(11-21-2019 01:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: This is the thing that nobody has addressed and each time I ask it, I get no response.....
We have a nation apparently so corrupt that the VP of the US and even the UN had to threaten sanctions to get them to oust someone who had zero impact on US or international policies....
and perhaps the leading corporate entity in that country gives a VERY high paying job to someone whose primary qualification seems to be his name (and connection to US political interests)
and there is now absolutely NO reason to investigate corruption in that country anymore other than for personal political gain? We got rid of the ONE guy and everything is cool now, right?
I disagree that Shokin had no impact on US or international policy. NATO and the US have been fighting Russian influence (and annexation) of Ukraine for decades.
I think many of the career state department employees testifying would agree that Ukraine remains a very corrupt country and they want to continue to fight that corruption.
(11-21-2019 02:01 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: I disagree that Shokin had no impact on US or international policy. NATO and the US have been fighting Russian influence (and annexation) of Ukraine for decades.
Your comment makes no sense. He was the Prosecutor General of the Ukraine. He had no jurisdiction beyond their borders.... certainly not within ours. More significantly, he was APPOINTED to his post. While he might have had influence regarding Russian influence inside Ukraine, he was still APPOINTED by elected Ukrainian officials. Were there riots in the Ukrainian streets as we see in other places to have him removed?
Sorry, your response only makes the accusations even more suspect. Here we are CLEARLY meddling in the politics of other nations... but it seems only those where the VP had a clear financial interest.
Quote:I think many of the career state department employees testifying would agree that Ukraine remains a very corrupt country and they want to continue to fight that corruption.
Then why is a request to investigate such corruption involving relatives of high ranking US officials
SOLELY
an attack on one's political rivals?
Isn't the initially claimed position... that it was held up to 'see what kind of guy' the new President was before giving him WEAPONS at LEAST as likely?
(This post was last modified: 11-21-2019 02:14 PM by Hambone10.)
(11-21-2019 01:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: and perhaps the leading corporate entity in that country gives a VERY high paying job to someone whose primary qualification seems to be his name (and connection to US political interests)
Not too long ago, the New York state electorate and President Obama each did exactly that (in those cases, the name was Clinton).
(11-21-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: used his office solely, and explicitly, to pressure a foreign government to produce a result that only benefits the POTUS personally? The accusations, which have support now, are that Trump was not acting in the interests of the US to try and push Ukraine to investigate corruption as a whole, but rather generate some news stories that would hurt Biden.
Care to rephrase? Lolz.
Solely, only, 'not acting in the interests of the United States'. Really?
I guess you see zero interest of the United States in the potential corruption, potential linkage to election meddling that has ties to the Ukraine. Really?
But the *sole* use of the office was to *only* benefit the POTUS personally.... And no action at all had any confluence with the interests of the United States.
Good grief and you get your wings worked up about our (or my) being hyperbolic. Double Lolz.
Here is the rich riposte, and I think I will actually quote you for this:
Quote: Hope that little tirade made you feel better.
So you disagree that Trump is being accused of what I laid out?
I disagree that Trump 'used his office solely, and explicitly, to pressure a foreign government to produce a result that only benefits the POTUS personally.' I disagree that that Trump was not acting in any way for the interests of the US to try and push Ukraine to investigate corruption as a whole.
Of course, since you steadfastly believe that there is zero issue with Hunter aside from a mere 'conflict of interest', and zero issue with calls from Hunters father to remove investigations of the company that Hunter was being paid 1.6 million per year as a do nothing director, I can readily see why you are adamant about the superlatives you put out there. I can readily see with those issues settled for you on an a priori and absolute steadfast basis why you caterwaul in the way that you do.
(This post was last modified: 11-21-2019 02:34 PM by tanqtonic.)
You can disagree with the policy regarding Ukraine, but the US clearly had one and Shokin's inaction as prosecutor and subsequent removal had effects on US policy.
(11-21-2019 02:34 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: It's solely an attack on one's political rivals when it's only their potential corruption that you are interested in fighting.
