Ukraine

[Pete at Home]

Now Crunch does use what about arguments to obfuscate anything that conflicts with Deplorabilly icons like Trump.  But others here like myself don’t mind if you convict Trump, so long as the laws used will apply equally to your own tin gods.

[DonaldD]

Since TheDaemon hasn't brought up an example of anybody soliciting or receiving anything of value from a foreign national in connection with an election, and that is the basis of Trump's current problems, bringing up the New York AG, who has not been accused by anybody of dealing with foreign nationals, is pretty straightforward whataboutism.  Especially since, as LR and I have now argued, the New York AG actually does have plenty of evidence to drive forward state level charges.

If you're going to insert yourself at the end of a debate, you should really do so without immediately throwing around insults, and being at least slightly relevant to be topic.

For instance, I'm sure you could have added something of value to the dual sovereignty / double jeapardy discussion, or to the issue of soliciting foreign assistance related to elections... instead of being the angry/insulting guy who acts all whingy and butt-hurt when somebody calls you out for being irrelevant and rude.

[Pete at Home]

I’m trying to get informed on the issues, and clear examples of obfuscation on both sides frustrates my purposes.

Doesn’t mean I can’t identify obfuscation when I see it. It’s like identifying logical fallacies. It adds to any good faith conversation. If it offends you, that may say more about you and your purposes than about mine.

[Pete at Home]

I disagree often with Fenring, LR, RightLeft, and others here without giving them “insulting names.” And when I point out that Crunch repeatedly uses Leftwit obfuscation and demonization tactics in defense of Deplorabilly icons and Rightwad memes, I haven’t called him a leftwit or a Deplorabilly. He didn’t come up with the tactic or the idea. He just replicated it from elsewhere, which is all I’ve seen you do. Why take it personally when I’ve insulted the originator of what you merely parroted?

[TheDeamon]

Since TheDaemon hasn't brought up an example of anybody soliciting or receiving anything of value from a foreign national in connection with an election, and that is the basis of Trump's current problems, bringing up the New York AG, who has not been accused by anybody of dealing with foreign nationals, is pretty straightforward whataboutism.  Especially since, as LR and I have now argued, the New York AG actually does have plenty of evidence to drive forward state level charges.

I believe Seratil already did so earlier in this thread in regards to the origins of what culminated in the Mueller Investigation. If we ask nicely, I'm sure one of them will be more than happy to re-iterate on those points. Points that are reportedly under criminal investigation by the DoJ at this time, and incidentally, also appears to trace back into surprise of all surprises, Ukraine although that one is more tenuous. It certainly seems to involve at least two NATO allies though. The UK through Mr. Steele, and Italy through other means.

I'm more than willing to agree that most of Trump's "top line items for investigation" in Ukraine are bogus, but that doesn't mean every lead that points to Ukraine is going to be so. You can say "The intelligence agencies have already debunked those claims" but these are the same guys who make all kinds of other claims that tend to end up unproven or unsubstantiated in the end. Iraqi weapons of mass destruction anyone?

[DonaldD]

I believe Seratil already did so earlier in this thread in regards to the origins of what culminated in the Mueller Investigation.

Seriati "already did so" what, exactly?  Brought up an example of somebody soliciting or receiving something of value from a foreign national in connection with an election?

If he did, that has nothing to do with the example of the New York AG, which remains a classic example of whataboutism as pertains to the Trump discussion.

[LetterRip]

Iraqi weapons of mass destruction anyone?

The intelligence agencies said there are no WMDs and were ignored. The group claiming there were WMDs was a seperate group created specifically because the CIA wasn't giving Bush and Rumsfield the answer they wanted.  This was the 'Office of Special Plans',

The Office of Special Plans (OSP), which existed from September 2002 to June 2003, was a Pentagon unit created by Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, and headed by Feith, as charged by then–United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to supply senior George W. Bush administration officials with raw intelligence (unvetted by intelligence analysts, see Stovepiping) pertaining to Iraq.[1]

[...]

In an interview with the Scottish Sunday Herald, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer Larry C. Johnson said the OSP was "dangerous for US national security and a threat to world peace. [The OSP] lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam. It's a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality. They take bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignore anything contrary. They should be eliminated."[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

So don't blame the CIA and other intelligence agencies, they didn't get it wrong on Iraq, they were simply ignored.

