Author Topic: Ukraine  (Read 66318 times)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #300 on: October 09, 2019, 12:11:38 PM »
So Grant, I read through the timeline you quoted earlier, it's pretty partisan and anti-President.  I found it fascinating how quickly the media can compile something when it's anti-Trump and seem to find a lot of "supporting" items (but can't seem to be bothered when it's not anti-Trump, or able to find confounding items). 

It was fascinating to see where they "start" their timeline and what they treat as background.  They treated Hunter's appointment in 2014 as background and focus on the corruption in the Ukraine at that time.  A problem on which the US and EU should be aligned, correct?  It's seems though that they "forgot" about what was actually going on at that time, and the real dispute BETWEEN the US and the EU related to the Ukraine.  Specifically, the EU was considering expanding it's energy relationship with Russia by purchasing oil and gas from Russia, and the US was hard selling the EU to isolate Russia and, by "coincidence" to buy oil and gas from the Ukraine.  Hunter got that position at the exact time the US government was pushing Ukranian energy for the purpose of isolating Russia.  Interesting timing that Biden is front man on the Ukraine at the exact time we are pushing Ukranian gas to Europe and his son ends up at a Ukranian gas company.

So what about the corruption angle?  Apparently, a big part of the EU reluctance to use Ukranian energy over Russia was tied into the corruption problem, with numerous payments and loans from the EU being redirected to oligarch accounts and being defaulted.  Makes it hard to get those  Ukranian deals going.  Not evidence - to me - that Biden pushed the prosecutor out to save his son, but seems open and shut that Hunter had inside knowledge and exploited his connection (almost certainly with his father's knowledge) to end up in a position to benefit from US policy.

Another tid-bit that gets ignored.  The call with the Ukranian President was literally the day after Mueller's public testimoney.  The issue of how the fake investigation got started was completely on Trump's mind, in his tweets and in his re-tweets.  It's not remotely shocking that he would have asked the Ukranian president about the origins of that probe and the information that was in the Ukraine.  Given the closing of the book on the witch hunt into collusion, Trump and Barr were launching multiple investigations of how DNC lies triggered both spying on a campaign and a two year investigation.

Quote
Well, that really sheds some light on the motivation.

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

No, it speaks to why the leaker misstated the contents of the call and drafted an impeachment roadmap that they pretended was a WB complaint.

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.

Is there another complaint?  The only material "allegations" have for large part been shown false, and were shown false as soon as the call transcript released.  Yep the "allegation" there was a call turned out true, but the allegations of the contents did not.

Specifically, the "allegations" said that multiple officials with direct knowledge of the call said that "after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests."  Not true.

"Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid."  Not true, which is exactly why the "no quid pro quo" line is so powerful and why the media and Schiff have falsified statements to create a meme that wasn't there.

"According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to, inter alia: initiate or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden;"  Not true, no pressure was present.  As far as "asking for a investigation" it was in the form of 'lots of people are talking about it' and whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.  In other words, what facts do you have on what looks like a violation of law, and could you send them to the AG (not Rudy).  It's also interesting given that we now know that the investigation had been reopened well before the call - which was apparently not something that the media/DNC wanted widely known, that the leaker hedged the bet.  Since that info was available open source, and he had no problem compiling things related to Ukraine and claimed expertise thereon, it seems like the leaker would have known the answer to that question.  It would have massively undercut the entire basis for this "report" if the investigation was already known to be occurring, but they clearly couldn't resist the hedge - which says to me that they in fact knew it was ongoing and are afraid that when they get revealed the fact that they did would become evident.

"assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election originated in Ukraine,..."  This is sort of true.  The request for such assistance was the "favor."  But the reference to "Russian interference" was not directly in there.  Rather the actual request was for information in the Ukraine related to the "whole mess" with the 2016 election.  Whether you believe the investigation of Trump's campaign was fake or real, information about either situation would be about a crime and an appropriate request of the President (I think it's obvious what the President believes or he wouldn't be asking for it to be sent to Barr).

"...with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike, which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the DNC’s networks in 2016;"  It's fascinating that this allegation is there.  No where did the DNC get mentioned, nor the work about Russian hackers.  Crowdstrike and "servers" were mentioned, and that's likely a fair implication but claiming it was a "specific request" and then including the extra details make it misleading.  Especially given the lead in discussed in the prior paragraph.  This is in FACT part of the President's duty and he again specifically referenced the AG - who is in fact currently conducting an investigation into how the FBI's counterterrorism investigation started and morphed into the Meuller investigation. 

So, again, proper exercise of executive power, and that's before you even consider that CrowdStrike's reputation for faking things has come to be, and the only source of "Russian" hacking of the DNC servers comes from Crowdstrike.  Not denying the possibility of course, only that it's a heck of a lot to turn upon the word of an openly partisan company with a reputation for manipulating situations and whose claims are politically useful (or more useful say than a finding that four or five countries breached the servers, or that the Chinese downloaded them would be).

"meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem."  This is actually false.  Barr was never presented as a "personal envoy" only as the AG in connection with legitimate investigations.  The linking here was done on purpose and with malice.  Rudy wasn't mentioned until the Ukranian President brought him up, largely because they had met with him months before.  Trump didn't declare him a personal envoy either just someone knowledgeable on the situation (which is literally true, given he was spear heading the investigation in his capacity as one of Trump's lawyers).  In any event the "linkage" was largely just that Trump said he'd have both of them call the Ukranian, only once implying together and several times implying separately.  If you look at it, the repeated references most closely resemembles someone trying to get off a call by repeating the next steps.

That's just from page 2 of the compliant.  So again, it's not holding up on any material claims.  It's an old propaganda trick to mix in a bunch of true but innocuous statements that relate to the manipulative lie.  That's all you're seeing here.  The leaker's opinion about the call is irrelevant when we have the call.  The leaker's claims about the call are false and don't hold up.  If you want to give the benefit of the doubt, this shows why second or third hand information is not admissable in court, cause even a "well meaning" recipient of such information is getting information that's been passed through a game of telephone to say things it never did.

Quote
It does not matter if the whistleblower had a bias, what matters is what Trump did and why.

