Illinois Matmen Forums Illinois Matmen Forums

Go Back   Illinois Matmen Forums > Non-Wrestling > Non-Wrestling Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old 2 Weeks Ago
MAL MAL is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blonjuan44 View Post
Your and Trumps #1 priority evidently. There are a lot more corrupt countries and issues, the only one he cares about it the one that effect him. The President of the US is actively Trolling on twitter a witness at his impeachment. Add 'witness intimidation" to the list, that what his buddy Stone did also and found guilty to today, another addition to people Trump has ended up get put in jail. The President is a weirdo.
According to you, Biden is dirty...but there is apparently no reason to look into his corruption.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 2 Weeks Ago
MAL MAL is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,130
Now it is time to hear from the whistle blower!
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 2 Weeks Ago
Blonjuan44's Avatar
Blonjuan44 Blonjuan44 is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAL View Post
Now it is time to hear from the whistle blower!
Why talk about Biden? Why talk about the whistleblower? Biden is an un-employed retiree, who was never going to be the candidate. Don't need anything from the whistleblower, and has already been outed - nobody cares. We have an active current President committing crimes live on Twitter. Trump works for us, not the other two. The most powerful person on earth, who weaseled out of the draft 5 times for heel spurs after playing 4 sports, is live witness tampering and bad mouthing a woman who went to the most dangerous parts of the world of Modadishu and Somalia, even after the ambassador in Libya. Stevens was killed when the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked and physically torn apart and burned by radical Islamic terrorists on September 11–12, 2012. Stevens was the eighth U.S. Ambassador to be killed while in office. And Trump is bad mouthing her. Please defend your weirdo hero President.
__________________
There are two guys in that zebra costume! Very funny...
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 2 Weeks Ago
Crystal Clearly Crystal Clearly is offline
Varsity
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Outside your house, right now
Posts: 602
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAL View Post
Investigate is all Nancy is planning on doing...she will not start the impeachment process because then she will not have absolute control over what is leaked to the press...it will be in a public forum. There is a legitimate Impeachment process, it starts with a vote to "commence impeachment proceedings".
Oops
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldpioneer View Post
MAL just as in all federal investigations, they gather as much evidence as possible before going to trial. Deal with it. The speaker of the house is just Taking a little advice from Abraham Lincoln. I don’t know the exact quote but he said if someone gave me 45 minutes to chop down a tree, I would spend a half hour sharpening my blade.
TIMBER !!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAL View Post
OP, In an impeachment trial, the evidence is gathered after the House has voted to commence, and at that time the rules and procedures of the process are determined. Until that vote happens, she is just yanking tour chain.
Wrong
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAL View Post
...I hope Nancy calls for a vote!!!
Be careful what you wish for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefIllini1 View Post
Trump will be impeached.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAL View Post
You are smarter than that. You really don't believe that 20 Republicans in the Senate will see the light "and do the right thing"
You are a moron.

I had politely pointed out to you much earlier in this thread that there is a difference between being impeached and being convicted (removed) and you STILL do not know that there is.

He will be impeached by the House. I said that before, and I will say it again.
I am now starting to feel that he may (still doubtful) be convicted by the Senate.
I have not said that before, but with Trump's comments/actions/tweets, the witness testimony and the evidence that will be brought, I have begun to change my mind.

It is, however, unlikely, unless there is more evidence brought.

- AND -

Unless the Republican Senators care more about the country and their oath of office than being reelected.

Though it remains unlikely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAL View Post
I fully and absolutely support withholding aid to Ukraine until they clean up corruption and come clean about their meddling in the 2016 election...and furthermore it is a legal requirement passed by congress to do so.
You're brainwashed.

And repeating the same tired and debunked conspiracy theories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blonjuan44 View Post
Your and Trumps #1 priority evidently. There are a lot more corrupt countries and issues, the only one he cares about it the one that effect him. The President of the US is actively Trolling on twitter a witness at his impeachment. Add 'witness intimidation" to the list, that what his buddy Stone did also and found guilty to today, another addition to people Trump has ended up get put in jail. The President is a weirdo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAL View Post
Now it is time to hear from the whistle blower!
We have.
As much as is needed.

The whistleblowers complaint has been ruled credible and urgent.
The concerns brought forth by the whistleblower have been proven, by Trump, Mulvaney, Giuliani etc....