[DonaldD]

these are the same guys who make all kinds of other claims that tend to end up unproven or unsubstantiated in the end. Iraqi weapons of mass destruction anyone?

Actually, no: the people who evaluate foreign weapons capabilities are completely different than those people analyzing Russia's cyber attacks.  Not to mention, that was 20 years ago, so even the people involved in weapons evaluation today are different.

Plus you are glossing over the fact that the Bush administration misrepresented the intelligence provided, ignoring dissenting points therein.  Laying that fiasco primarily at the feet of the intelligence services is a little disingenuous.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/12/13/the-pre-war-intelligence-on-iraq-wrong-or-hyped-by-the-bush-white-house/%3foutputType=amp

[TheDeamon]

Iraqi weapons of mass destruction anyone?

The intelligence agencies said there are no WMDs and were ignored. The group claiming there were WMDs was a seperate group created specifically because the CIA wasn't giving Bush and Rumsfield the answer they wanted.  This was the 'Office of Special Plans',

The Office of Special Plans (OSP), which existed from September 2002 to June 2003, was a Pentagon unit created by Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, and headed by Feith, as charged by then–United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to supply senior George W. Bush administration officials with raw intelligence (unvetted by intelligence analysts, see Stovepiping) pertaining to Iraq.[1]

[...]

In an interview with the Scottish Sunday Herald, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer Larry C. Johnson said the OSP was "dangerous for US national security and a threat to world peace. [The OSP] lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam. It's a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality. They take bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignore anything contrary. They should be eliminated."[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

So don't blame the CIA and other intelligence agencies, they didn't get it wrong on Iraq, they were simply ignored.

So let me get this straight, an intelligence group created by the Bush43 Admin managed to convince the Clinton Administration that there were WMD's in Iraq? Impressive.

You guys keep forgetting that Bill Clinton was convinced Iraq had WMD's for the duration of his administration, and continued to be so up until OIF. Bill Clinton thinking Iraq had WMD's on January 19th, 2000 cannot be blamed on the Bush43 Administration manipulating intel.

[cherrypoptart]

"Since TheDaemon hasn't brought up an example of anybody soliciting or receiving anything of value from a foreign national in connection with an election..."

Why would a foreign national have to be involved for it to be bribery?

[LetterRip]

TheDaemon,

So let me get this straight, an intelligence group created by the Bush43 Admin managed to convince the Clinton Administration that there were WMD's in Iraq? Impressive.

So to clarify - you now totally agree that the CIA wasn't responsible for Bush's WMD claims and retract that claim?  You are now arguing instead that the CIA convinced Clinton that there were WMDs in Iraq?

What you are presumably talking about is Clinton's 1996 radio address, where he said

"We must redouble our efforts to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons, such as those that Iraq and other rogue nations have developed."

Iraq had indeed developed chemical weapons.  But those chemical weapons were destroyed when Iraq ratified the chemical and biological weapons treaty in 1991. He was refering to their past action, he in no way implied it was ongoing and present possession of chemical weapons, and never implied they had nuclear weapons.

If you mean the 1998 bombing campaign only 13 of the 100 targets were even related to ballistic capability, or chemical or biological related facilities, and the intelligence didn't suggest any of even those bombed actually were for those purposes,

Dr. Brian Jones was the top intelligence analyst on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons at the Ministry of Defence.[24] He told BBC Panorama in 2004 that Defence Intelligence Staff in Whitehall did not have a high degree of confidence any of the facilities identified, targeted and bombed in Operation Desert Fox were active in producing weapons of mass destruction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)

Again the intelligence said they didn't exist.  He was ignoring it.

[TheDeamon]

TheDaemon,

So let me get this straight, an intelligence group created by the Bush43 Admin managed to convince the Clinton Administration that there were WMD's in Iraq? Impressive.

So to clarify - you now totally agree that the CIA wasn't responsible for Bush's WMD claims and retract that claim?  You are now arguing instead that the CIA convinced Clinton that there were WMDs in Iraq?

