Author Topic: Ukraine  (Read 62529 times)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #250 on: October 04, 2019, 05:59:13 PM »
Can you read Trump's mind? Just because there are plausible reasons for a policy decision doesn't mean that it is impossible that it was motivated by personal gain.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #251 on: October 04, 2019, 06:03:15 PM »
LOL, you have to be kidding.  See the defense of Biden.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #252 on: October 04, 2019, 06:10:28 PM »
"Wayward Son

But in your hypothetical situation, cherry, why is the President investigating this random guy?"

I was just trying to apply objective criteria to a specific instance and see if this is a crime or not, objectively. Would this be illegal if the people involved weren't the people they are in this case.  Maybe that's impossible here.

I did see something else interesting in internet comments where people were asking if this isn't a big deal to ask governments to investigate American citizens then how many other governments has Trump asked to investigate how many other American citizens? I thought that was a pretty good question. Apparently the answer was, "I'll get back to you on that." So probably none.

As to your questions yes it's obvious all of this is completely political and Trump's motivations here are purely political. I'll grant that. If it was so low level politician or maybe a Republican that supported Trump and his son was getting paid while that politician exerted influence would Trump care? No, probably not. It wouldn't be on his radar. So yeah this is totally political but I doubt that makes it illegal. After all, as has been pointed out, the Democrats did the same things and worse and it was totally fine. Looking for real corruption and conflicts of interest and making those public isn't a crime and shouldn't be and just because it's your political rivals you are looking for dirt on doesn't change that. If that was illegal Hillary would already be in prison.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #253 on: October 04, 2019, 06:13:21 PM »
Quote
LOL, you have to be kidding.  See the defense of Biden.

What do you mean by that, Seriati?  Are you saying that we shouldn't investigate Trump for the same reason we shouldn't investigate Biden?  Or are you saying that both Biden and Trump should be investigated for the same reason?

Or, because "there are plausible reasons for a policy decision doesn't mean that it is impossible that it was motivated by personal gain," we should investigate Biden but not Trump?

I'm confused.  ???

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #254 on: October 04, 2019, 06:15:40 PM »
Quote
After all, as has been pointed out, the Democrats did the same things and worse and it was totally fine. Looking for real corruption and conflicts of interest and making those public isn't a crime and shouldn't be and just because it's your political rivals you are looking for dirt on doesn't change that. If that was illegal Hillary would already be in prison.

Could you please be specific about when the Democrats did the same things and worse and "it was totally fine?"

Because I don't ever recall when the Democrats did anything and the Republicans considered it "totally fine." 

Heck, they weren't "totally fine" with stuff the Democrats never did! :D

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #255 on: October 04, 2019, 06:44:47 PM »
> Because I don't ever recall when the Democrats did anything and the Republicans considered it "totally fine." 

I should have been more specific. Apologies.  I meant that it was totally fine with the Democrats and the mainstream media.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #256 on: October 04, 2019, 07:05:49 PM »
So we have the Hillary campaign which actually did what Trump is accused of doing, colluding with Russia to dig up dirt on a political rival to influence an American election, and not only that but the political dirt they did dig up and make public was a pack of golden shower lies. And there has been no call from the Democrats in Congress for an investigation, no subpoenas, no nothing. But that's only because she lost, right? If she had won the election and was the President right now the same Democrats in Congress that are calling for Trump to be impeached would be all over Hillary Clinton the exact same way.

We all know that wouldn't happen. None of it would matter. The important thing would be getting down to business for the benefit of the American people. People can take double standards for only so long before they don't take anything said seriously anymore, and the Democrats reached that point years ago. Their crude plans, their too clever by half ways, they are too transparent and there's just nothing left to see.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #257 on: October 04, 2019, 07:24:10 PM »
See, you say it is the same thing, but it isn't even close.

On the one hand, you have your President bring something up while talking with another world leader about having his official justice department investigate a rival.

On the other hand, you have a law firm hired by a committee, who hires a research firm, who then later employs a foreign national not involved with any government to get information about a rival.

