So Paul Manafort had long been a political consultant who worked with the Ukrainians. He had a lot of large financial movements, made a lot of money, and those actions had demanded much attention over the years. Make no mistake, all of his financial transactions had been reported and reviewed by the SEC, and his tax returns had been audited by the IRS. Moreover, at two different times, those reviews and audits were pushed into nearly a full scale investigation into his activities. Twice the American Government took the extra step to open a specific inquiry into his actions and at least once the Ukrainian Government took the same steps. In all of those cases, the investigators did not ever recommend any sort of criminal charges.
So the question becomes, what happened in 2016 that led to a joint effort between the American Government and the Ukrainian Government to reopen these investigations? Paul Manafort did not do anything differently business wise. In fact, most of the eventual charges against him were from actions that took place long before 2016.
The one and only logical reason for the extra-interest in Paul Manafort was his new found status as Donald Trump's campaign manager. In fact, the decision to reopen the investigations into Paul Manafort was made shortly after he joined Trump's staff.
Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy noted at National Review on Thursday that then-President Barack Obama’s administration asked Ukraine to investigate Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, in 2016.
McCarthy notes that “the Obama administration’s law-enforcement agencies pressured their Ukrainian counterparts to revive a dormant corruption investigation of Paul Manafort” in the middle of the 2016 presidential election.
Obama administration officials urged Ukrainian prosecutors to investigate Manafort — which amounted to “effectively meddling in the American presidential election.” The results were soon clear: leaks about Manafort’s activities in Ukraine began to appear in the U.S. media, spun in the worst possible light. He was replaced at the Trump campaign and became a target in the phony “collusion” narrative.
The reality is that the previous Administration set up meetings between our AG, Investigators, law enforcement leadership and the Ukrainian equivalents. They asked for their help in reopening the investigations in Paul Manafort. At one time three Democratic Senators sent a letter to the Ukranian Government accusing them of not doing enough to help out with the investigation of Paul Manafort.
So that was all perfectly acceptable, as long as it was a Democratic President doing so in an attempt to defeat the bad orange man. But when the bad orange man does something similar, the left screams and hollers for impeachment. Moreover, the Obama administration actually followed through with the investigation. The American and Ukrainian officials did actually meet, and they did actually follow through with a politically damaging investigation into Trump's campaign manager. There is actually no investigation of Joe Biden at this time. Only talk.
We are talking about Obama and gang actually engaging in the act vs the idea of Trump simply "soliciting" the act.
Can anyone explain why that is not blatant partisan hypocrisy?
34 comments:
Lock her up
Trump administration is investigating the email records of dozens of current and former senior State Department officials who sent messages to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email, reviving a politically toxic matter that overshadowed the 2016 election, current and former officials said.
As many as 130 officials have been contacted in recent weeks by State Department investigators — a list that includes senior officials who reported directly to Clinton as well as others in lower-level jobs whose emails were at some point relayed to her inbox, said current and former State Department officials. Those targeted were notified that emails they sent years ago have been retroactively classified and now constitute potential security violations, according to letters reviewed by The Washington Post.
State Department investigators began contacting the former officials about 18 months ago, after President Trump’s election, and then seemed to drop the effort before picking it up in August, officials said.
I can't believe, a few people believe that there is an Obama Crime Syndicate!
There was deep state conspiracy to defeat Trump!
It is all over the right wing websites.
Scott A**hole, you have lost your mind.
You don't even see the deeply insane view. You think that the Obama administration went after a political opponent was unacceptable behavior.
But you excuse Trump for doing the same damn things to Biden, using American taxpayer dollars to get dirt on Biden and his son.
You have lost your mind Scott. Get help.
It might be early Alzheimer's disease.
Trump still hasn't accepted that Russia interfered in our election. The press conference in Helsinki, Trump took the word of Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence agencies.
Trump claims Russia investigation began as a deep-state setup
During a news conference later Wednesday, Trump claimed the Russian meddling and subsequent investigation was some kind of deep-state setup designed to hurt him.
"What we're looking for corruption, an investigation started the Russian witch hunt — affectionately — and it was a total phony scam. It was set up by people within the government, to try and stop somebody from getting elected, and after that person, namely me, won," Trump said.
