Modded Mustang Forums banner

161 - 180 of 195 Posts

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
I'm beginning to think the media is the cause of a lot of the confusion and division. I just saw a report where they were talking about Guilaini getting paid. They said those working for Guilaini were getting paid by the Ukrainian government. I'm assuming they are talking about the Ukrainian prosecutors but they never said that. Then, the reporter read from a report. She read that they were getting paid for "the recovery of stolen assets." But she editorialized what she read. She paused and added "supposedly" before stolen assets and she stopped to tell the audience that that meant "getting dirt on Biden." What? It doesn't mean that at all.

It might to the uninformed, but it doesn't. Ukraine was one of the most corrupt governments on earth. The oligarchs were constantly stealing public assets, including oil leases. The one that ran Burisma bribed an official and fled to Russia when they came for him. The only possible way that would mean "getting dirt on Biden" is if he was involved in stealing those assets. As others have pointed out there is no proof of that. There has been no investigation. And, I still believe people should be considered innocent until proven guilty. But, there is the appearance of corruption that should be investigated.

If the media have decided they have a partisan responsibility to report spin then we all will have trouble determining truth from lies. If that is what they are doing then it isn't any wonder we are so polarized.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
Why would we say that is fake? It isn't making any wild assumptions. To put this in context I read a few other articles. His loans with the bank appear to be business loans. While it is true he defaulted on one of their loans, it was later settled and he started borrowing from them again. This article says his final loan was in 2016 for Trump's golf course in Scotland.

After retiring from the Air Force I was a cost accountant and then the CFO of a manufacturing company. Its sales were seasonal. If it wasn't for bank loans it would have gone out of business a long time ago. We completely refinanced the company shortly after I got there.

None of the news articles reported the specifics of the loans. They just reported some generalities. The restructuring taking place now that you included in your post is more likely to have been related to the suicide than anything Trump did a few years ago. But, here just wasn't enough details to know.
 

·
PSN alphadong11
Joined
·
28,936 Posts
Well the pipe from DJT will say "I hardly knew the guy, I don't even recall our encounters (about millikns of $$$)" while yelling over the helicopters pretending to not to hear people. So it's good someone can say this is fact news. Finally. Stamp it in stone for recall post later.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
I have no idea if Trump ever met him. From the article you posted: "Thomas Bowers, identified as a former Deutsche Bank executive who signed off on controversial loans to President Donald Trump..."...(a) source who has knowledge of Deutsche Bank’s internal structure said that Bowers would have been the gatekeeper for financial documents for the bank’s wealthiest customers."

Clearly he handled big accounts other than Trump's.

And, this doesn't mean he was the loan officer. He was higher up. The article says that Rosemary Vrablic was assigned to Trump's portfolio. He and his CFO would have been working with her.

The article clearly explained why Trump was able to get this "controversial" loan even after his company previously defaulted then settled a different loan. Trump pledged his personal assets. A corporation is a separate legal entity. When a corporation goes under lenders cannot go after shareholder personal assets unless they are pledged to help secure the loan. In this case Trump personally pledged $40 million so that his company could get the loan. That is something shareholders of companies are reluctant to do unless it is absolutely necessary. The company's previous default made it necessary.

When refinancing the company I clearly remember our loan officer and his assistant. I don't know if I ever met his boss. I may have but I don't remember him or her.

P.S. This is like co-signing for someone else's car loan. It's a promise to pay if they don't.
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,055 Posts

---------- Post added at 08:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:17 AM ----------

 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
I watched all of the hearing. Something you haven't said, Professor Turley doesn't like Trump. He has admitted to being a Democrat and voting for Obama and then Clinton. But, he isn't letting his personal opinion sway his professional one. He also said that they shouldn't rush. They have insufficient facts at this time.

My opinion is that this is a complete political stunt. The House of Representatives knows that with such thin evidence there is no chance of conviction in the Senate. They are just completely outraged that the anointed one lost the electoral college after winning the popular vote by a small margin and they wish to over turn the election.

It is the electoral college that saved the union. Smaller states like Delaware and New Jersey didn't want the larger states like Virginia ruling over them. Back then it was THESE United States. With western expansion, a civil war, two world wars and superpower status it has become THE United States. But the smaller states still do not wish to be ruled over by the larger ones. I have heard over and over that California and New York would rule over the rest of us without the electoral college. Thank God for the electoral college.

I laughed when one of the Democratic candidates said she would get rid of the electoral college. It takes a constitutional amendment. Does she really think she can get three-fourths of the states to agree? I've got an answer for her and everyone else...NO. Its not going to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnC

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
I think psychologists in the future will talk about Trump Derangement Syndrome. Nothing else explains what is going on. I have read about this and posted it before. This is a summary. Ukraine was known to be one of the most corrupt places on earth. Its current President was elected to end corruption. The authorization law that allows aid to Ukraine stipulates that they must make progress on corruption. We don't want our aid going into bureaucrats' pockets.

Ukraine had a reputation of promising things and never doing them especially when it came to corruption. That is why Trump wanted a public statement from them saying they would investigate corruption. The phone call did not mention the Bidens. He sent VP Pence to Ukraine to find out what was going on with their efforts to curb corruption. I just saw an interview with VP Pence. He said he confirmed that they were making progress and within 10 days of him getting back to the states aid was released.

Ukraine was trying to make progress against corruption during the Obama administration. Obama sent VP Biden over to check things out. His son was getting paid a fortune by one of Ukraine's most corrupt oil companies. VP Biden is on television bragging about how he got the investigator fired by threatening to withhold aid. Democrats say there is no proof of the Bidens participating in corruption. There was no investigation! But there sure is the appearance of corruption.