It does matter if the leaker had a bias.  I can't overlook the "coincidence" that the leaker produced an impeachment road map, that he discussed with House DNC committee members prior to August 12th, which is literally in the two week period immediately following Mueller's testimoney implosion that killed any real possibility of using his report as an impeachment road map.  This doc was purpose built to "save" an impeachment looking for a cause.

There's no good basis to accept hearsay that is contradicted by the record.  There's every reason to view this as an illegal leak and not a whistle blower complaint, and that goes 100% to the leaker's bias.

What Trump did - didn't violate any laws, and seems reasonable in light of the conduct being investigated, and I presume his reasons include having been subjected to a 2 year investigation of fake crimes by the deep state and wanting to get to the bottom of it.  How many times has he said some form of "this can never be allowed to happen to another President"?

Quote
There are other witnesses and documents that will help show the truth of the matter.

There really are not.  Unless there's another call with Trump this is a fake issue.

Quote
So far, we have Pompeo asking if he's allowed to punish people for cooperating with the inquiry.

Really?  We have the actual letters that the House DNC has sent threatening to punish people if they don't cooperate - notwithstanding that the threats are not remotely in compliance with existing law.

Quote
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.

You have a leaked text message (interesting how that particular interrogation was conducted behind closed doors and the leaks are partisan - but nothing to see here), that shows someone asked about whether there was a quid pro quo and was expressly told the direction from the top is that under no circumstances will there be a quid pro quo.

Quote
We have witnesses to the call that the ICIG interviewed and found consistent with the WB complaint.

Do we?  Show me.  Are those witnesses expressly claiming the call record is false?  Cause otherwise what we "have" is evidence of more coordination to bring a false claim.

Quote
We have the WH ordering people not to comply with the inquiry.

You should read the WH's letter.  It's directly on point about the abuses going on here.

If you can't answer anything else, explain directly, why you believe the House process doesn't need to be fair and comply with Constitutional protections.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #301 on: October 09, 2019, 12:15:08 PM »
I'm a elementary guy. And you didn't answer the question

The facts say Trump didn't do what the leaker says.  The motivation of the leaker has nothing to do with Trump making a call, and everything to do with the leaker lying about the contents of the call.
 
Quote
Funny that few are arguing that Trump didn't do what the report claims he did. Instead is diversion, diversion diversion.

Trump didn't do the material things the the report says he did.  This is the Trump dossier redux, mix a lie in with some truth and claim the "verification" and support of the true parts makes the lie true too.

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

What scares me more, is that deep down you don't know you're on the wrong side of this one.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #302 on: October 09, 2019, 12:39:57 PM »
Quote
The facts say Trump didn't do what the leaker says

Because of the stone walling its really difficult to know what the facts are.

Based on the transcript of the call and the confusion it caused those in the state department and what I know of the WB report something smells. Enough of a stink to require a investigation. If Trump didn't do anything wrong it will come out and like the Muller report dismissed. That is the process.

For the defenders to blindly fall into all the Trumps go to distraction, hyperbole and lies is troubling as they undermining the very ground they say they stand on.

I get it lets go back to investigating emails and Benghazi. This time for sure...

You know, we all know, that if these allegations were directed against a Obama or Biden you would be all over it. Demanding a investigation.
We see the hypocrisy.


« Last Edit: October 09, 2019, 12:42:59 PM by rightleft22 »

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #303 on: October 09, 2019, 01:09:01 PM »
Seriati, your position boils down to "I believe Trump". You have a lot more time to cite the right wing talking points than I have to respond to them.

"If you can't answer anything else, explain directly, why you believe the House process doesn't need to be fair and comply with Constitutional protections."

The GOP has now invented a constitutional standard for impeachment inquiries that is not defined in law or the Constitution. The trial in the Senate would be where such things as cross examination and calling witnesses for the defense would happen. The letter from WH counsel is a political document.


There is a ton of direct hypocrisy from GOP members of congress on this one. Lindsay Graham has a lot of choice quotes from the Clinton impeachment, including that refusing to comply with an impeachment inquiry is itself an impeachable offense.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #304 on: October 09, 2019, 01:43:58 PM »
Oh bull*censored* scifibum.  The House has never conducted a Presidential impeachment in this manner.  The precedents are rare, as they should be, but they are crystal clear.  And the House is the one that is issuing subpeonas - the Constitution directly speaks to that. 

There's no legitimate basis to argue that the entire basis of our legal system - the adversarial process - has no bearing on the House's investigation.  Only someone who does not want the truth to come out, and who believes that partisan bias is enough would call for that.  Seriously, your argument boils down to a technicality, and supports ignoring the constitutional rights to assistance of counsel, freedom from compelled testimony, requirement of probable cause and right to confront your acusser.

Your argument is literally that the House is entitled to run a banana court.  If you believe that then you have no basis for believing that Trump is guilty of anything.

And RL, I don't have to believe Trump, the transcript was released.  IT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE LEAKER'S CLAIMS ON THE IMPORTANT POINTS.  Calling me a partisan doesn't fix the flaw that the leaker either lied or was grossly mistaken on the relevant points.

Ignoring the fact that this seems to literally be connected to Mueller's failure to deliver an impeachment, and the collusion with the House DNC and seeing this as anything but partisan is ALSO highly questionable.  I curious, did you anywhere respond to any of my questions on the fact patterns that relate to the DNC?  Again, you didn't because this is partisan and there is no legitimate basis to ignore the situations that have more factual predicates but involve Democrats.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #305 on: October 09, 2019, 01:53:41 PM »
Impeachment hearings are basically a Grand Jury equivalent.  It is nothing like a trial.  They are purely to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to impeach.  Claims that it is or should be an adeversarial process are bizarre and have no basis in history or Constitutional intent. The trial by the Senate acts like a court, not congress.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #306 on: October 09, 2019, 02:50:49 PM »
No basis in history?  Except the rights missing were in the other Presidential impeachments.

Why exactly are you afraid of a process that lets the President's lawyers cross examine the witnesses?  How exactly does it improve the decision of the House and the American people not to get all the facts out up front?

