Trump-Ukraine Call Transcript Released: The Real Scandal is that the Bidens Were Up to No Good in Ukraine

The transcripts of Trump’s July 25 call with the new Ukrainian President have been released.

This all started when a few weeks ago, a “whistleblower” came forth and alleged that President Trump had engaged in a “quid-pro-quo” with the Ukrainian President in an attempt to launch an investigation into Joe Biden’s son’s shady dealings in Ukraine. It was even claimed that Trump threatened the Ukrainian President if he did not do as Trump asked.

We’ll get to everything, but first: The “quid pro quo” angle. I’m not going to say there’s no hint of a quid pro quo in the transcripts. Trump opens up the call by reminding the Ukrainian President how good the United States has been to Ukraine, and then later in the call asks for two favors, one pertaining to the Crowdstrike server, the next pertaining to Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

Any requests Trump makes or favors he asks for should be viewed in the context of what he initially said about the US having been very good to Ukraine. Basically Trump is suggesting the Ukrainian President owes him one.

It’s a very general, nebulous “quid pro quo” but it can basically be summarized as “You know the United States has been a very good friend to Ukraine under my watch. Now would you please do me this favor. . .”

Of course, there’s nothing specified by Trump. It’s far less of a quid-pro-quo than Obama’s infamous “more flexibility” comment he made to former Russian President (aka figurehead) Dmitri Medvedyev in 2012. And there’s definitely not any “threat” to withhold foreign aid, or pressure being exerted.

What Trump said does not constitute any sort of pressuring or intimidation. It’s not like Trump said, “Hey, you better investigate Joe Biden and his crackhead son or else I’m gonna hang you out to dry.” There’s nothing like that.

But I don’t even care about whether there was any “quid pro quo” between Trump and the Ukrainian President. That’s not the real issue here.

The real issue here is what were the Bidens up to in Ukraine?

It was a pretty ingenious move by Trump to release the transcripts because of this relevant bit:

Screen Shot 2019-09-25 at 11.23.27 AM.png

Trump: “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. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. . . It sounds horrible to me.”

Any honest person reading the transcript should be far more alarmed to learn that Joe Biden’s crackhead son (who also slept with his deceased brother’s widow) was being prosecuted in Ukraine–and that Joe Biden himself stepped in to get him off the hook–than that Trump was trying to get the matter investigated.

I bet most people were unaware that Biden’s son was being prosecuted in the Ukraine. But now, after Trump released the transcripts, more people know.

This has been my view the whole time: the same Democrat politicians and media propagandists who have spent three years demanding politically-motivated investigations into Trump over made-up scandals are now #Outraged that Trump is trying to investigate their side?

And didn’t they employ a British spy named Christopher Steele to investigate Trump’s supposed corrupt dealings with Russia?

The same people now screeching “Abuse of power!” had no problem at all with the Hillary Campaign working hand-in-hand with the Obama intelligence community to investigate Donald Trump both during the 2016 election and over the first couple years of Trump’s presidency.

Obama’s actions against Trump in 2016 objectively constituted the greatest abuse of power in the history of our country. It’s not even up for debate. Using the intelligence community to spy on and undermine the Republican Presidential nominee over a made-up scandal during an election is unprecedented corruption, and Obama did it.

But beyond that, it all goes back to this question: “Investigate Biden for what, exactly?”

The blue checks are shrieking stuff like this:

Screen Shot 2019-09-25 at 11.50.44 AM.png

Has it ever occurred to them that perhaps Joe Biden and his son did something wrong and need to be investigated?

No. In their minds, Democrats are completely above the law. Our “reporters” are totally uninterested in the question of whether the Bidens did anything wrong. In the spirit of the famous Nixon quote, the media’s mantra is “If a Democrat does it then it’s not illegal.”

So what, exactly, was Hunter Biden being prosecuted for? Rep. Jim Jordan summarizes:

Screen Shot 2019-09-25 at 11.55.20 AM.png

So. . . . . let me get this straight: the Democrats are claiming President Trump abused his power to get the Ukrainians to do him a favor, but it was actually Joe Biden who abused his power to get the Ukrainians to do him a favor?

They really are unbelievable. I say this all the time but it always turns out to be true: whatever crimes they accuse our side of, it is they who will inevitably be found to be guilty of those very same crimes.

It wasn’t Trump strong-arming Ukraine for favors, it was Biden.

