Deep State: Exposed

[White Beard]

Is the term 'Boomer' deemed as a derogatory term - in such circumstance?

I guess I could look it up -

Fishy *only* uses derogatory terms - even if he only just MEANS them that way...but yes, people forget (or never realized) that there were always far more straights who didn’t get it than there were of us, and hippie-punching is now so popular, even among ersatz “weed professionals” that “boomer” is becoming the next “liberal” - a perfectly ordinary word turned into a weapon through repeated misapplication...kinda the reverse of what they did to “patriot”....

 

[redlaser]

Do you consider shiffmapants fabricated opening statement(parody?)an attempt to influence or set a false narrative to effect public opinion?
P,perhaps the perfect scenario would be for both sides to drop the horse shit and be completely serious about running the government and even more so the media and their attempt to be influencers....since there is a high improbability of any of this to become reality...we as citizens will continue to seek truisms and be doubtful of all who seek to influence
A sad reality but a reality none the less,

“Dropping the horse shit” would involve ignoring trumps attempt to get foreign governments to investigate his political rivals.

How is that perfect for any side but trumps? You would be shitting yourself if Obama or Hillary did that, remember “Lock her up” over emails?
Improbability to become a reality? Good luck on that line of thought.

Still not buying your U.S. citizen act, needs a bloody lot of work.

 

[White Beard]

trumps not looking forward to the public hearings, and calling it a hoax is his grade school way of dismissing anything that makes him look bad.
Same thing with fake news, never-trumpers, and his version of deep state, rudimentary labels he tries to use to dismiss anti trump content, or those that call him on his ever flowing stream of fraud,lies, crimes, and just general douch like behavior.

He still calls the Mueller investigations a hoax despite multiple instances of obstruction for example.

If it’s all a hoax it’ll come out in the hearings, trump should kick back and wait for the vindication call, but like the Mueller investigation he has to try and influence the outcome to try and save his ass.

The thing that really snaps me into a different level of debate is the ignorance of the “hoaxers”: they seem to believe that they can call the constitution a hoax *AND* call themselves ‘patriots’ and ‘REAL Americans’ at the same time - and that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE WILL NOTICE the fundamental hypocrisy.

Not really different than the constant accusation that Obama was “lawless” and running amok - Trump having already governed by fiat on many more occasions than Obama signed executive orders (but the liars they suck on/off make sure their captured voters never hear about anything that will ‘spoil the narrative’)

Just because they bark in the same key, doesn’t mean they have a song to sing.

Do you consider shiffmapants fabricated opening statement(parody?)an attempt to influence or set a false narrative to effect public opinion?
P,perhaps the perfect scenario would be for both sides to drop the horse shit and be completely serious about running the government and even more so the media and their attempt to be influencers....since there is a high improbability of any of this to become reality...we as citizens will continue to seek truisms and be doubtful of all who seek to influence
A sad reality but a reality none the less,

You’re laboring under a serious misconception:

NO ONE is going to sort through your feces to find “something debatable” and attempt to discuss it with you. You “debate” and “contribute” like a belligerent drunk, and you really ought to twig that YOU’RE NOT WINNING.

I’m guessing you’re only ‘here’ (and other internet hidey holes) because you’ve completely worn out your welcome in other people’s lives, but you *have* to get the rage out, and any more arrests for the usual will cost you posting privileges and put you in close proximity to men who are perfectly willing to shut you up in real-time.

So you troll maliciously in an effort to make yourself feel like a winner...but - YOU’RE NOT WINNING.

You’re desperate.

 

[med4u]

... A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing~ Soren Kierkegaard

 

[bigtacofarmer]

... A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing~ Soren Kierkegaard

Stupid quote means jack shit.

 

[moose eater]

Figured this fits (kinda') in this thread...

Please research Jamie Dimon's past political support from both the Oval Office and Congress (as well as his predecessors' support from similar places).

The man Barrack Obama reportedly once said was, "A close personal friend and financial genius"; during a period of time that Dimon was signing civil penalty checks for staggering amounts of money, due to the SEC allowing the criminal statutes of limitations to expire.. repeatedly, especially for the 5 most prominent, criminal, serial-offending banks).


I think looking past the scenery is where the BIG problems lay.

------------------------------------------------

"Any lay person, let alone a federal regulator with the work experience of McWilliams, should know that if a bank with $1.6 trillion in deposits needs to get its hands on a quick $158 billion (thereby raising red flags at its regulators) by grabbing 57 percent of its reserves from the New York Fed, this is no laughing matter. You need to get a squad of bank examiners inside the bank within 24 hours and issue a credible response to the American people in short order."