They're the same in the same way that a reuben and a cheesesteak are both sandwiches, maybe.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #258 on: October 04, 2019, 07:26:49 PM »
Having someone do your dirty work for you doesn't make you less guilty of the crime.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #259 on: October 04, 2019, 07:30:55 PM »
Which crime would that be? Unless you somehow think all opposition research is illegal, I don't see how you get there. Unless you have some kind of evidence that Steele knowingly wrote a fake report and at the direction of the Democratic Party through three levels of indirection? You are certainly entitled to believe that if you want to, but it still remains "not the same".

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #260 on: October 05, 2019, 12:58:48 AM »
It's the same crime Trump was accused of, cooperating with Russian nationals to influence an American election.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #261 on: October 05, 2019, 09:28:52 AM »
So Steele was a Russian? No, he's English. Did Chelsea Clinton meet with a Russian in New York? Also no. Unless I'm missing something.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #262 on: October 05, 2019, 09:38:50 AM »
Can you read Trump's mind? Just because there are plausible reasons for a policy decision doesn't mean that it is impossible that it was motivated by personal gain.

WTF?  :o

Just ...bizarre reasoning. Logic and reason have been completely rejected. Just incredible.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #263 on: October 05, 2019, 11:24:51 AM »
You're summing this up as "crude"? It makes you look pretty misinformed.

No, I'm saying that "this" is just the culmination of a non-stop effort to remove someone who's existence and approach has been unacceptable from day one. Most if not all of the aggression against Trump is due to his personality and style. If you can't see that, it makes you look pretty misinformed.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #264 on: October 05, 2019, 04:19:33 PM »
Can you read Trump's mind? Just because there are plausible reasons for a policy decision doesn't mean that it is impossible that it was motivated by personal gain.

WTF?  :o

Just ...bizarre reasoning. Logic and reason have been completely rejected. Just incredible.

This is the definition of logic. Person A makes decision X, with two possibilities for why they made it. What evidence do we have to rule out one justification in favor of the other?

If somebody was a caregiver for a sick parent, knowing they stood to inherit substantial amounts, they might be motivated by love or by avarice. If they knew they would not inherit, we could securely state they were motivated by love.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #265 on: October 06, 2019, 01:01:39 AM »
Quote
"So what's the crime?"

Come on. You have to know that "High crimes and misdemeanors" was never supposed to map to the criminal code.

That's an unexamined truism.  What "high crimes and misdemeanors" did Congress miss over the last 250 years that are so obvious?  Lol.

Arguably Andrew Jackson should have been impeached when he pursued the Trail of Tears decision in direct defiance of the Supreme Court. That's the single biggest one in my mind. (SCotUS said one thing, PotUS wanted to do another, and Congress went with the President)

Honestly, compared to the antics and behaviors of past historical presidencies. Our historical counterparts would probably be rolling their eyes at people getting upset over Trump's ask of Ukraine. The relevant charges should any actually BE relevant(and truthful), have nothing to do with the Constitution, and everything to do with statutory law and traditions and expectations that have evolved over the past century specifically.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #266 on: October 06, 2019, 09:55:44 AM »
Can you read Trump's mind? Just because there are plausible reasons for a policy decision doesn't mean that it is impossible that it was motivated by personal gain.

WTF?  :o

Just ...bizarre reasoning. Logic and reason have been completely rejected. Just incredible.

This is the definition of logic. Person A makes decision X, with two possibilities for why they made it. What evidence do we have to rule out one justification in favor of the other?

If somebody was a caregiver for a sick parent, knowing they stood to inherit substantial amounts, they might be motivated by love or by avarice. If they knew they would not inherit, we could securely state they were motivated by love.

It’s an emotional appeal that feels like logic, it presents what is known as a false dichotomy (example third option you ignore: motivated by sense of duty) coupled with proving a negative. Let’s demonstrate:

Just because there are plausible reasons for touching people doesn't mean that it is impossible that Biden was motivated by sexual gratification.

So now we know that Biden is a sexual predator, right? It’s not impossible therefore it’s true according to this deeply flawed logic you’ve championed.

It only feels right, it’s purely emotional.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #267 on: October 06, 2019, 10:03:00 AM »
So latest developments in the leaker story...