Interesting thought there Fountain. I guess using that logic I should advise my clients to declare a candidacy for President of the United States. Using your logic, any investigation of them of any sort would be an impeachable offense. That's a brilliant insight.....
of course I will make sure my malpractice insurance is paid up to the max before using that train of thought...
The fundamental fact is that investigation of corruption is *always* one of the main functions of the Executive Branch. Period. Full stop.
It remains a function regardless of whom is the target, and regardless of the dancing reasons you put forth above.
I mean, good fing god, you all went to the gd mat on that point with Russiagate. Now, it appears to you all that that function is now 'conditional'. Funny change in position there. Actually, not really. Fairly well expected....
This is better than watching old reruns of Arthur Murray Dance championships in the number of side shift, backward steps the liberals run ad infinitum.
Then, on Russiagate : the core function of the Executive Branch is to investigate allegations of malfeasance, even on political enemies.
Now, on Ukraine:
Quote:It's solely an attack on one's political rivals when it's only their potential corruption that you are interested in fighting.
God this is comedy 'change positions at a hat drop' gold.......
(This post was last modified: 11-21-2019 02:48 PM by tanqtonic.)
I speak only for myself. Please don't ascribe your perception of what democrats or "the resistance" are thinking to me.
I also would never tell you how to be a lawyer, just calling it how I see it. We're obviously in rarely charted legal territory with all of this. If I was Trump, I would have built my case for investigation of a political rival through the usual channels in the state department. You don't think he has to do this, and you may be right about that, but I think he'd be on firmer ground right now if he had.
Is there anybody here who thinks this “jnquiry” is solely motivated by a pure and unbiased desire to see only the highest principles of behavior in our leaders, and that there is NO desire to do damage to a potential opposition 2020 candidate.
Is there anybody anywhere who thinks Schiff has an open mind?
(This post was last modified: 11-21-2019 03:37 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
(11-21-2019 02:55 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: I speak only for myself. Please don't ascribe your perception of what democrats or "the resistance" are thinking to me.
I also would never tell you how to be a lawyer, just calling it how I see it. We're obviously in rarely charted legal territory with all of this. If I was Trump, I would have built my case for investigation of a political rival through the usual channels in the state department. You don't think he has to do this, and you may be right about that, but I think he'd be on firmer ground right now if he had.
(11-21-2019 01:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: This is the thing that nobody has addressed and each time I ask it, I get no response.....
We have a nation apparently so corrupt that the VP of the US and even the UN had to threaten sanctions to get them to oust someone who had zero impact on US or international policies....
and perhaps the leading corporate entity in that country gives a VERY high paying job to someone whose primary qualification seems to be his name (and connection to US political interests)
and there is now absolutely NO reason to investigate corruption in that country anymore other than for personal political gain? We got rid of the ONE guy and everything is cool now, right?
Ok, let's clear things up.
No one is saying there was no reason to continue encouraging Ukraine to investigation corruption throughout the government. The issue is whether Trump was actually interested in that OR just interested in using Ukraine as a tool to attack his political interests.
Going further, if you listen to the testimonies, you'll learn that Ukraine had been doing work to clean up their corruption. Immediately prior to the new president's inauguration, the DOD had certified that their military was meeting anti-corruption benchmarks. And Zelensky ran on a very public anti-corruption platform - so there wasn't a lot of reason to believe he wouldn't carry through that stance. In fact, Ukraine recently passed legislation removing politician's immunity from prosecution.
So no, getting rid of one guy was not the only thing that needed to be done; but there is substantial evidence that Trump did not actually want to combat corruption in Ukraine. Was there a specific policy agenda Trump himself pushed and brought up? Were Burisima/Biden part of something bigger - like focusing on nepotism?
(11-21-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: used his office solely, and explicitly, to pressure a foreign government to produce a result that only benefits the POTUS personally? The accusations, which have support now, are that Trump was not acting in the interests of the US to try and push Ukraine to investigate corruption as a whole, but rather generate some news stories that would hurt Biden.