Here’s the Biden Scandal in more detail, via Fox News:

“In March 2016, then-Vice President Biden told Ukraine’s then-President Petro Poroshenko that the Eastern European nation would not get a $1 billion U.S. government loan guarantee unless it fired Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma Holdings — a natural gas extraction company whose board of directors included Hunter Biden, the veep’s son.

Shokin told The Hill’s John Solomon that plans for his probe “included interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.”

The bottom line: the media and the Democrats are worried about what will happen if the Bidens are investigated. This is an attempt to cover-up a potentially damaging scandal for Joe Biden, who much of the D.C. Establishment views as their best hope of getting Trump out of office in 2020 and getting the Globalists back in power in America.

This is very calculated. It’s not simply Trump Derangement Syndrome insanity and trying to get Trump impeached yet again.

They’re trying to squash any investigation into the Biden family. They know this could potentially blow up on them.

Biden knows it:

Screen Shot 2019-09-25 at 11.56.19 AM.png

Just because they’re trying to make this into a Trump scandal, don’t be under the impression that they’re not totally aware of what the true scandal is here.

But, of course, the D.C. Establishment is collectively not very bright and unable to control its burning hatred for Trump, so this is likely to blow up in their faces: now more and more people are aware that Hunter Biden was being prosecuted in Ukraine.

No matter how much they try to avoid this part of the story and make it about Trump’s supposed “abuse of power,” they can’t.

If they would have just kept their mouths shut and not been so impulsively desperate for impeachment, then perhaps they could have prevented the American public from finding out that the Democrat frontrunner for President’s son was being prosecuted by the Ukrainian government.


Webcam Video Shows Man on top of Notre Dame Cathedral Cause Large Flash Before Fire Broke Out

Not sure what to make of this:

There appears to be at least one man on the roof, possibly two (off to the left of the man who causes the flash).

I’m not sure what’s going on here and I have a few questions:

  • At precisely what time was this video taken?
  • How long after this man was seen making a flash did the fire break out?
  • Can we see a longer version that would possibly show that this man did, in fact, cause the fire?
  • Were there construction workers on the job at the time this video was taken? In other words, could this simply be a welder?

I don’t expect we’ll get any answers here, especially because “authorities” have already long since declared the fire was an accident.

We do know that the fire primarily damaged the roof of the Cathedral. Interior shots show that the altar and inside of the Church were relatively unharmed:




It looks like the damage to the inside of the church was mainly caused by burning timbers from the roof falling to the ground.

I’m no fire/arson specialist but it appears the blaze began and spread on the roof, rather than on the inside/ground floor.

I guess from the perspective of an arsonist, you’d want to set the fire on the roof of the church because it’d be tougher to put out. If the fire was inside the church on the ground level, it would be easier to come in and put it out.

Regardless of what was actually going on in that video, I still find it incredibly difficult to believe one of the most iconic and important Catholic Cathedrals in the world went up in flames during the holiest week of the Catholic year entirely by accident.

It’s Official: No Collusion

We’ve known it all along, but the Senate Intelligence Committee has just wrapped up its two-year investigation into potential Trump-Russia Collusion and the official verdict is that there is no “direct” evidence of collusion.

“WASHINGTON — After two years and 200 interviews, the Senate Intelligence Committee is approaching the end of its investigation into the 2016 election, having uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to both Democrats and Republicans on the committee.

But investigators disagree along party lines when it comes to the implications of a pattern of contacts they have documented between Trump associates and Russians — contacts that occurred before, during and after Russian intelligence operatives were seeking to help Donald Trump by leaking hacked Democratic emails and attacking his opponent, Hillary Clinton, on social media.”

Of course NPC News is trying to hedge and make it look like Trump Still Colluded even though the preceding paragraph contradicts that narrative.

This whole “Russians attacked Hillary on social media” is total bullshit and NPC News knows it. The CEO of Google himself testified before Congress just last year and said Russia spent a grand total of $4,700 on Google ads in 2016. Facebook saw Russia spend  more, $46,000, but it still only amounted to 0.05% of the the total $81 million spent by the Clinton and Trump campaigns on Facebook ads in 2016.

Additionally, we have not been presented with any evidence that the Russians are behind Wikileaks. We’re only told to trust the intelligence community’s assertion.

Moving on:

“If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia,” said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, in an interview with CBS News last week.

Burr was careful to note that more facts may yet be uncovered, but he also made clear that the investigation was nearing an end.

