“President Trump asked his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, to “look into” Joe Biden during a July phone call, and said that he would ask Attorney General William Barr to reach out to Ukrainian officials about the former vice president’s alleged corruption, according to a transcript of the call released by the White House on Wednesday.
“There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great,”Trump told Zelensky.“Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it…it sounds horrible to me.”…”
Count us among the inquiring minds who would LOVE to know; not only about what Joe Biden AND Obama knew…and when they knew it…but what qualified Hunter for his rather exorbitant $50K per MONTH seat on the board of the Ukrainian gas company whose corruption was the subject of the investigation his daddy stopped.
After that, we’d appreciate someone…anyone…in the MSM or the Progressive political apparatus explaining exactly how the investigation of a corrupt Progressive politician running for President of the United States would only be of interest to Trump?!?
Not to mention why it’s unreasonable to believe a Deep State member of the intelligence community might do anything…
Since we’re on the subject of dissimulating, deceptive Dimocrats hurling thinly-veiled threats at Ukraine, courtesy of FOX News, the WaPo‘s Marc Thiessen details the history behind…
“We don’t yet know whether President Trump delayed some military aid to Ukraine as leverage to get Ukraine’s president to reopen an investigation into Hunter Biden. But if we are concerned about U.S. officials inappropriately threatening aid to Ukraine, then there are others who have some explaining to do.
It got almost no attention, but in May, CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In theletter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”
So, it’s okay for Democratic senators to encourage Ukraine to investigate Trump, but it’s not okay for the president to allegedly encourage Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden?…”
“House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff’s opening statement at today’s hearing, a grilling of National Intelligence Director Joseph Maguire, was remarkable. To begin with, he recited a parody of the conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky that was so absurd, it would not have made it into a Grade-C mob movie.A telling decision by Schiff, a capable former prosecutor: If youhave an extortionate conversation, you quote it. If you need to imagine it into something it isn’t, that means it is not an extortionate conversation…”
“…the question that matters is not whether it is a quid pro quo. It is whether the request “to get to the bottom of it,” where “it” refers to issues involving Crowdstrike and the Bidens, is only of private political interest to Donald Trump.Is a request for informational assistance with the Department of Justice investigation into the origins of the Russia probe one of legitimate U.S. interests?
Obviously, it would benefit the president if the person leading him in the polls was mixed up in Ukrainian political corruption. But that is not dispositive. Neither is the use of the wildly incompetent Rudy Giuliani for the task. Presidents frequently ask people whom they trust to be special representatives, envoys, and gophers.
To my mind, the entire impeachment case hangs not on whether there is a quid pro quo nature to the conversation, but to whether there are any legitimate reasons to the request for information itself. Is the request for information itself interference? Prove it to me.“
As we mentioned in our opening, surely we’re not the only party interested in ultimate extents of premeditated Progressive perfidy?!?
We’ll leave the last word on the subject to the WSJ‘s Kim Strassel, who believes this entire sordid episode is a calculated effort aimed at…
“…The problem for Joe Biden is that outright criminality is not necessary for these stories to stink. The appearance of conflict of interest is bad enough, and there is plenty of it. Mr. Biden knew his son worked for Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings, and knew the company faced scrutiny.He nonetheless in 2016 had the Ukrainian prosecutor who oversaw that investigation fired. In 2013 the vice president took Hunter on a government plane to China, where Hunter met with business associates, a moment that even a former senior Obama White House aide admitted in a July New Yorker profile “invited questions about whether [Hunter] ‘was leveraging access.’”
And the questions keep mounting. We now, for instance, have Joe Biden’s claim that “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” Which appears to be in direct conflict with that New Yorker piece, in which Hunter acknowledges he did discuss Burisma with his father. The Ukraine issue is now firmly attached to the Biden campaign, and it isn’t going away.
His problem is that this story line cuts to the heart of his candidacy. Mr. Biden has run relentlessly on the argument that he is the one candidate who can beat Mr. Trump. But he has now become the one who can’t prosecute the issue Democrats are moving on for impeachment. How could Mr. Biden broach Ukraine on a debate stage, knowing Mr. Trump would take that subject and pound away?Every Democratic voter who is passionate about victory in 2020 is already rethinking the Biden candidacy.
