Doc Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 6 minutes ago, Warcodered said: Yes because forcing a foreign leader to publicly confirm your following one of you campaign promises isn't abusing your power for your own political gain at all. How would you classify using a dossier compiled by a British agent filled with made up dirt given to him by Russian agents in order to get a sitting President removed? 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warcodered Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 13 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: There's no evidence anyone was forced to do anything. Zelensky denied it happened, and the witness you're quoting said under oath the Ukraine did not even know aid was being withheld. There was no quo -- and to date there's no evidence of any. So framing the question the way you are is already pushing a narrative rather than truth. He did? “During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at [a meeting in] Warsaw,” Taylor says. “Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation.” That's a weird way to say that. 20 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: But that aside, even if he was forced, which he wasn't, it's not about harming your political opponent when there are three open investigations into said political opponent. Unless you're advocating for the position that simply by running for office, you become immune from scrutiny or investigations into past misdeeds. You're not advocating for that, are you? Do we not have government agencies whose job it is to investigate these things? 22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: And, out of curiosity re the bolded: did you have a problem with Obama's administration leaking to the NYT the counterintelligence investigation into Trump in October in a move designed to hurt Trump and help Clinton? Or was that okay? If that was okay, why was it okay when this is not? Would I have a problem with Obama using his authority for political gain sure definitely the agencies who's purview that falls under should investigate it within standard procedure. Now could we focus on the man that is currently in power/office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 19 minutes ago, Warcodered said: He did? “During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at [a meeting in] Warsaw,” Taylor says. “Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation.” That's a weird way to say that. Second hand hearsay — of which both zelensky and Sonland and the witness in question denied happened. You’re taking Schiffs narrative as fact. Why? Haven’t you had enough of people promising “this time we have him!” only to end up having it fall apart? Alpha bank — nope Russia! — nope Cohen went to Prague! — nope trump jr has a sealed indictment! — nope wait til mueller delivers! — nope. At what point do you start to question the narrative and think about it for yourself? 21 minutes ago, Warcodered said: Do we not have government agencies whose job it is to investigate these things? We do. The DOJ. Of which Trump as president is the head of. It’s entirely appropriate for him, as chief law enforcement officer of the land, to ask this. 23 minutes ago, Warcodered said: Would I have a problem with Obama using his authority for political gain sure definitely the agencies who's purview that falls under should investigate it within standard procedure. Now could we focus on the man that is currently in power/office? What you fail to understand, because you’re so eager to believe the narrative being pushed by proven liars like Schiff and nameless CIA officers speaking anonymously, is that this IS directly connected to the matter at hand. 44 abused the powers of his office to launch an illegal investigation of his political rivals, and outsourced parts of that to foreign entities in the UK, Australia, Italy, Canada and New Zealand. And it’s all coming out — which is what they’re terrified of and why they’re purposely trying to confuse you and lie to you. Again. Have you learned nothing from these past three years? Honest question: Do you know what CrowdStrike is and why they matter? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 31 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Second hand hearsay — of which both zelensky and Sonland and the witness in question denied happened. But leaked closed-door testimony clearly supersedes the actual statement of the supposedly aggrieved party. "You were extorted!" "No, I wasn't." "Shut up! Yes, you were!" 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 4 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: How is this confidential information getting leaked to the press, and is it accurate? C'mon man, this incredibly transparent super-secret impeachment inquiry is being run by the most honest, trustworthy, and moral person in Congress. A man whose veracity and ethics are beyond question. A man so full of integrity, it's coming out of his ears and spilling onto the floor. A man who would never read a fake transcript to a witness in a televised committee hearing before asking questions based upon that fake transcript, then retroactively claiming it was a 'parody' when called out for being a lying sack of Schiff. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warcodered Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 30 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Second hand hearsay — of which both zelensky and Sonland and the witness in question denied happened. You’re taking Schiffs narrative as fact. Why? Haven’t you had enough of people promising “this time we have him!” only to end up having it fall apart? Yeah, the most I've said about my own opinion on this is that I lean toward Ambassador Taylor as being more credible than Hotel Owner Ambassador to EU Sondland. What I was saying is that: 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: the witness you're quoting said under oath the Ukraine did not even know aid was being withheld. Is BS 43 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: We do. The DOJ. Of which Trump as president is the head of. It’s entirely appropriate for him, as chief law enforcement officer of the land, to ask this. Really I thought he was supposed to appoint the directors of those agencies/departments who then have to be approved by the Senate? 