Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
ExpandMyMind

McKinley: State Dept politically weaponised

71 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ExpandMyMind
7 hours ago, and then said:

He had a job for which he had ZERO experience and he was "earning" 83K a MONTH.

How much do you actually even know about Hunter Biden? The 30 seconds I just spent on his Wiki page shows your claim to be quite misinformed.

Quote

After graduating from law school, Biden took a position at MBNA America, a major bank holding company which was also a major contributor to his father's political campaigns. By 1998, he had risen to the rank of executive vice president.[2][16] From 1998 to 2001, he served in the United States Department of Commerce, focusing on ecommerce policy.[17] Biden became a lobbyist in 2001, co-founding the firm of Oldaker, Biden & Belair.[18] According to Adam Entous of The New Yorker, Biden and his father established a relationship in which "Biden wouldn't ask Hunter about his lobbying clients, and Hunter wouldn't tell his father about them."[2] In 2006, Biden and his uncle, James Biden, attempted to buy Paradigm, a hedge-fund group, but the deal fell apart before completion.[2] That same year, Biden was appointed by President George W. Bush to the board of directors of Amtrak; he was on the board of Amtrak from 2006 to 2009

So he graduated from Yale as a lawyer, started working for 'one of the most profitable companies in the United States', becoming EVP, then started working in government with the economy, then founded his own lobbyist firm, before being appointed by a President of the US (Bush) to the board of ****ing Amtrak. All of that in the 10 years from leaving graduate school. Granted he had a leg up through nepotism, no doubt, and I don't agree with nepotism at all when it comes to government positions or rewards, but that experience is still astounding. 

Then after the election:

Quote

After his father was elected as vice president in 2008, Biden resigned from his position on the Amtrak board of directors and left his career as a lobbyist.[2] Along with Christopher Heinz, stepson of John Kerry, and Devon Archer, Biden founded the investment firm Rosemont Seneca.[18]

He also became an attorney with the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP,[2] and founded Eudora Global, a venture capital firm.[15]

---------

In 2013, Biden, Devon Archer, and Chinese businessman Jonathan Li founded BHR Partners, a business focused on investing Chinese capital in companies based outside of China

He seems to give up quite a lot due to conflicts before going on to work for one of the most prestigious law firms in your country. The he founds his own venture capital firm? He then goes on to found yet another firm.

And you say this guy wasn't experienced enough to sit on a board and pocket less than a million dollars a year? (It's actually closer to half a million, up to 50k per month, some months). He had plenty of experience: a graduate degree from one of the best law schools in the word, lobbying experience, experience working in government commerce and infrastructure, high political connections, etc. 

Say what you want about the nepotism, but you can't try to claim that he didn't have experience or was overpaid. I'm tired just reading about the stuff he's done.

 

7 hours ago, and then said:

his proximity to the prosecutor that was fired was reason enough for the president to ask for an investigation.

Quite the achievement, considering that the investigation ended two years before Biden was even appointed.

Quote

The Ukrainian anti-corruption investigation agency stated in September 2019 that the investigation of Burisma was restricted solely to investigating the period of 2010 to 2012, before Hunter Biden joined Burisma in 2014.

 

7 hours ago, and then said:

The fact that Trump's enemies want to assume he was out to get a political rival just shows their own idiocy.  Trump wasn't worried about Biden.  Creepy uncle Joe wasn't even likely to get the nomination. 

Biden was the frontrunner - he still is in most polls - but most importantly he was the primary recipient of DNC and media support. Of course Trump is going to think that the DNC's pick for President is going to be his opponent in the next election, and, even if he wasn't, smearing Biden enough to let Sanders or Warren win the nomination would probably still be seen as a win for Trump. They've got to think they have a better chance against the further left Sanders or Warren than the centrist corporatist Biden.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
ExpandMyMind
48 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

I go back and forth on this. A lot of times I think this is the case. Then others I think some of these folks just have to be trolling. Nobody can be that hard headed but then I think of this scene in It's Always Sunny...

I think in a decade's time it'll be like Nixon or the Iraq War after a similar amount of time. 90% of Republicans will have had the fog lifted and be able to look at it objectively, but you'll still have the cultists who claim Nixon/Bush were justified. It might even happen sooner, considering Trump's support is lower than Nixon's at the same stage of impeachment.

Quote

Former Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., who announced in August that he would compete against President Donald Trump for the 2020 GOP nomination, has accused Fox News and conservative radio of lying about the impeachment inquiry.

"This is an absolute shame, and I think you've got to call it out for what it is. The Americans who listen to Fox News and conservative talk radio are being lied to and manipulated every day when it comes to impeachment,” Walsh told CNN's Brian Stelter Sunday on the program "Reliable Sources.”