The fact is, your position is unAmerican, and I think you know it.  But this show trial only works if only the Democratic message - without regard to the truth - gets put on the table.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #307 on: October 09, 2019, 03:01:05 PM »
Why exactly are you afraid of a process that lets the President's lawyers cross examine the witnesses?  How exactly does it improve the decision of the House and the American people not to get all the facts out up front?

Given that most of them are employees of the government, retaliation would be the primary fear of forcing them to testify openly and be cross examined by the presidents people.

Remember this is the president who moved a whole department from DC to Kansas City because he didn't like the fact that they put out research that showed food stamps had a positive economic impact and that climate change would impact agriculture. But hey, these people should have nothing to fear from testifying before congress with the presidents people in the room.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #308 on: October 09, 2019, 03:09:19 PM »
Probably a silly question:  but what do you think the point of whistle blower laws are?

What possible positive outcome, in terms of the public good, would be served by outing a whistle blower?  In ANY situation, let alone this one...

We are well aware of the negative outcome.  I mean, when the president is already calling you a traitor, it's pretty clear they want to plug leaks and make an example of the whistle blower. 

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #309 on: October 09, 2019, 03:16:50 PM »
Wow, he moved a department about agriculture to the part of the country that engages in agriculture.  Couldn't possibly be because it'd grown complete unresponsive to the industries it's regulating?

I have no problem with whistleblowers.  I have a problem with labeling this as a whistleblower situation.

Seriously though, keep doubling down.  As of now, you all seem to be on record as opposing a fair process and believing that the intent of the framers was to authorize a Kangaroo court in the House, notwithstanding everything they ever wrote or did with respect to fairness and process.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #310 on: October 09, 2019, 03:24:59 PM »
Actually, if you read the constitution, the intent of the framers was to hold a court in the Senate.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #311 on: October 09, 2019, 03:32:33 PM »
Probably a silly question:  but what do you think the point of whistle blower laws are?

I think they are there to allow people to act on their conscience to report what they view as a wrongdoing without fear of being fired from their job.

Quote
What possible positive outcome, in terms of the public good, would be served by outing a whistle blower?  In ANY situation, let alone this one...

If the WB appears to be part of an orchestrated team effort, obscuring or falsifying who they have/haven't been working with and then leaks their complaint to the opposing party ahead of releasing it, it raises tremendous suspicion as to it’s validity. If it turned out that the WB complaint was crafted and messaged with direct help from the opposing party, I’d want them outed for sure. I’d want the same regardless of party. Or, if the WB was forwarding information that they knew was false, I would also want them outed.

Quote
We are well aware of the negative outcome.  I mean, when the president is already calling you a traitor, it's pretty clear they want to plug leaks and make an example of the whistle blower.

I believe this is because the evidence for suggesting the WB was working in a highly coordinated effort with democrats is literally stronger than the complaint itself.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2019, 03:36:46 PM by ScottF »

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #312 on: October 09, 2019, 03:45:34 PM »
Quote
I believe this is because the evidence for suggesting the WB was working in a highly coordinated effort with democrats is literally stronger than the complaint itself.

As of now a memo written by the WB on July 26 is public. It has all the same stuff as the WB complaint. Does the conspiracy theory now require that Schiff was involved the day after the call?

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #313 on: October 09, 2019, 03:49:42 PM »
Quote
Except the rights missing were in the other Presidential impeachments.

Yeah...right. Clinton's impeachment came about as a result of the Starr report.  I really think you're confusing the impeachment with the trial.

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #314 on: October 09, 2019, 03:57:14 PM »
Those of you who think the impeachment inquiry needs to have a lot of process including an adaptation of the adversarial trial system should read this:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/must-house-vote-authorize-impeachment-inquiry

Of note:
Articles of impeachment can be introduced without any process at all. The House can vote to impeach without any inquiry. There's nothing unconstitutional or illegal about that.

All the House has to do is follow its own rules.

Quote
If the House could by itself and by majority vote oust a president, then there would be good reason to demand a robust process before reaching that decision. If the Democrats held it within their power to remove a sitting president, then there would be good reason to object to a partisan process that did not give a fair hearing to the other side. But as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been sure to point out, the Democrats do not have it within their power to remove the people’s choice of a president without Republican cooperation.


Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #315 on: October 09, 2019, 05:15:39 PM »
As of now a memo written by the WB on July 26 is public. It has all the same stuff as the WB complaint. Does the conspiracy theory now require that Schiff was involved the day after the call?

Just read the memo, most of it's claims are more incorrect than they appear in the WB account.  In fact they're down right false when compared to the released call - even if you were to argue that the call has edits (which there's literally no evidence to support) many of the bullets would not be true unless it was also materially falsified (again no evidence of this, and next to zero chance it happened).  The fact that the WB does not fully align with the memo, including for the reasons I listed above, is a lot of evidence that it was in fact crafted by a team of lawyers.  The "memo" reads like what you'd expect a whistle blower to relate.  Of course if this memo had been the complaint, it would have been compared to the call record and properly dismissed as false.  Lucky for us it got redrafted.

And again, I note the "parallel" to the behavior of Comey, in drafting memo's to support a treatment that the recollection is more "proven."  Given this is on the 26th, and it's already materially erroneous, it sounds as if there's a real possibility that this person was fed a line to sell.

You may also note that the memo notes that the call transcript should be treated as "eyes only" and yet, the cabal backing the whistleblower seems to have have freely discussed it (or at least '6 or more' of them), and not to have seen it to be a duty to accurately relate the information.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #316 on: October 10, 2019, 07:40:52 AM »
Quote
Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden received $900,000 for lobbying activities from Burisma Group, Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada member Andriy Derkach said citing investigation materials.

Derkach publicized documents which, as he said, "describe the mechanism of getting money by Biden Sr." at a press conference at Interfax-Ukraine's press center in Kyiv on Wednesday.

"This was the transfer of Burisma Group's funds for lobbying activities, as investigators believe, personally to Joe Biden through a lobbying company. Funds in the amount of $900,000 were transferred to the U.S.-based company Rosemont Seneca Partners, which according to open sources, in particular, the New York Times, is affiliated with Biden. The payment reference was payment for consultative services," Derkach said.

If this is correct, Sciff and the gang destroyed Biden with this operation and may have even set him up for criminal prosecution. Collateral damage can be a bitch.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #317 on: October 10, 2019, 09:01:24 AM »
Seriously though, keep doubling down.  As of now, you all seem to be on record as opposing a fair process and believing that the intent of the framers was to authorize a Kangaroo court in the House, notwithstanding everything they ever wrote or did with respect to fairness and process.

The house doesn't have to do any investigation. They could simply vote to impeach with a list of charges and send it to the Senate. Here's the thing, I think its likely Trump abused his power in office. I honestly don't think its worth the house impeaching him over because the Senate seems certain to acquit him. A censure vote is probably the right balance here unless something more damning comes out that the senate Republicans simply can't ignore or explain away.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #318 on: October 10, 2019, 09:03:04 AM »
If this is correct, Sciff and the gang destroyed Biden with this operation and may have even set him up for criminal prosecution. Collateral damage can be a bitch.

If Biden is guilty then I won't shed any tears for him. But his guilt or lack there of has little bearing on Trump's abuse of power.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #319 on: October 10, 2019, 11:14:46 AM »
Seriously though, keep doubling down.  As of now, you all seem to be on record as opposing a fair process and believing that the intent of the framers was to authorize a Kangaroo court in the House, notwithstanding everything they ever wrote or did with respect to fairness and process.

The house doesn't have to do any investigation. They could simply vote to impeach with a list of charges and send it to the Senate.

I agree.  The problem is not that the House can impeach, the problem is that the House DNC want to conduct a show trial on impeachment.  The "sole" power to try impeachments sits in the Senate, who are required to do it under oath, something that is missing in the House.

My second problem is the House using it's impeachment authority for the purpose of trying to generate political dirt to influence the 2020 campaign.  That's not why they have the power either.

If they want to vote out articles of impeachment today, go right ahead.  But trying to run a partisan trial process to "convict in the court of public opinion" is not in their authority.  In fact, I'm willing to bet that they will expressly try to claim that the Senate trial is fake.  They also have the option to vote to investigate if they don't feel they've got impeachable offenses yet (though, every committee head has flat out said they do).  And then we can see if their investigation authorization looks like they intend a fair process or witch hunt.

Quote
Here's the thing, I think its likely Trump abused his power in office. I honestly don't think its worth the house impeaching him over because the Senate seems certain to acquit him. A censure vote is probably the right balance here unless something more damning comes out that the senate Republicans simply can't ignore or explain away.

I think the Senate is likely to demonstrate that Trump did not abuse his power, not just to refuse to remove him.  That's a big part why they didn't move on the Mueller obstruction charges, the legal basis was false (which would have come out in any kind of process, but the media ignores) and the "facts" largely consisted of opinion differences.  How well does Comey saying, "Trump did it for this reason" hold up versus two dozen witnesses and public Trump statements saying it was for this other legitimate reason?   Answer it doesn't, but Mueller didn't have to include all those statements in his report.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2019, 11:26:01 AM by Seriati »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #320 on: October 10, 2019, 11:30:48 AM »
If this is correct, Sciff and the gang destroyed Biden with this operation and may have even set him up for criminal prosecution. Collateral damage can be a bitch.

If Biden is guilty then I won't shed any tears for him. But his guilt or lack there of has little bearing on Trump's abuse of power.

I'll just mention that the entire premise of both the whistle-blowing as well as those taking this position here is that Trump's intent in going to Zelenskyy for help was to abuse power to further his election chances. Legally I'm not exactly sure how the following distinction works, but if his actual intent was "this was a bad guy, I want to make sure he doesn't end up President of the U.S." then is it an abuse of power to request assistance from an ally to do that? In other words, if you remove the "to help his election chances" from the table, i.e. remove the motive you ascribe to it, is it still an abuse of power?

Now I'll admit it's tempting to just look at what he did and go "duh, he's after his main opponent, obviously that's a clear motive", and the fact that Trump is assumed to be bad in all things and therefore cannot have a good motive doesn't make it easy to even pretend he has noble reasons for anything he does. But I think what others have asked is, forget for the moment it's Trump that did this and replace him with, I dunno, JFK, is his action still abusive in and of itself? I mean, let's say it's proven eventually Biden was horribly corrupt; will there be any chance of you remarking something to the effect that "wow, good on Trump for exposing that"? And I ask that with the converse being on the table too, which is "as we suspected, Trump is a corrupt ass."

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #321 on: October 10, 2019, 11:40:49 AM »
Now I'll admit it's tempting to just look at what he did and go "duh, he's after his main opponent, obviously that's a clear motive", and the fact that Trump is assumed to be bad in all things and therefore cannot have a good motive doesn't make it easy to even pretend he has noble reasons for anything he does. But I think what others have asked is, forget for the moment it's Trump that did this and replace him with, I dunno, JFK, is his action still abusive in and of itself? I mean, let's say it's proven eventually Biden was horribly corrupt; will there be any chance of you remarking something to the effect that "wow, good on Trump for exposing that"? And I ask that with the converse being on the table too, which is "as we suspected, Trump is a corrupt ass."

Here's the thing, I've said it multiple times here. If Biden is corrupt the place for that investigation is within the US justice department. Not in Ukraine, while military aid is being withheld while Trump is asking for this investigation.

Its perfectly possible Trump could abuse his power and uncover corruption. I mean he's dealing with politicians in DC. The guilt or innocence of his target doesn't negate his own corruption. Unless we're cool with going back to the FBI days under Hoover where the FBI keeps blackmail material on powerful people. Except instead of the FBI its a foreign government who is under considerable pressure from the president to get results in their investigation.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #322 on: October 10, 2019, 11:44:18 AM »
Here's the thing, I've said it multiple times here. If Biden is corrupt the place for that investigation is within the US justice department. Not in Ukraine, while military aid is being withheld while Trump is asking for this investigation.

The request was to contact Barr - ie to refer the information to the US justice department.  We have treaties in place specifically with foreign countries for assistance in connection with investigations where the facts in question reside on foreign soil.  The Ukranian President asserted multiple times that their process would be fair and didn't promise to deliver helpful information, to which Trump repeatedly said that was good.

So pretty much, this is exactly what you say should happen.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #323 on: October 10, 2019, 12:07:00 PM »
Here's the thing, I've said it multiple times here. If Biden is corrupt the place for that investigation is within the US justice department. Not in Ukraine, while military aid is being withheld while Trump is asking for this investigation.

The request was to contact Barr - ie to refer the information to the US justice department.  We have treaties in place specifically with foreign countries for assistance in connection with investigations where the facts in question reside on foreign soil.  The Ukranian President asserted multiple times that their process would be fair and didn't promise to deliver helpful information, to which Trump repeatedly said that was good.

So pretty much, this is exactly what you say should happen.

Except all the contacts were through Gulliani, not Barr. What I'm saying is that without an active investigation in the US the president shouldn't be pressuring foreign heads of state to start one. Some evidence of corruption has to also exist within the US, without that evidence and process Trump shouldn't be bringing this up in a call with foreign heads of state. If there were investigators within the US who were being stone walled by Ukrainian officials and they requested help getting the relevant information then the request is appropriate. Starting the investigation at the WH, running it through the presidents personal attorney, and passing it off to a foreign head of state is not an appropriate process.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #324 on: October 10, 2019, 12:18:44 PM »
Here's the thing, I've said it multiple times here. If Biden is corrupt the place for that investigation is within the US justice department. Not in Ukraine, while military aid is being withheld while Trump is asking for this investigation.

No, but that's sort of a dodge. I'm asking whether you'll have any chance of being congratulatory towards Trump in exposing some very un-Presidential corruption if it turns out to be true. Putting aside you don't like how he spoke to Zelenskyy, would you be pleased with the outcome? But I would like to additionally point out that your argument here is entirely circular, as your premise for knowing Trump's action was not possibly good was the "fact" of it being extortion through denying military aid. But that is in fact the issue that needs to be resolved, whereas you are supposing it as a premise to back up your general position. Trump's action is corrupt because we know it's corrupt; a tautology to be sure but not demonstrated. Btw I'll be first to draw lines where no clear evidence is present since most of what goes on is out of our view, but in this case the alleged call really is in our view.

Quote
Its perfectly possible Trump could abuse his power and uncover corruption. I mean he's dealing with politicians in DC. The guilt or innocence of his target doesn't negate his own corruption.

Do you mean his other corruption, or this particular act? I *hate* political corruption. I would have the office of the Presidency turned into a monkish monetary if I had my way. And I tell you I didn't see what you saw in that phone call document.

Quote
Unless we're cool with going back to the FBI days under Hoover where the FBI keeps blackmail material on powerful people. Except instead of the FBI its a foreign government who is under considerable pressure from the president to get results in their investigation.

You mean you think this isn't how things work anyhow? What do you think Epstein's operation was? You really don't think every foreign government is trying to maximize on its dirt that it can leverage over people, and trade it for favors?

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #325 on: October 10, 2019, 12:31:11 PM »
A:  Hey, C has got their finger on the scale!
B:  Now now, if you point that out, people will unfairly assume we ASKED them for help.  That will damage the electoral process.
A:  I suppose that makes some sense...
C:  <laughs quietly>
B:  Hey, look we won!

D:  C, if yer out there, we're gonna need your help again!
A:   Are you kidding me?  You gotta stop him!  He cannot DO that!
B:  What?  if E is corrupt, it's up to D to sort that out!

This may make for an amusing comedy bit, but it makes a real *censored* show out of our nation.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #326 on: October 10, 2019, 12:38:21 PM »
D.W. it should come as no mystery that in politics you try to destroy your opponents and find dirt on them. The issue here isn't "look at what he did! But don't look at me!" The issue is purely about whether a President can talk to a foreign leader about things like this; and more specifically, whether this call in particular was extortive. That's it; it's not about how the U.S. is degenerating into a power struggle, because it was already that. All I asked was whether yossarian could imagine a case where if this call wasn't extortive that we could envision a scenario where a very bad Presidential candidate is removed from the race. Incidentally I do think he's a very bad candidate and that it would be good if he's removed from the race (like Jeb Bush), so I can at least imagine the scenario.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #327 on: October 10, 2019, 12:45:16 PM »
The extortion question hinges on if there was any sign that Ukraine was unwilling to conduct legitimate investigations. This kind of pressure might be warranted if Ukraine was stonewalling actual investigations but not if it was just trying to avoid getting enmeshed in US domestic politics.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #328 on: October 10, 2019, 12:48:53 PM »
Except all the contacts were through Gulliani, not Barr.

Guilliani was investigating the matter as Trump's lawyer.  The accounts I saw said he'd largely ceased working on it months previously.  Do you have different information.  Trump's reference to G in the call, was because he was knowledgeable on the subject (you know, cause he did the research on it), but he asked that they coordinate with Barr.

I think you may be misremembering (or may have been deceived by the media).

Quote
What I'm saying is that without an active investigation in the US the president shouldn't be pressuring foreign heads of state to start one.

There is an active investigation of the sources of the 2016 election interference.  And the "investigation" into Biden's son, as well as to the 2016 election interference both directly reference speaking to the AG not Giuliani.  So again, it seems your standard has been met.

Quote
Some evidence of corruption has to also exist within the US, without that evidence and process Trump shouldn't be bringing this up in a call with foreign heads of state.

That's a false standard.  Do you think the DOJ is prohibited from investigating violations of US law that occur completely on foreign soil?  The foreign corrupt practices act would disagree.  Not to mention, such acts would also be subject to impeachment investigations.  In any event, if you want an "act" you have Biden bragging on tv in the US about forcing the prosecutor out, which is enough to tie it together (or would be to any experienced RICO prosecutor). 

Quote
If there were investigators within the US who were being stone walled by Ukrainian officials and they requested help getting the relevant information then the request is appropriate. Starting the investigation at the WH, running it through the presidents personal attorney, and passing it off to a foreign head of state is not an appropriate process.

There's no expectation that "stone walling" is required to lead to a contact. And I think that you are completely discounting what it's very likely that Trump believes, and that I would suspect that Barr believes as well, that foreign intelligence agencies and/or state department staffers were involved in the frame up that the 2016 election interference that triggered Mueller's probe.  I've not remotely seen an adequate explanation for the amount of spies and foreign government involvement around Papadopoulus (where one spy told him about Russian emails, another spy relayed that to the Australian government, and apparently the US government dedicated undercover resources to investigate him personally).  You have an English spy behind the dossier, with heavy reliance on false statements that originated in Russian/Ukraine.  Against that backdrop the President asking the Head of State actually makes far more sense that going through the diplomatic/intelligence channels that seem to have been misused/involved in the conduct.