You do know there are more intel agencies than just the CIA out there? You do also know I had access to some of that intel during the time frame in question as I was there when Iraqi Freedom started. The intel we had on my ship said Iraq had WMD's. Of course, being DoD, we may have been getting the same stuff PotUS was, but the intel was out there all the same.

Edit: Further-- I have memories of seeing intel briefs from my time in 5th Fleet AOR during 2000(which was Clinton's term of office), where comparable briefs about alleged shenanigans with UN inspectors were being given.

[LetterRip]

You do also know I had access to some of that intel during the time frame in question as I was there when Iraqi Freedom started. The intel we had on my ship said Iraq had WMD's. Of course, being DoD, we may have been getting the same stuff PotUS was, but the intel was out there all the same.

It was indeed the same, you weren't recieving the intelligence and conclusions of the intelligence agencies.  The OSP conclusions was what was being passed on.  If Rumsfeld went to the effort to establish an agency to create a false narrative to give the conclusion he wanted, why do you think he would not use that rather than the intelligence that directly contradicted his narrative?

Edit: Further-- I have memories of seeing intel briefs from my time in 5th Fleet AOR during 2000(which was Clinton's term of office), where comparable briefs about alleged shenanigans with UN inspectors were being given.

You are probably thinking of the issues about UN inspectors were getting kicked out during the Clinton administration.  This was happening largely because the US spies were illegally posing as UNSCOM inspectors to spy on Iraq (they weren't merely searching for WMDs etc)

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1999/01/did-america-break-the-rules-by-spying-on-iraq.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/mar/03/iraq.julianborger

[TheDeamon]

You do also know I had access to some of that intel during the time frame in question as I was there when Edit: Further-- I have memories of seeing intel briefs from my time in 5th Fleet AOR during 2000(which was Clinton's term of office), where comparable briefs about alleged shenanigans with UN inspectors were being given.

You are probably thinking of the issues about UN inspectors were getting kicked out during the Clinton administration.  This was happening largely because the US spies were illegally posing as UNSCOM inspectors to spy on Iraq (they weren't merely searching for WMDs etc)

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1999/01/did-america-break-the-rules-by-spying-on-iraq.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/mar/03/iraq.julianborger

That was a long-standing and on-going thing with the UN Inspectors and Americans in general with regards to Iraq as ALL of the qualified Americans for such inspection had "connections" going back to either DOD or Intelligence Agencies, for obvious reasons, which Iraq then used as grounds to declare them as being spies.

And that's a different matter than the shenanigans I was talking about, but as that information was classified, and I'm not aware of them being discussed in public media, I'm not going to give more detail beyond that. Some aspects of those reports do lend themselves well to Occam's Razor in lieu of the whole "UN Inspectors went to site Intel says Chem/Bio Weapons are present at, Inspectors unable to find any evidence of said weapons, or secret facility Intel indicates as being present" as well as hindsight with the subsequent lack of evidence found after OIF. But there was a bit more going on than just the above mentioned excerpt.

[Crunch]

I believe Seratil already did so earlier in this thread in regards to the origins of what culminated in the Mueller Investigation.

Seriati "already did so" what, exactly?  Brought up an example of somebody soliciting or receiving something of value from a foreign national in connection with an election?

If he did, that has nothing to do with the example of the New York AG, which remains a classic example of whataboutism as pertains to the Trump discussion.

You gotta go back those posts and “this time at least try to understand what was written.” You know,  “Read. Think. Understand.”


Hahaha, that came back around fast, didn’t it?

[DonaldD]

Why would a foreign national have to be involved for it to be bribery?

I wasn't talking about the bribery... In practice, "bribery" isn't inherently bad, except when used to support a "bad" end: for instance, if Trump was soliciting election aid from a foreign national as has been pretty well documented, the bribery makes it worse, but isn't the primary bad act.

[LetterRip]

Apparently Guiliani was acting on his own, according to Trump,

In the interview for BillOReilly.com, O'Reilly asked the president what Giuliani was, "doing in Ukraine on your behalf."

"Well, you have to ask that to Rudy, but Rudy, I don't, I don't even know," said Mr. Trump. "I know he was going to go to Ukraine, and I think he canceled a trip," the president continued. "But, you know, Rudy has other clients, other than me. I'm one person."

[...]