We have confirmed that Schiff lied about his prior contact with the leaker. The problem for the leaker is that he also lied about his contact with Schiff - oops, felony perjury for the leaker. He’s now facing 5 years in jail. Did Schiff tell him to lie? Schiff would get 5 years for that too..

Now that the first leaker is imploding, by pure coincidence, amazingly timed, we have a second leaker coming forward. What a surprise! I hope it’s Stormy Daniels.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #268 on: October 06, 2019, 11:32:55 AM »
https://www.lawfareblog.com/timeline-trump-ukraine-scandal

Going forward, if you have not looked at and read through and understand the timeline involved in this affair, and it is discovered through error, I don't feel like I should be engaging.  If you're uneducated on the current matter, and do not understand the timeline and the implications, I would advise you to not even talk to your friends and family or anyone online about the matter.  You could be inadvertently guilty of spreading Fake News.

I really appreciated the advice you proffered here. I want to make sure I don’t spread fake news, like insinuating that Schiff had advance knowledge of the whistleblower and the report.  And then lied about it.

I went back to your link above, but it doesn't mention anything about this. Do you have any other sources, you know, to keep me straight on the timeline and implications? That said, if you don't feel like you should be engaging, I understand.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #269 on: October 06, 2019, 03:16:50 PM »
Can you read Trump's mind? Just because there are plausible reasons for a policy decision doesn't mean that it is impossible that it was motivated by personal gain.

WTF?  :o

Just ...bizarre reasoning. Logic and reason have been completely rejected. Just incredible.

This is the definition of logic. Person A makes decision X, with two possibilities for why they made it. What evidence do we have to rule out one justification in favor of the other?

If somebody was a caregiver for a sick parent, knowing they stood to inherit substantial amounts, they might be motivated by love or by avarice. If they knew they would not inherit, we could securely state they were motivated by love.

It’s an emotional appeal that feels like logic, it presents what is known as a false dichotomy (example third option you ignore: motivated by sense of duty) coupled with proving a negative. Let’s demonstrate:

Just because there are plausible reasons for touching people doesn't mean that it is impossible that Biden was motivated by sexual gratification.

So now we know that Biden is a sexual predator, right? It’s not impossible therefore it’s true according to this deeply flawed logic you’ve championed.

It only feels right, it’s purely emotional.

I would say this is another can't know situation. We don't know if Biden is ignorant of social norms or willfully violating them out of predatory intent. Which is why he should stop. And also why I won't vote for Biden, even against trump.

As to the dichotomy, I thought two options were sufficient to illustrate the point.

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #270 on: October 07, 2019, 01:49:46 PM »
Seriati, you're divorcing your argument from the facts. Let's start here:

Quote
However, when you have a whistle blower report that didn't hear the statement, and the statement itself is available and contradicts the whistle blower it undermines the evidentiary value.

The "statement" meaning the call summary IS consistent with the WB report.

You're also apparently ignoring the text messages that corroborate and bolster the quid pro quo angle. Although it's not required for there to be a quid pro quo regardless. Just asking a foreign country to open an investigation into your political opponent when there's no national interest involved in that request is an impeachable abuse of office. Your denials and obfuscations are right in line with the ones Hannity and others are using, so perhaps you are mistaking their advocacy for reality.

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #271 on: October 07, 2019, 02:36:14 PM »
I see some of you are still trying to go with the theory that the WB complaint doesn't count if Schiff or his aides talked to the WB before the report was filed through ICIG. Fascinating. Jim Jordan level reasoning there.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #272 on: October 07, 2019, 03:11:35 PM »
I’m assuming the whole blame the WB thing is a attempt to move the conversation to the ‘Fruit of the poisonous tree’ legality?

The strategy is to put in question the WB statement so that any investigation into Trump is ended. 
Yet at the same time the argument is that the investigation into Biden is justified regardless of method it was initiated because he’s guilty and because he’s guilty Trump is, if not innocent, excused.