Not to mention, I think your timeline of passing this through G to the DOJ is probably false.  It's also an interesting claim to make that Trump's lawyer investigating illegal activities of his opponent and passing that to the DOJ is somehow wrong after spending years defending Hillary's use of Perkins Coie to solicit foreign interference in the 2016 campaign.  Is it wrong or not?  Does it make a difference that Hillary turned up Russian propaganda, and that G appears to have turned up actual conduct?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #329 on: October 10, 2019, 12:51:52 PM »
Quote
replace him with, I dunno, JFK, is his action still abusive in and of itself? I mean, let's say it's proven eventually Biden was horribly corrupt; will there be any chance of you remarking something to the effect that "wow, good on Trump for exposing that"

Maybe I'm getting this wrong however in the scenario JFK would be guilty. Assuming that asking a foreign power to investigate a political opponent - hints at a quid pro quo, is against the law, constitution and his outh.

You seem to be arguing that a President can break the law in the pursuit of "justice"?

Perhaps if Trump has made such requests for none political opponents you could say this is just what a president does. But I thinking in a court of law that if such a thing was discovered, the defendant would get off. 

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #330 on: October 10, 2019, 12:56:37 PM »
The extortion question hinges on if there was any sign that Ukraine was unwilling to conduct legitimate investigations. This kind of pressure might be warranted if Ukraine was stonewalling actual investigations but not if it was just trying to avoid getting enmeshed in US domestic politics.

Did you know that Ukraine had reopened the investigation several months before this phone call took place? It’s a recent revelation and, for obvious reasons, not getting much media coverage.

So what we have is a second hand accusation of extortion to get Ukraine to do something they were already doing by threatening them with something they didn’t even know about. How’s that supposed to have worked?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #331 on: October 10, 2019, 01:00:59 PM »
Maybe I'm getting this wrong however in the scenario JFK would be guilty. Assuming that asking a foreign power to investigate a political opponent - hints at a quid pro quo, is against the law, constitution and his outh.

You seem to be arguing that a President can break the law in the pursuit of "justice"?

No, RL, you missed my point. The entire case that some here are presenting is that Trump is guilty of corruption (and should be impeached) based on extorting Zelenskyy, which in turn is supported by the contents of the call, which you say "hints at" a quid pro quo. The hint itself rides entirely on Trump's reputation and my question was specifically whether a President with a different, even unimpeachable, reputation, would cause the "hint" to be assessed differently? My question was, to be fair, a little coy, because I'm fairly sure the answer is yes. If it was JFK no one would assume his call was evidence of extorting the Ukraine. I'm also not saying we should ignore reputation, so take Trump's background into account if you like. But my question was *strictly* about whether it's Trump doing it that looks bad, or whether anyone doing it would look bad. How you interpret "do me a favor" really changes if it's Mother Theresa asking versus a mafia don, wouldn't you say?

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #332 on: October 10, 2019, 01:19:24 PM »
Did you know that Ukraine had reopened the investigation several months before this phone call took place? It’s a recent revelation and, for obvious reasons, not getting much media coverage.

So what we have is a second hand accusation of extortion to get Ukraine to do something they were already doing by threatening them with something they didn’t even know about. How’s that supposed to have worked?

So why would Trump need to make such a point of bringing up the investigation if it was already underway? Maybe he wanted to make sure of the results?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #333 on: October 10, 2019, 01:26:39 PM »
So why would Trump need to make such a point of bringing up the investigation if it was already underway? Maybe he wanted to make sure of the results?

You didn't ask this to me, but on the face of it the answer seems clear to me: the entire call was about congratulating Zelenskyy and having a love-in, and Trump named a few things in the call that are important to him. It read a lot to me like "you're great, I'm great, we'll do great things! we'll do the weapons aid thing, we'll do the cracking down on corruption thing, we'll look into those suspicious events, we'll make Ukraine great again! don't forget the important things we'll do!"

Yeah, of course they are things important to Trump. But the call doesn't have to be seen as 'making sure' of anything, just a quick chat about the upcoming agenda between the two of them and how great it will be.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #334 on: October 10, 2019, 01:33:36 PM »
No, RL, you missed my point. The entire case that some here are presenting is that Trump is guilty of corruption (and should be impeached) based on extorting Zelenskyy, which in turn is supported by the contents of the call, which you say "hints at" a quid pro quo. The hint itself rides entirely on Trump's reputation and my question was specifically whether a President with a different, even unimpeachable, reputation, would cause the "hint" to be assessed differently?

You seem to have overlooked much of the additional evidence.  See this discussion that quotes from transcripts of US officials phone calls, that make it quite explicit what was being done.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-key-takeaways-from-the-text-messages-from-Kurt-Volker-with-other-U-S-officials-concerning-the-provision-of-aide-to-Ukraine/answer/Habib-Fanny



Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #335 on: October 10, 2019, 02:02:40 PM »
You seem to have overlooked much of the additional evidence.  See this discussion that quotes from transcripts of US officials phone calls, that make it quite explicit what was being done.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-key-takeaways-from-the-text-messages-from-Kurt-Volker-with-other-U-S-officials-concerning-the-provision-of-aide-to-Ukraine/answer/Habib-Fanny

LR, I don't have time right now for a very in-depth analysis of the entire article, but I will mention that it does what we'd expect, which is not just to list text messages, but to curate them and provide "explanations" before and after them to make sure we 'know what they mean'. But the explanations *all* beg the question and clearly assume quid pro quo and extortion before the fact. The first half of the article shows nothing of relevance in my opinion, as it's mostly about how Zelenskyy was prepped heavily for the conversation, knowing in advance what Trump was going to ask of him and what he was expected to say (not a surprise) and also that they'd want to know, even in writing, that Zelenskyy was going to agree. In other words, they were not going to put Trump in the position of having a conversation where he didn't know how it would go. No problems so far, but then there's the issue of the text messages describing Ukraine not wanting to look like a re-election tool for Trump. That's also concerning, but it doesn't actually mean they are being used for that: it means they don't want to look like they are being used for that, which is an issue not of policy but of optics. That is, if they give Trump what he wants it will look like they're his political tool, even if they would otherwise have been happy to give him what he wants. It's public perception that is important to them on this, which is a big thing in Eastern Europe, just as it would be in China or Korea. That doesn't speak directly to whether the deal is extortive or not.

Then we get to this text exchange, which gets into the meat of things:

Quote
September 1, 2019

[9/1/19, 12:08:57 PM] Bill Taylor: Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?

[9/1/19, 12:42:29 PM] Gordon Sondland: Call me

This is taken by the article to be an enormous smoking gun. However it's actually a question, not a statement of fact. Let's look at the next iteration of this for more, by Bill Taylor again:

Quote
September 8, 2019

[9/8/19, 11:20:32 AM] Gordon Sondland: Guys multiple convos with Ze, Potus. Lets talk

[9/8/19, 11:21:41 AM] Bill Taylor: Now is fine with me

[9/8/19, 11:26:13 AM] Kurt Volker: Try again—could not hear

[9/8/19, 11:40:11 AM] Bill Taylor: Gordon and I just spoke. I can brief you if you and Gordon don’t connect

[9/8/19, 12:37:28 PM] Bill Taylor: The nightmare is they give the interview and don’t get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.)

Why is this scenario a nightmare? Because if the aid is refused *then* it looks like a quid pro quo where Ukraine doesn't pony up and the aid is refused. I agree with him that this is a 'nightmare scenario'. What is not stated here is whether in fact this *is* the scenario. Clearly he's not even sure, otherwise he would have quit already. But what he's saying is that for all he knows this could be the scenario, and it's a fine concern to have. But then there's this that follows:

Quote
September 9, 2019

[9/9/19, 12:31:06 AM] Bill Taylor: The message to the Ukrainians (and Russians) we send with the decision on security assistance is key. With the hold, we have already shaken their faith in us. Thus my nightmare scenario.

[9/9/19, 12:34:44 AM] Bill Taylor: Counting on you to be right about this interview, Gordon.

[9/9/19, 12:37:16 AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I never said I was “right”. I said we are where we are and believe we have identified the best pathway forward. Lets hope it works.

[9/9/19, 12:47:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.

[9/9/19, 5:19:35 AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.

The article you cited naturally takes this final exchange to be the final nail in the coffin proving that it was a quid pro quo. Except there's one problem: it's all based on Bill Taylor's opinion, who is himself unsure whether this is really the case. He seems to be basing on the holding back of aid, and assumes it's connected with the "deliverable" (i.e. agreements) being followed through by Zelenskyy, which may or may not actually have been the case. Sondland says it definitely isn't, and since I don't know which of them to trust more I can't say whose comments are more creditable. I could certainly imagine a President abusing power (I've seen enough TV) and could also imagine a guy like Taylor who's seeing potential problems when in fact things are ok. Actually I've been known to occasionally be a doomsayer in the sense of "you all need to be aware of what issues this could cause before doing it" even though in some cases there ended up being no problems after all. Being sensitive to conflicts of interest is good, but it doesn't mean that every serious concern is actually a conflict. Here it seems uncertain, if we're going only based on the text messages.

Once again, even between Taylor and Sondland, the issue seems to boil down to whether or not to trust Trump's motives. Assuming they both know the relevant laws (i.e. whether Trump's requirements are outright illegal regardless of his intentions) then whether it's extortion or just a finalizing of what issues will be pursued in tandem comes down to trust in Trump's intentions. I'll admit that's not the best of cases to base a position on (i.e. Trump having good intentions) but I do think it shouldn't be presumed out of the gate, as seems to be the case, that it's pretty obviously bad intentions because everyone knows he's a bad guy.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #336 on: October 10, 2019, 02:13:26 PM »
I'm not trusting - at all - leaked transcripts that were specifically leaked to be as damning as possible.  For goodness sakes, there are people on your side claim that Trump's call transcript is not good enough and yet, you want to hang your hat on snippets leaked from 36 pages of text messages and 9 hours of testimony?  The word is that the testimoney killed the whole quid pro quo argument, so why is it that all we get to see are the worst parts without context?

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #337 on: October 10, 2019, 02:31:24 PM »
Just wana throw this out there.  The search for more "context".  That's called investigating.   ;D

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #338 on: October 10, 2019, 02:37:22 PM »
Just wana throw this out there.  The search for more "context".  That's called investigating.   ;D

Spaceballs 3, the Seach for More Context (the kids love that).

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #339 on: October 10, 2019, 02:42:08 PM »
Just wana throw this out there.  The search for more "context".  That's called investigating.   ;D

I bet that’s exactly what they said in the original Salem witch trials.   8)

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #340 on: October 10, 2019, 02:42:55 PM »
You don't have to bet.  Read a book.   8)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #341 on: October 10, 2019, 03:23:03 PM »
Just wana throw this out there.  The search for more "context".  That's called investigating.   ;D

And what's it called when you have 9 hours of testimony and a big bunch of documents that apparently undermine your case, and all that gets released is less than a page that apparently contradicts (when viewed out of context) the results of the "investigation"?

Oh yeah, that's called the House Democrats business as usual.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #342 on: October 10, 2019, 03:29:22 PM »
So why would Trump need to make such a point of bringing up the investigation if it was already underway? Maybe he wanted to make sure of the results?

You didn't ask this to me, but on the face of it the answer seems clear to me: the entire call was about congratulating Zelenskyy and having a love-in, and Trump named a few things in the call that are important to him. It read a lot to me like "you're great, I'm great, we'll do great things! we'll do the weapons aid thing, we'll do the cracking down on corruption thing, we'll look into those suspicious events, we'll make Ukraine great again! don't forget the important things we'll do!"

Yeah, of course they are things important to Trump. But the call doesn't have to be seen as 'making sure' of anything, just a quick chat about the upcoming agenda between the two of them and how great it will be.