Giuliani's your personal lawyer," O'Reilly said. "So you didn't direct him to go to Ukraine to do anything or put any heat on them?"

"No, I didn't direct him, but he's a warrior, Rudy's a warrior. Rudy went, he possibly saw something. But you have to understand, Rudy, has other people that he represents," Mr. Trump said.

[...]

"He's done a lot of work in Ukraine over the years, and I think — I mean that's what I heard. I might have even read that someplace, but he's a good man and he's an honorable guy and he's a great crime fighter, corruption fighter," Mr. Trump said.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-distances-himself-from-giulianis-ukraine-efforts/

[DonaldD]

So, to paraphrase: "Giuliani? Good guy - not doing anything re Ukraine that I know of..."

Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.

And then there's Sondland, who has a line to reach Trump (and which the president actually answers)

I don’t know him very well. I have not spoken to him much... This is not a man I know well. He seems like a nice guy, though

It must be difficult, being the president and having to accept cell phone calls from so many complete strangers...

What's sad is that his fan boys actually buy into this BS

[Pete at Home]

Donald, please identify anything that I’ve said on this thread that’s more insulting than “Trump’s fanboy”

  it’s spot on, it’s an A grade slam, and I don’t complain about the insults so much as your almost juxtaposed fastidious handwaving about civility.

[Seriati]

Since TheDaemon hasn't brought up an example of anybody soliciting or receiving anything of value from a foreign national in connection with an election, and that is the basis of Trump's current problems, bringing up the New York AG, who has not been accused by anybody of dealing with foreign nationals, is pretty straightforward whataboutism.

I think it was absolutely clear both when the NY AG was initially brought up as a response to your seeming claim that politically motivated investigation announcements are inherently interference in an election even if they could have other politically motivate goals (it is absolutely clear the NY AG's investigations are politically motivated, they expressly linked their campaigns to them and it's clear they are investigating people not crimes) and then when you clarified that any AG who announced investigations without a basis should be removed from office (which again the NY AG clearly did), why you were being referred to the NY AG as relevant.  You don't have any consistency on this concept, and in fact you excuse the actual politically motivated investigations, even when they are directly linked to politics, and hold the investigation of what looks like crimes as the "politically motivate" investigations based on an indirect theory of benefit.  And why?  Seems to just be a political team decision.

Trying to claim that this was somehow about the NY AG involving itself with foreign actors is a massive retcon and strawman.  There's no logically consistent position you can hold if you think Trump and the DOJ investigating interference in the 2016 election is somehow wrong and an "interference" in the 2020 election, but somehow believe it's okay for an activist NY AG to announce that they will essentially be investigating anyone with any connection to Trump without a basis - largely for the direct purpose of interfering with the 2020 election and/or the unConstitutional purpose of interfering with the ability of the Federal executive to effectuate his official requirements.

This isn't "whataboutism" at all, it's about endorsement of unConstitutional activities on the one hand, and pretending that Constitutional duties on the other are illegal, for no apparent reason other than partisanship.

Especially since, as LR and I have now argued, the New York AG actually does have plenty of evidence to drive forward state level charges.

Did they?  I think you're both stretching.  If you investigate thousands of people with the full power of the state and look to trip them up on any basis conceivable you can find hundreds of "crimes" and pressure people to implicate others.  It worked very well for McCarthy and the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, so why woudn't it work for the NY AG.  Still a fundamental violation of how due process and equal protection under the laws is supposed to work.

If you're going to insert yourself at the end of a debate, you should really do so without immediately throwing around insults, and being at least slightly relevant to be topic.

That's unnecessarily nasty.  And frankly not true.  You are on the wrong side of this debate on facts, and on principle, it's not anyone else's fault.

You are missing fundamental connectors to make this about 2020.  Best I can tell you've never adequately explained how investigating 2016 interference is not a legitimate thing, how investigating what everyone on earth knows was an illegitimate board position would be an illegitimate thing, or what basis you have that asking the Ukraine to conduct transparent investigations into those would be immoral, illegal or problematic.

You haven't answered the obvious corollary to your position that investigation of Biden is illegal, that Joe Biden by your construct has to be immune to any investigation by the DOJ related to past conduct.  What basis do you have for this absolute immunity that far exceeds even Presidential immunity.  And if that's really your position, why did you endorse the equivalent and apparent illegal investigations into Trump's campaign?

