department. Per Sondlan's lawyers, he will testify next week "notwithstanding the State Department's current direction not to testify."
We are witnessing history here.
(10-11-2019, 10:49 AM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]No, you don't follow.
Harry Potter, really?
C'mon man, you are 35 years old.
Marie Yovanovitch, former Ambassador to the Ukraine, referred to on page 8 of the U.S. v Parnas et als indictment, appears to be testifying today. She is on the hill, and it is unclear whether she will be blocked from testifying. She is a former ambassador, not a current one, as she was "recalled". So does the State Department or the White House have any leverage here? We shall see.
EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland, was blocked yesterday from testifying by the State Department. Per Sondlan's lawyers, he will testify next week "notwithstanding the State Department's current direction not to testify."
We are witnessing history here.
True. Biggest waste of time in american history.
Yovanovitch is testifying.
(10-11-2019, 01:22 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]Yovanovitch is testifying.
Did she have the time turner?
When is Shokin Testifying?
idk, but I would love to hear from Dmytro Firtash.
(10-10-2019, 05:28 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ] (10-10-2019, 12:39 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Biden busted, it's all coming together.
FTA: Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden received $900,000 for lobbying activities from Burisma Group, Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada member Andriy Derkach said citing investigation materials.
Derkach publicized documents which, as he said, "describe the mechanism of getting money by Biden Sr." at a press conference at Interfax-Ukraine's press center in Kyiv on Wednesday.
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-co...17936.html
NeverTrumpers and lefties hardest hit.
Are these articles part and parcel of a quid pro quo?
Note the "oranges" of this article as evidenced by the .ua (Ukraine).
Also understand that Interfax is headquarted in Moscow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfax-Ukraine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfax
jj, this one is just for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension
"Ability to comprehend text is influenced by reader's skills and their ability to process information."
I'm sure you can comprehend these statements are made based on investigative materials and the Verkhovna Rada and don't originate with Interfax? I wonder how the U.S. could get ahold of these documents? Oh, maybe the POTUS should call the Ukraine President and arrange for Barr to meet with there parliament or prosecutor general.
Wikipedia? You try to come hard and derogatory towards another individual by citing Wiki? Most of us educated folks know that's a big no-no!
Trump is in a lot of trouble here.
It is not a time for anger OR for celebration.
No one is above the law. Not Biden, not Agnew, not anybody.
This thread is about the investigation into Donald Trump, and whether he has committed impeachable offenses.
If you would like to start a thread about Hunter Biden, you are welcome to, my friend.
Since you are educated, surely you can understand this, sir or madam.
(10-11-2019, 03:25 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]Trump is in a lot of trouble here.
It is not a time for anger OR for celebration.
No one is above the law. Not Biden, not Agnew, not anybody.
This thread is about the investigation into Donald Trump, and whether he has committed impeachable offenses.
If you would like to start a thread about Hunter Biden, you are welcome to, my friend.
Since you are educated, surely you can understand this, sir or madam.
Actually, this thread is nothing related to it's title.
Technically correct, as that particular rally is over. However, this is a thread about Trump and efforts to impeach.him.
For example, there is this:
Today, the Appeals court in DC has upheld the lower court ruling that the House Oversight Committee is entitled to subpoena President Trump’s financial records.
No matter whether you are pro-Trump, anti-Trump, or ambivalent toward him, the President is in a lot of trouble.
(10-11-2019, 03:54 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]Technically correct, as that particular rally is over. However, this is a thread about Trump and efforts to impeach.him.
For example, there is this:
Today, the Appeals court in DC has upheld the lower court ruling that the House Oversight Committee is entitled to subpoena President Trump’s financial records.
No matter whether you are pro-Trump, anti-Trump, or ambivalent toward him, the President is in a lot of trouble.
The poor lefties are gonna be pissed when they get him impeached, the Senate declines to convict and then he gets re-elected in a landslide.
If they, you know, ever get the cojones to actually try.
(10-11-2019, 03:59 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-11-2019, 03:54 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]Technically correct, as that particular rally is over. However, this is a thread about Trump and efforts to impeach.him.
For example, there is this:
Today, the Appeals court in DC has upheld the lower court ruling that the House Oversight Committee is entitled to subpoena President Trump’s financial records.
No matter whether you are pro-Trump, anti-Trump, or ambivalent toward him, the President is in a lot of trouble.
The poor lefties are gonna be pissed when they get him impeached, the Senate declines to convict and then he gets re-elected in a landslide.
If they, you know, ever get the cojones to actually try.
They will never have a vote because they are weak, like their followers.
(10-11-2019, 03:25 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]Trump is in a lot of trouble here.
It is not a time for anger OR for celebration.
No one is above the law. Not Biden, not Agnew, not anybody.
This thread is about the investigation into Donald Trump, and whether he has committed impeachable offenses.
If you would like to start a thread about Hunter Biden, you are welcome to, my friend.
Since you are educated, surely you can understand this, sir or madam.
The alleged corrupt act involves soliciting an investigation into, among other things, the biden family. The question being raised is one of corrupt intent. That question rests on the fact pattern surrounding the bidena and whether that meets the reasonable suspicion standard.
To argue that discussion of the bidens conduct or evidence of their wrongdoing isnt pertinent to the topic is baseless.
Please keep up moving forward.
(10-11-2019, 03:54 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]Technically correct, as that particular rally is over. However, this is a thread about Trump and efforts to impeach.him.
For example, there is this:
Today, the Appeals court in DC has upheld the lower court ruling that the House Oversight Committee is entitled to subpoena President Trump’s financial records.
No matter whether you are pro-Trump, anti-Trump, or ambivalent toward him, the President is in a lot of trouble.
Why? Trumps had his personal tax returns under audit for the last 2 decades. Do u think there is really something in his personal financial life that they missed?