Link shit.....HERE IS THE FUCKING VIDEO, COMRADE!One always wonders if these trolls are being paid. Or truly are as stupid as the post....this one I pick #2!Looks like they have Jojo "the World's Dumbest Politician and sexual Abuser" Biden by the SHORT HAIRS!
State Department Documents Expose Biden-Ukraine Corruption
Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden speaks to local residents, Saturday, Nov. 23, 2019, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/Justin Hayworth)
OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 8:00 PM PT — Sunday, November 24, 2019
Newly released documents are revealing additional details of the alleged corruption scheme by Joe and Hunter Biden in Ukraine. A recent Freedom of Information request by watchdog group American Oversight has produced 100 pages of State Department documents, including testimonies from former prosecutors Viktor Shokin and Yuriy Lutsenko.
American Oversight
[emoji818]@weareoversight
BREAKING: State Department releases Ukraine documents to American Oversight
Documents show links between Pompeo, Giuliani, Oval Officehttps://www.americanoversight.org/state-department-releases-ukraine-documents-to-american-oversight …
State Department Releases Ukraine Documents to American Oversight - American Oversight
Documents show links Between Pompeo, Giuliani, Oval Office
americanoversight.org
49.5K
10:36 PM - Nov 22, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
27.7K people are talking about this
This comes amid elevated concerns that top Obama-era officials could be harboring ill-gotten gains of Ukrainian oligarchs in exchange for help in the 2016 election.
“When the President’s talking to the president of Ukraine, that’s the issue he’s worried about: why did this corruption take place, and if they’re investigating what went on,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “He had every right to ask about Biden.”
Reports confirmed Vice President Biden used his office to protect energy company Burisma from anti-corruption scrutiny. Documents showed the State Department was aware that Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky was involved in money laundering and the illegal off-shoring of at least $23 million from Ukraine.
Ukrainian officials said Hunter Biden, who served on Burisma’s board at the time, received a salary of $50,000 per month, plus a commission. The documents confirmed that in 2015, Zlochevsky paid $900,000 in consulting fees to Rosemont Seneca Partners, a company that represented the Bidens’ interests in Ukraine.
Zlochevsky has been under U.S. scrutiny for several years.
“I and other U.S. officials consistently advocated reinstituting a scuttled investigation of Zlochevsky, Burisma’s founder, as well as holding the corrupt prosecutors who closed the case to account,” said Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent.
Despite all this, the left-leaning watchdog group is focusing on the contacts between Rudy Giuliani and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Report Ad
American Oversight
[emoji818]@weareoversight
· Nov 22, 2019
BREAKING: State Department releases Ukraine documents to American Oversight
Documents show links between Pompeo, Giuliani, Oval Officehttps://www.americanoversight.org/state-department-releases-ukraine-documents-to-american-oversight …
State Department Releases Ukraine Documents to American Oversight - American Oversight
Documents show links Between Pompeo, Giuliani, Oval Office
americanoversight.org
American Oversight
[emoji818]@weareoversight
It's clear why Mike Pompeo has refused to release this information to Congress.
It reveals a clear paper trail from Rudy Giuliani to the Oval Office to Secretary Pompeo to facilitate Giuliani’s smear campaign against a U.S. ambassador.
18.7K
10:40 PM - Nov 22, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
8,764 people are talking about this
Mainstream media has claimed Giuliani investigated corruption in Ukraine for political purposes. Other reports said Giuliani’s probe falls in line with the State Department’s longstanding policy of battling corruption in Ukraine to advance U.S. interests in the region.
“We provided $250 million worth of security assistance, defense assistance and $140 million or so of additional security assistance…to fight corruption continued this year,” said Secretary of State Pompeo. “That’s what happened in Washington with respect to Ukraine.”
State Department documents also showed that Zlochevsky assembled an international team, led by Hunter Biden, to protect his embezzlement. The team included Devon Archer, CIA official Joseph Blade and former President of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski. Documents showed Kwasniewski received nearly $1.2 million for his services. The amount received by Archer and Hunter Biden was reportedly concealed by Latvia.
Additionally, Ukrainian officials said some $16 million left Ukraine through two secretive units, which were under the protection of former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.
“From the Russia hoax to the shoddy Ukrainian sequel, the Democrats got caught,” stated Rep. Devin Nunes. “Let’s hope they finally learn a lesson, give their conspiracy theories a rest and focus on governing for a chance.”
Rudy Giuliani said he’s undeterred by the recent attacks against him. The attorney added he is committed to uncovering the Obama administration’s pay-to-play scheme, which may devastate the Democrat Party. He said the New York Mafia could not intimidate him in the past, and today, the Democrats won’t silence him either.
You do know that this is ALL bullshit....
How can you even say Guilliani is investigating corruption when he is working with corrupted Ukrainian people like Shokin?
Trump and his cartels are the most inept people I’ve ever seen doing an investigation.
Timeline of “sabotage” of Trump in 2016 by Democrats, Ukraine
Politico that she began researching Manafort in 2014.
In 2014, the FBI investigated, and then reportedly wiretapped, Manafort for allegedly not properly disclosing Russia-related work. FBI failed to make a case at the time, according to CNN, and discontinued the wiretap.
On March 25, 2016, according to Politico, Chalupa–who previously worked in the Clinton administration–met with top Ukrainian officials at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington D.C. in an effort to tarnish the Trump campaign in favor of Hillary Clinton by exposing “ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia.”
The Ukrainian embassy proceeded to work “directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort and Russia to point them in the right directions,” according to an embassy official (though other officials later deny engaging in election-related activities.)
On March 30, 2016, Chalupa reportedly briefed Democratic National Committee (DNC) staff on alleged Russian ties to Manafort and Trump. It was the day after the Trump campaign hired Manafort to manage the July Republican convention.
With the “DNC’s encouragement,” Chalupa reportedly asked the Ukrainian embassy to arrange a meeting with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to discuss Manafort’s lobbying for Ukraine’s former president Viktor Yanukovych. The embassy reportedly declined to arrange the meeting but became “helpful” in trading info and leads, according to Politico’s reporting.
Ukrainian embassy officials and Chalupa “coordinat[ed] an investigation with the Hillary team” into Manafort, according to a source in Politico. This effort reportedly included working with U.S. media.
(Excerpt) Read more at sharylattkisson.com ...
These are cut and paste. Where’s your link?
I VILL TELL VLAD!!!!!....ROTFLMFAO
I have to fix me wedgie every time someone called me comrade.
Okay. I saw that video a million times. Explain to me what Obama was saying.
A child will never understand...
Rebeccah Heinrichs: Over the past several years, I’ve wished many times that I could listen unnoticed when Presidents Obama and Medvedev chat. I should be careful what I wish for.
This sidebar conversation that we’re all familiar with provides profound and critical unique political insights. It reveals two points that I hope to leave you with: One, the President is not committed, as he says he is, to deploying a robust ballistic missile defense system to protect America and our allies. Number two, the President is using and will continue to use U.S. ballistic missile defense as a bargaining chip with the Russians in his single-minded pursuit of ridding the world of nuclear weapons and “reset” with Russia.
On the first point, even before he entered the White House, President Obama spoke out against missile defense. In 2001, he told a Chicago TV station that “I don’t agree with a missile defense system.” In one of his campaign addresses, he said he wanted to get rid of “unproven missile defense systems,” which we know is code for anything that hasn’t intercepted a missile in combat.
Since he entered office, he has scaled back the more advanced missile defense systems year after year. This year’s budget is in fact $1 billion less than the number he sent to Congress last year for fiscal year 2013, and it is $2 billion less than what President Bush said would be needed for FY 2013 based on the projected threat and the projected status of the ballistic missile defense system (BMDS).
The current homeland missile defense sites, called Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD), don’t have the number of Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) needed to defend against certain kinds of attacks. The President continues to underfund the program while it requires more money to improve its capability and offer a more robust protection of the U.S. homeland—and to offer protection against what I would call at this point an imminent and inevitable threat.
He has cancelled a variety of programs needed to mitigate the multiple warhead program: Recall the multiple kill vehicle program, MKV. He cancelled the airborne laser program, ignoring its successful shoot-down, and has essentially mothballed the SBX radar required to tell the difference between the lethal warheads and decoys of an incoming missile.
He’s funding regional European defense at a rate five times that of U.S. homeland defense, and since the SM-3 missiles, the centerpiece of his plan to protect Europe, are having technical problems and the timeline is slipping to the right, there is great cause for concern that the SM-3 2B missile—the missile scheduled for deployment in 2020—will not be ready for deployment before Iran has a nuclear-capable ICBM capable of reaching the U.S.
The Institute for Defense Analysis concluded that a third site on the East Coast of the U.S. would be very helpful in closing some of the U.S. vulnerabilities in homeland defense against the long-range missile threat from Iran. Yet there is no money in this budget to hedge against the inevitable gap between readiness and the threat—not a dime.