Prior to the news conference, Trump told reporters at the United Nations that his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, is working to find out how the "Russian witch hunt" started. Giuliani, who has spent months pushing Ukraine to probe the Bidens, is mentioned by Trump during his phone call with Zelenskiy as someone who "very much knows what's happening."
Here's how the U.S. government has said the Russia investigation began, according to the Mueller report. In May 2016,a loose-lipped Trump aide told a member of a foreign government — whom media reports have identified as an Australian diplomat in Britain — that Russia had dirt on Clinton.
In late July, stolen emails from Democratic operatives were published online, and Australian authorities passed on the information they had about the aide to the United States. On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump campaign were coordinating with the Russian interference operation.
American intelligence officials sought to warn the Russians off election meddling ahead of November 2016 and President Barack Obama reportedly personally warned Russian President Vladimir Putin to knock it off. He didn't, and Mueller, in his report and in his subsequent testimony before Congress, concluded a sweeping and ongoing effort by Moscow to interfere in U.S. elections.
Now you are claiming that the President Obama administration conspired to get Paul Manafort, who is in jail, was set up by the Obama administration in order to get the evil orange man.
We could really use your help.
Trump used our taxpayers money to get dirt on his opponent and his son.
You are deeply offended by Obama, for a nothing burger.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/trump-promotes-conspiracy-theory-clinton-s-deleted-emails-are-ukraine-n1058726#anchor-TrumpclaimsRussiainvestigationbeganasadeepstatesetup
Obama actually did it and nobody found anything wrong with it.
Trump talked about possibly doing it, and now people want to impeach him.
Roger, you admitted Obama/Biden actually did it, you realize it don't you. your words .
"You think that the Obama administration went after a political opponent was unacceptable behavior.
But you excuse Trump for doing the same damn things to Biden, using American taxpayer dollars to get dirt on Biden and his son. "
Both should not have occurred in my opinion.
But neither is illegal. Trust me, I am an Attorney General.
@ChuckGrassley
Why are House Democrats cutting House Republicans out of the process of developing Articles of Impeachment and not following same procedures used in Nixon and Clinton impeachments???? Seems like a political motivation not a constitutional one!!!
@seanmdav
The intel community secretly changed its whistleblower rules to allow gossip, rumor, or hearsay to form the basis of an “urgent concern” whistleblower complaint.
When asked to explain who made the change, an intel official straight-up refused to answer.
deep state political coup ran by Obama Crime Syndicate
Biggest political scandal of all-time
Why is the President directly telling the DOJ to lock her up?
The Department officials said they were bound by law to adjudicate any violations.
Former Obama administration officials, however, described the probe as a remarkably aggressive crackdown by an administration with its own troubled record of handling classified material. Trump has improperly disclosed classified information to foreign officials and used phones that national security officials warned were vulnerable to foreign surveillance, according to current and former officials.
At the same time, Trump overrode the concerns of his former White House chief of staff and U.S. intelligence officials to give his son-in-law and senior White House adviser Jared Kushner access to highly classified materials, officials said.
AD
The list of State officials being questioned includes prominent ambassadors and assistant secretaries of state responsible for U.S. policy in the Middle East, Europe and Central Asia. But it also includes dozens of current and former career bureaucrats who served as conduits for outside officials trying to get important messages to Clinton.
In most cases the bureaucrats and political appointees didn’t send the emails directly to Clinton, but passed them to William Burns, who served as deputy secretary of state, or Jake Sullivan, the former director of policy planning at the State Department. Burns and Sullivan then forwarded the messages to Clinton’s private email.
Burns and Sullivan declined to comment. Other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the matter and concern for retaliation.
When this whole story is made public, it will go down as the worst violation of the Constitution in history.