50 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: What you fail to understand, because you’re so eager to believe the narrative being pushed by proven liars like Schiff and nameless CIA officers speaking anonymously, is that this IS directly connected to the matter at hand. 44 abused the powers of his office to launch an illegal investigation of his political rivals, and outsourced parts of that to foreign entities in the UK, Australia, Italy, Canada and New Zealand. And it’s all coming out — which is what they’re terrified of and why they’re purposely trying to confuse you and lie to you. Right you've been saying this for months?years? and I'm still waiting for something to actually happen. 52 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Honest question: Do you know what CrowdStrike is and why they matter? I wasn't familiar so I looked it up and now I'm more curios to know what do you think it is? 54 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: because you’re so eager to believe the narrative being pushed by proven liars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Warcodered said: Yeah, the most I've said about my own opinion on this is that I lean toward Ambassador Taylor as being more credible than Hotel Owner Ambassador to EU Sondland. What I was saying is that: Is BS Per Ratcliffe today, it's not BS. Again, you're only getting half the story and thinking it's the whole picture. The entire story is being purposefully shaped for you by Schiff -- who is a proven liar and manipulator. Remember when he swore that he had more than circumstantial evidence that Trump committed treason? How'd that turn out? Don't you at least have to pause and question the narrative you're being fed when it's being done in this manner? In the shadows rather than out in the daylight? 49 minutes ago, Warcodered said: Really I thought he was supposed to appoint the directors of those agencies/departments who then have to be approved by the Senate? I suggest you re-read the constitution. It's quite clear on who is the head of the executive branch. 49 minutes ago, Warcodered said: Right you've been saying this for months?years? and I'm still waiting for something to actually happen. If you think nothing has happened, then you're not paying attention: There are three active investigations ongoing on which have already produced results and criminal referrals for both the head of the FBI and the acting director of the FBI. Over two dozen senior level personnel at DOJ/FBI have been removed, fired, or forced out due to what's been uncovered. Due process -- real due process -- is slow by design. 49 minutes ago, Warcodered said: I wasn't familiar so I looked it up and now I'm more curios to know what do you think it is? I've written at length about CrowdStrike over the past three years. I not only know what they are, I understand how they fit into the bigger picture within the Ukraine conversation specifically. My question is do you? If you did even a cursory dive into what CrowdStrike is then you've seen the connection to the Ukraine -- do tell, what is it? (*My tone is not meant to be challenging, I'm curious about your thoughts/opinions and enjoying the conversation w you even if we disagree. Not trying to be combative) Edited October 23, 2019 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warcodered Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 14 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Per Ratcliffe today, it's not BS. Again, you're only getting half the story and thinking it's the whole picture. The entire story is being purposefully shaped for you by Schiff -- who is a proven liar and manipulator. Remember when he swore that he had more than circumstantial evidence that Trump committed treason? How'd that turn out? Don't you at least have to pause and question the narrative you're being fed when it's being done in this manner? In the shadows rather than out in the daylight? Right except that quote I posted was from Ambassador Taylor's opening statement...under oath. And having looked up Ratcliffe(this guys name XD) his is to a reporter and what he said was interestingly phrased. Neither he or any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aide was being withheld. Which taking a wild ass guess could mean that when specifically asking Taylor if he had direct knowledge that they were aware he said no. 23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I suggest you re-read the constitution. It's quite clear on who is the head of the executive branch. Yeah it probably goes into how it's supposed to function too. 24 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: If you think nothing has happened, then you're not paying attention: There are three active investigations ongoing on which have already produced results and criminal referrals for both the head of the FBI and the acting director of the FBI. Over two dozen senior level personnel at DOJ/FBI have been removed, fired, or forced out due to what's been uncovered. Due process -- real due process -- is slow by design. Right it takes time...I'm just confused what with several high profile people already in jail from the other side of this investigation but I'm sure the part supported by the 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: chief law enforcement officer of the land will get a bunch soon. 30 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I've written at length about CrowdStrike over the past three years. I not only know what they are, I understand how they fit into the bigger picture within the Ukraine conversation specifically. My question is do you? If you did even a cursory dive into what CrowdStrike is then you've seen the connection to the Ukraine -- do tell, what is it? That it was founded by two people one of which was born in a country NE of it? That they investigated Russia hacking some of their artillery equipment's software? That it's been hired by both DNC and RNC?...no wait that's not about the Ukraine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Warcodered said: Right except that quote I posted was from Ambassador Taylor's opening statement...under oath. And having looked up Ratcliffe(this guys name XD) his is to a reporter and what he said was interestingly phrased. Neither he or any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aide was being withheld. Which taking a wild ass guess could mean that when specifically asking Taylor if he had direct knowledge that they were aware he said no. But it's not a wild guess. 