All these mental gymnastics and nothing on the issue itself on the issue. Whatever means to excuse Trump without addressing his words and actions.  TDS is real.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #273 on: October 07, 2019, 03:42:24 PM »
I see some of you are still trying to go with the theory that the WB complaint doesn't count if Schiff or his aides talked to the WB before the report was filed through ICIG. Fascinating. Jim Jordan level reasoning there.

Clearly if Schiff talked to the whistle blower before hand he orchestrated the whole thing. It was actually Adam Schiff who held up the military aid to Ukraine then impersonated Trump on the phone call to give the appearance of a quid pro quo. Adam Schiff and Donald Trump - Now staring in Face Off 2.  ::)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #274 on: October 07, 2019, 04:00:13 PM »
One thing to remember when weighing these matters isn't just a question of red vs blue, although that's the easy approach. And it's not even about do you like Trump or not. I think we need to keep in mind the following questions, all of which are pertinent:

(a) What would it mean if a President was using the power of his office to bully other countries for his own personal gain?
(b) What would it mean if a coordinated effort by Trump's opposition was twisting events to make it look like (a), in order to effect a soft coup?
(c) What sorts of rewards are in place for a President to potentially do (a)? Should the office have that power?
(d) What sorts of rewards are in place for the opposition party (to use a parliamentary term) to undermine the sitting President? Does their party benefit from creating trouble for the President and trying to make it look like he's a criminal? If so, should there really be scenarios where they benefit directly from undermining the executive?

The issue of conflicts of interest is that the more built-in they are the more you start to question everything and everyone: or else even worse, the more you question everyone else but not those on your team, which is even more delusional. This is much like a political Dunning-Krueger effect, where me/mine are probably smarter and more right, while others are dumber or more wrong. And on the face of it there's a direct problem even putting aside red vs blue among the population: when the one who stands to benefit directly from an accusation is the one making it, everyone should blink and think twice about it. Is the guy who's going to inherit the house the one trying to get his parents committed? Better look closely into that. Is the police officer who shot the unarmed guy and turned off his cam telling you he was resisting? Better look closely into that. Is the party that always wanted Trump out and who would gain enormously from a successful impeachment accusing Trump? Better blink about that too. In any case related to the administering of justice, accusing someone about malfeasance, or something like that, you'd better be sure there's no conflict of interest. And yes, it should be taken very seriously that the people (like Schiff) who always wanted Trump out are being accused of coordinating to get him out. When there is direct motive, and ability, the question should not be brushed aside easily, just as the question of abuse of power by a President shouldn't be brushed aside easily either.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #275 on: October 07, 2019, 04:02:12 PM »
After Biden got that prosecutor fired was the Burisma probe carried out or was it effectively stopped?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #276 on: October 07, 2019, 04:02:52 PM »
Seriati, you're divorcing your argument from the facts. Let's start here:

Quote
However, when you have a whistle blower report that didn't hear the statement, and the statement itself is available and contradicts the whistle blower it undermines the evidentiary value.

The "statement" meaning the call summary IS consistent with the WB report.

Cite to me the quid pro quo the whistle blower alleges in the call summary.  What you can't?  Thought you just said they were consistent?

Quote
You're also apparently ignoring the text messages that corroborate and bolster the quid pro quo angle.

You mean the text messages where the US ambassador to the EU expressly stated that Trump was crystal clear that their would be no quid pro quo?  Lol.

Quote
Although it's not required for there to be a quid pro quo regardless. Just asking a foreign country to open an investigation into your political opponent when there's no national interest involved in that request is an impeachable abuse of office.

Lol, what's your basis for the conclusion that asking for an investigation of a crime is an impeachable offense?

And how do you walk that back from the Democratic Senators that wrote a letter with an express quid pro quo to the Ukraine threatening them unless they investigate Trump?  Or heck, with the Obama admin seeking out and actually recieving political dirt from the Ukraine on Paul Manafort to support their illegal spying operation during the campaign, that morphed into an actual criminal prosecution of Manafort?

There is no law, or principal of law, that bars investigating crimes committed by your opponents.  Or should we say put NY prosecutor Vance in jail for his investigation of the Stormy Daniels payments, wherein he's demanding 8 years of Trump's tax returns (odd coincidence)?