By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: November 8, 2019 ~

Jelena McWilliams is a Trump appointee who currently serves as the Chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the federal agency responsible for insuring the deposits of commercial banks and savings associations in the United States. McWilliams also knows her way around Wall Street. Her resume at the FDIC states that “Before entering public service, she practiced corporate and securities law at Morrison & Foerster LLP in Palo Alto, California, and Hogan & Hartson LLP (now Hogan Lovells LLP) in Washington, D.C.” As a corporate lawyer, McWilliams “represented publicly and privately-held companies in mergers and acquisitions, securities offerings, strategic business ventures, venture capital investments, and general corporate matters.”

McWilliams put her Wall Street savvy to work from 2012 to 2017 in the positions of deputy staff director, chief counsel and senior counsel to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee where she assisted former Republican Committee Chairs Richard Shelby and Mike Crapo in their efforts to deregulate Wall Street banks by loosening or repealing parts of the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation that was passed under the Obama administration in 2010. (See her full career bio below.)

McWilliams was in New York this week to give a speech at a commercial real estate conference. Andrea Riquier, a reporter for the Dow Jones news organization, MarketWatch, was able to snag an interview with her on a range of subjects. On the matter of why the Federal Reserve is now infusing hundreds of billions of dollars a week into Wall Street securities firms, the first time it has done so through the repo market since the financial crisis, the exchange went like this:

Riquier: “Can we talk about the recent flareup in the repo market? What happened? I have a colleague who says when something like that happens, the market is trying to tell us something.

McWilliams: “Yes. (Laughs.) The irony of this is, I have met with large bank CEOs that are in the market and are sitting on, frankly, a trillion plus dollars of cash. I’m wondering why exactly, why didn’t they go into the marketplace, recognizing there was a shortfall and they could have made money. So we are meeting now with their treasurers and chief risk officers to understand exactly the reasons why. If it’s regulations, we need to make sure we understand. If they are holding on to money —cash — and U.S. Treasurys because our rules require them to, and that’s causing liquidity not to be in the marketplace, we should fix that. Because you want a liquid marketplace and it’s supposed to work seamlessly, right? We’re not sure actually that’s the largest component of what happened but once we’re done talking to all the large banks we’ll have a better sense.”

Before we address why this is not a forthright response from McWilliams, allow us to suggest that the heads of federal banking regulators have a history of lying to the American public when a big Wall Street bank is in trouble. Sheila Bair held McWilliams’ job at the helm of the FDIC during the financial crisis. She was one of those rare public servants who felt Americans deserved to know the truth and she wrote a book, Bull By the Horns, to lay out the dirty dealings that occurred during the greatest Wall Street crash since the Great Depression.

Bair indicates in her book that she believed two regulators of the mega bank, Citigroup, were not being honest with the American people about Citigroup’s true condition. Those regulators were John Dugan (a former bank lobbyist) at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and Tim Geithner, then President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. (The New York Fed is the institution currently funneling out the hundreds of billions of dollars a week to Wall Street without any explanation to the American people as to what is causing the liquidity crisis.)

Bair writes as follows:

“By November [of 2008], the supposedly solvent Citi was back on the ropes, in need of another government handout. The market didn’t buy the OCC’s and NY Fed’s strategy of making it look as though Citi was as healthy as the other commercial banks. Citi had not had a profitable quarter since the second quarter of 2007. Its losses were not attributable to uncontrollable ‘market conditions’; they were attributable to weak management, high levels of leverage, and excessive risk taking. It had major losses driven by their exposures to a virtual hit list of high-risk lending; subprime mortgages, ‘Alt-A’ mortgages, ‘designer’ credit cards, leveraged loans, and poorly underwritten commercial real estate. It had loaded up on exotic CDOs and auction-rate securities. It was taking losses on credit default swaps entered into with weak counterparties, and it had relied on unstable volatile funding – a lot of short-term loans and foreign deposits. If you wanted to make a definitive list of all the bad practices that had led to the crisis, all you had to do was look at Citi’s financial strategies…What’s more, virtually no meaningful supervisory measures had been taken against the bank by either the OCC or the NY Fed…Instead, the OCC and the NY Fed stood by as that sick bank continued to pay major dividends and pretended that it was healthy.”