The McCarthy era on steroids will another person for Minnesota! Scott A**hole
Ladies and gentlemen, our Deep Throat whistleblower shall henceforth be known as
“Orange Crush”
Plagiarism link.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/27/flashback-obama-admin-asked-ukraine-to-investigate-trump-campaign-manager-paul-manafort/
Breitbart News ROFLMAILO
WELL WORTH REPEATING
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/maher-blasts-hunter-bidens-ukraine-ties-if-don-jr-did-it-rachel-maddow-would-be-all-over-it
No, it didn't go the way the Faux News commentator was hoping:
"Yeah, I think that's gross. It's the kind of thing we see too often in Washington. It's the kind of thing that you would hope we would be able to root out here in Washington. The appropriate way to attack that, I think, were Joe Biden to be the Democratic nominee, would have been for Donald Trump to raise exactly that point, and say, 'Hey, look. I came here to drain the swamp. I may not have been able to drain the swamp as much as I wanted to, but look at this access trading that the Vice President and his son seem to be involved in.' That to me would have been an appropriate attack. I mean, I think the President has some questions to answer about his own "swampy" behavior, but that would have been an appropriate, above board attack. Sending your personal attorney, however, to get involved in this kind of dirt digging against a prominent political opponent is grossly inappropriate, and I think should send shudders down the spines of all people, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, that the President was apparently engaged in the activities that the phone call reflected yesterday."
OUCH!
While we're looking at presidential phone calls, anyone curious what obama said to the Iranians when he shipped them $1.4B in cash?
Why Ukraine is at the center of the latest Trump scandal
The country has always been at the center of Trump’s scandals.
By Alex Ward Sep 25, 2019
President Donald Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky released on Wednesday makes one thing perfectly clear: Ukraine has replaced Russia as the foreign nation that will most be on Americans’ lips in the weeks ahead.
Trump is embroiled in a crisis about whether he improperly used his position to try to coerce Zelensky into investigating Trump’s 2020 political opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden — perhaps by withholding military aid to the Eastern European country.
That seems possible based on the call summary, which shows Zelensky asking for US-made weaponry to fend off Russia and Trump immediately responding, “I would like you to do us a favor though” — then suggesting Attorney General William Barr get in contact with Ukrainian officials.
On the surface it may seem odd that Ukraine, one of Europe’s poorest countries, has become so central to the latest Trump drama. But the truth is that the country has been involved in Trump scandals since the very beginning.
“Ukraine has certainly been a through line in a number of Trump investigations: the Republican National Committee platform, Russian ambitions, NATO commitments, and now this,” says Andy Wright, a former White House lawyer in the Obama administration.
And that doesn’t even touch on former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort’s lobbying work on behalf of a previous pro-Russian Ukrainian president or the wild conspiracies on the right that have led some (including, apparently, Trump himself) to believe Hillary Clinton’s infamous email server is currently in Ukraine.
In other words, the Ukraine-Trump connection isn’t new. It’s always been there. We’ve mostly just forgotten because so much has happened that it’s hard to keep track of everything. So here’s a reminder of how Ukraine has played into the various Trump scandals from the very beginning.
Trump has sold out Ukraine to cozy up to Russia
One of the earliest controversies surrounding Trump’s presidential campaign centered on a disappearing section of the Republican Party’s 2016 platform.
Initially, the document had reportedly stated that the party — and thereby Trump, as the party’s official nominee — supported sending lethal aid to Ukraine. That would be an important signal for officials in Kyiv looking for help in their fight against Russia, which invaded the country’s east and south in 2014. Russia is a far more powerful country with more troops and equipment. US assistance, then, is essential to Ukraine’s effort to defend itself against Russia.
sooner?”
But the final version of the GOP platform only said the US would provide “appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine” in a Trump administration — a major softening of the language.
So what happened? Well, Trump campaign officials quietly worked behind the scenes to change the position, even hosting multiple events during the party’s convention in Cleveland to ensure the GOP wouldn’t back shipping arms that Ukrainians could use against Russians.
Many Republican Party members were concerned by the change in language. “This is another example of Trump being out of step with GOP leadership and the mainstream in a way that shows he would be dangerous for America and the world,” Rachel Hoff, a platform committee member, told the Washington Post at the time.
After entering the White House, Trump continued his warmth toward Russia. Among other things, Trump repeatedly bought Russian President Vladimir Putin’s denials that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election; held meetings with Putin without notetakers, and sided with the Russian president over the US intelligence community during a summit in Helsinki last year.