Desperation is not a good look.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 2 Weeks Ago
OldVV OldVV is offline
Junior Varsity
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 36
I was beginning to think Jim Jordan was an embarrassment to wrestling. I was happy to see his bi-partisanship on Wednesday. As he said Ukraine was the 3rd most corrupt country. As he said Obama pretty much just gave them blankets as aid. It was nice of Jim to point this out and applaud Barry. As other Replubicans made clear the Trump administration gave Ukraine real and necessary aid. Jim then made it clear that their was a 55 day investigation of the new Ukraine president to make sure that he was not corrupt. So basically someone got to Trump and convinced him that this aid should be held up because of Ukraine's past corruption. I can only assume it was JJ. Only a wrestler would have the will and fortitude to convince Trump he was wrong and that Obama was correct on aide to Ukraine. As Jimmy said after a 55 day investigation Trumpy was convinced this new Ukranian president was the real deal and released the aide. It had nothing to do with the whistleblower as the Trumpettes have been saying all along.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 2 Weeks Ago
Crystal Clearly Crystal Clearly is offline
Varsity
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Outside your house, right now
Posts: 602
You're kidding, right?
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 2 Weeks Ago
MAL MAL is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,130
Crystal, I am going to say this very slowly so you can keep up. I...do...not...believe...that...Nancy...will...call...a...vote...to...commence.. .impeachment...proceedings. What is happening now is not an impeachment, they are trying to drum up support for impeachment. Impeachment starts with a vote to commence, followed by the creation of procedural rules, and then articles of impeachment are drafted and debated. A simple majority is all that is needed to send it to trial in the Senate where it needs a two thirds majority to convict and remove from office.

Impeachment inquiry is a process that has been invented by the Democrats, and holding it in the Intelligence Committee is a clever way of doing it out of public view. Democrats are in power so they can do what they want. They are literally free to make it up as they go.

I fully understand the Impeachment process. I explained it in other threads before you joined the conversation. I didn't realize that I had to explain it again so that you would understand.

Just calling something a conspiracy theory, and saying that it has been debunked does not win the point in the discussion. Biden fired the prosecutor that was investigating his son Hunter. Debunk that for me. Two Ukrainians were convicted for meddling in the 2016 election. Debunk that. The Oligarch that Hunter was working for stole several billion dollars of foreign aid that we gave them. Debunk that. The Russian Chick that worked as the United States Ambassador to Ukraine gave a do not prosecute list to the prosecutor in Ukraine that included Hunters boss. Debunk that.

Why does it seem like all the Russians in this story have connections to Democrats?

Last edited by MAL; 2 Weeks Ago at 02:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 2 Weeks Ago
Blonjuan44's Avatar
Blonjuan44 Blonjuan44 is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAL View Post
Crystal, I am going to say this very slowly so you can keep up. I...do...not...believe...that...Nancy...will...call...a...vote...to...commence.. .impeachment...proceedings. What is happening now is not an impeachment, they are trying to drum up support for impeachment. Impeachment starts with a vote to commence, followed by the creation of procedural rules, and then articles of impeachment are drafted and debated. A simple majority is all that is needed to send it to trial in the Senate where it needs a two thirds majority to convict and remove from office.

Impeachment inquiry is a process that has been invented by the Democrats, and holding it in the Intelligence Committee is a clever way of doing it out of public view. Democrats are in power so they can do what they want. They are literally free to make it up as they go.

I fully understand the Impeachment process. I explained it in other threads before you joined the conversation. I didn't realize that I had to explain it again so that you would understand.

Just calling something a conspiracy theory, and saying that it has been debunked does not win the point in the discussion. Biden fired the prosecutor that was investigating his son Hunter. Debunk that for me. Two Ukrainians were convicted for meddling in the 2016 election. Debunk that. The Oligarch that Hunter was working for stole several billion dollars of foreign aid that we gave them. Debunk that. The Russian Chick that worked as the United States Ambassador to Ukraine gave a do not prosecute list to the prosecutor in Ukraine that included Hunters boss. Debunk that.

Why does it seem like all the Russians in this story have connections to Democrats?
https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018

Ukraine is not the 3rd most corrupt country. The question is, do you believe the President of the United States is the most powerful person in the World?

If yes, then his malfeasance is different than anyone else's. (That is a popular saying, but who is the one person in the world Trump has not made a nick-name for and believes over his own country?) The "but other people are naughty argument is silly". Biden doesn't work for the country, is he the biggest problem requiring focus? I like Trumps "let them fight" argument, its like a 5th grader going against an NFL player...its murder, not punches...but let them fight in the cases he refers to...unless they have heel spurs of course...silly.
__________________
There are two guys in that zebra costume! Very funny...
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 2 Weeks Ago
Crystal Clearly Crystal Clearly is offline
Varsity
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Outside your house, right now
Posts: 602
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAL View Post
Crystal, I am going to say this very slowly so you can keep up. I...do...not...believe...that...Nancy...will...call...a...vote...to...commence.. .impeachment...proceedings. What is happening now is not an impeachment, they are trying to drum up support for impeachment. Impeachment starts with a vote to commence, followed by the creation of procedural rules, and then articles of impeachment are drafted and debated. A simple majority is all that is needed to send it to trial in the Senate where it needs a two thirds majority to convict and remove from office.

Impeachment inquiry is a process that has been invented by the Democrats, and holding it in the Intelligence Committee is a clever way of doing it out of public view. Democrats are in power so they can do what they want. They are literally free to make it up as they go.

I fully understand the Impeachment process. I explained it in other threads before you joined the conversation. I didn't realize that I had to explain it again so that you would understand.

Just calling something a conspiracy theory, and saying that it has been debunked does not win the point in the discussion. Biden fired the prosecutor that was investigating his son Hunter. Debunk that for me. Two Ukrainians were convicted for meddling in the 2016 election. Debunk that. The Oligarch that Hunter was working for stole several billion dollars of foreign aid that we gave them. Debunk that. The Russian Chick that worked as the United States Ambassador to Ukraine gave a do not prosecute list to the prosecutor in Ukraine that included Hunters boss. Debunk that.

Why does it seem like all the Russians in this story have connections to Democrats?
Where do you get your information from?

Take a look at the source, consider it and tell me you honestly believe it.

Do that, and you will tell everyone everything they need to know about your motives.


P.S. - You obviously don't understand the impeachment process if you keep correlating impeachment in the House with conviction in the Senate.
The two are separate.

I apologize for not speaking slowly.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 2 Weeks Ago
MAL MAL is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal Clearly View Post
Where do you get your information from?
That is a great question. You will be so glad that you asked such a great question.



P.S. - You obviously don't understand the impeachment process if you keep correlating impeachment in the House with conviction in the Senate.
The two are separate.
Can you read? I was debating Impeachment when you were sucking on your moms B##B





1. My source for the story about Biden firing the prosecutor that was investigating his son may not be very trustworthy. It was Biden.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY

2. The New York Times printed this about Artem Sytnik and Serhiy A. Leshchenko being convicted for meddling in the 2016 election. Sytnik was caught on tape explaining how he did it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TFh1YJynGA

By Andrew E. Kramer
Dec. 12, 2018

MOSCOW — A court in Ukraine has ruled that officials in the country violated the law by revealing, during the 2016 presidential election in the United States, details of suspected illegal payments to Paul Manafort.

In 2016, while Mr. Manafort was chairman of the Trump campaign, anti-corruption prosecutors in Ukraine disclosed that a pro-Russian political party had earmarked payments for Mr. Manafort from an illegal slush fund. Mr. Manafort resigned from the campaign a week later.

The court’s ruling that what the prosecutors did was illegal comes as the Ukrainian government, which is deeply reliant on the United States for financial and military aid, has sought to distance itself from matters related to the special counsel’s investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential race.

Some of the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has dealt with Mr. Manafort’s decade of work in Ukraine advising the country’s Russia-aligned former president, Viktor F. Yanukovych, his party and the oligarchs behind it.





After President Trump’s victory, some politicians in Ukraine criticized the public release by prosecutors of the slush fund records, saying the move would complicate Ukraine’s relations with the Trump administration.

In Ukraine, investigations into the payments marked for Mr. Manafort were halted for a time and never led to indictments. Mr. Manafort’s conviction in the United States on financial fraud charges related to his work in Ukraine was not based on any known legal assistance from Ukraine.


Two Ukrainian members of Parliament had pressed for investigations into whether the prosecutors’ revelation of the payment records, which were first published in The New York Times, had violated Ukrainian laws that, in some cases, prohibit prosecutors from revealing evidence before a trial.