There are so many parallels today to the very issues that Bair described as occurring a decade ago that it is absolutely chilling that such a failure in reforming Wall Street could have occurred in a so-called democracy.

But back to McWilliams’ nonsensical statement about how the FDIC is just now meeting with the “treasurers and chief risk officers” of the Wall Street banks to understand why overnight lending rates spiked from the typical 2 percent to 10 percent on September 17, necessitating the New York Fed to become the lender-of-last resort to the markets.

It has been more than seven weeks since the liquidity crisis occurred, showing that there is one or more financial firms that Wall Street is backing away from lending to and/or that the big banks sense a need to hold onto what ever liquid funds they have because they anticipate a blowup of some kind coming down the pike.

If you are the FDIC, whose job it is to ensure the safety and soundness of federally-insured banks, and to prevent a panic and a run on a bank – you get on top of this situation within 24 hours – not seven weeks later.

And it doesn’t take seven weeks to have those conversations with treasurers and chief risk officers at a slew of banks because there are only four banks you need to talk to in order to quickly assess what’s going on. As of June 30 of this year, according to data from the FDIC, these four banks held the lion’s share of deposits among the biggest banks in the United States: JPMorgan Chase held $1.6 trillion; Bank of America had $1.44 trillion; Wells Fargo accounted for $1.35 trillion; and Citigroup’s Citibank is home to just over $1 trillion in deposits. Those four banks, as insane as this kind of concentration is, account for $5.45 trillion in deposits.

And there are several smoking guns pointing directly at JPMorgan Chase as the folks the FDIC needs to grill as to what is going on.

On October 1, Reuters’ David Henry reported the following:

“Analysts and bank rivals said big changes JPMorgan made in its balance sheet played a role in the spike in the repo market, which is an important adjunct to the Fed Funds market and used by the Fed to influence interest rates…Publicly-filed data shows JPMorgan reduced the cash it has on deposit at the Federal Reserve, from which it might have lent, by $158 billion in the year through June, a 57% decline.”

Any lay person, let alone a federal regulator with the work experience of McWilliams, should know that if a bank with $1.6 trillion in deposits needs to get its hands on a quick $158 billion (thereby raising red flags at its regulators) by grabbing 57 percent of its reserves from the New York Fed, this is no laughing matter. You need to get a squad of bank examiners inside the bank within 24 hours and issue a credible response to the American people in short order.

Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has already admitted on his October 15 earnings call with bank analysts that his bank backed away from making overnight loans on the pivotal day of September 17 when overnight lending rates spiked to 10 percent. Dimon said this about his bank’s reserves at the New York Fed according to the SeekingAlpha transcript of the call:

“But now the cash in the account, which is still huge. It’s $120 billion in the morning, and it goes down to $60 billion during the course of the day and back to $120 billion at the end of the day. That cash, we believe, is required under resolution and recovery and liquidity stress testing. And therefore, we could not redeploy it into repo market, which we would’ve been happy to do.”

That response fails to offer even a tiny morsel of understanding as to why JPMorgan Chase grabbed $158 billion of its liquidity from the Fed in a six month period this year and what it did with it.



On November 3, Robert Armstrong of the Financial Times reported that JPMorgan Chase “has pushed more than $130bn of excess cash into long-dated bonds and cut the amount of loans it holds” by $40 billion year-to-date. The paper quoted an institutional investor saying this about the bank’s actions: “The scale of what JPMorgan is doing is mind-boggling…migrating out of cash into securities while loans are flat.” The Financial Times reporter also noted that “Mortgage-backed securities account for the bulk of this growth” in “long-dated” securities.

As luck would have it, agency mortgage-backed securities are one of the instruments that the New York Fed is accepting as collateral in exchange for cash at the absurd interest rate of 1.55 percent – which is 8.45 percentage points less than the free market wanted to price those overnight repo loans on September 17, prior to the Fed’s interventions.

Equally problematic at the largest bank in the U.S., JPMorgan Chase explained in a recent SEC filing that it’s using some of its federally-insured deposits to prop up its share price with stock buybacks – furthering undermining any true price discovery in U.S. markets. The wording in its filing is as follows:

“In 2019, cash provided resulted from higher deposits and securities loaned or sold under repurchase agreements, partially offset by net payments on long-term borrowing…cash was used for repurchases of common stock and cash dividends on common and preferred stock.”

Since 2013 JPMorgan Chase has spent $77 billion buying back its own stock. That includes the obscene $17.01 billion it has spent in just the first nine months of this year buying back its stock.