Although the president “deserves to be impeached,” Walsh expressed his concern that right-wing media outlets have denied a large cross-section of American access to the information it needs to understand the ongoing constitutional crisis.

“The vast majority of the American people understand that when it comes to Ukraine, [Trump] did something wrong,” Walsh said. “But those people who listen to the opinion shows on Fox and those people who listen to my former world, conservative talk radio, have no clue, because they're being told every day: 'He's done nothing wrong' . . . It's dangerous.”

https://www.salon.com/2019/11/04/former-republican-rep-joe-walsh-accuses-dangerous-fox-news-of-lying-to-america-about-impeachment/

Hopefully soon more will realise that Fox lies to them constantly.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

Explosive revelations from the Sondland amended testimony revealed today. He admits to delivering the threat of extortion himself.:

Quote

I now do recall a conversation on September 1, 2019, in Warsaw with [Ukrainian official] Mr. Yermak. This brief pull-aside conversation followed the larger meeting involving Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, in which President Zelensky had raised the issue of the suspension of US aid to Ukraine directly with VP Pence. After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of US aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.

A breakdown of events from a Redditor:

Quote

August 30th: Sondland tells Ukraine military aid will likely be with-held until they announce investigations demanded by Trump.

September 1st: Sondland confirms to US Ambassador to Ukraine Taylor that 'everything', including military aid is dependent on Zelenskiy announcing investigations into Biden and the Ukraine server conspiracy.

September 9th: Taylor reconfirms the demand with Sondland. Congress learns of the Whistleblower complaint.

September 10th: Adam Schiff writes to the ICIG to demand the Whistleblower complaint.

September 11th: Trump releases the military aid.

September 12th-13th: Taylor learns that Zelenskiy had agreed to make the public statement Trump demanded on CNN, but that it is now canceled.

This is all now confirmed. 

More details from the same summarizer (bolded some highlights):

Quote

Mid August - Volker and Sondland draft a public statement to be made by Ukraine announcing investigations into the Bidens and the 2016 elections.

[8/13/19, 10:26:44 AM] Kurt Volker: Special attention should be paid to the problem of interference in the political processes of the United States especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians. I want to declare that this is unacceptable. We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, including those involving Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections, which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in the future.

[8/13/19, 10:27:20 AM] Gordon Sondland: Perfect. Lets send to Andrey after our call

Late August: Sondland told Republican Senator Ron Johnson explicitly that Ukrainian aid was dependent upon investigations desired by Trump.

August 30th: In revised testimony (see Page 10), Sondland now admits that he personally informed Ukraine that they were being extorted into announcing investigations:

Ambassador Sondland acknowledged telling one of President Zelensky’s advisors in Warsaw that “resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.”

September 1: Sondland had this exchange with Ukrainian ambassador Bill Taylor, according to text messages released by Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker:

[9/1/19, 12:08:57 PM] Bill Taylor: Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?

[9/1/19, 12:42:29 PM] Gordon Sondland: Call me

Taylor then talks to Sondland by phone, where Sondland indicates that not just aid, but 'everything' is being withheld until Zelenskiy publicly announces the investigations demanded by Trump:

Sondland, US ambassador to the European Union, told Taylor he’d also made a mistake earlier by telling the Ukrainian officials that a White House meeting with Zelensky “was dependent on a public announcement of the investigations.”

"In fact, Ambassador Sondland said ‘everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance,” Taylor testified.

September 2: Ukraine has agreed to make a public statement, and Kurt Volker coaches Ukraine's defense minister on how to deliver it, as confirmed in text messages released by Volker.

September 9: Taylor presses the point:

[9/9/19, 12:47:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.

Sondland's testimony on the ensuing 4.5 hour gap in his texts with Taylor:

"On September 9, 2019, Acting Charge de Affairs/Ambassador William Taylor raised concerns about the possibility that Ukrainians could perceive a linkage between U.S. security assistance and the President’s 2020 reelection campaign."..."Taking the issue seriously, and given the many versions of speculation that had been circulating about the security aid, I called President Trump directly. I asked him one open-ended question: What do you want from Ukraine? And as I recaIl, he was in a very bad mood. It was a very quick conversation. He said: I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing. And I said: What does that mean? And he said: I want him to do what he ran on. And that was the end of the conversation. I wouldn't say he hung up me, but it was almost like he hung up on me."

And his next text with Taylor:

[9/9/19, 5:19:35 AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text.

