(10-18-2019 11:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 10:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 06:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There's a lot of conflating of issues.

Much as there are a lot of people stating with certainty items that arent so certain. Funny that.

Quote:Was there an attempted cover up of this conflict of interest? No - Biden ignoring someone saying that they think a conflict of interest exists is in no way, shape, or form, a cover up (that requires active measures to suppress info).
Is there evidence that the conflict of interest led to corrupt or illegal actions? No. I've yet to see any suggestion of what came from the conflict of interest, outside of an outsized salary that Hunter should have turned down.
Is there evidence that Hunter's role influenced US foreign policy because of Biden? No. Biden led the removal of a prosecutor, which followed the international communities goals and would have likelier resulted in increased scrutiny into Hunter's appointment.

Of course you present everything there in the Vox-world light as fact, dont you?

Color me absolutely fing surprised you dont bother to mention the shared pages of the Shokin interview with Fox News:

Quote: “President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko told Mr. Shokin not to investigate Burisma as it was not in the interest of Joe and/or Hunter Biden. Mr. Shokin was called into Mr. Poroshenko’s office and told that the investigation into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter Biden is on the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one billion dollars in U.S. aid to Ukraine.”

Shokin then noted, according to the notes, that:

Quote:“in or around April of 2016” Poroshenko “told him he had to be fired as the aid to the Ukraine was being withheld by Joe Biden.”

So there are some angles that claim that Shokin was working a shakedown. Some angles not. I dont know. If the latter, Biden's request is by itself evidence of corruption. So yes, lad, there is such evidence. Perhaps not when you have lad-blinders on and pre-suppose the issue of shakedown or not, but that is exactly what you have done.

But somehow you have presented the rock solid fact of the former. Color me shocked.

Also the singular fact of Hunter taking a no-report, no-work job for 50k a month that is pretty much an absolute certainty, but also may include bonus amounts for anywhere between 500k and 1.5 million in addition to that. That 'no-work', 'no-report' job for those sums is also decent evidence of some fish rotting somewhere.

Perhaps Hunter has malformed frontal lobe problems and is too fing dumb to bother with that second level of analysis; maybe not. My guess he is not. My guess is that Hunter had every idea of whom his father was. Kind of really hard not to be able to put that two piece jigsaw puzzle together for most.

For a conflict of interest, it the 'appearance of impropriety' --- that happens, for example in my profession when one client is a part owner of an LLC that I am the counterparty to. Such an appearance can occur when no one suspects or knows at the outset.

It is a completely different beast if my client for antitrust matters was, say, American Airlines, and I then turn around and represent, say, United Airlines, in a regulatory pricing action against American. That is one where the two pieces come together in a very explicit manner.

So, getting back to Hunter, no one says that 'if you are the VPs son, you cant do business.' But dont you find it absolutely 'strike you dead between the eyes' that there is a real fing problem with a 'no work' business deal worth anywhere between 600k and 2 or 3 million?

Cmon, this falls so far outside the ambit of 'gee poor Hunter really didnt know' it is astounding. That set of facts really falls more into the 'if Hunter didnt see this he absolutely should be in Depends and wearing a soft helmet' type issue.

No matter how the hell Vox (or your current shill) puts it.

Tanq, do you actually read what I type?

You conveniently left out the first bit of my post which answers a lot of your questions at the end of the post regarding about whether or not there is a problem with Hunter taking this job.

I just don’t see anything illegal, corrupt, or cover-upish about the situation. It was a form of nepotism, no question. And a move meant to curry favor, no question. Hunter was stupid and wrong to take the job. I just don’t see the thing that makes it corrupt or illegal, or frankly, more controversial than how Trump’s kids operate at the moment. At least I can admit it is problematic and ill-advises.

The problem is that you dont see the overall combination of actions as potential proof of anything either. You simply aim it down the rabbit hole with a casual 'well that is bad form, and a conflict of interest'. It could be. Just as easily as your casual dismissal, it could be an indication of something far worse.