The role of federally-insured banks in the U.S., backstopped by the taxpayer, is to make sound loans to sound businesses and consumers in order to grow the U.S. economy, create good jobs and a higher standard of living for U.S. citizens, and to keep the U.S. competitive and innovative on the world stage.

The Federal Reserve’s history since 2008 has been one of abject failure at reining in abuses at these mega banks and then attempting to cover its tracks with a freely flowing spigot of money that amasses to trillions of dollars while Congress looks the other way. To date, there has not been one Congressional hearing scheduled to look into this matter.

~~~​

Jelena McWilliams Work History
2018 – present: Chairman, FDIC Board of Directors
Jan. 2017-2018: Fifth Third Bank in Cincinnati, Ohio (executive vice president, chief legal officer, corporate secretary)
2012-17: U.S. Senate Banking Committee (senior counsel, chief counsel, deputy staff director)
2010-12: Senate Small Business Committee
2007-10: Federal Reserve Board of Governors (attorney, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs)
2005-07: Hogan Lovell, Washington, D.C.
2002-05: Morrison & Foerster, Palo Alto, California

 

[moose eater]

Note: My purpose in posting the above was not to say "It's the D'S!!!!"

It was to point out that in any perception of a 'Deep State' agenda, the interested parties driving it, who ever they may be, typically seem to drive it via some sort of reward, agenda, or insistence upon obligation, in my way of understanding.

What drove the illegal (treasonous?) agenda in Iran-Contra? Who benefitted biggest, beyond mere party supremacy, by Reagan taking the Whitehouse? Back when the Congressional Committee asked Oliver North about a 'Shadow Government'?

GW handed off the TARP proposals to Obama. It was not a single-party gig. And the SEC seems to have had no teeth for the Big Boys on Wall St. since the Keating 5. The elusive 'Oligarchy' has had its talons into both parties to differing depths, at different times.

When 'we' jailed ~9 of our legislators in Alaska for corruption, as well as some other folks, the partisan D's pointed to the corruption as uniquely involving R's. And they were correct. Though in truth is was a "Duh!!" moment.

Folks who bribe or control, often aim to bribe or control the party in power. Controlling or bribing the minority that has no power, is a waste of effort and money.. Unless those delivering the bribes or ultimatums are either powerful enough, wealthy enough, smart enough to know that spreading the smear broadly enough helps to cover tracks and quiet mouths, or the split in power is so close to a balance that it needs a push..

And divide and conquer seems to be working as well today as it has for centuries, if not millennia.

 

[minds_I]

but what about her emails???

 

[med4u]

The thing that really snaps me into a different level of debate is the ignorance of the “hoaxers”: they seem to believe that they can call the constitution a hoax *AND* call themselves ‘patriots’ and ‘REAL Americans’ at the same time - and that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE WILL NOTICE the fundamental hypocrisy.

Not really different than the constant accusation that Obama was “lawless” and running amok - Trump having already governed by fiat on many more occasions than Obama signed executive orders (but the liars they suck on/off make sure their captured voters never hear about anything that will ‘spoil the narrative’)

Just because they bark in the same key, doesn’t mean they have a song to sing.


You’re laboring under a serious misconception:

NO ONE is going to sort through your feces to find “something debatable” and attempt to discuss it with you. You “debate” and “contribute” like a belligerent drunk, and you really ought to twig that YOU’RE NOT WINNING.

I’m guessing you’re only ‘here’ (and other internet hidey holes) because you’ve completely worn out your welcome in other people’s lives, but you *have* to get the rage out, and any more arrests for the usual will cost you posting privileges and put you in close proximity to men who are perfectly willing to shut you up in real-time.

So you troll maliciously in an effort to make yourself feel like a winner...but - YOU’RE NOT WINNING.

You’re desperate.

Ahh beanholio...now it just seems like your tryin to hurt ma feels

 

[White Beard]

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/1897632

Brave and adventurous of you to post that: you COMPLETELY misunderstood Mark’s post (kind of expected). Maybe your handlers should teach you English comprehension instead of bad spelling and insults. Then again, maybe you didn’t even read it.

Here’s the text:

William Barr is racing to deliver a report that blows up the impeachment inquiry—and everything else
Nov 06, 2019 2:21pm EST by Mark Sumner, Daily Kos Staff
Comment large 546 428

Attorney General William Barr is racing to complete a new “report” before Thanksgiving. And if Barr’s very poor summary of the Mueller report threw Trump a lifeline by distorting the real findings of the special counsel investigation, this new report looks to be more like an atom bomb, designed to incinerate Washington by putting the whole Justice Department behind a conspiracy theory that rewrites history and declares open warfare on political opponents. And Republicans are already meeting with Barr to plan a “roll out” for this supposedly classified report in order to maximize its impact.

