Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem here is the 'wayback' machine does not fit today's narrative:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."

Headline:

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.


So it seems to me the RIGHT thing to do is find out WHY and HOW Ukraine helped boost Clinton. Now why oh why would Dems not want that to come out?

The "top Trump aide" that was implicated in corruption was Manafort.

And methinks you do not understand today's narrative. At all.

You missed a line: and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election.

And this one:

And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found

Who are they? Manafort again?

Yes, Manafort and Gates. The guys who have been involved in corruption in Ukraine for literally decades. Those guys. Trump's campaign manager and deputy.

So what you are saying to me is that you feel that Ukraine was actually helping the Trump campaign. OK

You sound like you are totally lost, unable to understand the basics of what happened in 2016 or what is happening now.

How old are you? Were you born yesterday? Are you 1 day old?

It's actually a simple question. Did Ukraine help the Clinton campaign or not?

Chalupa tried to get Manafort fired and indirectly succeeded. Poroshenko didn't help the Clinton campaign but was unable, after the election, to butter up Trump, although he tried. And now we have Zelenskyy, who you seem totally uninterested in. Gee, I wonder why that could be.

The article sub-headline specifically states that Ukraine worked to help the Clinton campaign. That's a lie?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem here is the 'wayback' machine does not fit today's narrative:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."

Headline:

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.


So it seems to me the RIGHT thing to do is find out WHY and HOW Ukraine helped boost Clinton. Now why oh why would Dems not want that to come out?

The "top Trump aide" that was implicated in corruption was Manafort.

And methinks you do not understand today's narrative. At all.

You missed a line: and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election.

And this one:

And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found

Who are they? Manafort again?

Yes, Manafort and Gates. The guys who have been involved in corruption in Ukraine for literally decades. Those guys. Trump's campaign manager and deputy.

So what you are saying to me is that you feel that Ukraine was actually helping the Trump campaign. OK

You sound like you are totally lost, unable to understand the basics of what happened in 2016 or what is happening now.

How old are you? Were you born yesterday? Are you 1 day old?

It's actually a simple question. Did Ukraine help the Clinton campaign or not?

Chalupa tried to get Manafort fired and indirectly succeeded. Poroshenko didn't help the Clinton campaign but was unable, after the election, to butter up Trump, although he tried. And now we have Zelenskyy, who you seem totally uninterested in. Gee, I wonder why that could be.

To the gossip and hearsay crowd: you do know Trump admitted this, right? His defense is that he did it and it's ok. Try to keep up with your guy's spin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem here is the 'wayback' machine does not fit today's narrative:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."

Headline:

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.


So it seems to me the RIGHT thing to do is find out WHY and HOW Ukraine helped boost Clinton. Now why oh why would Dems not want that to come out?

The "top Trump aide" that was implicated in corruption was Manafort.

And methinks you do not understand today's narrative. At all.

You missed a line: and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election.

And this one:

And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found

Who are they? Manafort again?

Yes, Manafort and Gates. The guys who have been involved in corruption in Ukraine for literally decades. Those guys. Trump's campaign manager and deputy.

So what you are saying to me is that you feel that Ukraine was actually helping the Trump campaign. OK

You sound like you are totally lost, unable to understand the basics of what happened in 2016 or what is happening now.

How old are you? Were you born yesterday? Are you 1 day old?

"In the email, which was sent in early May to then-DNC communications director Luis Miranda, Chalupa noted that she had extended an invitation to the Library of Congress forum to veteran Washington investigative reporter Michael Isikoff. Two days before the event, he had published a story for Yahoo News revealing the unraveling of a $26 million deal between Manafort and a Russian oligarch related to a telecommunications venture in Ukraine. And Chalupa wrote in the email she’d been “working with for the past few weeks” with Isikoff “and connected him to the Ukrainians” at the event.

Isikoff, who accompanied Chalupa to a reception at the Ukrainian Embassy immediately after the Library of Congress event, declined to comment.

Chalupa further indicated in her hacked May email to the DNC that she had additional sensitive information about Manafort that she intended to share “offline” with Miranda and DNC research director Lauren Dillon, including “a big Trump component you and Lauren need to be aware of that will hit in next few weeks and something I’m working on you should be aware of.” Explaining that she didn’t feel comfortable sharing the intel over email, Chalupa attached a screenshot of a warning from Yahoo administrators about “state-sponsored” hacking on her account, explaining, “Since I started digging into Manafort these messages have been a daily occurrence on my yahoo account despite changing my password often.”

Dillon and Miranda declined to comment."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem here is the 'wayback' machine does not fit today's narrative:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."

Headline:

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.


So it seems to me the RIGHT thing to do is find out WHY and HOW Ukraine helped boost Clinton. Now why oh why would Dems not want that to come out?

The "top Trump aide" that was implicated in corruption was Manafort.

And methinks you do not understand today's narrative. At all.

You missed a line: and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election.

And this one:

And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found

Who are they? Manafort again?

Yes, Manafort and Gates. The guys who have been involved in corruption in Ukraine for literally decades. Those guys. Trump's campaign manager and deputy.

So what you are saying to me is that you feel that Ukraine was actually helping the Trump campaign. OK

You sound like you are totally lost, unable to understand the basics of what happened in 2016 or what is happening now.

How old are you? Were you born yesterday? Are you 1 day old?

It's actually a simple question. Did Ukraine help the Clinton campaign or not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem here is the 'wayback' machine does not fit today's narrative:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."

Headline:

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.


So it seems to me the RIGHT thing to do is find out WHY and HOW Ukraine helped boost Clinton. Now why oh why would Dems not want that to come out?