I wanted to add an addendum to what I suggested here, which includes the content of the text messages I refered to just above. Based on what the texts say it sounds like all the arrangements and deals were made in advance of the call, so that Trump would already know the answer by the time the call took place. Even by the worst interpretation possible of the text messages that would mean the call was not the actual negotiation but rather would only take place after the conclusion of a successful negotiation to ensure that Trump would come out looking good from the call and not be embarassed. The call itself, regardless of how its structure may appear, would absolutely not have been the actual threat since those kinds of negotiations - even if they really were extortion - would have happened already. The call was only a very congratulatory recap of their mutual successes and the finalization of what they had already agreed to behind closed doors through intermediaries. And that fits, since that's how things are actually done. No way a President tosses in random threats of extortion in the middle of a short and otherwise friendly call, and makes it super-vague to boot. If Trump is anything it isn't vague.

My addendum here doesn't actually reflect on the odds of it being or not being extortion in general, but if the texts are going to be taken seriously what they show is that the phone call itself wouldn't have been where the extortion took place, and therefore the "he asked for a favor after the talk of aid" argument would be moot. It would have already been something stamped and sealed, otherwise the President was never going to make the call in the first place. That is, if you take the texts seriously.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #343 on: October 10, 2019, 04:03:38 PM »
Quote
I'm also not saying we should ignore reputation, so take Trump's background into account if you like. But my question was *strictly* about whether it's Trump doing it that looks bad, or whether anyone doing it would look bad. How you interpret "do me a favor" really changes if it's Mother Theresa asking versus a mafia don, wouldn't you say?

In the scenario replacing JFK with Trump and taking reputation into account or not. JFK should be investigated.

That is the question. Is it against the law to ask a foreign power to investigate a political rival directly in the way Trump has done? If so both Trump/JFK are guilty.

You still seem to be saying that a president with a good/bad reputation can break the law in the pursuit of the "justice"?
« Last Edit: October 10, 2019, 04:06:24 PM by rightleft22 »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #344 on: October 10, 2019, 04:17:55 PM »
That is the question. Is it against the law to ask a foreign power to investigate a political rival directly in the way Trump has done? If so both Trump/JFK are guilty.

It's not illegal to ask a foreign power to investigate a political rival.

In fact, in the US it's the executive branch's responsibility to investigate potential crimes whether committed by their allies or their enemies, whether it makes them sad or makes them glad.  Think about the "opposite" position, that people not in control of the government are exempt from investigation?  Or that no one can investigate someone from another party (might want to let the AGs of a few states including NY know that they are violating the law in their investigations of Trump).

The only way this is a crime is if Trump is asking them to make something up.  There's no evidence that did occur (which is more than one can say for the "help" requested and received by the Obama admin to investigate Manaford (only after he became associated with  the Trump campaign)).  If Trump isn't asking for a fake investigation, then this is a political difference (which kills the WB protection by law) in that Trump is pursuing a legitimate policy goal related to the enforcement of Justice - in which case EVEN IF there's a "quid pro quo" it's okay, that's exactly what the "best case" version of what Joe Biden did is - quid pro quo for a legit policy demand.

Quote
You still seem to be saying that a president with a good/bad reputation can break the law in the pursuit of the "justice"?

There's zero question that Obama got away with things that would easily trigger an impeachment of Trump.  Can you even imagine if Trump told his base he couldn't do something unilaterally that only Congress could do it, then decided to declare an entire program with the stroke of a pen?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #345 on: October 10, 2019, 04:20:26 PM »
You still seem to be saying that a president with a good/bad reputation can break the law in the pursuit of the "justice"?

Why do you keep saying "break the law" as if that's been demonstrated? It seems like if you say something often enough it just becomes true? Actually this is how psychology works, and I'd like to point out you may have succumbed to that. I don't mean to be insulting but am actually warning you about that effect. Not only has it not been demonstrated that Trump is abusing his power - although a reasonable case could be made that he is - but additionally you'd have to show that it's also against the law in order to say what you're saying, which I think no else here even is. The current argument seems to be that a technical breach of the law isn't required for impeachment, an argument that would surely not be made if it clearly was a breach of the law. So I really don't see how you got to "break the law" with such certainty that you are even going further and suggesting that my position is that breaking the law is ok in the pursuit of justice. You are at this point several steps beyond being on firm footing IMO.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2019, 04:22:33 PM by Fenring »

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #346 on: October 10, 2019, 04:22:24 PM »
Your explanations of the Sondland/Taylor conversations sounds plausible, Fenring.  The best and easiest thing to do is have them testify under oath to Congress about the exact circumstances of the conversation and what they meant, so they can clear up and put to rest any nefarious readings of the words.

When are they scheduled to testify again? ;)

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #347 on: October 10, 2019, 04:41:20 PM »
Quote
Why do you keep saying "break the law" as if that's been demonstrated?

I didn't think I was. The question was:
Is it against the law to ask a foreign power to investigate a political rival directly in the way Trump has done?
If it is against the law then a investigation is required and if found to have happened they would be guilty regardless of reputation.

If its not against the law, as Seriati suggests, then no investigation required. End of story.

The arguments pointing to Biden guilt or innocence is in my opinion not relevant to the question, nor is reputation. 
It may not be the intent but those that see Biden as relevant to the question seem to, IMO, to be arguing that it would be ok for a President to break the law in the pursuit of the law. 

It not complicated. All the WB and Biden crap is a distraction to the question. Can a President ask a foreign power to investigate a political rival directly?
Answer that and the way forward is determined. Until then the rest is a waist of time and getting in the way.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2019, 04:50:44 PM by rightleft22 »

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #348 on: October 10, 2019, 06:30:57 PM »
So, some of the guys helping Giuliani dig up dirt on Biden were also funneling illegal foreign political donations, according to an indictment. Arrested last night.

They were on their way to Vienna, and Giuliani let slip yesterday - before the arrests - that he was also planning to head to Vienna today.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/10/rudy-giuliani-vienna/599833/

Quote
The only way this is a crime is if Trump is asking them to make something up. 

Gee, there's no chance of that, right? Trump cares deeply about accuracy.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #349 on: October 11, 2019, 07:34:22 AM »
You don't have to bet.  Read a book.   8)

I have. You all sound amazingly like Matthew Hopkins.  ::)