Both lawmakers asserted that if the release of the slush fund information broke the law, then it should be viewed as an illegal effort to influence the United States presidential election in favor of Hillary Clinton by damaging the Trump campaign.



Artem Sytnik, the head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, said he had revealed the information about Paul Manafort “in accordance with the law in effect at the time.”
The Kiev District Administrative Court, in a statement issued Wednesday, said that Artem Sytnik, the head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, the agency that had released information about the payments, had violated the law. The court’s statement said this violation “resulted in meddling in the electoral process of the United States in 2016 and damaged the national interests of Ukraine.”



A spokeswoman for the anti-corruption bureau said she could not comment before the court released a full text of the ruling. In an interview last June, Mr. Sytnik said he had revealed the information “in accordance with the law in effect at the time.”

The court also faulted a member of Ukraine’s Parliament, Serhiy A. Leshchenko, who had commented on Mr. Manafort’s case and publicized at a news conference materials that the anti-corruption bureau had already posted on its website.

Mr. Leshchenko said he would appeal the ruling, and that the court was not independent and was doing the bidding of the Ukrainian government as it sought to curry favor with the Trump administration.

“This decision of the court is for Poroshenko to find a way to Trump’s heart,” he said, referring to President Petro O. Poroshenko. “At the next meeting with Trump, he will say, ‘You know, an independent Ukrainian court decided investigators made an inappropriate move.’ He will find the loyalty of the Trump administration.”

Mr. Leshchenko said the prosecutors’ revelations about Mr. Manafort were legal because they were “public interest information,” even if they were also potential evidence in a criminal investigation.

Mr. Manafort has not been charged with a crime in Ukraine, and earlier this year, Ukrainian officials froze several investigations into Mr. Manafort’s payments at a time when the government was negotiating with the Trump administration to purchase sophisticated anti-tank missiles, called Javelins.



Ukraine’s prosecutor general said the delay on Mr. Manafort’s cases was unrelated to the missile negotiations. In total, the United States provides about $600 million in bilateral aid to Ukraine annually.

Earlier this month, the special counsel accused Mr. Manafort of violating a cooperation agreement by lying. Two of the five alleged lies, according to the filing, related to meetings or conversations with Konstantin V. Kilimnik, Mr. Manafort’s former office manager in Kiev, whom the special counsel’s office has identified as tied to Russian intelligence and as a key figure in the investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Ukrainian law enforcement officials last year allowed Mr. Kilimnik to leave for Russia, putting him out of reach for questioning.

3. Yuriy Lutsenko (Ukrainian prosecutor) in his own words about the do not prosecute list that was given to him and his predecessor by US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. There is a video of an interview with him saying this.

By Robert Romano

“As Mr. [Yuriy] Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian Prosecutor General has recently acknowledged, the notion that I created or disseminated a ‘do not prosecute’ list is completely false — a story that Mr. Lutsenko, himself, has since retracted.”

That was former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch in her Oct. 11 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, responding to allegations made by former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, who told The Hill’s John Solomon on March 20, “Unfortunately, from the first meeting with the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, [Yovanovitch] gave me a list of people whom we should not prosecute.”

The supposed retraction Yovanovitch appears to have been referring to is an April 17 report from the Ukrainian TheBabel publication, translated by the Unian Information Agency.

In it, Lutsenko is quoted as saying of the meeting, “The meeting [with the ambassador] took place in the PGO [Prosecutor General’s Office], at this very table in January 2017… She was accompanied, so was I. Mrs. Yovanovitch was interested in Vitaliy Kasko’s case. The fact was that Mr. Kasko’s mother got registered for official housing [in Kyiv], while she had never left Lviv. That had signs of abuse.”

Lutsenko says Yovanovitch objected to the Kasko case, and recalled her saying, “the criminal case discredited those who were fighting against corruption.”

Some retraction. Did Yovanovitch object to cases being pursued or not?

Lutsenko elaborated, “I shared the details and explained that I could not open and close cases on my own. I listed some so-called anti-corruption activists under investigation. She said it was unacceptable, as it would undermine the credibility of anti-corruption activists. I took a piece of paper, put down the listed names and said: ‘Give me a do not prosecute list.’ She said: ‘No, you got me wrong.’ I said: ‘No, I didn’t get you wrong. Such lists were earlier drawn up on Bankova Street [referring to the Yanukovych administration that was ousted in 2014], and now you give new lists on Tankova Street [referring to the U.S. embassy].’ The meeting ended. I’m afraid the emotions were not very good.”