12 minutes ago, Warcodered said: Yeah it probably goes into how it's supposed to function too. How it's supposed to function is with the President acting as the chief law enforcement officer of the land. Corruption falls under his purview, constitutionally speaking. That's why it's straight nonsense when you hear people like Pelosi saying this is about preserving or defending the constitution. It's not. It's about power. They don't have it and want it back. Full stop. 12 minutes ago, Warcodered said: Right it takes time...I'm just confused what with several high profile people already in jail from the other side of this investigation but I'm sure the part supported by the will get a bunch soon. Who's in jail? Manafort? What'd he go to jail for again? It had nothing to do with Trump or 2016. Not a thing. No one else is in jail. G-Pop did 14 days for perjury -- and he's anything but high profile. 12 minutes ago, Warcodered said: That it was founded by two people one of which was born in a country NE of it? That they investigated Russia hacking some of their artillery equipment's software? That it's been hired by both DNC and RNC?...no wait that's not about the Ukraine. You don't think Dimitri Alperovich's tenure as a Ukrainian intelligence asset is relevant to the Ukraine? CrowdStrike is the only one to date who examined the DNC servers for proof of Russian intrusion. It's their word alone which the FBI and then the DNI based the ICA upon. There was no second hand confirmation that a hack even occurred. Don't you think it's strange that the "expert" witness used to verify the breach was not only a client of the hacked party at the time of the breach (conflict of interest/disqualifying), but that they denied the FBI the ability to examine the evidence first hand? The entire premise of the "RUSSIA!" narrative depends on the hacking of the DNC servers being a real event. If it were to be proven to not be hack, but instead a leak from an insider, then the entire house of cards collapses. That's not opinion. That's not conspiracy theory. That's fact and reality, backed by mountains of OS evidence, testimony, and basic common sense. Edited October 23, 2019 by Deranged Rhino 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 One thing getting short Schiff here is the sudden irrelevancy of the "whistleblower" and the disappearance of the IC IG. Makes me wonder (hardly) if the "whistleblower" wasn't just a setup by Schiff and Schiff didn't do his due diligence regarding the "whistleblowers" past and present connections. Now his info isn't relevant enough to testify but he was the catalyst for this attempt at impeachment? Maybe they can call John Dean again to provide pertinent testimony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 13 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: CrowdStrike is the only one to date who examined the DNC servers for proof of Russian intrusion. It's their word alone which the FBI and then the DNI based the ICA upon. There was no second hand confirmation that a hack even occurred. Don't you think it's strange that the "expert" witness used to verify the breach was not only a client of the hacked party at the time of the breach (conflict of interest/disqualifying), but that they denied the FBI the ability to examine the evidence first hand? The entire premise of the "RUSSIA!" narrative depends on the hacking of the DNC servers being a real event. If it were to be proven to not be hack, but instead a leak from an insider, then the entire house of cards collapses. That's not opinion. That's not conspiracy theory. That's fact and reality, backed by mountains of OS evidence, testimony, and basic common sense. IMO - this is everything. It’s actually what Trump was talking about with the Ukraine, not Biden. But you’d have to have taken 2 minutes to read the transcript to know that, which many obviously have not. IIRC as well, some of the forensic evidence that Crowdstrike did supply actually refuted the notion that an overseas hack from Russia could have been possible. Something about download or upload speeds or something, I can’t recall exactly. Point is, if anyone truly wants to find out what happened and let the evidence lead us where it may (pro/anti trump, pro/anti Dems) you’d want to let the authorities examine the ground zero piece of evidence and make the findings available to the public. it’s like a plane crash happening and Boeing or Delta saying the plane was shot out of the sky by a Russian missile and then only allowing Boeing or Delta to investigate it! 