“But, Rebeccah,” you might be thinking, “the President has publicly committed to homeland missile defense and the European phase adaptive approach (EPAA), and instead of eliminating the Missile Defense Agency, as some of us feared that he would, he has actually funded it at reasonable levels.”
This brings me to my second point: The President is using and will continue to use U.S. missile defense as a bargaining chip with the Russians in his single-minded pursuit of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. The President believes that missile defense is essential for negotiating with the Russians on nuclear arms reductions.
Why missile defense? Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it best in June of 2010 when he said, “There is no meeting of the minds on missile defense. The Russians hate it.” Then Undersecretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher said it this year: “Almost everything else that you work on on European security has been settled, decided, and worked on together for decades. The only thing that’s new where you can bring the Russians in is on missile defense.”
If the President simply cancels outright the programs he believes are unwarranted or destabilizing, he has nothing to trade away, so he has created a façade of support. Recall the commitments he made to Senators regarding missile defense during consideration of the New START treaty. Senators were concerned that there may have been off-the-record promises made by the President or his State Department officials to Russian officials related to U.S. missile defense. Specifically, Senators were concerned the President may have promised not to deploy more sophisticated systems in or around Europe that the Russians would be opposed to in return for the Russian support for New START.
Senators also wanted to know from the President that the U.S. nuclear arsenal would remain safe, reliable, and credible, since it is in need of modernization and since the arms control treaty would reduce arms. Failure to modernize the U.S. arsenal is, by default, letting it atrophy, just as the Russian arsenal already is. So the President responded at the 11th hour by sending a thorough letter to the Senate, and he promised to complete all four phases of EPAA, including the fourth phase, which would be more sophisticated by the Administration’s own accounts, than the third site, which it scrapped because the Russians hated it.
In the letter, it said that the President would develop ballistic missile defense both qualitatively and quantitatively. As you recall, those words are very important because those are the words the Russians themselves used in a unilateral statement that they submitted with the New START treaty. In the statement, the Russians said they reserve the right to withdraw from the treaty if the U.S. builds up its missile defense systems both qualitatively and quantitatively.
The President also promised to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal by promising $4 billion for modernization over the next five years. Then, in February, the budget came out and the President did not live up to his promise regarding nuclear modernization. The funding simply isn’t there. The President reneged on his promise because the whole point of the New START treaty is to take the world down to zero nuclear weapons because, as the President flippantly stated last week, “We all know that we have more than we need.”
Moreover, when he signed the FY 2012 defense bill, he mentioned multiple provisions related to his ability to share classified missile defense technology with the Russian Federation. These provisions were mandated by Congress to specifically ensure that the President does not bargain away U.S. security provided by missile defense. The President stated that if these provisions mandated by Congress conflicted with his constitutional authority to negotiate with a foreign power, he would treat them as non-binding.
So when President Obama said on all these issues, but particularly missile defense, “This can be solved, but it’s important for him [Putin] to give me space; this is my last election, and after my election I will have more flexibility,” he understands that the American people would not approve what he intends to do on missile defense.
He revealed what many of us have been suspicious of for a long time, ever since the President abruptly cancelled the third site, breaking trust with the Poles and the Czechs: He will bargain and barter on missile defense to achieve his nuclear reduction and reset aims. Just as the third site was the bait in the bait-and-switch to get the Russians on board with New START—or perhaps the naïve notion that Russia then would support the U.S. in our efforts to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon—the European missile defense site now is the bait in the bait-and-switch to get Russia on board with the new arms control treaty.
The Administration’s support for the 2B missile, that advanced missile that I spoke of earlier, even after the Congress nearly zeroed it out for multiple reasons, doesn’t make any sense otherwise. Why would the Administration push for a system that will be even more capable, more flexible, than the fixed GMD site in Poland which he cancelled? Especially when the President himself has made known his feelings about what he perceives as the destabilizing effect created by advanced BMD.
This issue is bound to remain in the center of the American presidential election and will fester on into the next presidential term, and although the hot mike incident stole the media stage for several days, the story that Russian leadership is more comfortable discussing missile defense after the American election and once President Obama wins a second term—this is their thinking—this notion was already running in Russian papers before the hot mike incident. Last month, a Russian paper, explaining why the Russian NATO summit in Chicago was cancelled, said, “A substantial dialogue before the presidential elections in the U.S. in 2013 is impossible. Missile defense is not the issue for the pre-election year. If a Republican candidate wins, the negotiations will stop; if Obama is reelected, the negotiations will get back to the positions when the negotiations were suspended.”
The Russians understand this reality. The future of U.S. missile defense over the next four years might look very different from what the current plans call for, no matter who is in office.