But boy, I sure am comforted that lad is feeling good about it. Whew, close one for the world on that one....

I do find the casualness that you take with Biden as a very stark contrast of how you took the National Enquirer level pee pee dossier as 'enough smoke to merit a serious look', and this as 'well just a case of bad form'. Lolz.

I will take that casual dismissal of the issue as delineating that the son of a current VP coupled with a no-show job for potentially up to 2 million is simply 'bad form', and is itself really no possible indication of anything else that is potentially wrong. Got it. Makes good sense to come to that rock solid conclusion from a distance.

(10-19-2019 03:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 11:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 10:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 06:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There's a lot of conflating of issues.

Much as there are a lot of people stating with certainty items that arent so certain. Funny that.

Quote:Was there an attempted cover up of this conflict of interest? No - Biden ignoring someone saying that they think a conflict of interest exists is in no way, shape, or form, a cover up (that requires active measures to suppress info).
Is there evidence that the conflict of interest led to corrupt or illegal actions? No. I've yet to see any suggestion of what came from the conflict of interest, outside of an outsized salary that Hunter should have turned down.
Is there evidence that Hunter's role influenced US foreign policy because of Biden? No. Biden led the removal of a prosecutor, which followed the international communities goals and would have likelier resulted in increased scrutiny into Hunter's appointment.

Of course you present everything there in the Vox-world light as fact, dont you?

Color me absolutely fing surprised you dont bother to mention the shared pages of the Shokin interview with Fox News:

Quote: “President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko told Mr. Shokin not to investigate Burisma as it was not in the interest of Joe and/or Hunter Biden. Mr. Shokin was called into Mr. Poroshenko’s office and told that the investigation into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter Biden is on the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one billion dollars in U.S. aid to Ukraine.”

Shokin then noted, according to the notes, that:

Quote:“in or around April of 2016” Poroshenko “told him he had to be fired as the aid to the Ukraine was being withheld by Joe Biden.”

So there are some angles that claim that Shokin was working a shakedown. Some angles not. I dont know. If the latter, Biden's request is by itself evidence of corruption. So yes, lad, there is such evidence. Perhaps not when you have lad-blinders on and pre-suppose the issue of shakedown or not, but that is exactly what you have done.

But somehow you have presented the rock solid fact of the former. Color me shocked.

Also the singular fact of Hunter taking a no-report, no-work job for 50k a month that is pretty much an absolute certainty, but also may include bonus amounts for anywhere between 500k and 1.5 million in addition to that. That 'no-work', 'no-report' job for those sums is also decent evidence of some fish rotting somewhere.

Perhaps Hunter has malformed frontal lobe problems and is too fing dumb to bother with that second level of analysis; maybe not. My guess he is not. My guess is that Hunter had every idea of whom his father was. Kind of really hard not to be able to put that two piece jigsaw puzzle together for most.

For a conflict of interest, it the 'appearance of impropriety' --- that happens, for example in my profession when one client is a part owner of an LLC that I am the counterparty to. Such an appearance can occur when no one suspects or knows at the outset.

It is a completely different beast if my client for antitrust matters was, say, American Airlines, and I then turn around and represent, say, United Airlines, in a regulatory pricing action against American. That is one where the two pieces come together in a very explicit manner.

So, getting back to Hunter, no one says that 'if you are the VPs son, you cant do business.' But dont you find it absolutely 'strike you dead between the eyes' that there is a real fing problem with a 'no work' business deal worth anywhere between 600k and 2 or 3 million?

Cmon, this falls so far outside the ambit of 'gee poor Hunter really didnt know' it is astounding. That set of facts really falls more into the 'if Hunter didnt see this he absolutely should be in Depends and wearing a soft helmet' type issue.

No matter how the hell Vox (or your current shill) puts it.

Tanq, do you actually read what I type?

You conveniently left out the first bit of my post which answers a lot of your questions at the end of the post regarding about whether or not there is a problem with Hunter taking this job.