Care to rephrase? Lolz.
Solely, only, 'not acting in the interests of the United States'. Really?
I guess you see zero interest of the United States in the potential corruption, potential linkage to election meddling that has ties to the Ukraine. Really?
But the *sole* use of the office was to *only* benefit the POTUS personally.... And no action at all had any confluence with the interests of the United States.
Good grief and you get your wings worked up about our (or my) being hyperbolic. Double Lolz.
Here is the rich riposte, and I think I will actually quote you for this:
Quote: Hope that little tirade made you feel better.
So you disagree that Trump is being accused of what I laid out?
I disagree that Trump 'used his office solely, and explicitly, to pressure a foreign government to produce a result that only benefits the POTUS personally.' I disagree that that Trump was not acting in any way for the interests of the US to try and push Ukraine to investigate corruption as a whole.
Of course, since you steadfastly believe that there is zero issue with Hunter aside from a mere 'conflict of interest', and zero issue with calls from Hunters father to remove investigations of the company that Hunter was being paid 1.6 million per year as a do nothing director, I can readily see why you are adamant about the superlatives you put out there. I can readily see with those issues settled for you on an a priori and absolute steadfast basis why you caterwaul in the way that you do.
Ok good, we're at least on the same page that your quarrel isn't with what I wrote, but what you wanted me to write in regards to the previous post.
And again, I've never said I have zero issue - I think me saying multiple times that it was unethical is far from me having "zero issues" with it. But then again, you acknowledging that would take away your favorite tool in your argument utility belt - making someone defend a position they haven't taken.
And again, there is no, real evidence that Biden attempted to stop specific investigations - stop relying on the tainted source of Rudy Guiliani's notes for that claim.
(11-21-2019 02:34 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: You can disagree with the policy regarding Ukraine, but the US clearly had one and Shokin's inaction as prosecutor and subsequent removal had effects on US policy.
Why is a request to investigate such corruption involving relatives of high ranking US officials SOLELY an attack on one's political rivals?
It's solely an attack on one's political rivals when it's only their potential corruption that you are interested in fighting.
pfft.
The article you quote... which is clearly a political piece... alludes to my questions, but still doesn't answer them. I suspect because it doesn't like the answers. It starts off by defining (incorrectly) what the other side is saying so that they can argue with that false premise... and then act as if they've answered the question because they answered their own preferred version of the question.
Ukraine isn't the most corrupt place in the world, some of which are in our own hemisphere. You're essentially admitting that the world was interfering with internal politics... and then using their resistance to that interference as justification for the interference. How convenient. The article itself even alludes to Barisma AT THE SAME TIME IT WAS HIRING BIDEN and the government that appointed and wouldn't remove him without some significant pressure from abroad as being the problem.
This whole 'that made it more rather than less likely that corruption was uncovered' game is stupid.... because the moment Trump suggested that there be an investigation into possible corruption, he gets impeached. The best defense is a good offense. Ukraine, who clearly didn't want to investigate this in the first place otherwise they would have removed him without the pressure... is now protected from US pressure of having to do so SPECIFICALLY because Hunter Biden is on the board.
No, I don't think the Biden's thought it through at the time, but it IS pretty convenient that they've come our swinging because Trump (according to the left, I'm accepting their premise) wanted to investigate a highly connected US citizen doing questionable business with an extremely powerful and connected company in an extremely corrupt country.
Why didn't Hunter just pressure the board to cooperate with the British investigation?
(11-21-2019 02:34 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: You can disagree with the policy regarding Ukraine, but the US clearly had one and Shokin's inaction as prosecutor and subsequent removal had effects on US policy.
Why is a request to investigate such corruption involving relatives of high ranking US officials SOLELY an attack on one's political rivals?
It's solely an attack on one's political rivals when it's only their potential corruption that you are interested in fighting.
pfft.