However, on the phone, in fumbling around for any description that would not involve the literal words "quid pro quo", Sondland describes as crass a quid pro quo as could be imagined:

“Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman. When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check.”

Later that same day, the House Intelligence Committee is given notice of a Whistleblower Complaint regarding Trump's July 25th call with Zelenskiy.

September 10th: Adam Schiff writes to the ICIG to demand the Whistleblower complaint.

September 11th: Trump releases the military aid.

September 12-13 - Taylor learns from Sondland that Zelenskiy plans to give a CNN interview announcing the investigations Trump demanded, and through conversations with Ukrainian counterparts learns (or has a hand in, it's not clear) that the interview will now be canceled.

Those last two in bold show that Trump only released the aid once he knew he'd been caught, after Schiff was onto the whistleblower complaint. 

I'm not sure how anyone will continue to deny the reality of what happened any longer. Shocking stuff to be honest. This was a criminal conspiracy to undermine US foreign policy in order to fabricate accusations against a domestic political rival.

The Volker testimony is here: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191105_-_volker_transcript_excerpts_final.pdf

And the 65 pages of text messages between the involved parties is here: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D005.pdf

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

New McKinley transcript has been released. We have another confirmation that Trump was using Congress-appointed funds to extort a foreign government into helping him win an election:

Quote

Q: And when you say that, this was the first time I heard that the security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was conditioned on the investigation, when you talk about conditioned, did you mean that if they didn’t do this, the investigations, they weren’t going to get that, the meeting and the military assistance?

A: That was my clear understanding, security assistance money would not come until the President [of Ukraine] committed to pursue the investigation.

Q: So if they don’t do this, they are not going to get that was your understanding?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Are you aware that quid pro quo literally means this for that?

A: I am.

And yet another one:

Quote

Q: Okay. And that's where President Trump had made clear that if Zelensky did not, quote, "clear things up in public," there would be a "stalemate" Is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: And you understood that stalemate meant that Ukraine would not get military assistance?

A: That's correct.

p. 190

This part makes it clear why Sondland changed his testimony to avoid perjury:

Quote

During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2015 U.S. election.

Another interesting tidbit:

Quote

Q: But Ambassador Sondland made it clear not only that he didn’t wish to include most of the regular interagency participants but also that no one was transcribing or monitoring the call as they added President Zelensky. What struck you as odd about that?

A: Same concern. That is, in the normal, regular channel, the State Department operations center that was putting the call together would stay on the line, in particular when you were having a conversation with the head of state, they would stay on the line, transcribe, take notes so that there could be a record of the discussion with this head of state. It is an official discussion. When he wanted to be sure that there was not, the State Department operations center agreed. And they told us, they said—in response to his request, they said, we won’t monitor and will not—and we certainly won’t transcribe because we’re going to sign off.

p. 128

Trump wanted to keep it all off the record from the beginning. This is evidence that he knew it was a crime.

(The document isn't easily searchable so some of the page numbers for my quotes are missing).

 

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
Quote

In notes taken contemporaneously by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the President of Ukraine specifically mentioned the energy company Burisma in response to President Trump’s insistence that an investigation take place.

This line, as well as the previous sentence in the phone call, was edited out of the memorandum that the White House released to the public over a month ago.  Mr. Trump has repeatedly insisted that the memorandum was a “word for word” transcript. We now know that to be a lie.

In Lt. Col. Vindman’s deposition, he told Congress that he had taken notes of the conversation between the two Presidents in July.  Vindman explains that the White House edited the memorandum to remove specific mentions of Burisma.

“It’s not just the recollection,” the Lieutenant Colonel told the House, “I took notes from the call... They’re in my highly classified notebook.”

When asked to read what his notes said, Vindman stated that the President said, “There are recordings of Biden” discussing a prosecutor.  This entire comment was instead changed to an ellipsis by the White House.

In response, President Zelensky said, his prosecutor would “look into the situation specifically to Burisma that you mentioned.” The White House changed Zelensky’s words from “Burisma” to “the company.”

https://www.memorandumdaily.com/2019/11/document-shows-white-housed-changed.html

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

What's up with this?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
27 minutes ago, F3SS said:

What's up with this?

 

A Democrat couldn't accept the election and wanted Trump impeached. 

Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists, he wasn't actually in a position to do anything about it until someone had something to blow the whistle on. Actually, considering that he represents whistleblowers, it's conceivable that he had a whistleblower at the time of that Tweet who ended up getting cold feet, or was simply bull****ting him. Whatever the case, the optics look horrible.