Quote
Your denials and obfuscations are right in line with the ones Hannity and others are using, so perhaps you are mistaking their advocacy for reality.

So my "denials" consist of acknowledging the factual statement that the transcript doesn't show a quid pro quo and that the whistleblower misrepresented that (or just lied about it).

My "obfuscations" consist largely of pointing out that investigation of criminal acts by a former vice president are actually properly the duty of the DOJ and the administration to investigate - who else do you think would handle that investigation?  Or pointing out that you seem to have a problem with Presidential immunity, but to be asserting a "running against Trump" absolute immunity standard - which is expressly not the standard that the Obama administration used against Trump during the campaign.

Or by pointing out that no part of the Democratic effort here resembles in any way a fair process, or a process that protects Constitutional rights or basic fairness? 

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #277 on: October 07, 2019, 04:10:51 PM »
After Biden got that prosecutor fired was the Burisma probe carried out or was it effectively stopped?

Wasn't the Burisma probe dead before Biden got the prosecutor fired?

Every source I've seen has indicated pretty much all of Europe, the state department, and the intelligence community wanted this prosecutor gone. But I'm sure Biden has the kind of influence to get everyone on the same page just to protect the cushy job his son got in Ukraine.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #278 on: October 07, 2019, 04:13:08 PM »
Every source I've seen has indicated pretty much all of Europe, the state department, and the intelligence community wanted this prosecutor gone. But I'm sure Biden has the kind of influence to get everyone on the same page just to protect the cushy job his son got in Ukraine.

I haven't come across an article on exactly why everyone wanted the guy gone. It would seem strange to me that some prosecutor in Ukraine would inspire the annoyance of so many. What could he be doing that would rile them up? I would like to know that as well, in case someone happens to come across an article explaining it. I don't buy that he inspired international outrage because he was "corrupt"; that could be said of so many.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #279 on: October 07, 2019, 06:19:48 PM »
I see some of you are still trying to go with the theory that the WB complaint doesn't count if Schiff or his aides talked to the WB before the report was filed through ICIG. Fascinating. Jim Jordan level reasoning there.

And some are trying to go with the theory that a leaker gat is a registered Democrat that worked on another Democrat’s staff coordinated with Democrats to file a report that contains a only hearsay as well as includes a felony perjury omission is suddenly honest. Fascinating. That’s not even reasoning there.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #280 on: October 07, 2019, 06:22:26 PM »
Can you read Trump's mind? Just because there are plausible reasons for a policy decision doesn't mean that it is impossible that it was motivated by personal gain.

WTF?  :o

Just ...bizarre reasoning. Logic and reason have been completely rejected. Just incredible.

This is the definition of logic. Person A makes decision X, with two possibilities for why they made it. What evidence do we have to rule out one justification in favor of the other?

If somebody was a caregiver for a sick parent, knowing they stood to inherit substantial amounts, they might be motivated by love or by avarice. If they knew they would not inherit, we could securely state they were motivated by love.

It’s an emotional appeal that feels like logic, it presents what is known as a false dichotomy (example third option you ignore: motivated by sense of duty) coupled with proving a negative. Let’s demonstrate:

Just because there are plausible reasons for touching people doesn't mean that it is impossible that Biden was motivated by sexual gratification.

So now we know that Biden is a sexual predator, right? It’s not impossible therefore it’s true according to this deeply flawed logic you’ve championed.

It only feels right, it’s purely emotional.

I would say this is another can't know situation. We don't know if Biden is ignorant of social norms or willfully violating them out of predatory intent. Which is why he should stop. And also why I won't vote for Biden, even against trump.

As to the dichotomy, I thought two options were sufficient to illustrate the point.

A logical fallacy does not prove any point other than it’s a logically invalid argument.  ::)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #281 on: October 07, 2019, 10:34:40 PM »
Quote
House Democrats are looking to prevent the whistleblower from being identified by holding the person's testimony at a remote location and potentially changing their appearance and voice.