I just don’t see anything illegal, corrupt, or cover-upish about the situation. It was a form of nepotism, no question. And a move meant to curry favor, no question. Hunter was stupid and wrong to take the job. I just don’t see the thing that makes it corrupt or illegal, or frankly, more controversial than how Trump’s kids operate at the moment. At least I can admit it is problematic and ill-advises.

The problem is that you dont see the overall combination of actions as potential proof of anything either. You simply aim it down the rabbit hole with a casual 'well that is bad form, and a conflict of interest'. It could be. Just as easily as your casual dismissal, it could be an indication of something far worse.

But boy, I sure am comforted that lad is feeling good about it. Whew, close one for the world on that one....

I do find the casualness that you take with Biden as a very stark contrast of how you took the National Enquirer level pee pee dossier as 'enough smoke to merit a serious look', and this as 'well just a case of bad form'. Lolz.

I will take that casual dismissal of the issue as delineating that the son of a current VP coupled with a no-show job for potentially up to 2 million is simply 'bad form', and is itself really no possible indication of anything else that is potentially wrong. Got it. Makes good sense to come to that rock solid conclusion from a distance.

It isn’t a casual dismissal - if there was a dead body, something indicating that favor was actually curried, then there would be a point.

But what did Hunter getting that job actually do, besides earn himself money from a firm willing to pay it? Did Ukraine or that company benefit in a way that was specifically related to Hunter being on the board?

I feel like there at least needs to be a dead body before we start wondering if a murder happened.

(10-19-2019 08:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But what did Hunter getting that job actually do, besides earn himself money from a firm willing to pay it? Did Ukraine or that company benefit in a way that was specifically related to Hunter being on the board?

what did Trump Jr. actually do in the Trump Tower meeting, besides walk in and walk out? Yet you harped on that for months as evidence of collusion.

#doublestandard

(10-19-2019 09:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 08:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But what did Hunter getting that job actually do, besides earn himself money from a firm willing to pay it? Did Ukraine or that company benefit in a way that was specifically related to Hunter being on the board?

what did Trump Jr. actually do in the Trump Tower meeting, besides walk in and walk out? Yet you harped on that for months as evidence of collusion.

#doublestandard

Trump Jr was at a meeting where he was told someone, a foreign national, would specifically be offering him dirt on a political rival...

And then the country that foreign national represents created the dead body by using active measures to disrupt the election...

Did Hunter take the job after being explicitly told he was going to get dirt on political rivals? Or use his position to influence US foreign policy?

C’mon, man.

(10-19-2019 09:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 09:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 08:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But what did Hunter getting that job actually do, besides earn himself money from a firm willing to pay it? Did Ukraine or that company benefit in a way that was specifically related to Hunter being on the board?

what did Trump Jr. actually do in the Trump Tower meeting, besides walk in and walk out? Yet you harped on that for months as evidence of collusion.

#doublestandard

Trump Jr was at a meeting where he was told someone, a foreign national, would specifically be offering him dirt on a political rival...

And then the country that foreign national represents created the dead body by using active measures to disrupt the election...

Did Hunter take the job after being explicitly told he was going to get dirt on political rivals? Or use his position to influence US foreign policy?

C’mon, man.

You c'mon. Time to stop the hysterical defenses of Biden. Many of the accusations of the witch hunt, which you termed smoke, are similar in nature. I have named two, but there are many more.

If you are reading the posts, you will know that I prefer Biden to many of the other democrats. I don't think it is in the best interests of the country to bring down Biden if it elevates Warren. But for goodness sake, at least apply the same measuring stick. At the least, admit that this is smoke.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/u...ire-233446

"A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia..."

Oh, that's NOT digging up dirt?

\Y'all sent a Brit to get dirt.

#doublestandard

lad world definitions --

When there is an anywhere near ephemeral conjecture to use any indication that something happened with anything associated with Trump -- 'enough smoke to warrant an investigation'

When there is an anywhere near ephemeral conjecture to use any indication that something happened with anything associated with Biden or Baby Biden -- 'nothing more than conjecture and at most a mere and tangential conflict of interest.'