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, dubs said: IIRC as well, some of the forensic evidence that Crowdstrike did supply actually refuted the notion that an overseas hack from Russia could have been possible. Something about download or upload speeds or something, I can’t recall exactly. Bill Binney (Former NSA) and others used the metadata attached to the "hacked" files (which Wikileaks released) to cast serious doubt on the hacking claims: https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/ CrowdStrike is also involved in Guccifer 2.0 (as is the Ukraine, as Guccifer is... Ukrainian): https://disobedientmedia.com/2017/07/new-research-shows-guccifer-2-0-files-were-copied-locally-not-hacked/ Then of course there's the Assange/Comey negotiations wherein Assange offered not to release Vault 7 -- the CIA's cyber warfare toolkit -- and more information on where the DNC files he published came from in exchange for immunity. Comey intervened to squash the deal -- https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/394036-How-Comey-intervened-to-kill-Wikileaks-immunity-deal Assange releases Vault 7 and we learn (with evidence to prove it) that the CIA has long had the capabilities to "mask" their digital fingerprints and create the illusion that the hacking came from other nations... like Russia. https://wikileaks.org/vault7/ And if you think about that for even a moment in relation to the DNC "hack", you'd understand that kind of ability makes total sense. Any intelligence (or criminal) organization dabbling in hacking/cyber warfare worth a damn would effort to hide their fingerprints during any operation. But, per CrowdStrike's conclusion in their review, the GRU -- who are very capable in cyber -- hacked the server several times and left a very easy to find fingerprint behind identifying the culprit as Russian intelligence? That's a hard pill to swallow. Could it be true? Sure... but it's a big enough question to merit examining the server directly if you're the FBI and really curious about getting to the root of the question... ... But CrowdStrike and the Ukraine have no connection and it's all a "conspiracy theory" according to the very same people who spent the past three years breathlessly reporting speculation as fact about Trump/Russia collusion/conspiracy. I understand why they, the media and establishment figures in government, are doing it. I don't understand how otherwise rational people are so willing to believe them this time when there's FAR less evidence or stakes involved... (shrug) Edited October 23, 2019 by Deranged Rhino 1 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I understand why they, the media and establishment figures in government, are doing it. I don't understand how otherwise rational people are so willing to believe them this time when there's FAR less evidence or stakes involved... (shrug) this cuts to the heart of the problems in our country. As much as I despise the political establishment and the media, at the very least their motivations are understood. Greed, power, wealth. the public is another story and I don’t think there’s one explanation. Some people are just so entrenched on their side. Some people can’t fathom the implications of a broken system infested with corrupt people. Some just believe the MSM because it’s all they know or see. Some live in bubbles that reinforce their worldview. Any many are just either lazy or too busy to really dig in. We also have the issue of government schools and the failure there. All in all, this country is a mess. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warcodered Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 26 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: But it's not a wild guess. Which would only imply that he wasn't in the room when they were told and didn't tell them himself. Someone still could of told him or any of a bunch of possibilities but let's ignore that because it sounds better this way. 29 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: How it's supposed to function is with the President acting as the chief law enforcement officer of the land. Corruption falls under his purview, constitutionally speaking. That's why it's straight nonsense when you hear people like Pelosi saying this is about preserving or defending the constitution. It's not. It's about power. They don't have it and want it back. Full stop. Right why would there be any separation to both prevent and protect the President from abuse/perceived abuse of his power. 30 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Who's in jail? Manafort? What'd he go to jail for again? It had nothing to do with Trump or 2016. Not a thing. No one else is in jail. G-Pop did 14 days for perjury -- and he's anything but high profile. The point would be that they went through the due process and are already there but apparently this honest and for certain going to pan out investigation just seems to be puttering around despite support from the AG and President. 59 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You don't think Dimitri Alperovich's tenure as a Ukrainian intelligence asset is relevant to the Ukraine? CrowdStrike is the only one to date who examined the DNC servers for proof of Russian intrusion. It's their word alone which the FBI and then the DNI based the ICA upon. There was no second hand confirmation that a hack even occurred. Don't you think it's strange that the "expert" witness used to verify the breach was not only a client of the hacked party at the time of the breach (conflict of interest/disqualifying), but that they denied the FBI the ability to examine the evidence first hand? The entire premise of the "RUSSIA!" narrative depends on the hacking of the DNC servers being a real event. If it were to be proven to not be hack, but instead a leak from an insider, then the entire house of cards collapses. That's not opinion. That's not conspiracy theory. That's fact and reality, backed by mountains of OS evidence, testimony, and basic common sense. ? 