Secret testimony from a secret accuser giving hearsay evidence, all from a secret location. I hope they really do go this route. This would be perfect.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #282 on: October 08, 2019, 09:59:13 AM »
Every source I've seen has indicated pretty much all of Europe, the state department, and the intelligence community wanted this prosecutor gone. But I'm sure Biden has the kind of influence to get everyone on the same page just to protect the cushy job his son got in Ukraine.

I haven't come across an article on exactly why everyone wanted the guy gone. It would seem strange to me that some prosecutor in Ukraine would inspire the annoyance of so many. What could he be doing that would rile them up? I would like to know that as well, in case someone happens to come across an article explaining it. I don't buy that he inspired international outrage because he was "corrupt"; that could be said of so many.

I think its because he was the lead corruption prosecutor while Viktor Yanukovych was robbing the country.

Quote
In a feature with photos on Yanukovych's Mezhyhirya mansion, Sergii Leshchenko notes "For most of [Yanukovych's] career he was a public servant or parliament deputy, where his salary never exceeded 2000 US dollars per month." Under a photo showing the new home's ornate ceiling, Leschenko remarks, "In a country where 35% of the population live under poverty line, spending 100,000 dollars on each individual chandelier seems excessive, to say the least." Crowned with a pure copper roof, the mansion was the largest wooden structure ever created by Finnish log home builder Honka, whose representative suggested to Yanukovych that it be nominated for the Guinness Book of Records. The property contained a private zoo, underground shooting range, 18-hole golf course, tennis, and bowling. After describing the mansion's complicated ownership scheme, the article author noted, "The story of Viktor Yanukovych and his residence highlights a paradox. Having completely rejected such European values as human rights and democracy, the Ukrainian president uses Europe as a place to hide his dirty money with impunity."[170]

This seems like enough to want the lead "corruption" prosecutor out.

I suppose we could also ascribe to the theory that Joe Biden is powerful enough to get everyone in the government, media, and Europe to go along with him over a personal issue. Please don't believe this nonsense theory. Along this road lies the path of confirmation bias and disregarding any facts that don't fit into your Trump defined worldview.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #283 on: October 08, 2019, 10:22:54 AM »
After Biden got that prosecutor fired was the Burisma probe carried out or was it effectively stopped?

Wasn't the Burisma probe dead before Biden got the prosecutor fired?

No, in fact in carried on for a short period with the next prosecutor, who decided there was no evidence against Joe or Hunter.  Normally, that would be the end of it, but we have on record accounts by the first prosecutor from several US-linked vectors (ambassadors, as well as, Joe) that the investigation of Burisma had to be handled with "white gloves" or "kid gloves" (which was taken to mean to drop it), and that he was expressly told that he had to drop it by the President because the US demanded it.  It's an interesting re-direct to point to the prosecutor's own corruption, which was endemic in the Ukraine, as somehow an excuse - when literally everyone knew that Burisma was itself owned by a massively corrupt Ukrainian businessman and literally was exploiting government resources on a corrupt basis.

I mean the logic is really wonky.  Unless you're asserting that Burisma is legit (which, as far as I can tell, no one on earth believes), why would you ask/demand any prosecutor, even a corrupt one, drop a investigation of it?  And then condition US aid on it (which appeared to be the initial request, as the President told the Prosecutor to drop that specific investigation, and then later fired him under pressure).  If Burisma was dirty dropping that investigation should have been no part of a request.  Asking for it to be conducted fairly - totally fine (and you'll note (or more literally you won't note cause we only see things in partisan ways) in the Trump transcript they literally talked about conducting fair investigations).

Quote
Every source I've seen has indicated pretty much all of Europe, the state department, and the intelligence community wanted this prosecutor gone. But I'm sure Biden has the kind of influence to get everyone on the same page just to protect the cushy job his son got in Ukraine.

It's actually tough to find good sources (ie those not corrupted by a current writer, writing either to support or attack the President).  Here's one I found that seems good http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/12/30/corruption-in-ukraine-is-so-bad-a-nigerian-prince-would-be-embarrassed-2/.

You can see that item number 1 on the list is to replace Shokin, but the entire write up is about endemic corruption by the government that the US effectively installed.  Shokin looks more like a figure head in this than the core problem.  I think it's most fair to say the push was to end systematic corruption, and that they felt they needed a face at the top that made that a priority rather than was part of the system.

