Joe Biden's boast does seem to give off a whiff of corruption, though the Democrats, and Joe Biden in particular, argue that there was nothing corrupt going on. Biden was using the foreign aid stick to have someone he considered corrupt fired from his position as a top Ukraine prosecutor. Biden does not mention in the video (link below) that the booting of the prosecutor meant his son Hunter could continue profiting from his gravy train courtesy of Ukraine's Burisma oil company.
In any case, when President Trump purportedly used aid as a cudgel to spur Ukraine to investigate the Biden Burisma corruption case, Democrats cried foul and are pushing impeachment. Yet they are curiously silent when Biden, acting on the authority of President Obama, used aid as a bludgeon in a manner that benefited his son, and by extension, himself.
Interesting how "Ukrainegate" only targets Trump but not Biden, though unlike Trump, Biden actually used aid for political meddling.
Here is a transcript of Biden at the Council on Foreign Relations in January 2018:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3110&v=Q0_AqpdwqK4
RealClear report on Biden boast
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html
Burisma probe timeline and questions on the Bidens
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/29/timeline-of-the-burisma-investigation-doesnt-exculpate-hunter-biden-it-just-leads-to-more-questions/
'Whistleblower' lawyers try 'nonpartisan' ploy
Republicans were invited to submit written questions to the lawyers representing the "whistleblower," it was reported yesterday.
Though a copy of the specific offer has been pulled from online circulation, The Invisible Man can report that the lawyers said they were not subject to partisan House rules and that they should not be viewed as siding with Democrats. In their offer, they said that they were willing to have their client answer written questions from House Republicans under pain of perjury prosecution for false answers.
The offer, by two men who have been highly active in targeting President Trump and chiding Republicans, appears designed to undermine the Republican complaint that the "whistleblower" is being held incommunicado by Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who heads the House Intelligence Committee.
But as any lawyer knows, written questions are much easier to contend with than on-the-spot oral questioning. Unlike the President, whistleblowers and other federal workers are not ordinarily entitled to such consideration. Eric Chiaramella, a CIA officer, has declined to deny that he is the "whistleblower."
The attorneys, Mark Zaid and Andrew P. Bakaj, are both specialists in intelligence matters.
A check of Zaid's Twitter feed shows that he has long been anti-Trump.
His partner, Bakaj, is a former CIA officer who worked for the agency inspector general, work that included development of a whistleblower reprisal investigation program. His Twitter feed shows that, like Zaid, he is very much an activist in the current "whistleblower" case.
An obvious question about this offer: What kind of lawyers would put their client under threat of perjury jeopardy merely for political reasons?
An Oct. 9 statement from their law firm, Compass Rose, shows that Chiaramella fits the description given by the "whistleblower" lawyers. An excerpt:
Author Lee Smith: spooks, press in plot against Prez
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvkmJsTk9RQ
In any case, when President Trump purportedly used aid as a cudgel to spur Ukraine to investigate the Biden Burisma corruption case, Democrats cried foul and are pushing impeachment. Yet they are curiously silent when Biden, acting on the authority of President Obama, used aid as a bludgeon in a manner that benefited his son, and by extension, himself.
Interesting how "Ukrainegate" only targets Trump but not Biden, though unlike Trump, Biden actually used aid for political meddling.
Here is a transcript of Biden at the Council on Foreign Relations in January 2018:
I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.YouTube video of Biden boasting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3110&v=Q0_AqpdwqK4
RealClear report on Biden boast
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.html
Burisma probe timeline and questions on the Bidens
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/29/timeline-of-the-burisma-investigation-doesnt-exculpate-hunter-biden-it-just-leads-to-more-questions/
'Whistleblower' lawyers try 'nonpartisan' ploy
Republicans were invited to submit written questions to the lawyers representing the "whistleblower," it was reported yesterday.
Though a copy of the specific offer has been pulled from online circulation, The Invisible Man can report that the lawyers said they were not subject to partisan House rules and that they should not be viewed as siding with Democrats. In their offer, they said that they were willing to have their client answer written questions from House Republicans under pain of perjury prosecution for false answers.
The offer, by two men who have been highly active in targeting President Trump and chiding Republicans, appears designed to undermine the Republican complaint that the "whistleblower" is being held incommunicado by Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who heads the House Intelligence Committee.
But as any lawyer knows, written questions are much easier to contend with than on-the-spot oral questioning. Unlike the President, whistleblowers and other federal workers are not ordinarily entitled to such consideration. Eric Chiaramella, a CIA officer, has declined to deny that he is the "whistleblower."
The attorneys, Mark Zaid and Andrew P. Bakaj, are both specialists in intelligence matters.
A check of Zaid's Twitter feed shows that he has long been anti-Trump.
His partner, Bakaj, is a former CIA officer who worked for the agency inspector general, work that included development of a whistleblower reprisal investigation program. His Twitter feed shows that, like Zaid, he is very much an activist in the current "whistleblower" case.
An obvious question about this offer: What kind of lawyers would put their client under threat of perjury jeopardy merely for political reasons?
An Oct. 9 statement from their law firm, Compass Rose, shows that Chiaramella fits the description given by the "whistleblower" lawyers. An excerpt:
First, our client has never worked for or advised a political candidate, campaign, or party. Second, our client has spent their entire government career in apolitical, civil servant positions in the Executive Branch. Third, in these positions our client has come into contact with presidential candidates from both parties in their roles as elected officials – not as candidates.In other words, the CIA analyst came in contact with Hillary Clinton while he was on Obama's national security council and she was secretary of state and with Donald Trump when the analyst was on the lameduck Obama national security council and Trump was president-elect. On the other hand, the lawyers say nothing about their client being a holdover who worked for Trump's national security council.
Author Lee Smith: spooks, press in plot against Prez
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvkmJsTk9RQ
No comments:
Post a Comment