What about that qualifier, “no direct evidence”? Why don’t they just say, “no evidence”?Does this mean there’s indirect evidence?

Of course not, because it would be the story if there was any.

The only reason the media is saying “no direct evidence” is to leave the possibility open that Trump is still guilty, but was just too conniving and hid it too well.

In other words, “He’s still guilty, we just couldn’t prove it.”

Even if there’s no evidence of any collusion, the media still will not report it. They just will not allow the words, “No evidence of Russian collusion” to appear on any of their cable broadcasts or websites. It’s just too painful for them, and, more importantly, they cannot allow the brainwashed masses to see those words.

But Sen. Richard Burr lays it out:

“We know we’re getting to the bottom of the barrel because there’re not new questions that we’re searching for answers to,” Burr said.

On Tuesday, Burr doubled down, telling NBC News, “There is no factual evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.”

Ahhh. That’s better than “No direct evidence.” Wonder why the line “no factual evidence” is not the NPC News headline?

Please, Democrats: go ahead and seize on non-factual evidence of collusion.

Lord knows they haven’t had any problems doing so the past two years.

Here’s Mark Warner, the Democrat:

Sen. Mark Warner, D.-Va., ranking member of the committee, told reporters in the Capitol Tuesday that he disagrees with the way Burr characterized the evidence about collusion, but he declined to offer his own assessment.

“I’m not going to get into any conclusions I have,” he said, before adding that “there’s never been a campaign in American history … that people affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did.

Uh, I can think of one: the Clinton campaign!

“Democratic Senate investigators who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity did not dispute Burr’s characterizations, but said they lacked context.

“We were never going to find a contract signed in blood saying, ‘Hey Vlad, we’re going to collude,'” one Democratic aide said.”

Except, you’ve been telling us the past two years that this was exactly the case, and that Trump was so obviously guilty it would be no trouble at all to convict him.

Now they’re moving the goalposts big-time, hoping you don’t notice.

“Donald Trump Jr. made clear in his messages that he was willing to accept help from the Russians,” one Democratic Senate investigator said. “Trump publicly urged the Russians to find Clinton’s missing emails.”

And the Clintons actually went to Russians for information on Trump. Don Jr. got nothing. And if you believe Trump making an offhand joke about Russia finding Hillary’s missing emails while on-stage at a nationally-televised rally constitutes collusion, you are undoubtedly a Police State Dem.

This whole thing is a joke. There never was any collusion, and we’ve known it all along.

The Democrats invented the myth of collusion during the 2016 election so they could justify spying on Trump, and then ramped up the collusion fairytale after the election so they would have a reason to take Trump down.

Democrats have known it was fake for longer than we have, given that they’re the ones who invented the narrative.

If you were wondering what the media reaction would be like if and when Trump was officially cleared of wrongdoing, this is what it looks like: barely any media attention. And where the media does pay attention to the “No Collusion” story, it does so in an effort to qualify and cast doubt upon its conclusion.

No fanfare, no eating of crow by the Democrats and their media propagandists who have been assuring us for two years that the “walls are closing in” on Trump.

If you were expecting wall-to-wall coverage of President Trump’s exoneration, I’m sorry but you must not know the Democratic Propaganda Media very well: if a story cannot benefit the Democrats, it rarely even becomes a story at all.

Republicans cannot get a positive media cycle at all, ever–unless they do something the Uniparty wants, like cave on the border, or cave and invade some foreign country.

The whole “COLLUSION” hysteria ends with a whimper, not a bang. Democrats are hoping most people forget about the whole thing.

Democrats are now going to pretend they didn’t spend the past two years telling us with 100% certainty that Trump was completely beholden to Russia and is guilty of treason of the highest order.

They’re going to pretend like they didn’t stake literally everything on the COLLUSION!1! hysteria being true.

They’re going to pretend it didn’t dominate cable news on a nightly basis for the better part of two years.

They’re just going to ignore it and pretend it never happened.

In this regard, the Uniparty Propaganda Media is truly Orwellian in its ability to pull off a complete reversal of this magnitude. It’s an “Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia”-level turnaround to be screaming about COLLUSION for two years straight and then, all of the sudden, never mentioning it again.

You know the media is straight-up propaganda when you can witness the same political talking head going on and on about COLLUSION and Our Democracy™ for two years and then suddenly acting as if he had never even heard of the word “collusion.”