That band playing the lad cha cha cha song is getting moving in serious upbeat mode now..... lolz.

(10-18-2019 04:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No, not missing the point.

My point is that there isn't anything to cover up because there was no illegality. The issue the guy in this instance brought up was a potential conflict of interest. Potential conflicts of interest happen all of the time. Unless someone was trying to blow the whistle on illegal activity, I don't see anything particularly concerning about Biden ignoring this person.

Also, I don't see the potential cover up - is ignoring someone covering it up?

Also, there is no decent reason to suspect that Hunter engaged in pretty serious corruption. At least, I haven't seen any evidence of that - did I miss something?

There 100% was a potential conflict of interest. And that conflict of interest could have easily led to corruption. But Biden's actions were in tune with the rest of the international community and likely put his son at a greater risk of potential investigation. Also, has there been any accusations that Hunter did anything besides be largely unqualified?

Yes, you clearly are missing the point. The point is that there are two sides to stories. YOu believe one, you don't believe the other. Those are choices, not facts.

Yes, being 'largely unqualified' (your words) for a 600,000/yr job, in a nation KNOWN for corruption (by your father) other than your father's political position IS evidence of POSSIBLE corruption... Proof, absolutely not.

I'm not claiming proof... I'm merely saying that contrary to your claims, there IS enough evidence to support a request of an inquiry by the people with jurisdiction over the issue.... which WOULDN'T be people in the US, but in Ukraine.

I'll play your game though... Let's rewind the conversation... which to me doesn't sound like a private conversation, but one where you know people are listening... but let's assume that Trump didn't know or didn't care that he couldn't do what he did.... I'm not saying that's the case, I'm accepting your position...

Trump didn't say 'I'm holding back money unless you do this'. I know your side claims that there is circumstantial evidence that this is what he meant etc etc etc, but that evidence isn't in the conversation, nor is it without dispute....

A similar comment by his predecessor was AT LEAST as bad... and there was no impeachment inquiry nor really anything, other than 'out to get the black man' from the right...

'I'll have more flexibility after the election' with regard to dealings with another nation clearly implies that if he were to do what he has been asked to do, it could cost him or his party votes... though once elected, he could be more flexible. Talk about working against the interests/desires of the public for his own (or his party's) purposes.

Presidents are people, not perfect. Even if I accept that Trump shouldn't have said anything about Biden, there have been MANY worse things said and done, in your adult life and by people I believe you support. If the shoe were on the other foot, I have no doubt that you'd feel differently.

You (and the left) are a result (getting Trump out of office) in search of an excuse or a means, because you aren't sure you have the votes... and you KNOW you don't have the candidate, at least not now.

It sucks that we're here as a nation, but we need to stop making things worse. The ends do NOT justify the means.

(10-19-2019 10:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad world definitions --

When there is an anywhere near ephemeral conjecture to use any indication that something happened with anything associated with Trump -- 'enough smoke to warrant an investigation'

When there is an anywhere near ephemeral conjecture to use any indication that something happened with anything associated with Biden or Baby Biden -- 'nothing more than conjecture and at most a mere and tangential conflict of interest.'

That band playing the lad cha cha cha song is getting moving in serious upbeat mode now..... lolz.

Literally what would you be investigating with Hunter, how he got the job? That's what I keep missing - what is the dead body?

With Trump, the investigation was if they coordinated with Russia in influencing the election because Trump Jr met with a Russian asset who offered to, guess what, help influence the election.

(10-19-2019 12:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 10:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad world definitions --

When there is an anywhere near ephemeral conjecture to use any indication that something happened with anything associated with Trump -- 'enough smoke to warrant an investigation'

When there is an anywhere near ephemeral conjecture to use any indication that something happened with anything associated with Biden or Baby Biden -- 'nothing more than conjecture and at most a mere and tangential conflict of interest.'

That band playing the lad cha cha cha song is getting moving in serious upbeat mode now..... lolz.