You have not remotely addressed the Obama DOJ's active cooperatoin with the Ukrainians during the 2016 election to investigate Manafort, or any of the events of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election that were documented.  All of which a consistent principal would require that be considered crimes and effectively validate the very investigations you seem to think are improper.

You haven't even explained why the "opinions" of the best witnesses the Democrats could put together are relevant, when they didn't actually have any official or apparently even an official direction and relied on presumptions.  Or why you think they are evidence of a Trump directed policy.   Even if you could get over all the humps above, which you actually can't, it's still a hard sell.  Effectively, we are at the point where "accusation = guilty" in the mind of those with TDS.

[DonaldD]

You are on the wrong side of this debate on facts, and on principle

Well, if you think so, then I must be on the right track...

[Fenring]

You are on the wrong side of this debate on facts, and on principle

Well, if you think so, then I must be on the right track...

He's not wrong that the issue of Biden's apparent total immunity seems difficult to answer for anyone convinced that investigating 2016 shouldn't be allowed to happen. Or at least I haven't heard a satisfactory answer yet of an alternative for those who say that Trump shouldn't be allowed to investigate a political opponent who allegedly did something wrong in the past.

[DonaldD]

I haven't heard a satisfactory answer yet of an alternative for those who say that Trump shouldn't be allowed to investigate a political opponent who allegedly did something wrong in the past.

Well, it's a good thing I have not suggested that Trump shouldn't be allowed to do so... Of course, I have suggested that if investigating a political opponent, you had better have all your ducks in a row... and if you don't, and if it becomes clear that you should have known that you didn't (or worse, that you knew there wasn't cause) then cry me a river, but you'll be forced to take responsibility.

[Fenring]

Of course, I have suggested that if investigating a political opponent, you had better have all your ducks in a row... and if you don't, and if it becomes clear that you should have known that you didn't (or worse, that you knew there wasn't cause) then cry me a river, but you'll be forced to take responsibility.

I must admit I'm not sure what "ducks in a row" means here. Is that a reference to a legal level of certainty of malfeasance? We're talking about potential corruption happening in a wack country where all kinds of stuff goes down. What is "ducks in a row" in that context, and how do you set up those ducks prior to asking that administration to investigate matters? Do you mean that the CIA should be collecting intel under the nose of the Ukrainian government and without their involvement, to report back to Trump, so that Trump could then go to Zelenskyy and request he investigate? I'm not even sure this makes sense, because the CIA isn't a law enforcement agency, and the U.S. doesn't have a law enforcement agency with jurisdiction in foreign countries.

[DonaldD]

We're talking about potential corruption happening in a wack country where all kinds of stuff goes down.

Um, OK...  your whole post reads as an apologia to requesting an investigation of anybody in that country, regardless of evidence.

I'm sure that's not what you meant, but the only substantive thing you wrote was about the country being "wack'.  The rest is rationalization.

So yes, requesting that one's opponent be named publicly on CNN as being investigated? That's something that requires more than just a "I read something somebody wrote on twitter, about things for which I have seen no evidence, but it might be true because it fits into my world-view, so..."  If that's all one's got, and one strong-arms a foreign leader to announce publicly the opening of an investigation at one's behest, then yes, it really sucks to be... someone.

To put it another way - if you make a claim that in any other instance would be defamatory (if untrue), and you convince someone, in this case a foreign leader, to make that statement at your behest, and you cannot even minimally support that statement, then you are, unfortunately, responsible.  The stakes get much higher, of course, when the person you are potentially defaming is a political opponent, the person you are convincing to spread the defamatory remarks is a foreigner, and the defamation could be reasonably shown to benefit oneself in an upcoming election.

[Fenring]

I'm sure that's not what you meant, but the only substantive thing you wrote was about the country being "wack'.  The rest is rationalization.

How can my post, which was entirely a question I was asking you about your position, be a non-substantive rationalization? I literally don't know what you're talking about. I am asking how Trump should have engaged in his preliminary search to 'get his ducks in a row', and your answer is I'm apologizing for his actions? I can't say his choice was good when I don't know if there was a better one, but you seem pretty sure there was a better one, so I'm asking what it is. So far I can gather from this thread is that it's not legitimate for Trump to investigate Biden, but I can't gather much about why exactly that is other than Biden is his political opponent, so naturally the only conclusion I can draw is that being a Democrat candidate makes Biden immune to investigation if that investigation in any way connects to Trump. So someone down the totem pole in the intelligence community, with no ties to Trump and not reporting directly to him, would have to be the one doing this? It can't be local U.S. law enforcement because they have no access to Ukraine, and it can't be a high-up in intelligence because they'll have connections to the President. But can a lower-echelon person in intelligence actually do anything in the Ukraine without it involving the diplomatic staff? So yeah, I want to know how these ducks were supposed to get in a row. I am making no argument at all on this topic, but rather requesting an argument.

[DonaldD]

Fenring, your post was not entirely "a question", and those parts that were questions read as rhetorical (especially the ones where you highlighted the important bits, or where you went on to answer them yourself.)

But as to the "how"?  The one obvious thing NOT to do is to "ask" (maybe, make him an offer he can't refuse...) a foreign leader to publicly announce the investigation into a named political opponent based on nothing but Twitter suspicions.  This is so obvious I continue to be baffled that you continue to miss it. What if those suspicions were wrong?  And this is where the ducks in a row come in - if you make an unfounded, defamatory claim about something, you are responsible.  Not being able to first investigate sufficiently to disprove the defamatory statement is not a defence of the statement - it is a reason not to make it in the first place.

Trump had no need for the investigation to be announced whatsoever.  If the investigation bore fruit, then one or the other Biden would be brought up on charges, and justice would be served.  But forcing an announcement based on the flimsiest of suspicions is simply irresponsible, and might even be illegal if not provably well-founded.

The challenge with requesting an investigation is almost as fraught: in that in all likelihood, the fact of the investigation (or worse, you requesting it) is almost certain to also come to light.

[Seriati]

We're talking about potential corruption happening in a wack country where all kinds of stuff goes down.

Um, OK...  your whole post reads as an apologia to requesting an investigation of anybody in that country, regardless of evidence.

I'm sure that's not what you meant, but the only substantive thing you wrote was about the country being "wack'.  The rest is rationalization.

I see, the response to you avoiding any rational explanation is "rationalization."  How about you answer a few of the questions?

So yes, requesting that one's opponent be named publicly on CNN as being investigated?

Can you provide evidence that this occurred?  Nope.  There's no such evidence that Trump did so.

I think you mean third hand information about a "process" on an announcement, where no one actually said they directly heard that.  But maybe I'm wrong, what are you actually relying on to make this claim?

That's something that requires more than just a "I read something somebody wrote on twitter, about things for which I have seen no evidence, but it might be true because it fits into my world-view, so..."  If that's all one's got, and one strong-arms a foreign leader to announce publicly the opening of an investigation at one's behest, then yes, it really sucks to be... someone.

I see, you want to cite to conspiracy theories in the same post where you claim third hand rumors are substantive facts?  Yep, it's me who's off here.

To put it another way - if you make a claim that in any other instance would be defamatory (if untrue), and you convince someone, in this case a foreign leader, to make that statement at your behest, and you cannot even minimally support that statement, then you are, unfortunately, responsible.

That's a weird proposition.  Given that the "claim" is not defamatory, and that's mostly because it's true.  The request to the foreign leader was to do "a transparent investigation" and the request - dropped - was to announce that you were going to do what you said you were going to do, ie to begin transparent investigations into universal corruption the fighting of which has been US policy for years.  That announcement is literally the existing US policy.  Your gloss on it is truthfully unsubstantiated in fact.

If you can't support the defamation you are spreading you should apologize for it.

The stakes get much higher, of course, when the person you are potentially defaming is a political opponent, the person you are convincing to spread the defamatory remarks is a foreigner, and the defamation could be reasonably shown to benefit oneself in an upcoming election.

So then hold every single lying member of the DNC accountable for spreading their lies against Trump.  Hold Schiff accountable for lying repeatedly in his gloss.  Hold everyone who's connected Trump to Ukrainian malfeasance accountable.