26 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Bill Binney (Former NSA) and others used the metadata attached to the "hacked" files (which Wikileaks released) to cast serious doubt on the hacking claims: https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/ CrowdStrike is also involved in Guccifer 2.0 (as is the Ukraine, as Guccifer is... Ukrainian): https://disobedientmedia.com/2017/07/new-research-shows-guccifer-2-0-files-were-copied-locally-not-hacked/ Then of course there's the Assange/Comey negotiations wherein Assange offered not to release Vault 7 -- the CIA's cyber warfare toolkit -- and more information on where the DNC files he published came from in exchange for immunity. Comey intervened to squash the deal -- https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/394036-How-Comey-intervened-to-kill-Wikileaks-immunity-deal Assange releases Vault 7 and we learn (with evidence to prove it) that the CIA has long had the capabilities to "mask" their digital fingerprints and create the illusion that the hacking came from other nations... like Russia. https://wikileaks.org/vault7/ And if you think about that for even a moment in relation to the DNC "hack", you'd understand that kind of ability makes total sense. Any intelligence (or criminal) organization dabbling in hacking/cyber warfare worth a damn would effort to hide their fingerprints from any operation. But, per CrowdStrike's data, the GRU -- who are very capable in cyber -- hacked the server several times and left a very easy to find fingerprint behind identifying the culprit as Russian intelligence? That's a hard pill to swallow. Could it be true? Sure... but it's a big enough question to merit examining the server directly if you're the FBI and really curious about getting to the root of the question... ... But CrowdStrike and the Ukraine have no connection and it's all a "conspiracy theory" according to the very same people who spent the past three years breathlessly reporting speculation as fact about Trump/Russia collusion/conspiracy. I understand why they, the media and establishment figures in government, are doing it. I don't understand how otherwise rational people are so willing to believe them this time when there's FAR less evidence or stakes involved... (shrug) Or you know maybe not. https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/346468-why-the-latest-theory-about-the-dnc-not-being-a-hack-is-probably-wrong 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 23, 2019 Author Share Posted October 23, 2019 Ambassador Taylor, veteran of 101st Air Born, described a shake down of a foreign nation to interfere in our election. So corrupt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: Ambassador Taylor, veteran of 101st Air Born, described a shake down of a foreign nation to interfere in our election. So corrupt I agree, what happened in 2016 with Hillary Clinton was corruption at it's very worst. Thank God we have decent hard working honest people like Barr investigating it. Don't worry tard, he will get to the bottom of this coup attempt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: Ambassador Taylor, veteran of 101st Air Born, described a shake down of a foreign nation to interfere in our election. So corrupt what exactly did he say? Where did you hear about it? Let me save you the time: you don’t know. You heard it from the MSM/Democrats. god you’re a fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 I read (former) Ambassador Taylor’s prepared statement, as printed in the Washington Post. I’m not certain it’s 100% accurate, but let’s assume it is for now. Taylor may well be an honorable American diplomat and soldier. He clearly loves the region and sees Ukraine as a valuable partner to the US. He clearly does not seem to be a fan of the current administration, and appears hostile to the Obama administration as well. Back to that in a moment. I’m thinking me, @Foxx @Deranged Rhino, and @Tiberiusare the only people left in America who do not serve as a Board Member for a Ukrainian company. I was going to add @Buffalo_Gal to the list but she seems to be traveling an awful lot, and don’t even get me started on @Teddy KGB. Anyway, Taylor advised he sat on the board of a Ukrainian company prior to returning to public service, and I wonder if we might ever stumble upon an official without financial ties to the region he is representing? Anyway, his statement is thorough and reflects his thoughts on the matter. He addresses his concerns about withholding aid for any reason, his threats to resign if the aid was withheld, and his uneasiness with tying aid to investigations into Burisma and interference into our elections. He also expressed concern about RGs involvement and informal lines of communication. One of the advantages of open testimony in the light of day would be the opportunity to hear his thoughts on other administrations and “informal or irregular lines of communication” with other countries. I am quite certain that these lines of communication exist, and that not every communication between countries goes through the ambassador directly. Anyway, beyond that, I’m not sure there is much to see here. Ultimately, he works for the President, speaks of the reassurances that there was no quid pro quo, and expressed his concerns. He threatened to resign, apparently chose not to, and seemed comfortable with no investigation at all into interference in our elections. Personally, I’d really like to hear from Ambassador To Libya Chris Stevens about both formal and informal/irregular channels of communication in general. It might help the public understand the nuances of diplomacy in general, and provide some context to Ukraine specifically. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I read (former) Ambassador Taylor’s prepared statement, as printed in the Washington Post. I’m not certain it’s 100% accurate, but let’s assume it is for now. Taylor may well be an honorable American diplomat and soldier. He clearly loves the region and sees Ukraine as a valuable partner to the US. He clearly does not seem to be a fan of the current administration, and appears hostile to the Obama administration as well. Back to that in a moment. I’m thinking me, @Foxx @Deranged Rhino, and @Tiberiusare the only people left in America who do not serve as a Board Member for a Ukrainian company. I was going to add @Buffalo_Gal to the list but she seems to be traveling an awful lot, and don’t even get me started on @Teddy KGB. Anyway, Taylor advised he sat on the board of a Ukrainian company prior to returning to public service, and I wonder if we might ever stumble upon an official without financial ties to the region he is representing? So I was in Italy for a while and my next stop is Australia ... er, I mean ... nothing to see here, nothing at all. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts