Ukraine

[Seriati]

Assuming we're talking about a conspiracy to dethrone Trump, I would highly doubt someone would put themselves out there just because of partisan sentiment.

I just meant this person is a partisan for the Democrats, this is not a reluctant Republican or even a neutral person.  I don't they did it out of some kind of "sentiment."  My guess they have always thought that Trump is a "danger" and a "pretender" (which Pelosi actually just said) and that his policies are "not legitimate" to the extent they differ from the existing policy.

You have a fake whistleblower, making a false claim

I think the Kool Aid has infiltrated your eyes and ears
What is a "fake whistleblower"?

The literal word would be "spy," or "leaker" or possible even "criminal" or "traitor."  But what I'm referring to, is the literal failure of this person to have reported on conduct that was covered under the relevant whistle blower statute (the President is not a member of the intelligence community), which I could have forgiven if they'd just made the report to the IG.  But they also leaked it to DNC partisans in Congress and someone, from this group:  themselves, their lawyers or the DNC partisans in Congress illegally leaked it to the media.

It also fails in that there is ZERO protection under the statute for someone that leaks over policy differences, which - based on the Democratic witnesses - is what this boiled down to be.  There was nothing on the call that was illegal, contrary to the oft repeated fake claim, the call didn't refer to the 2020 election it expressly referred to the illegal activities connected to the 2016 election and the media reported corrupt behavior of Hunter Biden (and the potential illegal behavior of Joe), the investigation of which is actually directly within the President's mandate.  Ergo, it was a leak of a policy difference.

Do you doubt the existence of the person who reported the activity?

At this point, I have about a 5% doubt this person exists at all.  Maybe a 10% concern that it's really an amalgamation of various IC community persons that were out to get Trump.  And an 65% belief it's a real person that was very openly working with members of the IC on the project to get Trump.  And at best a 20% belief they were a single person working alone.

If so, how could a non-existent person have made any claim, never mind a "false" one?

Same way Randall Stephens opened all those bank accounts and made all those deposits in the Shawshank Redemption.  Or the way Andrew Young was the father of the baby that was really sired by John Edwards.  Without bringing the real person forward, there's a lot of things that could be true about who or whom is actually behind a "whistle blower complaint" drafted by a law firm as a replacement impeachment road map. 

Or maybe they were not really blowing the whistle when they blew the whistle?

They were definitely blowing a whistle.  But what were they pointing at?  I'm thinking something they thought they could make look worse than it was, where the primary "witnesses" were going to be permanent members of the deep state that at best "tolerate" Trump and more likely "resist" him notwithstanding the illegality of that course of action, and the President would have no way to defend himself and look guilty for "obstructing" the investigation.  The fact that transcript came out immediately clearly screwed them up, and it let thoughtful people look at it and the WB account did not match on key points.

Through a less partisan lens, every single point raised by the whistle blower has now been corroborated by other witnesses.  Sure, they could all be lying, all those career bureaucrats hired by Republicans and Trump's administration, as well as the whistle blower (all of whom must have collaborated with said whistle blower)

I just re-read the whistle blower complaint, and no, the "points" raised by the whistle blower were not corroborated, not "every single point" not even the majoriyt.  Every error the whistle blower made was on the side of additional "nefariousness" on the part of Trump.  Again, it's clear they had access to IC community records (which they may have accessed inappropriately) to draw up their time line of events, but the fact of the meetings wasn't in question and the conclusion they are selling didn't show up in the testimony.  Honestly,  their main "focus" was on interference in the 2020 election, which was not "corroborated" it was just left as an inference to be drawn.  In fact, the WB clearly overstated facts that didn't occur about the call and made some claims that were just false 

They seemed overly concerned with defending the DNC from allegations that the Ukrainians had interfered in the 2016 elections as well.  Which was odd, since their defense created a bit of a road map into seeing the actual facts supporting that inference.

[TheDrake]

So the "charge" against Biden is that he got a prosecutor removed in order to gain personal benefit by way of his son.

Except that every international organization wanted that corrupt prosecutor gone. Virtually nobody in the international community wanted Biden investigated, or thought there was anything wrong with his involvement. The only people smelling a rat are conspiracy theorists on 4chan. Even so, if Trump thought he should be investigated, I'd put up with the waste of resources assuming it was referred to the justice department or the Congress rather than having Giuliani creep around Kyiv.

[DonaldD]

Trump going after a political opponent is not any kind of problem - not even doing so with foreign help - if it's to help rid America of corruption.

There are a few assumptions being made here: that having Ukraine announce investigations into the Bidens in any way benefits the USA; that having Ukraine specifically investigate the Bidens for corruption (as opposed to having Ukraine investigate corruption more generally) benefits the USA; that once found out, outsourcing the investigations of political opponents to foreign countries has no observable cost to the perception of the USA itself as not being corrupt, especially prior to the completion of those investigations.  These assumptions are incorrect.

Of course, partisans believe as a matter of faith that the Bidens are guilty, I get that; and for seemingly very many folks, the ends in this case justify the means.

Ah, but they're coming from the position that the Bidens are completely innocent of any and all possible wrong doing, and the "bribe" Trump was asking for wasn't for an investigation per say, but rather Trump was actually asking them to create evidence to justify a prosecution of Hunter Biden.