The article you quote... which is clearly a political piece... alludes to my questions, but still doesn't answer them. I suspect because it doesn't like the answers. It starts off by defining (incorrectly) what the other side is saying so that they can argue with that false premise... and then act as if they've answered the question because they answered their own preferred version of the question.
Ukraine isn't the most corrupt place in the world, some of which are in our own hemisphere. You're essentially admitting that the world was interfering with internal politics... and then using their resistance to that interference as justification for the interference. How convenient. The article itself even alludes to Barisma AT THE SAME TIME IT WAS HIRING BIDEN and the government that appointed and wouldn't remove him without some significant pressure from abroad as being the problem.
This whole 'that made it more rather than less likely that corruption was uncovered' game is stupid.... because the moment Trump suggested that there be an investigation into possible corruption, he gets impeached. The best defense is a good offense. Ukraine, who clearly didn't want to investigate this in the first place otherwise they would have removed him without the pressure... is now protected from US pressure of having to do so SPECIFICALLY because Hunter Biden is on the board.
No, I don't think the Biden's thought it through at the time, but it IS pretty convenient that they've come our swinging because Trump (according to the left, I'm accepting their premise) wanted to investigate a highly connected US citizen doing questionable business with an extremely powerful and connected company in an extremely corrupt country.
Why didn't Hunter just pressure the board to cooperate with the British investigation?
The author is a relatively recent Rice alumnus who has an expertise on Eastern European affairs.
"I'm a writer, analyst, and investigative journalist on topics ranging from kleptocracy and grand corruption to developments in the post-Soviet space and Western relations therein. I received my Master's degree in Russia, Eurasia and Eastern Europe Studies from Columbia University's Harriman Institute, and my pieces and analyses have appeared in outlets like Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, The New Republic, POLITICO Magazine, Washington Post, Sports Illustrated, Just Security, Bellingcat, ThinkProgress, Quartz, The American Interest, Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, openDemocracy, Guardian, National Review, World Politics Review, Al Jazeera, Slate, The Daily Beast, Roads & Kingdoms, Talking Points Memo, EurasiaNet, Houston Chronicle, Jamestown, Moscow Times, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Business Insider, among a host of other outlets. "
(11-21-2019 08:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: It is clearly not a slam dunk case that the POTUS abuses his power, but there are plenty of testimonies that produce the same picture - Trump did not care about corruption investigations in Ukraine, just announcing that Ukraine would investigate a debunked conspiracy theory and Hunter Biden.
I have to disagree, RiceLad. It is a slam dunk case that POTUS abused his power, among other things. They admitted it in public (see, e.g., Rudy statements from May 2019). The witnesses over these past two weeks confirmed it.
Our friends can sputter all they want ("Schiff... whistleblower... socialistzzz... hearsayyyy... bbbblechhh!!!") but the facts are plain as day.
Of course nothing will come of it. Our conservative friends get their judges and that matters more than love of country, apparently. But bravo to the patriots who exposed this nonsense.
(11-21-2019 08:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: It is clearly not a slam dunk case that the POTUS abuses his power, but there are plenty of testimonies that produce the same picture - Trump did not care about corruption investigations in Ukraine, just announcing that Ukraine would investigate a debunked conspiracy theory and Hunter Biden.
I have to disagree, RiceLad. It is a slam dunk case that POTUS abused his power, among other things. They admitted it in public (see, e.g., Rudy statements from May 2019). The witnesses over these past two weeks confirmed it.
Our friends can sputter all they want ("Schiff... whistleblower... socialistzzz... hearsayyyy... bbbblechhh!!!") but the facts are plain as day.
Of course nothing will come of it. Our conservative friends get their judges and that matters more than love of country, apparently. But bravo to the patriots who exposed this nonsense.
I think it is only a slam dunk when you take into consideration who Trump is, because then, there is absolutely no question that he was trying to leverage his position to stick it to his political opponent.
That's who Trump is - someone who only cares about 45.