Oddly, Trump ended up overturning the Obama administration’s ban on selling lethal weapons to Ukraine in 2017. That move allowed the US to sell the country anti-tank missiles and other advanced weapons that would help Ukraine better fight back against Russia, and it ingratiated the Trump administration with many in Ukraine.
Zelensky, who wants to end the war in the country, surely cares deeply about keeping military aid coming from the United States — a fact that Trump could use as leverage if he wanted to.
Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was a lobbyist for Ukraine’s former pro-Russian president
It seems like forever ago, but it’s worth remembering that the person in charge of Trump’s campaign for a while — Paul Manafort — had important relationships in Ukraine.
Before he joined Trump’s team, Manafort was already well known for his decades of Republican campaign and lobbying work. By around 2004, Manafort sought even grander paydays abroad by advising fantastically rich oligarchs in the former Soviet Union on how to master tumultuous democratic politics. He advised a Russian billionaire, Oleg Deripaska, but eventually his efforts focused on Ukraine — where he landed a hefty contract to advise the country’s pro-Russian political party.
When Manafort got the gig, the Party of Regions and its leader Viktor Yanukovych were unpopular and in the opposition. But over the next few years, Manafort would help orchestrate the party’s return to power and Yanukovych’s 2010 election as president.
Once Yanukovych was in office, Manafort became an enormously influential adviser to the regime — the Atlantic’s Franklin Foer wrote last year that Manafort had “walk-in” privileges, and billed “outrageous amounts” to the Ukrainians while advising on both domestic politics and lobbying in the US.
But it all fell apart in 2014, when Ukrainians took to the streets to force Yanukovych out of power and he fled to Russia. Manafort and Deripaska, meanwhile, had a falling out that ended in a lawsuit, with Deripaska claiming Manafort cheated him of millions. He’d lost his biggest client and had serious cash flow problems, and the FBI looked into his Ukrainian money.
Manafort’s work in Ukraine became a major focus of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged Trump-Russia ties. And what Mueller’s team uncovered ended up landing Manafort in prison.
First, Manafort had moved $30 million of his Ukrainian lobbying money from foreign shell companies into the US — but he didn’t disclose this income on his tax forms, pay taxes on it, or fill out legally required disclosures of his foreign accounts. That’s illegal.
Second, Mueller’s team focused on what Manafort did once he lost his Ukrainian income after the country’s president was deposed. They found he tried to conjure up more cash via bank fraud.
Manafort eventually pleaded guilty to a broad “conspiracy against the United States” — in which he admitted unregistered lobbying and money laundering related to the Ukraine work. He received sentences of more than seven years combined in prison.
According to the Washington Post, part of the reason why Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani has become so interested in getting close to the Ukrainian government is because he wants to punish those who put Manafort behind bars. It seems Giuliani will continue to deal with Ukranians in an effort to dig up dirt on anti-Trump Democrats and others the administration accuses of being the real colluders with Ukraine.
T
rump seems to believe in a wacky conspiracy theory involve Ukraine and the DNC’s server
On Trump’s now-infamous phone phone call with Zelensky, Trump cryptically asked Zelensky about a computer server in Ukraine and the American cybersecurity company CrowdStrike.
“I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people ... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation,” he said.
It appears Trump was referring to a long-debunked conspiracy theory that the firm has covered up the fact that Ukraine — not Russia — interfered in the 2016 election.
Give your head a second to stop spinning, and then read on.
CrowdStrike was hired by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2016 to look into who hacked into their networks during the election. The firm determined that it was two Russian groups with Kremlin ties. Case closed, right? Not exactly.
Trump seems to believe — and has often mentioned — that a DNC server with the real information on it has gone missing, and that CrowdStrike (and the FBI) is somehow involved in its disappearance. He brought the issue up during his Helsinki meeting alongside Putin.
“You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server,” the president said during the July 2018 press conference. “Where is the server? I want to know, where is the server and what is the server saying?”
But here’s the problem: There is actually no missing physical server associated with the DNC breach to speak of. Instead, the roughly 140 servers — most of them cloud-based — are already out of use.
What’s more, in a 2017 interview with the Associated Press, for example, Trump said CrowdStrike was “Ukraine-based” — even though its headquarters are in California. “I heard it’s owned by a very rich Ukrainian, that’s what I heard,” he continued.