The internet is a big place, and I suppose somebody somewhere believes this, but it's rather hard to breathe through all this straw.  Trump very possibly believes the conspiracy theories concerning Joe and Hunter Biden and Ukraine.  I personally think he does believe that the Ukraine was somehow involved in working against his election, to the exclusion of the Russians being involved (notwithstanding everything the US intelligence agencies have been telling him for 3 years). But Trump's problem is NOT that he was asking anybody to "create" evidence - the Bidens' guilt, or otherwise, is irrelevant (although from a technical perspective, they are innocent until proven guilty, so the head of the branch responsible for the justice department should really tread carefully in assuming their guilt); it's that he was asking a foreign government to publicly name them as suspects before any significant amount of investigation had occurred.  Even ignoring the immediate political effects, this puts the government of an allied country in the position of deciding whether to be seen to be meddling in US politics, at the risk of alienating what might be the next government of the USA.  It's transparently wrong on so many levels.

[TheDeamon]

it's that he was asking a foreign government to publicly name them as suspects before any significant amount of investigation had occurred.  Even ignoring the immediate political effects, this puts the government of an allied country in the position of deciding whether to be seen to be meddling in US politics, at the risk of alienating what might be the next government of the USA.  It's transparently wrong on so many levels.

Wait, by this standard, shouldn't a number of Attorney Generals be undergoing impeachment proceedings in their respective states? New York in particular comes to mind. If it is 100% acceptable for the AG of the state of New York to do that, how is it an impeachable act for PotUS to request somebody else do the same to somebody else?

[Seriati]

So the "charge" against Biden is that he got a prosecutor removed in order to gain personal benefit by way of his son.

There is no "charge" against Joe Biden.  There's also no "charge" against Donald Trump.  There is a situation that leads some to believe that corrupt purposes could have influenced a use of power. 

My thoughts on the Biden situation are pretty simple.  While I can easily believe that Joe didn't act corruptly, and I can even trust him if he says that, there's little question - at all - that Hunter traded on his father's name and power.  Do you really believe that Joe wasn't aware of that?  It's hard to imagine how, given Obama made Hunter (presumably through Joe) end other activities that were troubling before he could be his running mate.  That Joe wasn't aware of how he facilitated that behaviour by allowing Hunter to fly to business meetings on Air Force 2 while Joe was traveling on official business?

There's legitimate questions there that can't be answered without looking into them

And, what if?  What if there really are records where Joe himself makes the express threat?  That'd be a thousand times more evidence than a diplomat "presuming" something contrary to the direct words of the President.

Except that every international organization wanted that corrupt prosecutor gone.

That's become a talking point, but I followed up on that a while ago.  There's a pretty consistent thread out there that Biden and/or the US were the ones pushing for the specific replacement of the specific prosecutor and that others were largely indifferent to that point.  The international organizations wanted the corruption cleaned up and didn't object to replacing the prosecutor as a good step to get there if that's what the US said was the way forward.

I certainly didn't find any evidence that real supports the claim that the replacement of the prosecutor was being driven as a specific measure by anyone but the US.

Virtually nobody in the international community wanted Biden investigated, or thought there was anything wrong with his involvement.

That's true, the action on the face of it looked like a good one that served the goal of facilitating the clean up of general corrupt behavior.  Just be curious how many of them actually knew about the specific connection.  And would they still feel the same if there really was evidence of a connection between that specific policy and Biden's son?

The only people smelling a rat are conspiracy theorists on 4chan. Even so, if Trump thought he should be investigated, I'd put up with the waste of resources assuming it was referred to the justice department or the Congress rather than having Giuliani creep around Kyiv.

Well here's the thing, the Media has no curiousity about DNC scandals.  You may note, what Hunter did looks like a total scandal, yet none of the mainstream media is actively investigating it.  It hurts the narrative they want to sell, so yes, it might be only fringe people that are really interested.

And I'm absolutely sure, that if Trump had referred it to the Justice Department, the only change would be that they'd have added an impeachment clause for misusing the DOJ and corrupting it to pursue partisan investigations.  Lol.

[DonaldD]

Wait, by this standard, shouldn't a number of Attorney Generals be undergoing impeachment proceedings in their respective states? New York in particular comes to mind.

You're saying that the New York AG asks foreign countries' presidents to announce publicly investigations into their political rivals without having done any investigation into the charges?  Or are you suggesting the AGs ask other states' governors to do so?  Really?

[Fenring]

There are a few assumptions being made here: that having Ukraine announce investigations into the Bidens in any way benefits the USA

How can you not see how this benefits the U.S.? Once Zelenskyy announces the thing in public he's on the hook for it. Something in private you say you'll do, and then don't do, maybe irk the person you told you'd do it but it doesn't make you look bad to everyone. This does, and hence it's a much stronger statement to publicize your intention. What's unclear about this?

that having Ukraine specifically investigate the Bidens for corruption (as opposed to having Ukraine investigate corruption more generally) benefits the USA;

Are you deliberately misstating facts here, or...? The call was literally about Ukraine generally cleaning up corruption. It's true that the three instances of it Trump named specifically in the call were Crowdstrike, Mueller, and Burisma, and no doubt that's because they were all recent events regarding the 2016 election and thus fresh in everyone's mind. Now I suppose you could theorize that Trump only wanted these three things investigated, but what he actually said on the call was to clean up the corruption in the Ukraine.

that once found out, outsourcing the investigations of political opponents to foreign countries has no observable cost to the perception of the USA itself as not being corrupt, especially prior to the completion of those investigations.

Please show the source of Trump saying that the U.S. would not be participating in the investigation, and thus was 'outsourcing' it? I'm not even sure if outsourcing intelligence work is inherently bad but in any case that wasn't put on the table here. Trump asked Zelenskyy to clean up Ukraine, and to the extent that certain things happened in the Ukraine (let's say, corrupt things) then those would be for Ukraine to sort out. If there were corresponding corruption issues on the U.S. side (e.g. who were the ones to go to the Ukraine in the first place for the 2016 election) then that would be for the U.S. to sort out internally. I don't know why you're adopting a seemingly xenophobic "only USA can be involved" attitude about investigating stuff.

But Trump's problem is NOT that he was asking anybody to "create" evidence [...] it's that he was asking a foreign government to publicly name them as suspects before any significant amount of investigation had occurred.

I'm also not sure if I can recall whether Trump and/or his people were demanding Ukraine's public statement specifically name the Bidens. They wanted a public statement that they'd clean up the Ukraine, but maybe someone can correct me if there's some source on that statement necessarily having to name the Bidens specifically. But even hypothetically if Zelenskyy did announce that he was investigating that affair with Burisma and Hunter Biden, that doesn't mean he's being named as a suspect, although it does mean he's being investigated. To be a suspect, as I understand it, you need a crime, for which you're looking for who's responsible. If you're investigating whether there was even a crime (or a corruption, or a whatever) then he's non a suspect, just being subject to review by law enforcement. Like, if there's an HR problem in an office involving alleged inappropriate sexual comments, everyone at the office may be questioned about it to see if there was any real misconduct, but it does not mean they are all suspects. First is to determine what really happened, and if something bad happened and a crackdown is going to happen (in an office, maybe a firing, in a criminal situation, a prosecution) and *then* they might name suspects.

All I remember reading is Trump wanted an announcement, and Trump told him in the call to investigate the whole Burisma thing. If there was a connection between those where Trump demanded the public statement to include Hunter being investigated then I don't remember seeing it.

[TheDrake]

Biden didn't take the lead.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/e1454ace-e61b-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc

I'm sure you'll find something wrong with it. They're lying to protect Biden, or something.

[TheDeamon]

Wait, by this standard, shouldn't a number of Attorney Generals be undergoing impeachment proceedings in their respective states? New York in particular comes to mind.

You're saying that the New York AG asks foreign countries' presidents to announce publicly investigations into their political rivals without having done any investigation into the charges?  Or are you suggesting the AGs ask other states' governors to do so?  Really?

Not the standard I'm talking about.
Here is your OP.

it's that he was asking a foreign government to publicly name them as suspects before any significant amount of investigation had occurred.  Even ignoring the immediate political effects, this puts the government of an allied country in the position of deciding whether to be seen to be meddling in US politics, at the risk of alienating what might be the next government of the USA.  It's transparently wrong on so many levels.

Here is a rephrasing to drive home my point.

it's that he was asking government officials to publicly name political rivals as suspects being investigated before any significant amount of investigation had occurred.  Even ignoring the immediate political effects, this puts government agencies in the position of deciding whether to be seen to be meddling in US politics, at the risk of further politicizing investigative practices within the USA.  It's transparently wrong on so many levels.

[cherrypoptart]

'This is corruption, plain and simple': Warren outraged at Trump 'secret dinner' with Facebook CEO Zuckerberg

https://www.yahoo.com/news/corruption-plain-simple-warren-outraged-193821677.html

This has the flavor of Hillary's outburst about Tulsi being a Russian asset. Russians are under every rock, behind every hill and tree and corruption is all the normal things Presidents do like meet with heads of corporations. The politically convenient brand of paranoia on display by Democrat leadership gets more and more evident every day. When you start pointing the finger at everything and calling it corruption, like someone who starts labeling dozens of people in a small town as witches, it makes people wonder.

[DonaldD]

TheDaemon, you can't just take the most consequential part of the argument out and expect it to still make sense.

Trump involving a foreign government in this escapade is the crux of the matter as I described above.  In addition to that, there is the whole accepting foreign assistance in a domestic political campaign too.

Even putting that aside, though... any AG who willy nilly advertised investigations into people who who had not yet been investigated at all would be an AG who would shortly be out of a job, as that state and the AG would be sued successfully for many millions of dollars.

[Crunch]

Trump involving a foreign government in this escapade is the crux of the matter as I described above.  In addition to that, there is the whole accepting foreign assistance in a domestic political campaign too.

Did anyone realize that the largest concentration of donors giving over $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation from 1999-2014 is Ukraine with $10 million in contributions? I didn’t, WSJ figured it out though.

Tell me again about how outraged you are over foreign assistance in our political campaigns. It’s a wonderful story, and you tell it so well.

[Crunch]

Sondland confirmed, under oath, that Holmes' recounting of the phone call was, to his recollection, accurate.  The one exception was that Holmes testified he heard Sondland say "Biden" whereas  Sondland did not remember saying "Biden".

So we have Sondland confirming that what Holmes said he heard is accurate.  Are you all simply arguing that Holmes coincidentally manufactured a recollection of the phone call that just so happened to have been completely accurate? (BTW, it hardly matters since Sondland copped to having said what Holmes repeated, so the substance of what Holmes recounted is effectively a corroborated fact.)

I’m saying I don’t believe that call ever happened until I see the cell phone records and proof they were both in that same restaurant on the night of a call from the president of the United States. Given the mass amount of hearsay, unfounded opinions presented as fact, obvious collusion, and just the insane amount of lies told by everyone involved, I’d like to see some actual hard evidence. It seems like this would be some easy, albeit circumstantial, evidence to produce. Given the stakes and spend on this thing, cell phone records and some credit card receipts/records should be trivial to produce. Maybe we’ll see them in the senate trial, but I’m guessing we won’t.

Why doesn’t anyone running this sham or breathlessly reporting on it get those records? Putting them out in the public domain right now would give a lot of support to what is currently looking like it’s been made up by Schiff and the boys. Maybe this phone call happened. Right now, we don’t know for sure that it did. The only thing we have is what are some obviously dishonest people with an axe to grind. If that’s the standard you want, you’re not gonna like it when it comes back around.

[cherrypoptart]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/indictment-against-head-of-burisma-reveals-hunter-biden-was-receiving-payments-from-money-raised-through-criminal-means-siphoned-laundered-from-ukraine/

"Last month, Ukrainian MP Andriy Derkach said during a press conference that Joe Biden was personally paid $900,000 for lobbying activities from Burisma Holdings."

https://nypost.com/2019/10/10/giuliani-claims-ukrainian-company-paid-joe-biden-900000-in-lobbying-fees/

"Rudy Giuliani has alleged that a Ukrainian natural-gas company that employed Joe Biden’s son Hunter also paid the former vice president $900,000 in lobbying fees."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm looking for more on this particularly from the mainstream media but am not finding it.

Are these the droids we're looking for?

[LetterRip]

cherry,

Derkach was educated at Russian Intelligence academy.

https://www.mediamatters.org/trump-impeachment-inquiry/far-right-trump-defenders-blast-russia-aligned-ukrainian-lawmakers

Mykola Zlochevsky hasn't been indicted by the Ukranian government.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/sondland-testified-misleading-ukraine-story-spread-among-conservatives-social-media-n1087511

https://www.thedailybeast.com/theres-no-new-biden-or-burisma-investigation-but-some-ukrainian-pols-are-playing-games-with-impeachment-info

The 'source' for your info is Russian government owned 'news services' that put out about 50 false Ukraine stories per month (below is a site that used to track the fake stories published about the Ukraine by Russian government assets such as TASS, but it hasn't been updated in a number of years, last coverage appears to be December 2016)

https://www.stopfake.org/en/tag/tass/

So the reason you aren't hearing anything about it is because it is literally 'fake news'.

[cherrypoptart]

The mainstream media could say they've looked into it and it is definitely false. Joe Biden could have denied it unequivocally. It seems like they are just leaving it out there and Giuliani even ran with it. Would it have been illegal for Joe Biden to have taken that money? I'm not seeing where it says exactly when it was paid either. That information would be nice to have to verify the story or prove it false. I can accept it could be Russian propaganda but it seems oddly specific which should have made it easy enough to pin it down one way or the other.

[Fenring]

For the record, Russian propaganda lately tends to take two forms: either positively spinning the Russian side of things (which includes playing victim), or releasing damaging but true information about the West (selectively, of course). In all the times I've perused RT and other Russian sources that are putting out anti-West stuff their typical trick is to mention touchy subjects that America would rather sweep under the rug; in other words they poke at sores that already exist, in a way that naturally makes America look as bad as possible. This is clearly spun in their favor, but on the other hand they seem to greatly prefer to put out true and damaging material rather to make it up out of whole cloth. When I've seen Putin interviewed he does the same: he makes very credible claims that are obviously tailored to do the most damage. Say what you want about their motives, but that doesn't mean they are literally telling lies. I think their most effective propaganda has been the truth thus far.

[TheDeamon]

TheDaemon, you can't just take the most consequential part of the argument out and expect it to still make sense.

Trump involving a foreign government in this escapade is the crux of the matter as I described above.  In addition to that, there is the whole accepting foreign assistance in a domestic political campaign too.

Well, any investigation involving events happening on foreign soil is going to pretty much require cooperation from the "host nation" where the events involved happened at. The only way to avoid that is to do a black-ops spy mission instead.

So I'm not quite sure how you think he would be able to investigate the validity of corruption claims involving Ukrainian connections inside Ukraine without involving the government of Ukraine. You can grumble about "who takes point" on a specific case, but I have to wonder why the extreme hostility to letting the host nation take point on matters within their own border. Unless you're concerned about them fabricating evidence? Our guys should be able to authenticate and otherwise validate the findings from there, and be able to realize when they're dealing with a "poisoned well" when it comes to violations of Constitutional Rights so far as our laws are concerned.

Even putting that aside, though... any AG who willy nilly advertised investigations into people who who had not yet been investigated at all would be an AG who would shortly be out of a job, as that state and the AG would be sued successfully for many millions of dollars.

So you do agree the NY AG should be removed from office then? Because if you don't, I don't see why you are so eager to impeach Trump.

[Fenring]

Trump involving a foreign government in this escapade is the crux of the matter as I described above.

I don't understand this term "involving". Since when did that become a dirty word? In the past a President was a failure for lack of foreign assistance in important matters. Obama was all about creating a better coalition since Bush 43. So what again is the problem with 'involving' a country that has been contentiously sitting the fence of East/West and is now opting to work with the West? "Involving them" is literally the desired goal of bringing them closer to the West. I truly don't get this part of your argument. Say what you want about Trump demanding bribes, or smearing his political opposition or whatever (I get those points, but disagree with them), but I do not get the condemnation of working with the Ukraine on an investigation. You used the word "outsourced" before which I also didn't understand. Since when did it become taboo to, you know, work with foreign governments?

[LetterRip]

For the record, Russian propaganda lately tends to take two forms: either positively spinning the Russian side of things (which includes playing victim), or releasing damaging but true information about the West

You seem to have overlooked their history of completely falsifying stories, for instance,

Before the Crimea annexation, Russia’s FSB security service took over the servers of a social media network popular in Ukraine, an easy venue for blasting propaganda, and giving it access to pictures, locations, and personal data on 16 million Ukrainians. In the year prior to the Russian navy’s seizing of three Ukrainian ships in the Sea of Azov in November 2018, Russian propaganda spread falsehoods that Ukrainian authorities were dredging its seabed in preparation for the residence of a NATO fleet, and that Ukraine had infected the sea with cholera.

https://newrepublic.com/article/153415/ukraines-war-russian-disinformation-lesson-america

There is even a Ukranian TV series dedicated solely to debunking completely made up stories by Russia,

During the Ukraine crisis in 2014, manipulative and often outright invented news poured in from Russia on satellite television and websites and into sympathetic local newspapers.

Recurring themes emerged, becoming the talk at water coolers around the capital: An Islamic State training camp had opened in Ukraine; President Petro O. Poroshenko was a drunk and sometimes appeared inebriated in public; nationalists had taken to lynching or, in one infamous case, crucifying Russian-speaking children.

[...]

In story after story — more than 1,000 have been reported so far — the journalists reveal laws that were never passed, insults that were never uttered and riots that never happened on quiet town squares.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/26/world/europe/ukraine-kiev-fake-news.html

[Crunch]

You can focus on magically overhearin phone calls but here’s the facts:

Yet Sondland noted that “we did not think we were engaging in improper behavior” — that no one expressed any concerns. And he admitted that Trump never told him of any “preconditions” for aid or a meeting.

Asked outright, “No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?”, he answered, “Yes.”

The followup: “So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.”

Sondland’s answer: “Other than my own presumption.”

Sondland can make up whatever he wants - that is literally what he just admitted he was doing. Sondland is on record, under oath (for those of you that love saying that) confirming that he’s used hearsay and a alleged partially overheard phone call to fabricate a story. That is his testimony.

So far, there is not a single person that can tie Trump to making an improper demand of the Ukraine. When directly asked, every single witness agrees they didn’t see Trump didn’t do anything nor do they have any direct knowledge that he did. It’s all presumption, unfounded opinion, and outright lies without even a single shred of physical evidence to support any of these stories.

[DonaldD]

I don't understand this term "involving". Since when did that become a dirty word?

Congratulations.  You've managed to ignore the complete substance of the argument, and are now focusing on a single word, completely out of context, in a sentence that simply references multiple posts each of which included multiple points. (note the "in this escapade" clause.)

But to answer your question: when "involving" involves asking a foreign country's leader to announce an investigation into one's own domestic political opponents, one risks breaking federal US law since It's illegal for anyone to solicit or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with any election in the US. Not to mention all the other things I mentioned in those earlier posts.

Oh, and I really hope you were being disingenuous when you claimed not to know that "Burisma" meant "the Biden's"...

[Crunch]

Did you know Burisma was not a sole proprietorship? One of the main guys is currently a fugitive, whereabouts unknown. So Your claim itcan only be about Biden is, like so many other things, made up.

[Fenring]

I don't understand this term "involving". Since when did that become a dirty word?

Congratulations.  You've managed to ignore the complete substance of the argument, and are now focusing on a single word, completely out of context, in a sentence that simply references multiple posts each of which included multiple points. (note the "in this escapade" clause.)

I focused on the word "involving" for the same reason I've previously focused on the word "interfering": because they're both used to create insinuations whose actual substance I don't understand. I see no good reason that an ally should not be involved in American efforts, so in this context the only reason your sentence sounds ominous IMO is because you have a certain negative connotation with the word "involving", which is why I picked on it.

But to answer your question: when "involving" involves asking a foreign country's leader to announce an investigation into one's own domestic political opponents, one risks breaking federal US law since It's illegal for anyone to solicit or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with any election in the US. Not to mention all the other things I mentioned in those earlier posts.

Except that Trump's request for them to investigate was centered around the last election, as Seriati and others have pointed out; not the upcoming one. The fact that Biden is involved seems to be what you're focusing on in terms of it being illicit, which goes directly back to my previous (much previous) question, that does this mean you think an election candidate should be totally immune from investigation? That would give him the sort of immunity a President has. Everyone at the time denied this was what they were implying, but I don't see how you get around that if it becomes illegal to investigate an event in 2016 on the sole grounds that one participant is also a current political candidate. Do you see?

Oh, and I really hope you were being disingenuous when you claimed not to know that "Burisma" meant "the Biden's"...

Did I say I didn't know that? But I do know that. Maybe I made a typo somewhere? What are you referring to?

[Fenring]

Did you know Burisma was not a sole proprietorship? One of the main guys is currently a fugitive, whereabouts unknown. So Your claim itcan only be about Biden is, like so many other things, made up.

To be fair it's reasonably clear that the Bidens would definitely be part of the investigation into Burisma.

[Crunch]

Of course they would. Being a VP and the son of one is not a free pass like democrats want you to believe. Investigating corruption at Burisma is a fair and legitimate ask, the company was corrupt as hell. But it’s not just Biden, it’s allthe criminals.

[ScottF]

From what I'm reading, Hunter Biden appears to be a garbage human being. When he's not doing coke and getting kicked out of the Navy for drugs, he's being charged to pay for child support after DNA tests prove he's a deadbeat dad (in court he denied even having sex with the woman ). This is a 49-year-old man.

I actually feel bad for Joe. Between his diminished mental acuity and his boat-anchor son, he probably doesn't deserve all this.

[TheDeamon]

But to answer your question: when "involving" involves asking a foreign country's leader to announce an investigation into one's own domestic political opponents, one risks breaking federal US law since It's illegal for anyone to solicit or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with any election in the US. Not to mention all the other things I mentioned in those earlier posts.

Except that Trump's request for them to investigate was centered around the last election, as Seriati and others have pointed out; not the upcoming one. The fact that Biden is involved seems to be what you're focusing on in terms of it being illicit, which goes directly back to my previous (much previous) question, that does this mean you think an election candidate should be totally immune from investigation? That would give him the sort of immunity a President has. Everyone at the time denied this was what they were implying, but I don't see how you get around that if it becomes illegal to investigate an event in 2016 on the sole grounds that one participant is also a current political candidate. Do you see?

More properly framed, he seems to think it is perfectly okay for the various States Attorney General to announce they're going to investigate members of the opposing party on little or no evidence.

He's also evidently fine with the Federal Government launching covert investigations into political campaigns for the party in opposition to the sitting president. After all we have legal protections and safeguards in place to protect people from abuses. 

So domestic immunity is off the table.

But the moment it involves activities that occurred outside the United States, where cooperation from the host nation is going to be needed to investigate things. That's a giant no-go because campaign finance law forbids it. I'm not sure that such a claim would hold up if someone tried to use that as a legal defense in court, but then, we're not talking about a court case here, we're talking about a political process in the form of Impeachment instead.

[DonaldD]

that having Ukraine specifically investigate the Bidens for corruption (as opposed to having Ukraine investigate corruption more generally) benefits the USA;

Are you deliberately misstating facts here, or...? The call was literally about Ukraine generally cleaning up corruption. It's true that the three instances of it Trump named specifically in the call were Crowdstrike, Mueller, and Burisma, and no doubt that's because they were all recent events regarding the 2016 election and thus fresh in everyone's mind. Now I suppose you could theorize that Trump only wanted these three things investigated, but what he actually said on the call was to clean up the corruption in the Ukraine.

OK, I just noticed this, and it goes a ways to explaining the current misunderstanding. 

You really need to actually read  the memo itself.

Nowhere in the call does anybody, including Trump, use either the word "corruption" or the word "Burisma". The "favor" Trump asks for very specifically names first Crowdstrike, then Mueller, then, after a response from Zelensky, both of the Biden's (Joe, twice). Trump's favors make no mention of either corruption, especially not "generally" nor of Burisma.

Now Zelensky, at the beginning of the call, does mention "draining the swamp", but his wording refers to replacing old guard politicians and bureaucrats - not opening investigations into corruption.   And nowhere does Trump follow up on that point.

So no, I did not misstate facts as you suggested, and I won't suggest that you were lying yourself when you misspoke.

But does the fact that Trump in no way suggested cooperating on generalized corruption in this call, but exclusively requested investigations into domestic political affairs that affected him directly, does that not now give you pause?

[DonaldD]

More properly framed, he seems to think it is perfectly okay for the various States Attorney General to announce they're going to investigate members of the opposing party on little or no evidence.

Don't pretend to be that idiotic.  I never said or even suggested that.  Any AG who announces an investigation into a political opponent had better first have some well substantiated evidence. Otherwise, they'd better be prepared to reap the whirlwind.

[TheDeamon]

More properly framed, he seems to think it is perfectly okay for the various States Attorney General to announce they're going to investigate members of the opposing party on little or no evidence.

Don't pretend to be that idiotic.  I never said or even suggested that.  Any AG who announces an investigation into a political opponent had better first have some well substantiated evidence. Otherwise, they'd better be prepared to reap the whirlwind.

*cough* The *cough* New York AG *cough* sends regards *cough*

I hope you're willing to stand by that, because it seems a lot of anti-Trumpers apparently are not.

[DonaldD]

If the New York AG announces investigations into anybody without first having any credible evidence, then the New York AG should be out of a job.  Why is this even a question?

[TheDeamon]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/incoming-new-york-attorney-general-plans-wide-ranging-investigations-trump-n946706

New York Attorney Gen.-elect Letitia James says she plans to launch sweeping investigations into President Donald Trump, his family and "anyone" in his circle who may have violated the law once she settles into her new job next month.

"We will use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well," James, a Democrat, told NBC News in her first extensive interview since she was elected last month.

James outlined some of the probes she intends to pursue with regard to the president, his businesses and his family members.

Of course, they need to investigate in order to know if they're legal, and she did announce the investigations before they started. As well as her intention to basically investigate the Trump family(and "associates") for anything she stands even the slightest chance of being able to justify.

But of course, she try to make sure they have "justification" in the form of citing news reports from the NYTimes, among others who came back with inconclusive results but strong suspicions of illegal activity. Possibly after having certain discovery documents leaked to them...

[DonaldD]

Excellent.  Is there a point to that - are you suggesting both she and Trump should be removed from office?

[TheDeamon]

Excellent.  Is there a point to that - are you suggesting both she and Trump should be removed from office?

If we are wanting to be consistent, yes. But I'm not hearing any Democrats demanding her impeachment, as such I'm inclined to simply not care. Democrats want to make it political and remove a Republican for doing something the Democrats were doing first. As this is being treated as a political issue rather than a legal or ethics issue, a pox on both of them, but more specifically on the Democrats.

[LetterRip]

TheDaemon,

Of course, they need to investigate in order to know if they're legal, and she did announce the investigations before they started. As well as her intention to basically investigate the Trump family(and "associates") for anything she stands even the slightest chance of being able to justify.

Actually she largely refering to the ongoing (and in some cases completed) criminal probes, such as

1. The 2016 Russian election attack
2. Wikileaks
3. Middle Eastern influence
4. Paul Manafort’s activities
5. The Trump Tower Moscow project
6. Russia-Trump Campaign contacts
7. Presidential obstruction of jusice
8. Campaign finance violations and Trump Organization finances
9. Inauguration funding
10. SuperPAC funding
11. Foreign lobbying violations
12. Russian spy Maria Butina
13. Russian Internet Research Agency accountant Elena Alekseevna Khusyaynova
14. Turkish influence
15. Trump Organization tax fraud
16. Trump Foundation fraud
17. Violations of the emoluments clause

https://www.wired.com/story/trumps-world-faces-16-known-criminal-probes/

So there were already crimes, already known, but it isn't clear to what extent NY has jurisdiction over them - thus she needs to investigate to what extent they are NY jurisidiction, not whether Trump or his associates committed those crimes.

So contrary to your interpretation, it was already crimes that had been federally investigated and confirmed, and some even prosecuted and convicted.

[TheDeamon]

In which case she's seeking to reopen investigations "into already discredited theories" (Federal prosecutors already examined the case and refused to prosecute Trump), and further feels the need to whittle away constitutional protections against Double Jeopardy in the legal system. Sounds like a win-win for everybody to me. At least the worst that can be said about Trump's adventure in Ukraine is he wants an investigation into something people say are bogus claims which haven't been investigated to much depth. (Which should make for a quick enough investigation, if its bogus)

[DonaldD]

Ah, whataboutism... It does allow people to feel better when they otherwise have no recourse.

As an aside, "[refusal] to prosecute" does not imply that an allegation has been "discredited" - especially not when the department doing the investigation comes under the authority of the party being investigated. Also, if there was no prosecution, double jeapardy does not come into play whatsoever - and that's notwithstanding that federal and state law and legal systems are independent of each other (dual sovereignty) as is civil or tort law.

So as LR stated, a conviction in a federal case, depending on the jurisdictions where the alleged activities occured and on the jurisdictions affected, could very well establish pretty solid grounds for a state investigation.

And an abandoned federal investigation may very well lay the groundwork for, and provide a solid rationale for, a state investigation.

I haven't delved into this particular situation, but it would seem that there may be a number of pretty solid reasons to support state level investigations, especially in the case where Trump lost in federal court.

[Crunch]

that having Ukraine specifically investigate the Bidens for corruption (as opposed to having Ukraine investigate corruption more generally) benefits the USA;

Are you deliberately misstating facts here, or...? The call was literally about Ukraine generally cleaning up corruption. It's true that the three instances of it Trump named specifically in the call were Crowdstrike, Mueller, and Burisma, and no doubt that's because they were all recent events regarding the 2016 election and thus fresh in everyone's mind. Now I suppose you could theorize that Trump only wanted these three things investigated, but what he actually said on the call was to clean up the corruption in the Ukraine.

OK, I just noticed this, and it goes a ways to explaining the current misunderstanding. 

You really need to actually read  the memo itself.

Nowhere in the call does anybody, including Trump, use either the word "corruption" or the word "Burisma". The "favor" Trump asks for very specifically names first Crowdstrike, then Mueller, then, after a response from Zelensky, both of the Biden's (Joe, twice). Trump's favors make no mention of either corruption, especially not "generally" nor of Burisma.

Now Zelensky, at the beginning of the call, does mention "draining the swamp", but his wording refers to replacing old guard politicians and bureaucrats - not opening investigations into corruption.   And nowhere does Trump follow up on that point.

So no, I did not misstate facts as you suggested, and I won't suggest that you were lying yourself when you misspoke.

But does the fact that Trump in no way suggested cooperating on generalized corruption in this call, but exclusively requested investigations into domestic political affairs that affected him directly, does that not now give you pause?

So f he’d just said the words corruption and Burisma, this call would have been perfectly fine? That’s what you’re ssying?

[DonaldD]

Read the two posts again, and this time at least try to understand what was written.

[Crunch]

So f he’d just said the words corruption and Burisma, this call would have been perfectly fine? That’s what you’re ssying?

[DonaldD]

No. Try again, but this time, read. Think. Understand.