By the way, on that backdrop, it almost makes it a certainty that Shokin is telling the truth about how this was communicated to him.  That's the world they live in with oligarch's making demands or getting favors and Joe's personal involvement would have certainly been interpreted through that world view.

It's also interesting that in the 10 comments from back then, they already flagged out Joe and Hunter as being part of the corruption from Hunter's position at Burisma.

So, it is legit that Shokin's removal was desired, but it looks more like it was a means to an end, that they wanted a systematic ending of the Ukrainian corruption (or would one could look at it to mean that they wanted that corruption to protect rather than undermine EU/US interests if you're cynical - again, that's almost certainly how the Ukrainian oligarch's would have heard it based on their world view).

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #284 on: October 08, 2019, 11:43:00 AM »
Would  Biden's quilt exonerate Trump?

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #285 on: October 08, 2019, 01:29:17 PM »
Only if it's hand-stitched.  ;)  ;D

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #286 on: October 08, 2019, 04:42:05 PM »
Quote

Under questioning from Republicans during last Friday's impeachment inquiry interview with Atkinson, the inspector general revealed that the whistleblower's possible bias was not that he was simply a registered Democrat. It was that he had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge President Trump in next year's election.

"The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates," said one person with knowledge of what was said.

"The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates," said another person with knowledge of what was said.

"What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate," said a third person with knowledge of what was said.

The leaker is directly tied to a current Democratic presidential candidate. Well, that really sheds some light on the motivation. The whole thing is bull*censored*, a political show.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #287 on: October 08, 2019, 04:52:43 PM »
Quote
Well, that really sheds some light on the motivation.

Does the motivation of the WB mean Trump did not make the call?

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #288 on: October 08, 2019, 05:01:38 PM »
Crunch, I know it's hard, but you're going to have to try to understand that "Democrat" does not equate to "Not Allowed To Do Anything". So far, it looks like the allegations in the complaint are holding up just fine. It does not matter if the whistleblower had a bias, what matters is what Trump did and why. There are other witnesses and documents that will help show the truth of the matter.

So far, we have Pompeo asking if he's allowed to punish people for cooperating with the inquiry. We have text messages that show diplomats had reason to believe Trump was asking a political favor and might have been holding back military aid until the favor was promised. We have witnesses to the call that the ICIG interviewed and found consistent with the WB complaint. We have the WH ordering people not to comply with the inquiry. We have Trump engaging in the least believable clowntown attempt to portray himself as concerned about "corruption" but unable to identify any potential corruption that isn't a political opponent. We have many accounts from people inside the administration that acknowledge internal alarm at Trump's communications with Ukraine's president.

And we have a flood of disingenuous defenses that amount to making up rules about the WB process and then pretending they were violated.

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #289 on: October 08, 2019, 05:04:32 PM »
BTW, Sondall's "LET ME BE CLEAR WE ARE NOT COMMITTING A CRIME HERE" texts are laughable as a defense.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #290 on: October 08, 2019, 06:19:56 PM »
Quote
Well, that really sheds some light on the motivation.

Does the motivation of the WB mean Trump did not make the call?

That’s a elementary grade level thing to say in order to intentionally miss the rather obvious point. ::)

It means we have established the motive, methods, and opportunity for the leaker. We know the leaker lied on the WB complaint. We now know why the leaker, in direct coordination with Democrats acted on hearsay to leak what was hoped to be damaging information - specifically, so the leaker could impact the election in favor of his previous employer and preferred candidate. That’s all this is.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #291 on: October 08, 2019, 06:25:17 PM »
Crunch, I know it's hard, but you're going to have to try to understand that "Democrat" does not equate to "Not Allowed To Do Anything". So far, it looks like the allegations in the complaint are holding up just fine. It does not matter if the whistleblower had a bias, what matters is what Trump did and why. There are other witnesses and documents that will help show the truth of the matter.

And you’re really gonna need understand that “Democrat” does not equate to “Allowed to do anything”.  The allegations hold up only if you don’t care about being honest. It does, in fact, matter what the motive is to lie on a WB form. It matters quite a bit when people collude to illegally affect an election. Remember when you thought that too? Like, a year ago?

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #292 on: October 08, 2019, 06:37:58 PM »
There's no reason to think that the WB was lying. You're equating a bias with evidence of lying. Keep it up, you might get yourself into elected office.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #293 on: October 08, 2019, 06:43:41 PM »
So, trumps conflict of interest in wanting to weaken a political rival is fine, but a whistle blowers unproven conflict of interest wanting to weaken trump should make us so suspicious that we don't investigate. Have I got that right?

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #294 on: October 08, 2019, 07:53:01 PM »
Quote
We know the leaker lied on the WB complaint.
Granted, the story is moving fast, but what did they lie about?  I missed that part.   ???

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #295 on: October 09, 2019, 07:54:32 AM »
There's no reason to think that the WB was lying. You're equating a bias with evidence of lying. Keep it up, you might get yourself into elected office.

Wrong. I’m equating the leaker’s extreme bias with motive. We have incontrovertible proof that the leaker lied on the WB form (committing felony perjury). Now we know why the lie was told. The leaker is essentially working for the presidential campaign of a currently running democrat.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #296 on: October 09, 2019, 07:56:00 AM »
So, trumps conflict of interest in wanting to weaken a political rival is fine, but a whistle blowers unproven conflict of interest wanting to weaken trump should make us so suspicious that we don't investigate. Have I got that right?

No. Not even close.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #297 on: October 09, 2019, 08:02:35 AM »
Quote
We know the leaker lied on the WB complaint.
Granted, the story is moving fast, but what did they lie about?  I missed that part.   ???

The WB form asks if the leaker had contacted anyone else about the complaint. It has a number of checkboxes under this question including one that specifically calls out contact with members of Congress which was left unchecked and also an area to detail that contact which was left blank. The leaker did not reveal that Schiff had already been in contact and was involved. This is a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

The rest of the report is hearsay and Twitter reports and contains multiple inaccuracies. Not really a surprise when you base something solely on gossip. Given the rather blatant lie around collusion with Schiff and the confirmed facts that the leaker is actually a registered Democrat with a direct relationship to a current presidential candidate, shouldn’t there be some level of suspicion here? Why doso many simply accept it without a moments critical thought?
« Last Edit: October 09, 2019, 08:06:42 AM by Crunch »

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #298 on: October 09, 2019, 10:09:52 AM »
Quote
Does the motivation of the WB mean Trump did not make the call?

That’s a elementary grade level thing to say in order to intentionally miss the rather obvious point. ::)

It means we have established the motive, methods, and opportunity for the leaker. We know the leaker lied on the WB complaint. We now know why the leaker, in direct coordination with Democrats acted on hearsay to leak what was hoped to be damaging information - specifically, so the leaker could impact the election in favor of his previous employer and preferred candidate. That’s all this is

I'm a elementary guy. And you didn't answer the question.
That the WB didn't check some check box does not mean Trump didn't do what the report said he did. Funny that few are arguing that Trump didn't do what the report claims he did. Instead is diversion, diversion diversion.

Deep down I think you know your on the wrong side of this one. 

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #299 on: October 09, 2019, 10:59:47 AM »
Crunch, just to save time.
They ARE out to get Trump.
They DO coordinate to that end.

They (again) think they got him cornered.  Either your guy will worm his way out of it, or just delay through election time, or he won't. 

SC:  check
Tax break:  check
Deregulation:  check
Poison Globalism trends:  check
Poison environmentalist trends:  check?

In order to do so he intentionally acts as sleazy and corrupt as possible (hopefully) without ending up in jail or bounced out of office.  The constant outrage IS the plan.  And shockingly it seems to work.  You'll just have to wait for the rest of us to catch up to the die hard "Trump supporters".  We didn't realize how far gone the country already was.  You guys are ahead of the curve and willing to sacrifice the last of the facades for the "gains" above. 

We kinda knew everyone was hungry, we just didn't realize half of you had already decided cannibalism was the solution.