ZeroHedge: DOJ Confirms Giuliani Providing Evidence In Ukraine Investigation

This is encouraging. Last week we learned the Senate has begun investigating the Bidens with respect to Ukraine. Now we learn the DOJ is taking notes. Those who believe in the inerrancy of government should be very pleased.

20 thoughts on “ZeroHedge: DOJ Confirms Giuliani Providing Evidence In Ukraine Investigation

  1. At least Barr acknowledged that any information coming from Ukraine needs to be carefully vetted. I only hope his DOJ does just that. Considering that Shokin, the fired prosecutor, is one of the sources, any information coming from him could simply be based on retribution for his LEGAL firing by the government of Ukraine. I am concerned that Trump’s revenge tour will continue and he will order Barr to listen to whatever the info says and prosecute it.

    One of the embedded links in the zerohedge post kind of caught my eye. OANN is getting exclusives from Giuliani. OANN is a “favored” media source for the Trump gang because they don’t challenge anything he does. Even Fox tends to put up a bit of a front to passive-aggressively challenge some of what he says.

    All of the above is simply my opinion with which some will agree and some will disagree.


    1. RE: “Whatever happened to Dunham’s report ?”

      Durham is expected to produce something late spring, mid-summer. Some are expecting a report, but it could just be indictments.


  2. “The DOJ has the obligation to have an open door to anybody who wishes to provide us information that they think is relevant,” said Barr during a press conference in Washington, adding “We have to be very careful with respect to any information coming from Ukraine. There are a lot of agendas in the Ukraine, there are a lot of cross-currents and we can’t take anything we receive from the Ukraine at face value.”

    Meaning “We’re making a big deal about this for the delight of Trump’s uninformed and incapable followers, but we know it stinks like a week-old cod.”

    Liked by 3 people

    1. RE: “That our DOJ is being weaponized against Dear Leader’s political opponents?”

      How is vetting Guiliani’s material in any way weaponizing anything?


        1. RE: “Regulars here knew that already.”

          If you feel you need a posse, bring it on. I’m happy to address your commentary one-on-one, or one-to-many, should you be too weak to speak without others propping you up.


          1. @Roberts
            Can’t you read? I did not call for a posse. I noted that it is pointless to try to talk to you about self-evident truths such as that it is wrong to task law enforcement to dig for dirt on political opponents.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “I did not call for a posse.”

            I say you did. As stated, it is in your appeal to social proof: “Regulars here knew that already.”

            The funny part is, you go on to say “it is pointless to try to talk to you,” then do it, anyway.


      1. @Tabor

        You seem to be swollen with pride that Il Capo di tutti Capi has kneecapped the person who at least seemed to be his most dangerous opponent. Besides, the criminal use of the DOJ was initiated more than two weeks back. But, whether Biden is the most dangerous opponent or not is beside the point.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. @Tabor

            You are right up there with Mr. Roberts in your rhetorical reliance on goofy counterfactual obtuseness (“GCO”). I guess that is what happens when you have nothing but “alternative facts” to support your views.

            To be clear, GCO is the fervent denial of virtually self-evident facts. In this case your denial that these extensive and impeached efforts aimed at Biden were politically motivated. Your denial combined with a presumed sagacity in Mr. Trump and nonsense about Russia-gate is actually pretty funny.

            As a matter of personal curiosity, what is the 2016 “score” that Trump is settling by investigating Biden? What did HE do to Mr. Trump?

            Liked by 1 person

  3. “ Brainroomer and senior political affairs specialist Bryan S. Murphy created a 162-page document called “Ukraine, Disinformation, & the Trump Administration” in which he encourages Fox News hosts to be wary of information coming from frequent guests like Rudy Giuliani, John Solomon, and lawyers Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova.

    The research briefing blasts Rudy Giuliani for his “high susceptibility to disinformation” from sources in Ukraine — which is apparent to any viewer who’s seen one of his media blitzes. It’s an impression that the government is reportedly aware of: The federal investigation into Trump’s personal lawyer’s actions in Ukraine includes a counterintelligence aspect, to determine if his business ties in the country have influenced his dealings with the White House.

    According to the Daily Beast, much of the “disinformation” Giuliani had brought to the network was driven by “allies of Dmytro Firtash, an indicted Ukrainian oligarch and accused high-level Russian mafia associate
    who is considered a force ‘driving Giuliani’s efforts in Ukraine to dig up dirt on Trump’s political enemies.’” Firtash also had surrogates in attorneys and frequent Fox News guests Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing, who were responsible for “spreading disinformation and their parroting of beneficial narratives while employed by Firtash,” according to the internal document. Though they billed Firtash for $1 million in October, they did not note that they were employed by the Ukrainian oligarch while they were still on-air. ”

    Does it get any sleazier than that? From FOX, yet.

    And this is our president’s personal lawyer. One of many of which, so far, one is in prison.

    Maybe Trump should have done the Nixon thing and resigned. With all these ties to criminal oligarchs and other scum, prison may catch up to him yet.

    IMHO, of course.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Can you give a specific example of disinformation Guiliani allegedly has publicized through Fox, or are you only making a generalized, unsubstantiated claim?


      1. RE: “You appear to know more than we peons do.”

        Any peon can know what I know. Here it is: Assertions require substantiations. An assertion without substantiation is as worthless as a day-old cup of coffee.

        The report you cite doesn’t substantiate any of its assertions. Perhaps the original document does, but none are reported.

        RE: “Is it wrong?”

        Possibly. It is impossible to tell. Any peon can see that.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s