Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pocotrader who wrote (1196811)	1/28/2020 6:59:24 AM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB Winfastorlose Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574854

not really "The problem is that the actual meat of the article on that matter is much less sensational than is currently being portrayed by every blue-check mark journalist gasping on Twitter right now. Here’s what’s really being alleged. Shem Horne@Shem_Infinite · Jan 26, 2020 Replying to @Shem_Infinite Also, the investigations that he's talking about, according to the New York TImes, are the investigations into the 2016 election interference! Buried deep in the article, the New York Times acknowledges that and hamfistidly tries to tie it to Biden lol. Shem Horne@Shem_Infinite The context of the conversation matters, if Bolton said he wanted the aid resumed and President Trump was complaining about how corrupt they were and how they interfered in our election that's completely valid and doesn't change anything at all about what we already know. 1,000 8:33 PM - Jan 26, 2020 Twitter Ads info and privacy 355 people are talking about this The above-highlighted excerpt is the key. What appears to have happened is that Trump told Bolton that he preferred to not send the aid to Ukraine until they turned over materials dealing with the Russia investigation. Let me repeat that: the Russia investigation. While the Times then desperately tries to tie that to Biden to push the favored political narrative, it’s clear by how this is written that there’s no actual mention of politically targeting the Bidens. If that were in the manuscript, they would not have left it so ambiguous. In short, Trump let a subordinate know that he was skeptical of Ukraine’s actions on fighting corruption and that he wanted to see them hand over materials relevant to investigating 2016 election interference before he released the aid. Nowhere in this article is there any indication that Ukraine was bribed, nor that they even knew the aid was on hold. Where does that leave us? It leaves us about four months ago, as we’ve known since almost the beginning of this saga that the aid was 1) put on hold and 2) Trump wanted to see how the corruption investigations were undertaken. The questions surrounding impeachment don’t center on those things, but rather they center around the national interest and whether it was a purely political move. While some argue even those questions are largely irrelevant, as the President has broad authority on foreign policy, for the sake of argument let’s pretend they are important. Even still, absolutely nothing in this article moves the ball forward on those matters. Rather, it’s a rehash of old information presented from Bolton’s point of view via his new book. In other words, nothing has actually changed. But regardless, “journalists” like Jake Tapper will ignore the actual money quote and report it as they see fit."