Barr appears to have taken the results of an inspector general report that was expected to end weeks ago, rolled it together with the investigation-into-the-investigation that he launched under the nominal control of prosecutor John Durham, and capped it all with the “findings” of a world tour that included attempts to get the Australian government, the Italian government, and the U.K. government to participate in attacks on U.S. intelligence agencies. What’s going to come out the other end could be a dud, but it could launch an effort to derail the impeachment process—and more.


Barr’s effort to create a comprehensive, all-conspiracy-theories-combined report seems to have delayed delivery of the long-expected findings from Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Republicans were generally thrilled by Horowitz’s earlier report in which he was critical of former FBI director James Comey for his handling of some classified materials. That report had right-wing news outlets clamoring over potential charges against Comey. But despite claims that the findings justified Republican attacks on the entire Russia investigation, the actual complaints were minor and led to nothing.

That seems unlikely to be the case this time. As The Washington Post reports, Barr has subsumed Horowitz’s work because “the inspector general does not have the authority to declassify information” and Barr apparently intends to release information that dips into classified documents at both the FBI and CIA to tell his story of how the Russia investigation was unjustified from the start.

Barr is having advance meetings (including one on Wednesday with Senate Judiciary chair Lindsey Graham) so that talking points and presentations can be ready in advance of an official release.

Interestingly enough, Michael Horowitz does not appear to be attending the meetings on how to release information supposedly based on the material he assembled. But then, the investigation Barr is conducting has moved far beyond the sort of internal chastisement that might be delivered by Horowitz. The investigation he and Durham are conducting is now a criminal investigation, and is “pursuing potential crimes.”

But not crimes in the sense of the hundreds of connections between the Trump White House and Russia. Or crimes in the sense of Trump’s obstruction of the Russia investigation. Certainly not crimes in the sense of Trump directly lying to investigators in the written answers he provided to the special counsel’s office.

Instead, Barr is directly attempting to put some proof behind the claims that Donald Trump was trying to extort out of Ukraine: That there was never any real contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, that the DNC servers were not in fact hacked by Russia, that Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud was a CIA plant put in place to lure George Papadopoulos, that Australian official Andrew Downer was an instrument of U.S. intelligence, and that Ukrainian hackers conspired with Hillary Clinton to make it seem as if Russia stole data from the DNC and presented it to WikiLeaks, when all the while it was a scheme to justify launching an investigation into the Trump campaign.

Barr and his associates have been racing to complete this report so that it can be dropped on the impeachment inquiry before the holidays. Major parts of the report apparently remain unwritten, but the fact that the publicity campaign is getting underway in advance of the report’s completion is not exactly a sign that this is going to be a contrite “nothing major found” report. And Barr has been at the center of forwarding Trump’s conspiracy theories and supporting attacks on the intelligence community. He’s already said, “I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. I think spying did occur, but the question is whether it was adequately predicated and I’m not suggesting it wasn’t adequately predicated, but I need to explore that.”

The report coming back could declare no evidence to support Trump’s conspiracy theories and say that Barr found that “spying” to be “adequately predicated.” Don’t count on it. And don’t count on there not being indictments.

Barr did not shift to a criminal investigation because he doesn’t intend to arrest someone. There are going to be claims of serious wrongdoing. They are going to be aimed at not just creating a distraction to derail the impeachment hearings, but to provide “evidence” that Trump’s requests for investigations by Ukraine were justified. The question is going to be whether they are merely awful and damaging to the nation, or absolutely incinerate the rule of law.

Next week, open hearings are set to begin in the House impeachment inquiry, and it seems very likely that actual articles of impeachment will be getting a vote before the end of the year. So far, the best defense that Republicans have dreamed up is claiming ignorance—not attending meetings, not reading transcripts, and openly declaring that they’re not about to start.

But when Barr speaks, they’re all going to be listening.

Anyone in the mood for investigative malfeasance, Barr’s cooking up your witch hunt....

 

['Boogieman']

“Dropping the horse shit” would involve ignoring trumps attempt to get foreign governments to investigate his political rivals.