(11-21-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: used his office solely, and explicitly, to pressure a foreign government to produce a result that only benefits the POTUS personally? The accusations, which have support now, are that Trump was not acting in the interests of the US to try and push Ukraine to investigate corruption as a whole, but rather generate some news stories that would hurt Biden.
Care to rephrase? Lolz.
Solely, only, 'not acting in the interests of the United States'. Really?
I guess you see zero interest of the United States in the potential corruption, potential linkage to election meddling that has ties to the Ukraine. Really?
But the *sole* use of the office was to *only* benefit the POTUS personally.... And no action at all had any confluence with the interests of the United States.
Good grief and you get your wings worked up about our (or my) being hyperbolic. Double Lolz.
Here is the rich riposte, and I think I will actually quote you for this:
Quote: Hope that little tirade made you feel better.
So you disagree that Trump is being accused of what I laid out?
I disagree that Trump 'used his office solely, and explicitly, to pressure a foreign government to produce a result that only benefits the POTUS personally.' I disagree that that Trump was not acting in any way for the interests of the US to try and push Ukraine to investigate corruption as a whole.
Of course, since you steadfastly believe that there is zero issue with Hunter aside from a mere 'conflict of interest', and zero issue with calls from Hunters father to remove investigations of the company that Hunter was being paid 1.6 million per year as a do nothing director, I can readily see why you are adamant about the superlatives you put out there. I can readily see with those issues settled for you on an a priori and absolute steadfast basis why you caterwaul in the way that you do.
Ok good, we're at least on the same page that your quarrel isn't with what I wrote, but what you wanted me to write in regards to the previous post.
I have zero clue what you are trying to say here, lad.
If you bothered to note, I quoted your exact statement as to that which I disagree. You apparently missed that fundamental point.
Quote:And again, I've never said I have zero issue - I think me saying multiple times that it was unethical is far from me having "zero issues" with it. But then again, you acknowledging that would take away your favorite tool in your argument utility belt - making someone defend a position they haven't taken.
And the point is that you fundamentally downgrade it to a mere 'conflict of interest' or regard it as merely 'unethical'. And in the next breath you note that 'no need to raise it to an investigation.'
So yes, you do utterly dismiss it for all intents and purposes. Cut the word parsing and just say -- you dont give a flying damn about Hunter's actions and they are not worthy of investigation, nor are Grandpa Joe's actions in killing any such investigation.
When you deem them unworthy of such, then yes, you utterly dismiss them. Not much air pocket room between 'those are stupid matters, albeit unethical, but are unworthy of investigation' and 'give them zero consideration.' I find it odd (actually I dont) that you see such a world of difference in those restatements. But, you are the king of 'nuance'.
Quote:And again, there is no, real evidence that Biden attempted to stop specific investigations - stop relying on the tainted source of Rudy Guiliani's notes for that claim.
Guiliani? Good fing god Biden himself talked (actually bragged) about ixnaying the investigator himself in a formal fashion. What fing cave are you living in? Funny that the open one of import was the Burisma investigation. Either you are completely covering yourself in burlap or doing a very elegant job of wordsmithing with the 'stop specific investigations' verbiage.
(This post was last modified: 11-21-2019 06:20 PM by tanqtonic.)
(11-21-2019 04:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: The author is a relatively recent Rice alumnus who has an expertise on Eastern European affairs.
Correction: the writer is a relatively recent Rice graduate who seems to have written a lot of opinions about Eastern European affairs. To the extent that "expertise" is intended to imply sound judgment, writing a bunch of opinions is not much evidence of it (see, e.g., Paul Krugman).
(11-21-2019 04:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: The author is a relatively recent Rice alumnus who has an expertise on Eastern European affairs.
Correction: the writer is a relatively recent Rice graduate who seems to have written a lot of opinions about Eastern European affairs. To the extent that "expertise" is intended to imply sound judgment, writing a bunch of opinions is not much evidence of it (see, e.g., Paul Krugman).
Thats okay, this is the group that considers 'I believe' to constitute evidence.