That’s incorrect. The company’s cofounder, the Russian-born US citizen Dmitri Alperovitch, is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington, which receives funding from Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk. But that flimsy connection is a far cry from the firm he started being secretly run by an Eastern European billionaire.
(Disclosure: Before coming to Vox I worked at the Atlantic Council and interacted with Alperovitch on a few cybersecurity-related events and projects.)
CrowdStrike denies any wrongdoing in a statement to reporters: “With regards to our investigation of the DNC hack in 2016, we provided all forensic evidence and analysis to the FBI. As we’ve stated before, we stand by our findings and conclusions that have been fully supported by the US Intelligence community.”
It’s still unclear just where Trump got this idea in his head, but it’s ingrained enough that he mentioned it on a call with Ukraine’s president.
So if you put the three elements together — Trump’s pro-Russia sentiments, Manafort’s past work, and the CrowdStrike conspiracy theory — it becomes clear that the question isn’t “Why is Ukraine in the news?” The question really is: “Why wasn’t Ukraine in the news
even sooner?"
Additional recommended reading:
The Wikipedia article on Paul Manafort.
FBI began examining Clinton’s use of a private email server in July 2015, based on a referral from the intelligence community inspector general. Their investigation sought to determine whether anyone — especially the former secretary of state — had broken federal law in discussing classified information on unclassified systems.
Investigators reviewed 30,000 emails that Clinton turned back over to the State Department after leaving others, and took other steps, including tracking down computers and other devices Clinton had used, to find thousands more. Their investigation included examinations of the archived government accounts of people who had been in government at the same time as Clinton and who might have naturally exchanged messages with her.
Although Clinton was considered the biggest player in the investigation, she was never formally labeled a subject or target, and investigators also considered the conduct of her top aides and colleagues.
About a year later, in July 2016, then-FBI Director James B. Comey announced he was recommending the case be closed with no charges. He said Clinton’s and her aides’ handling of classified information was “extremely careless,” but not such that it warranted criminal charges. He suggested those who did wrong could face job-related consequences, and took a broad swipe at the State Department, saying its employees’ use of unclassified email systems was “generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government,” according to his prepared remarks.
A few months later, the bureau resumed the inquiry after discovering more of Clinton’s correspondence with a top aide on a device investigators were examining in a separate investigation of the aide’s husband. But they found nothing to change their conclusion and closed the case again just before the 2016 election.
Trump is desperate to distract attention from himself and start shouting Lock her up
The FBI checked into the emails that Trump had requested help from the Russians, " if you are listening, can you get us the 30 thousand emails?"
The case was already closed.
Your story is full of shit again Scott A**hole
First, Manafort had moved $30 million of his Ukrainian lobbying money from foreign shell companies into the US — but he didn’t disclose this income on his tax forms, pay taxes on it, or fill out legally required disclosures of his foreign accounts. That’s illegal.
Second, Mueller’s team focused on what Manafort did once he lost his Ukrainian income after the country’s president was deposed. They found he tried to conjure up more cash via bank fraud.
Manafort eventually pleaded guilty to a broad “conspiracy against the United States” — in which he admitted unregistered lobbying and money laundering related to the Ukraine work. He received sentences of more than seven years combined in prison.
He's a convicted felon.
A new Prosecutor General was appointed and immediately reopened the investigation into Burisma. In other words, by switching prosecutors Biden probably made things harder on his son, not easier.
The new prosecutor eventually reached a deal with Burisma. As with everything in Ukraine, it’s unclear if this was on the up-and-up, but in any case it happened after Trump had won election and Joe Biden no longer had any power or influence.
There has never been even a hint of evidence that Hunter Biden did anything wrong.
Kevin Drum.
Speaking out about the President? Barr??
Attorney General Bill Barr was "surprised and angry" to find that President Trump had grouped him together with his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani during a controversial July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine, a source "familiar with Barr's thinking" tells the AP.