Democrats say that Trump was withholding aid to get dirt on a political rival. That is complete Bull. The Intelligence Committee's impeachment inquiry did not bring a single fact witness in to testify. They brought in people with hearsay evidence. Basically they were reporting rumors they had heard. Not facts. The Judicial Committee does not intend to bring in a single fact witness. They brought in expert college professors that had read the hearsay evidence. When asked directly if they had any personal knowledge concerning the accusation. None did.

Now the Judicial Committee intends to bring congressional staffers to testify. This will probably be the last testimonies and they have absolutely no personal knowledge of anything either.

This is almost unbelievable. Either the Democrats have gone completely insane or else they know the Bidens are guilty and are trying to protect them because former VP Biden is their leading contender for the nomination. What a goat rope.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
Biden is now saying that no one warned him that his son, Hunter, being on the board of directors at Burisma would cause problems. Let's see if I understand this correctly. Burisma has a long-time reputation for being corrupt. Hunter cannot speak Ukrainian or Russian. He knows nothing about the oil industry. And, he is paid over $3 million dollars while his father, Vice-President Biden, is in charge of looking at corruption in Ukraine. His father showed Ukraine how powerful he was by threatening to withhold aid if they didn't fire the investigator looking into Burisma.

You have got to be kidding me! He needed his staff to tell him this might cause problems?

"They should have told me," Biden says now. "The appearance looked bad and it gave folks like Rudy Giuliani an excuse to come up with a Trumpian kind of defense, while they were violating the Constitution," Biden said.

Sorry Biden but the Constitution wasn't violated. The appearance does look bad, very very bad, and Trump shouldn't need a defense to look into that kind of corruption especially when the law authorizing aid says he suppose to.

The more I read about this the more I'm convinced Biden is up to his knees in corruption. Either that or else he really is dumber than a box of rocks.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
Please note: I did not state my opinion as a fact. And, its OK to laugh at it. I was laughing when I typed it.

But come on. No one warned him it would look bad? How long has he been in politics?
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
Please note: I did not state my opinion as a fact. And, its OK to laugh at it. I was laughing when I typed it.

But come on. No one warned him it would look bad? How long has he been in politics?
Seems that Biden is heading down the Trump route every time he opens his mouth recently.

Getting into a squabble with that farmer last week or whenever it was was a terrible look.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,185 Posts
I wish we could sweep both of them aside to focus on other candidates. If I was a hiring manager, they would be receiving the "I'm sorry but we have moved on with other candidates"
He especially since he has been the current front runner has been and will be a perfect distraction imo. To pull focus away from any stuff that is being investigated even though it was directed towards him in a way and he is a distraction from the other candidates.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
No. Complete the investigation. A Polish official who sat on the board of Burisma has said the only reason Hunter Biden was paid that much money was because of his name. Investigate, and if suspicions are true, arrest and prosecute. If everything is above board then leave him alone. I don't like the guy but we should be working off facts not rumors and dislikes.

Joe Biden: Hey, man. I challenge you to do some pushups, man.

Opinion: Who talks that way. Its as if he's stuck back in the late 60s-early 70s. He should be wearing bell bottom pants and tie-dye shirts.

---------- Post added at 05:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 AM ----------

Democrat mentality: If he wins impeach him again. At least that is what Rep. Karen Bass says."... we could get his bank records and find out that he's owned 100 percent by the Russians... it might not be the same articles of impeachment because the odds are we would have a ton more information, and then the odds of that, sadly enough, is that, you know, he probably has other examples of criminal behavior."

And Democrats think that if they look long enough they will find something that will work.

This is the problem: "There's no such thing, really, as double jeopardy in an impeachment trial because it's political," Levin said.

It's political! Impeachment means nothing. Its just politics, a means to an end. This is unbelievable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnC

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
So, after all of this the House Judiciary Committee has come up with two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of congress. It appears that the vote will be along strict party lines. I was listening to an analyst who was saying that just about any President could have been charged with the same thing including Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson and Obama. He was predicting that this would be a sad day for future Presidents because the precedent has been set.

Obstruction of Congress? I heard one Representative say that appealing a House subpoena to the court is obstruction of congress. You have got to be kidding. The courts have upheld executive privilege a lot of times. It depends upon the exact circumstances of the case.

I personally think the evidence is extremely weak. Its all hearsay and rumor. Neither the Judiciary committee nor the Intelligence committee called any fact witnesses. I doubt the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court will allow such testimony. Senator McConnell has said the Senate will not take very long on this. He is on record talking about how weak the evidence is.

After all this time two very weak articles of impeachment. It hasn't gone to the full House yet but it is expected to get party line vote. This is completely because Clinton, the anointed one, lost the election.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
With a vote of 23 Democrats to 17 Republicans the articles of impeachment go to the full house. One commentator said something very interesting: Pelosi said they were working 2 1/2 years to impeach Trump and they are impeaching him on something that happened six months ago. That is what happens when there is a rigged court.
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,172 Posts
I think many Americans view criminal matters more apolitically. In cases where we simply examine whether or not laws were broken and if sufficient evidence exists to convict the accused, fair-minded Americans generally get it right. While we often disagree on what is or isn't fair, I do think Americans believe in the concept of fairness. When asked to adjudicate something sensibly and equitably (jury duty, mediating a dispute, good-faith negotiating, etc.) we can usually do so without undue influence of biases.

Unfortunately, that sense of good-faith fairness is often trumped by managed ideologies (politics, religion, causes/activism, etc.), such that the loyalty to the ideology supersedes basic reasoning and logic.

The fact that this entire impeachment process has been starkly partisan tells us it's an exercise to promote/defend political ideology. Very few people are seeing with good-faith fairness. So we shouldn't pretend this is a judicial matter. Right now this is just a political drama TV show and the Dems have been holding the remote. Nothing more ... tune in next time.
 
161 - 180 of 195 Posts
Top