Literally what would you be investigating with Hunter, how he got the job? That's what I keep missing - what is the dead body?

With Trump, the investigation was if they coordinated with Russia in influencing the election because Trump Jr met with a Russian asset who offered to, guess what, help influence the election.

Didn't the investigation predate the meeting? You make it sound as if the whole investigation started because of that one meeting.

(10-19-2019 01:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 12:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 10:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad world definitions --

When there is an anywhere near ephemeral conjecture to use any indication that something happened with anything associated with Trump -- 'enough smoke to warrant an investigation'

When there is an anywhere near ephemeral conjecture to use any indication that something happened with anything associated with Biden or Baby Biden -- 'nothing more than conjecture and at most a mere and tangential conflict of interest.'

That band playing the lad cha cha cha song is getting moving in serious upbeat mode now..... lolz.

Literally what would you be investigating with Hunter, how he got the job? That's what I keep missing - what is the dead body?

With Trump, the investigation was if they coordinated with Russia in influencing the election because Trump Jr met with a Russian asset who offered to, guess what, help influence the election.

Didn't the investigation predate the meeting? You make it sound as if the whole investigation started because of that one meeting.

Don't remember, or really know if we know, exactly when the Trump-Russia investigation occurred. I was providing a salient example of why the smoke I have talked about is very different than this Hunter Biden conflict of interest.

(10-19-2019 02:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 01:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 12:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 10:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad world definitions --

When there is an anywhere near ephemeral conjecture to use any indication that something happened with anything associated with Trump -- 'enough smoke to warrant an investigation'

When there is an anywhere near ephemeral conjecture to use any indication that something happened with anything associated with Biden or Baby Biden -- 'nothing more than conjecture and at most a mere and tangential conflict of interest.'

That band playing the lad cha cha cha song is getting moving in serious upbeat mode now..... lolz.

Literally what would you be investigating with Hunter, how he got the job? That's what I keep missing - what is the dead body?

With Trump, the investigation was if they coordinated with Russia in influencing the election because Trump Jr met with a Russian asset who offered to, guess what, help influence the election.

Didn't the investigation predate the meeting? You make it sound as if the whole investigation started because of that one meeting.

Don't remember, or really know if we know, exactly when the Trump-Russia investigation occurred. I was providing a salient example of why the smoke I have talked about is very different than this Hunter Biden conflict of interest.

There's white smoke, and there is black smoke. Smoke is smoke.

So, when they were sending provocateurs to entrap papadoulos, that was after the Tower meeting?

(10-19-2019 12:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Literally what would you be investigating with Hunter, how he got the job? That's what I keep missing - what is the dead body?

Seriously? Do you seriously not get it?

It's quite clear. How someone whose only qualification for a 600,000 a year job from an oil and gas company in a country KNOWN for corruption, seems to be that his father is VP.

The potential quid-pro-quo is obvious to anyone not blinded by political affiliation.,.. and since the CRIME would be committed in Ukraine, it is not under our jurisdiction or ability to subpoena or anything. New Sheriff in town... go see if your people tried to BUY American influence.

(10-19-2019 12:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Literally what would you be investigating with Hunter, how he got the job? That's what I keep missing - what is the dead body?

That makes a pretty good dead body. Do you think that's not worth investigating? Seriously?

Quote:With Trump, the investigation was if they coordinated with Russia in influencing the election because Trump Jr met with a Russian asset who offered to, guess what, help influence the election.

And, by all accounts, turned the deal down. So if an undercover cop, posing as a hooker, tries to get you to offer her money for sex and you refuse, that is solicitation of prostitution? Just trying to set some boundaries here.

Quote:WASHINGTON — William B. Taylor Jr., the United States’ top diplomat in Ukraine, told impeachment investigators privately on Tuesday that President Trump held up security aid for the country and refused a White House meeting with Ukraine’s leader until he agreed to investigate Mr. Trump’s political rivals.