Between the lines: The anonymous leak to the AP suggests a possible effort by Barr to distance himself from the Ukraine scandal that ignited a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump last week.
https://www.axios.com/bill-barr-trump-ukraine-call-giuliani-e3bf28a6-3c6a-4383-b0b8-e3182b5a703c.html
Roger, you admitted Obama/Biden actually did it, you realize it don't you. your words .
"You think that the Obama administration went after a political opponent was unacceptable behavior.
But you excuse Trump for doing the same damn things to Biden, using American taxpayer dollars to get dirt on Biden and his son. "
Both should not have occurred in my opinion.
But Obama wasn't impeached for it and neither should Trump.
There has never been even a hint of evidence that Hunter Biden did anything wrong.
You mean except for the evidence of influence peddling?
Bill Maher was right. If it was Don Jr. instead of Hunter Biden the media would be bringing the house down.
"Tell their children to get a goddamn job."
Attorney General Bill Barr was "surprised and angry" to find that President Trump had grouped him together with his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani during a controversial July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine, a source "familiar with Barr's thinking" tells the AP.
That I can believe because he got blindsided by a phone call that is normally not made public. Trump's staff should have given him a heads up before they made the transcript public.
But all of this is hiding the elephant in the room. That there is an actual legitimate need to investigate Hunter Biden and Joe Biden for criminal influence peddling.
While the president shouldn't' use his position to get political dirt on his opponent (Like Obama did), neither can he ignore evidence of a criminal enterprise just because the perpetrator is a political opponent. They would immunize any presidential candidate from criminal investigation.
Which is one of the goals for the Democrats.
Just a reminder. Trump has a right to confront his accusers and bring evidences in his defense against any impeachment proceeding.
That means this "whistleblower' will not remain anonymous long and his action will be scrutinized along with presenting phone call transcripts between Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama to the Ukraine to Transcripts of VP Biden's phone calls simply to show the Democrats are impeaching Trump for the exact same action Obama and Biden did.
Can anyone explain why that is not blatant partisan hypocrisy?
well, after perusing the thread i see that the alky did his typical copy/paste nonsense with a little psychological projection sprinkled on top. but i wouldn't describe it as any sort of an effort to deny the hypocrisy.
jonathan turley, as usual, is a voice of reason:
The transcript lacks a critical element needed for impeachment, which is evidence of a quid pro quo. Trump never connects the investigation with the roughly $400 million in military aid. While he discusses the aid, he never suggests he will not send it. That does not mean a case for impeachment or criminal prosecution cannot be made. Unlike the prior impeachable offenses suggested by Democrats, this allegation of self-dealing could be both an impeachable offense and a federal crime, though neither would be easy to prove.
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/09/27/you-want-impeachment-find-a-quip-to-go-with-the-pro-quo/
now we know why schiff had to read a lie into the record. the actual transcript does much to exonerate trump.
One little problem. The whistleblower's "action" was only to report what numerous sources with firsthand information were saying. Trump will need to confront them.
There has never been even a hint of evidence that Hunter Biden did anything wrong.
You mean except for the evidence of influence peddling?
Why then do Ukrainian officials say Hunter did nothing wrong?
One little problem. The whistleblower's "action" was only to report what numerous sources with firsthand information were saying. Trump will need to confront them.
From some reliable reporting it looks like the whistleblower engaged in a conspiracy with intelligence chairman Adam Schiff to "report" false charges against Trump to force impeachment. Among the evidence.
1. A tweet by Adam Schiff reveling he knew details of these charges long before they were made public.
2. The form used by the "whistleblower" to file his complaint was altered the allow hearsay information in the complaint.
3. The complaint is contradicted by the actual transcript of the phone conversation.
4. The "whistleblower is a CIA officer attached to the White House.
5. There is evidence the "whistleblower" complaint was revenge for Trump sacking the US ambassador to the Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch
Why then do Ukrainian officials say Hunter did nothing wrong?
Well among other things they were threaten by his father Joe Biden that he was going to hold up 1 billion dollars in aid unless they stoped their investigation into Hunter Biden.
BTW, they reopened the investigation.
Didn't Schiff also secretly meet with a witness coming before his committee?
Then there were his two years claiming he had evidence when he had none.
And of course reading a false transcript into the record.
Schiff is coming dangerously close to being indicted himself.
Post a Comment