The "top Trump aide" that was implicated in corruption was Manafort.

And methinks you do not understand today's narrative. At all.

You missed a line: and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election.

And this one:

And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found

Who are they? Manafort again?

Yes, Manafort and Gates. The guys who have been involved in corruption in Ukraine for literally decades. Those guys. Trump's campaign manager and deputy.

So what you are saying to me is that you feel that Ukraine was actually helping the Trump campaign. OK

You sound like you are totally lost, unable to understand the basics of what happened in 2016 or what is happening now.

How old are you? Were you born yesterday? Are you 1 day old?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem here is the 'wayback' machine does not fit today's narrative:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."

Headline:

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.


So it seems to me the RIGHT thing to do is find out WHY and HOW Ukraine helped boost Clinton. Now why oh why would Dems not want that to come out?

The "top Trump aide" that was implicated in corruption was Manafort.

And methinks you do not understand today's narrative. At all.

You missed a line: and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election.

And this one:

And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found

Who are they? Manafort again?

Yes, Manafort and Gates. The guys who have been involved in corruption in Ukraine for literally decades. Those guys. Trump's campaign manager and deputy.

So what you are saying to me is that you feel that Ukraine was actually helping the Trump campaign. OK

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem here is the 'wayback' machine does not fit today's narrative:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."

Headline:

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.


So it seems to me the RIGHT thing to do is find out WHY and HOW Ukraine helped boost Clinton. Now why oh why would Dems not want that to come out?

The "top Trump aide" that was implicated in corruption was Manafort.

And methinks you do not understand today's narrative. At all.

You missed a line: and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election.

And this one:

And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found

Who are they? Manafort again?

Yes, Manafort and Gates. The guys who have been involved in corruption in Ukraine for literally decades. Those guys. Trump's campaign manager and deputy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem here is the 'wayback' machine does not fit today's narrative:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."

Headline:

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.


So it seems to me the RIGHT thing to do is find out WHY and HOW Ukraine helped boost Clinton. Now why oh why would Dems not want that to come out?

The "top Trump aide" that was implicated in corruption was Manafort.

And methinks you do not understand today's narrative. At all.

You missed a line: and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election.

And this one:

And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found

Who are they? Manafort again?

Anonymous wrote:The problem here is the 'wayback' machine does not fit today's narrative:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."

Headline:

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.


So it seems to me the RIGHT thing to do is find out WHY and HOW Ukraine helped boost Clinton. Now why oh why would Dems not want that to come out?

The "top Trump aide" that was implicated in corruption was Manafort.

And methinks you do not understand today's narrative. At all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To every person who questioned why no one else came forward sooner to report, this is why. The whistleblower has taken enormous personal risk to come forward with this information. Can you honestly say it would be an easy decision for you to be separated from your family, worry about whether they are in danger, etc., when there’s no assurance that your complaint will do anything?

If my complaint was 100% true and I heard it first hand, I’d have no problem coming forward. If it was something I was told by someone else, and had no first hand knowledge of, I wouldn’t make a complaint. That’s called gossip.

That's not gossip when you are in a security role.

It is gossip and hearsay.

Just stop it with the hearsay nonsense already. You people clearly don’t understand what this is, nor are you familiar with the exceptions to the rule against hearsay. If you aren’t a lawyer, just shut up. If you are a lawyer, you obviously weren’t paying attention in Evidence or just went to a truly crappy law school and should demand your money back.

The problem here is the 'wayback' machine does not fit today's narrative:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."

Headline:

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.


So it seems to me the RIGHT thing to do is find out WHY and HOW Ukraine helped boost Clinton. Now why oh why would Dems not want that to come out?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To every person who questioned why no one else came forward sooner to report, this is why. The whistleblower has taken enormous personal risk to come forward with this information. Can you honestly say it would be an easy decision for you to be separated from your family, worry about whether they are in danger, etc., when there’s no assurance that your complaint will do anything?

If my complaint was 100% true and I heard it first hand, I’d have no problem coming forward. If it was something I was told by someone else, and had no first hand knowledge of, I wouldn’t make a complaint. That’s called gossip.

That's not gossip when you are in a security role.

It is gossip and hearsay.

Let's just pretend it was gossip and hearsay in the WB complaints. So What? Trump's own White House has now released a summary of the conversation in which he tied military aid to Ukraine to a "favor" of working with Guiliani (his personal attorney) and William Barr (attorney general) to investigate the Bidens. Does that not concern you, PP? What if the congressional investigation shows there is really a crime there?

Like if your neighbor told you they had heard through the grapevine that your kid was stealing cars and getting high. When you asked your kid, he said, well, kind of, but that's not wrong is it? And you said... Actually, it doesn't matter if it's wrong or right because I heard about it by gossip. And gossip is just so, so bad! Forgive me, son, and carry on. The neighbor and I should be ashamed of ourselves.

In that case, isn't it a crime for Joe Biden to offer/threaten one billion in U.S aid (tax payer dollars) to the Ukraine while he was Vice President based on whether a prosecutor is fired in that country for going after the company Joe Bidens son worked for? Biden bragged about doing just that on camera.

No. Of course not. But apparently it's all just too difficult for you to grasp. So just go back to your knitting and we'll wake you up when we impeach the president for abusing his office.

Hey, don’t knock the knitters. We’re the ones who made the pussy hats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the accused not have a right to face his accuser?

If that's the hill you want to die on, then Trump can start by facing the 20+ women whom he allegedly assaulted sexually.

Slow clap