How is that perfect for any side but trumps? You would be shitting yourself if Obama or Hillary did that, remember “Lock her up” over emails?
Improbability to become a reality? Good luck on that line of thought.

Still not buying your U.S. citizen act, needs a bloody lot of work.

Trump was spied on while Obama was in office. Trump asked Ukraine to look into something that is public record, biden is on tape and you guys act like he is above the law because he is running for president.

 

[White Beard]

... A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing~ Soren Kierkegaard

Speaking of posting shit you don’t understand: he was NOT talking about making the same mistakes over and over and over. The tone of it fits your flouncing style perfectly, however: pompous, fake dignity, stolen and manipulated quote...”good day to you, sirrrah”....

Try LEARNING from your mistakes instead of piling them higher and deeper...but, I know: you’re not here to make friends. You said so, and you prove it every day

 

[White Beard]

Trump was spied on while Obama was in office. Trump asked Ukraine to look into something that is public record, biden is on tape and you guys act like he is above the law because he is running for president.

Bravely done, BM: too bad this shows you have not listened to, have not thought about, anything but your masters’ voice. Not explaining anything to you, not correcting you - dozens, including me, have made hundreds of attempts to help you clarify, but you just jump right back in the mud....

Just pointing out that your comments amount to recordings of the random noise you dote on.

Consider it a warning to others.

 

[redlaser]

Trump was spied on while Obama was in office. Trump asked Ukraine to look into something that is public record, biden is on tape and you guys act like he is above the law because he is running for president.

Biden did it in public, as part of U.S. policy.

trump did it for personal gain.

Said this to you three days ago, what part don’t you understand?

Or is this a repetition thing like the others do to fill the spaces?

 

['Boogieman']

Biden did it in public, as part of U.S. policy.

trump did it for personal gain.

Said this to you three days ago, what part don’t you understand?

Or is this a repetition thing like the others do to fill the spaces?

Trump released the transcript and I don't see a quid pro quo, If there was anything damming in the unredacted transcript it would have been leaked by now. On the other hand John Solomon's reporting shows there could be more to the Biden/Ukraine quid pro quo backed by newly discovered emails showing a conflict of interest. All the Democrats have right now are the opinions of partisans.

 

[minds_I]

Hello all,

John Solomon is a hack....

Here educate yourself...
https://www.mediamatters.org/john-solomon

minds_I

 

[redlaser]

“Transcript” is actually a 10 minute summary of a 30 minute convo.

Quidproquo=this for that.

Zelensky-“we almost have enough money to buy Javellins from U.S.”

Trump-“ I need you to do us a favor”, after withholding 400 million in military aid.

Funny how trump supporters don’t understand or acknowledge the obvious, just have to say biden enough times and it goes away in trumpland

 

[audiohi]

Trump released the transcript and I don't see a quid pro quo, If there was anything damming in the unredacted transcript it would have been leaked by now. On the other hand John Solomon's reporting shows there could be more to the Biden/Ukraine quid pro quo backed by newly discovered emails showing a conflict of interest. All the Democrats have right now are the opinions of partisans.

Who would you consider nonpartisan, Boogieman? Group or individual. You've excluded many people already from what I can tell. Military personnel, career officials, tRump donors, ambassadors, lawyers, democrats, republicans, senators, house representatives, journalists, men, women... All which you write off as opinions of partisans. Have I forgotten any? Whose word do you believe is completely neutral?

I really want to know whose word you trust. Besides tRump.

John Solomon is not nonpartisan.

 

['Boogieman']

“Transcript” is actually a 10 minute summary of a 30 minute convo.

Quidproquo=this for that.

Zelensky-“we almost have enough money to buy Javellins from U.S.”

Trump-“ I need you to do us a favor”, after withholding 400 million in military aid.

Funny how trump supporters don’t understand or acknowledge the obvious, just have to say biden enough times and it goes away in trumpland

He never threatened to withhold aid, and aid was not withheld until a month or so later. Your also cherry picking the hell out of the phone call, nice "parody". The emails are real and show that Biden may have had a conflict of interest, despite how much you don't like his reporting facts are facts.

 

[redlaser]

He never threatened to withhold aid, and aid was not withheld until a month or so later. Your also cherry picking the hell out of the phone call, nice "parody". The emails are real and show that Biden may have had a conflict of interest, despite how much you don't like his reporting facts are facts.

trump didn’t threaten to withhold it, he did so a week before the “perfect”phone call.

Admitted it to reporters Sept.24, said he would do it again if other countries don’t help Ukraine.

Mulvaney admitted it as well, in a press briefing. Said get over it