The testimony drew what one lawmaker described as a “direct line” between American foreign policy and his own political goals.
In testimony that Democrats in attendance called the most damaging account yet for the president, Mr. Taylor provided an “excruciatingly detailed” opening statement that described the quid-pro-quo pressure campaign that Mr. Trump and his allies have been denying.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/tr...-ios-share

(10-19-2019 06:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 12:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Literally what would you be investigating with Hunter, how he got the job? That's what I keep missing - what is the dead body?

Seriously? Do you seriously not get it?

It's quite clear. How someone whose only qualification for a 600,000 a year job from an oil and gas company in a country KNOWN for corruption, seems to be that his father is VP.

The potential quid-pro-quo is obvious to anyone not blinded by political affiliation.,.. and since the CRIME would be committed in Ukraine, it is not under our jurisdiction or ability to subpoena or anything. New Sheriff in town... go see if your people tried to BUY American influence.

I'd flip it around and say you don't get it. I do get why it was unethical. I do get why there was a conflict of interest. But again, there doesn't appear to be a dead body - just a fired gun.

You're 100% right that there was a potential for a quid-pro-quo, and I feel like I have been very clear that I agree with this (even though you keep trying to paint it as if I disagree with that point).

The issue is that there doesn't appear to be a quo - what favorable thing did Ukraine get from Biden or the Obama administration that could have been tied to the hiring?

Do you know what the quo was?

(10-21-2019 04:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 12:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Literally what would you be investigating with Hunter, how he got the job? That's what I keep missing - what is the dead body?

That makes a pretty good dead body. Do you think that's not worth investigating? Seriously?

Quote:With Trump, the investigation was if they coordinated with Russia in influencing the election because Trump Jr met with a Russian asset who offered to, guess what, help influence the election.

And, by all accounts, turned the deal down. So if an undercover cop, posing as a hooker, tries to get you to offer her money for sex and you refuse, that is solicitation of prostitution? Just trying to set some boundaries here.

I mean, not really. It's pretty clear why he got the job - VP's kid. Unethical and immoral and ripe for corruption. If there was a credible claim to corruption, like the US provided aid against the will of the international community, Biden made some shady deals on the side, etc. than it would make sense to investigate.

Your hypothetical about the cop is a bit off. A more apt comparison would be saying that you know a prostitute solicited the services, and you know there was a party explicitly interested in receiving the services, and met in person with the prostitute. Then you have evidence the prostitute slept with someone on the same day. You have all the ingredients of a crime and a crime was committed. Makes sense to figure out of the excited party was part of the crime, no?

(10-22-2019 02:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, not really. It's pretty clear why he got the job - VP's kid. Unethical and immoral and ripe for corruption. If there was a credible claim to corruption, like the US provided aid against the will of the international community, Biden made some shady deals on the side, etc. than it would make sense to investigate.

There's a concept in law called "res ipsa loquitur," meaning, "the thing stands for itself." Hunter Biden was paid $50k/month for some reason. Being the VP's son is not enough to pay that kind of money, unless there is some kind of (wait for the words) quid pro quo. The mere existence of the contract is a credible indicator that some sort of corruption either occurred or was expected. There is a transaction here (or a series of them) that would be patently absurd at face. There either is or is not some explanation, and if there is, it would almost certainly involve some impropriety. That's why you investigate.

Quote:Your hypothetical about the cop is a bit off. A more apt comparison would be saying that you know a prostitute solicited the services, and you know there was a party explicitly interested in receiving the services, and met in person with the prostitute. Then you have evidence the prostitute slept with someone on the same day. You have all the ingredients of a crime and a crime was committed. Makes sense to figure out of the excited party was part of the crime, no?

No, you don't know that there was a party with intent to engage in such services, and your strongest evidence is that he did not in fact engage. You're saying it's like a guy went out looking for a hooker, he was approached by an undercover cop, he turned the cop down, but because he went out looking for a prostitute he is guilty of solicitation. That gets at the difference between collusion (which is not a crime) and conspiracy (which is). Merely meeting might constitute collusion, but conspiracy additionally requires that at the meeting some plan be hatched, and that some affirmative act to implement the plan must be accomplished by at least one of the co-conspirators. In terms of your hypothetical, the someone that the prostitute slept with later that day has to be the someone that solicited. That's not factually proved.