At the same time, no one forced Trump to extort another country into fabricating a crime/investigation against his main political rival. So, it doesn't detract from what Trump actually did. The two are separate, unrelated events.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Ha, you guys. Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
14 hours ago, F3SS said:

What's up with this?

 

If we didn't have Trump's confessions, the half assed transcript and the testimony of multiple witnesses this may be relevant. 

As is it's desperate conspiracy mongering in an attempt to obfuscate the above facts. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
18 hours ago, F3SS said:

Ha, you guys. Sheesh.

Well, how does Trump breaking the law to target a domestic rival relate to a Tweet that someone made three years ago? How does that Tweet excuse Trump's actions?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

How many people prior to their involvement with legal actions against him have to be on record stating some form of "we're going to take him down" before it becomes relevant?

You guys are standing with some of the most slimy, corrupt and irredeemable people to ever have a foot in our political system and I'm fairly certain that in about 1 year the bulk of the country is going to remind you just how far on the wrong history you've wandered to. I've never seen anyone try so hard to elect someone they hate as your type has done. Not only did you learn zero lessons about your behavior in 2016 you've taken every silly impulse that drove the country towards Trump and scaled them up to ridiculous proportions with the crazy notion that it'll work this time.

Liberals never believe what they are doing isn't working. They only believe they haven't been able to do enough of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Gromdor
1 hour ago, F3SS said:

How many people prior to their involvement with legal actions against him have to be on record stating some form of "we're going to take him down" before it becomes relevant?

You guys are standing with some of the most slimy, corrupt and irredeemable people to ever have a foot in our political system and I'm fairly certain that in about 1 year the bulk of the country is going to remind you just how far on the wrong history you've wandered to. I've never seen anyone try so hard to elect someone they hate as your type has done. Not only did you learn zero lessons about your behavior in 2016 you've taken every silly impulse that drove the country towards Trump and scaled them up to ridiculous proportions with the crazy notion that it'll work this time.

Liberals never believe what they are doing isn't working. They only believe they haven't been able to do enough of it.

Not to split hairs, but standing by some of the most slimy, corrupt and irredeemable people to protect someone from their crimes isn't any better.  I'd go so far as to say it was worse.

The whistleblower and his lawyer's opinions are irrelevant.  They only served to point at a potential crime that Trump's own IG said was valid.  I'm not standing by them because there is nothing to stand by.  The guy wasn't even on the phone call to be a witness. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
On 11/9/2019 at 9:48 AM, F3SS said:

Ha, you guys. Sheesh.

Ik,r!  So much fantasy needed to make any kind of tenuous connection....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
4 hours ago, skliss said:

Ik,r!  So much fantasy needed to make any kind of tenuous connection....lol

So true. What's your current opinion on who killed Seth Rich?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Well that was a botched robbery where they took nothing. It's the equivalent of not cashing your weekly paycheck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
4 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

So true. What's your current opinion on who killed Seth Rich?

I wasn't there...so far it's person or persons unknown. Is anyone still investigating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 11/5/2019 at 6:18 AM, Robotic Jew said:

He wasn't involved with the prosecutor. 

I'll have to do a bit of digging but this one has been debunked.  There actually WAS a connection in that Hunter was about to be pulled into the investigation and this is why State Dept intervention was being sought.  I don't expect you to take my word for anything.  I'll try to find that source asap, just in case you might be amenable to factual info ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
1 minute ago, and then said:

I'll have to do a bit of digging but this one has been debunked.  There actually WAS a connection in that Hunter was about to be pulled into the investigation and this is why State Dept intervention was being sought.  I don't expect you to take my word for anything.  I'll try to find that source asap, just in case you might be amenable to factual info ;) 

While they are looking into stuff I'd like a little info on Hunter Biden's trip on Air Force 2 to China resulting in 1 billion dollars from the Chinese which he's still benefiting from. 2 coincidences involving his father the VPOTUS..... those are pretty big coincidences....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
15 hours ago, and then said:

I'll have to do a bit of digging but this one has been debunked.  There actually WAS a connection in that Hunter was about to be pulled into the investigation and this is why State Dept intervention was being sought.  I don't expect you to take my word for anything.  I'll try to find that source asap, just in case you might be amenable to factual info ;) 

15 hours and counting. Care to provide that link to your "factual info"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
22 hours ago, and then said:

I'll have to do a bit of digging but this one has been debunked.  There actually WAS a connection in that Hunter was about to be pulled into the investigation and this is why State Dept intervention was being sought.  I don't expect you to take my word for anything.  I'll try to find that source asap, just in case you might be amenable to factual info ;) 

Man 22hours in and I'm starting to twitch 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRZ6NUDq4W4Y56kR6veLvf

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.