[TheDeamon]

As an aside, "[refusal] to prosecute" does not imply that an allegation has been "discredited" - especially not when the department doing the investigation comes under the authority of the party being investigated. Also, if there was no prosecution, double jeapardy does not come into play whatsoever - and that's notwithstanding that federal and state law and legal systems are independent of each other (dual sovereignty) as is civil or tort law.

Wait a moment, rewind here. Democrats actively complain about Republicans bringing up the Clinton E-Mail servers because the Justice Department, under Obama, refused to prosecute Hillary. If it's "good enough for Hillary" in their books, it is good enough for Trump.

As to Double Jeopardy? It very much does apply as New York's AG acknowledged in the previous post on the matter:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/incoming-new-york-attorney-general-plans-wide-ranging-investigations-trump-n946706

James campaigned on passing a bill to change New York's double jeopardy laws with an eye on possible pardons coming out of the White House. James told NBC News she wants to be able to pursue state charges against anyone the president were to pardon over federal charges or convictions and whose alleged crimes took place in the state. Under current New York law, she might not be able to do that.

So as LR stated, a conviction in a federal case, depending on the jurisdictions where the alleged activities occured and on the jurisdictions affected, could very well establish pretty solid grounds for a state investigation.

And an abandoned federal investigation may very well lay the groundwork for, and provide a solid rationale for, a state investigation.

I haven't delved into this particular situation, but it would seem that there may be a number of pretty solid reasons to support state level investigations, especially in the case where Trump lost in federal court.

I'm all for State's picking up the slack on enforcement of the law when the Federal Government refuses to do its job, within certain bounds. Too bad the Democrats aren't. (One exception would be where they refuse to prosecute because they're awaiting further evidence they expect will become available in time)

Obama Admin vs the State of Arizona anyone? How quickly people want to forget the Democrats wanting things both ways, depending on how it aligns with their politics. So color me skeptical that Democrats are pursuing Trump under State Laws when Federal didn't work to plan because of their sense of justice. It's entirely political for a lot of those investigations, and should be abhorrent to most people, as political prosecutions have little to with justice.

And I'm pretty sure that facing Criminal prosecution for the same act under Federal Law, and again under State Law is a rather extreme perversion of the intent behind the Constitutional protection against Double Jeopardy, if you cannot understand why, we have an issue that goes well beyond "a political difference." ONE(or both in the same trial) of them gets a shot a conviction for an act(Then the jury/judge decides which law to apply), you don't get to try a person under both laws in entirely different trials(absent a mistrial).

[LetterRip]

In which case she's seeking to reopen investigations "into already discredited theories" (Federal prosecutors already examined the case and refused to prosecute Trump)

No they didn't refuse to prosecute.  The DOJ policy is they aren't allowed to prosecute or even bring charges against Trump till he is out of office.  If you paid at all attention to the Mueller report - there were at least 10 crimes he will be charged with once he leaves office unless he pardons himself (which the Supreme Court will likely rule he can't) or he resigns early and Pence pardons him.

, and further feels the need to whittle away constitutional protections against Double Jeopardy in the legal system.

It has been ruled that breaking a federal and breaking a state crime are seperate and that one jurisdiction pursuing you for their crimes doesn't preclude another jurisdiction pursuing you for another.  In this case the only reason the state is considering pursuit is because the criminals might escape justice through corrupt usage of the pardon power.

[Pete at Home]

Ah, whataboutism... It does allow people to feel better when they otherwise have no recourse.

Whataboutism is Social Justice Harlot language for the rule of law. With a sweep of that magic new word, SJHs sell downriver  the whole idea of precedent and principle.

[Crunch]

No. Try again, but this time, read. Think. Understand.

Ok, I’m gonna go with yes since you refuse to answer. Your answer is “yes” and I will quote you on that as well as address the rest of this thread with your unqualified yes response - unless you tell me it a no. 

[DonaldD]

Whataboutism is bringing up the New York AG when one cannot find a way to defend Trump's actions anymore, in the hopes of distracting from the topic at hand Pete.

It has nothing to do with your urge to sling insulting language at everybody you disagree with.

[DonaldD]

Crunch, you've just illustrated that you are incapable of reading and comprehending even the very first word of my response to you, even though that word contains just two letters, and it's a word even you are almost certain to have come into contact with at some point in your life.

[Pete at Home]

With you personal crap against me removed:

Whataboutism is bringing up the New York AG when one cannot find a way to defend Trump's actions anymore, in the hopes of distracting from the topic at hand

Thanks for the illustrating what’s I said. You use the word “whataboutism” to isolate your accusations so that no principles or rule of law can apply to your fellow travelers.  The result stinks like Anita Hill’s political defense of Bill Clinton’s woman episodes. Abortive hypocrisy wrapped up in a pseudo intellectual ribbon.

[Pete at Home]

If you wanted to explore Trump’s crimes without your compulsion to lay cover to your fellow travelers who committed the same crimes, you could just say, “I never accused trump of originality,” or “sur, prosecute the NY AG too, etc”.

Yes, Trump is doing things that no politician should get away with. But he gets away with it because too many other politicians on the left have been doing the same things.

Show me the leftwit OR rightwad who is willing for a true old fashioned open investigation of EVERYONE that Russia bought off in the election? Of All fraud that went into the 2016 election?

Both sides are part of the problem here.