For criminal liability you must have an act, it must break some law, and there must have been criminal intent at the time of the act. The specific act in this case is actually three acts (met, developed plan, carried out some part of the plan). You don't have that. Without the act, intent is irrelevant criminally.

Link to the opening statement from today, plus one historian's take.

Quote: 1/ As a historian of US Foreign Policy, a few quick thoughts on Amb. Taylor's opening statement to Congress: washingtonpost.com/context/openin…

2/ Amb. Taylor says (p3) he met with Pompeo on May 28 when he was asked to become acting Ambassador after Yovanovich was sacked, and made clear that he understood why she was sacked, and that he wasn't going to come in unless Pompeo could assure Giuliani would have no role.

3/ Taylor says (p. 4) that upon arriving in Kiev he found two policy making channels, "one regular," ie the normal embassy chain of command, and one highly irregular" consisting of Volker, Sondland, Perry and Giuliani, a "shadow" policy group making its own decisions.

4/ Taylor realizes by June (p. 5) that this second, irregular channel is underminin existing US policy around the conditions of a Zelensky visit. Notes with alarm that Sondland "Did not want to include most of the regular interagency participants" in a 6/28 call planned with Z.

5/ Taylor is now alarmed, as any good bureaucrat would be. Sondland (p. 5) says wants to make sure "no one is transcribing or monitoring" the June 28 call with Zelensnky. Volker says he will meet Z next day and "planned to be explicit" about Trump's conditions for a WH visit.

6/ Taylor says the irregular policy channel is now in charge, with Giuliani - who has no policymaking authority and no clearance - running things. For an Ambassador, this must have been setting off multiple alarms. By mid-July, Taylor himself is being excluded from meetings.

7/ On July 18, Taylor learns OMB has suspended security assistance at direction of President Trump. Embassy Taylor has *meticulously* documented every exchange. This is both bc of training and because he is alarmed and making sure he leaves a paper trail.

8/ Taylor says irregular policy channel "running contrary to long standing goals of US policy." Taylor notes that at multiple meetings all cabinet level secretaries support releasing military aid. It is being held up solely bc of Trump. There are records of all these meetings.

9/ Talor gets readout of July 10 meeting with Sondland and Ukranian officials at WH in which Sondland pressed for Ukrainian investigations, which so outraged Bolton he called it a "drug deal" and told NSC official Fiona Hill to contact WH lawyers.

10/ The tell here is Taylor's description of Ukrainian officials confusion in the July 10 meeting. They are essentially being told about two contradictory US policies. Ukrainian officials later say Zelensky "Does not want to be used as a pawn in a US re-lection campaign."

11/ This is the damning part: the Acting US Ambassador to the Ukraine does not receive a full read out of the July 25 Trump-Zelensky call, only a "cryptic summary." Just crazy. the White House won't tell an Ambassador to the Ukraine about a call with the Ukrainian Pres.

12/ Taylor doesn't see an official read out of the call til its publicly released on September 25. Let's repeat. The US Amb to Ukraine has to wait two months to find out contents of a call between Trump and the Ukrainian President. This is extraordinary and without precedent.

13/ Taylor (p. 10) relays to Bolton his concern about Trump withholding aid to Ukraine and writes Pompeo a letter. Congress will get this letter, you can be certain. Pompeo uses this letter in WH meeting on Ukraine aid. Taylor kept receipts, made copies, left a paper trail.

14/ Taylor learns during Pence's Warsaw visit that Sondland told his Ukrainian counterpart that US security assistance would not be released until Zelensky agreed to an investigation of Burisma. NSC aid Tim Morrison says Trump insisted that Zelensky "go a microphone" and say...

15/ That Zelensky is opening an investigation into Biden and the 2016 election. Sondland Sept 9 says Trump insistent that Zelensky had to "clear things up and do it in public." Note that Ukrainians still getting conflicting policy signals from two opposing currents.