This could prove campaign-ending because progressives will work to make it so. While the president might want Mr. Biden’s Ukraine history to be an issue, the left wants it even more. They saw in the broader Ukraine issue a twofer: their much-desired impeachment proceeding andthe hobbling of a not-liberal-enough front-runner…”
Joe’s just too dumb…
…to realize it!
And they were such good friends!
Meanwhile, in keeping with the Shakespearean theme, the lady doth protest too much…
…wethinks!
And in the EnvironMental Moment, writing at Townhall.com, Ben Shapiro explores the problems created by Progressives employing…
“In July, Adam Grant, organizational psychologist at Wharton Business School, tweeted: “Agendas aren’t driven by problems. They’re driven by solutions.Calling out what’s wrong without proposing ways to make it right is complaining.”
This week, complaining was the order of the day.
The complaining was largely done by enthusiastic minors…
…to the raucous applause of Democratic politicians and the media. Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old activist from Sweden, appeared before a UN climate summit to chide the adults in catastrophic terms usually reserved for bad B-disaster flicks: “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words…We are at the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you?” One student intoned at a weekend rally, “All of our futures are in jeopardy.” Another student said, “We will be the last generation to survive.”
This, of course, is nonsense. We will not be the last generation to survive. The world will keep on spinning. The damage from climate change is uncertain — it may be moderate, and it may be graver. But to suggest, as ralliers did, that the world will end without ACTION! (no specific action recommended) is factually untrue.
All of this “activism” prompted former President Barack Obama to tweet his kudos: “One challenge will define the future for today’s young generation more dramatically than any other: Climate change. The millions of young people worldwide who’ve organized and joined today’s #ClimateStrike demand action to protect our planet, and they deserve it.”
What action, precisely? And why is the left so keen on rallying behind children to push their cause, the same way it did with regard to gun control in the aftermath of the Parkland shooting?
Perhaps it’s because we don’t expect children to have solutions.After all, they’re children. But adults hiding behind children to avoid the difficult conversations that must take place about how to achieve solutions is nothing other than moral cowardice…”
“Cowardice” being the active adjective.
In a related item from Quadrant Online forwarded by George Lawlor…
“There’s a top-level oceanographer and meteorologist who is prepared to cry “Nonsense!” on the “global warming crisis” evident to climate modelers but not in the real world.He’s as well or better qualified than the modelers he criticises — the ones whose Year 2100 forebodings of 4degC warming have set the world to spending $US1.5 trillion a year to combat CO2 emissions.
The iconoclast isDr. Mototaka Nakamura.In June he put out a small book in Japanese on “the sorry state of climate science”. It’s titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis, and he is very much qualified to take a stand.From 1990 to 2014 he worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Centre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. He’s published about 20 climate papers on fluid dynamics.
…He is contemptuous of claims about models being “validated”, saying the modelers are merely “trying to construct narratives that justify the use of these models for climate predictions.” And he concludes:
The take-home message is (that) all climate simulation models, even those with the best parametric representation scheme for convective motions and clouds, suffer from a very large degree of arbitrariness in the representation of processes that determine the atmospheric water vapor and cloud fields. Since the climate models are tuned arbitrarily…there is no reason to trust their predictions/forecasts.
With values of parameters that are supposed to represent many complex processes being held constant, many nonlinear processes in the real climate system are absent or grossly distorted in the models. It is a delusion to believe that simulation models that lack important nonlinear processes in the real climate system can predict (even) the sense or direction of the climate change correctly…”
In other words, anything you hear from anyone promoting the Progressive paradigm of human-induced climate change, trust us…
Which brings us, appropriately enough, to The Lighter Side:
Finally, we’ll call it a week with this meme we found misfiled earlier today, contributor unknown…
…and last, but certainly not least, a forward from Speed Mach…with a caption courtesy of yours truly:
Yet crazy, corrupt Uncle Joe dares GREATLY…mainly because he’s done it SOOOO many times before…and never been charged!
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.