So, in the same interview that Yovanovitch says Lutsenko retracted his statement about being told who not to prosecute, Lutsenko appears to have actually doubled down and said that Yovanovitch told him the people he was prosecuting would undermine the credibility of anti-corruption activists and was unacceptable.

Again, Lutsenko stated in the supposed retraction, “I listed some so-called anti-corruption activists under investigation. She said it was unacceptable, as it would undermine the credibility of anti-corruption activists,” and “now you give new lists…” clearly still accusing her of giving him a list.





How is that not saying there was a do-not-prosecute list? Did Yovanovitch have to sign and date such a list physically for it to be construed any other way? Lutsenko clearly thought it was a corrupt ask by a U.S. Ambassador not to prosecute certain individuals because it would look bad. And people are questioning why she was removed from her post?

The March allegation by Lutsenko of a do-not-prosecute list had come a couple of weeks after Yovanovitch on March 5 called to have anti-corruption prosecutor Nazar Kholodnytskyi fired in a speech to the Ukraine Crisis Media Center, saying, “To ensure the integrity of anticorruption institutions, the Special Anticorruption Prosecutor must be replaced,” accusing Kholodnytskyi of corruption.

On April 1, The Hill’s Solomon reported Kholodnytskyi had reopened the office’s investigation of Burisma Holdings following former Vice President Joe Biden’s Jan. 2018 statement to the Council on Foreign Relations bragging about having the former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, Lutsenko’s predecessor, fired in March 2016 by threatening $1.2 billion of loan guarantees to then-President Petro Poroshenko.

Kholodnytskyi told Solomon, “We were able to start this case again… [But] we don’t see any result from this case one year after the reopening because of some external influence.”

As for Shokin, he told Solomon he was removed in 2016 because of his investigation of Burisma, which Biden’s son, Hunter, served on the Board of Directors of. Shokin told Solomon he had “specific plans” to investigate including “interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.” Shokin also noted that he was not accusing the Bidens of a crime per se, just that he had plans to investigate when he was fired.

Lutsenko told Solomon in the same April 1 interview he wanted to give the information to Attorney General William Barr.

On Sept. 26, Solomon also reported at the Hill that Ukrainian prosecutors had been attempting to get the information about Burisma and Biden to the Justice Department since 2018, worried U.S. laws had been violated: “Ukrainian prosecutors say they have tried to get this information to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) since the summer of 2018, fearing it might be evidence of possible violations of U.S. ethics laws.”

Lutsenko, in turn, corroborated that report in a Sept. 29 BBC interview stating that the concerns about Burisma and Biden were that they possibly violated U.S. laws, saying he told Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani: “I told him the same I told you — it is not my jurisdiction… It is likely to be the jurisdiction of the U.S. If you will send me a request, yes, I will give you all official information, but it is not Ukrainian jurisdiction — that was my answer.”

The U.S. and Ukraine signed a mutual legal assistance treaty in 1998.

So, there are many questions that ought to be asked of Yovanovitch, starting with Lutsenko’s supposed retraction in an interview where Lutsenko clearly stated he was told by Yovanovitch that prosecuting certain individuals would be unacceptable. Had she read the retraction or was she told about it? Maybe she just read a misleading headline. Perhaps somebody could direct her to read his statement and describe it now. Does she still think it’s a retraction, or would she care to revise her statement? Moreover, did she say prosecuting certain individuals would be unacceptable and harm their credibility or not?

Another question would be whether concerns over violations of U.S. laws at Burisma were relayed to the U.S. embassy, and if so, were they ever passed on to the Justice Department? If not, why not?

Also, was Yovanovitch aware that former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin’s application for a travel visa to the U.S. was denied by the State Department after Giuliani pushed to get it approved in January so Shokin could share his story about being fired by Biden? Does she know why the visas were denied?

Now, perhaps those questions were all asked at the House hearings. So, it’s time to release the transcripts, Speaker Pelosi, so the American people can get the whole story. And if they were not asked, then it is up to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to convene a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing he chairs, or for Senate Republicans to convene another Senate committee, and call Yovanovitch as a witness. What is Pelosi hiding?


My sources are the source themselves

Last edited by MAL; 2 Weeks Ago at 10:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.