16/ On September 11, aid is released, after this blows up. So what can we learn, from the perspective of a historian of US foreign policy? First, the friction between the 'regular' and 'irregular' policy tracks leaves a thick documentary trail that Congress can track down.

17/ Taylor notes at how US policymakers who are frozen out of the regular policy loop, as well as Ukrainians, are confused because of conversations in the Giuliani led track. In bureaucratic terms this is damning. High level policymakers frozen out of their own policy tracks.

18/ Taylor also notes how many people are aware that a highly irregular policy group is running things, that they are undermining established US policy, that they are making corrupt domestic political demands, and - crucially - that they are trying to cover their tracks.

19/ This is as damning as it gets, and Taylor recorded everything, as a good bureaucrat does. I don't see any possible wriggle room for Trump defenders here. This is a highly persuasive, exhaustively documented account of abuse of power from an unimpeachably credible source.

20/ If I were reading this years later, as a historian poring through the archives, this would read like a textbook conspiracy to undermine existing US policy in the service of a covert domestic political agenda, undertaken on a shadow policy track. Wow. Wow. Wow. END

Lad seems to really enjoy arguing with lawyers.

Must be why he likes me so much - I am not a lawyer, although I did take three hours of business law as part of my MBA.

(10-22-2019 04:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 02:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, not really. It's pretty clear why he got the job - VP's kid. Unethical and immoral and ripe for corruption. If there was a credible claim to corruption, like the US provided aid against the will of the international community, Biden made some shady deals on the side, etc. than it would make sense to investigate.

There's a concept in law called "res ipsa loquitur," meaning, "the thing stands for itself." Hunter Biden was paid $50k/month for some reason. Being the VP's son is not enough to pay that kind of money, unless there is some kind of (wait for the words) quid pro quo. The mere existence of the contract is a credible indicator that some sort of corruption either occurred or was expected. There is a transaction here (or a series of them) that would be patently absurd at face. There either is or is not some explanation, and if there is, it would almost certainly involve some impropriety. That's why you investigate.

Quote:Your hypothetical about the cop is a bit off. A more apt comparison would be saying that you know a prostitute solicited the services, and you know there was a party explicitly interested in receiving the services, and met in person with the prostitute. Then you have evidence the prostitute slept with someone on the same day. You have all the ingredients of a crime and a crime was committed. Makes sense to figure out of the excited party was part of the crime, no?

No, you don't know that there was a party with intent to engage in such services, and your strongest evidence is that he did not in fact engage. You're saying it's like a guy went out looking for a hooker, he was approached by an undercover cop, he turned the cop down, but because he went out looking for a prostitute he is guilty of solicitation. That gets at the difference between collusion (which is not a crime) and conspiracy (which is). Merely meeting might constitute collusion, but conspiracy additionally requires that at the meeting some plan be hatched, and that some affirmative act to implement the plan must be accomplished by at least one of the co-conspirators. In terms of your hypothetical, the someone that the prostitute slept with later that day has to be the someone that solicited. That's not factually proved.

For criminal liability you must have an act, it must break some law, and there must have been criminal intent at the time of the act. The specific act in this case is actually three acts (met, developed plan, carried out some part of the plan). You don't have that. Without the act, intent is irrelevant criminally.

To your first point, does that mean anyone who sits on the board of a company operating in a field they have no experience with should be suspected of criminal activity?

And to your second comment, you are misremembering the Trump Tower meeting. Jr responded emphatically that he was interested in dirt - he even released the email on his own volition! If that isn’t the opposite of turning down the initial invite, I don’t know what is. So to rehash, we have someone getting solicited (Jr receiving the email), someone showing interest in the service (email), meeting with the services (Russian agent), and then finding out that someone slept with the hooker (emails being released through Wikipedia).

And I have no urge to rehash whether the Trump team committed a crime, my intent was to explain why an investigation made sense in that instance, but not in Hunter Biden’s.