You won't.   Because your issue isn't the abuse of process for political gain, which is 100% what this sham impeachment was, but since it's against Trump all your statements about the "principal" of things don't apply.

[TheDeamon]

Of course, I have suggested that if investigating a political opponent, you had better have all your ducks in a row... and if you don't, and if it becomes clear that you should have known that you didn't (or worse, that you knew there wasn't cause) then cry me a river, but you'll be forced to take responsibility.

I must admit I'm not sure what "ducks in a row" means here. Is that a reference to a legal level of certainty of malfeasance? We're talking about potential corruption happening in a wack country where all kinds of stuff goes down. What is "ducks in a row" in that context, and how do you set up those ducks prior to asking that administration to investigate matters? Do you mean that the CIA should be collecting intel under the nose of the Ukrainian government and without their involvement, to report back to Trump, so that Trump could then go to Zelenskyy and request he investigate? I'm not even sure this makes sense, because the CIA isn't a law enforcement agency, and the U.S. doesn't have a law enforcement agency with jurisdiction in foreign countries.

He's stuck in a double-think trap. Basically by "ducks in a row" he means that Trump would need to be 99.99% certain that he already has the evidence needed to pursue such an investigation before he even starts it. Forget a probable cause level, you need "beyond a reasonable doubt" before you even start.

Don't bother bringing up the dissonance that comes into it with regards to foreign intel assets being used in a very sketchy way to trigger "the perfectly acceptable" investigation into Trump himself during 2016. (or the disparity of Biden's own words, vs "intellignce sources report..")

[DonaldD]

He's stuck in a double-think trap. Basically by "ducks in a row" he means

TheDaemon, why do you continue to bring the stupid?  Hint - don't try to guess what I mean, because every time you do put words into my mouth, you miss the mark in such obvious ways as to embarrass yourself.

[Pete at Home]

He's stuck in a double-think trap. Basically by "ducks in a row" he means

TheDaemon, why do you continue to bring the stupid?  Hint - don't try to guess what I mean, because every time you do put words into my mouth, you miss the mark in such obvious ways as to embarrass yourself.

That’s DonalD for you, always concerned for the other guy

[Crunch]

Yeah, nonstop personal attacks and various other logical fallacies. I admire the dedication and consistency.

[rightleft22]

Yeah, nonstop personal attacks and various other logical fallacies. I admire the dedication and consistency.

Not reading the posts above my first thought was if Crunch was admiring of Trumps personal attacks and logical fallacies. How honest...

[Fenring]

Fenring, your post was not entirely "a question", and those parts that were questions read as rhetorical (especially the ones where you highlighted the important bits, or where you went on to answer them yourself.)

I must admit I'm baffled. Are you declining to believe anything I write, and instead deciding my questions mean something other than what I outright say they mean? I specifically said I was making no forward claim on this and was requesting you to explain how to set up the ducks in a row, according to your reasoning. I feel like you've been dodging, but if you didn't understand what I want to know I can try to rephrase or something.

But as to the "how"?  The one obvious thing NOT to do is to "ask" (maybe, make him an offer he can't refuse...) a foreign leader to publicly announce the investigation into a named political opponent based on nothing but Twitter suspicions.  This is so obvious I continue to be baffled that you continue to miss it. What if those suspicions were wrong?  And this is where the ducks in a row come in - if you make an unfounded, defamatory claim about something, you are responsible.  Not being able to first investigate sufficiently to disprove the defamatory statement is not a defence of the statement - it is a reason not to make it in the first place.

It's been pretty clear you think that Trump did it wrong. What I wanted to know is how you think it should have been done right.

Trump had no need for the investigation to be announced whatsoever.  If the investigation bore fruit, then one or the other Biden would be brought up on charges, and justice would be served.  But forcing an announcement based on the flimsiest of suspicions is simply irresponsible, and might even be illegal if not provably well-founded.

See, this whole time you and others kept saying that Trump investigating Biden wasn't acceptable. Now it seems like you're saying that investigating Biden is *exactly* what he should have been doing, but that it should have been kept quiet until it yielded positive results, at which time it could *then* be announced. So am I reading correctly that your problem isn't with the idea of an investigation, but with Trump requesting it to be announced in advance? And we grant in this context that he was specifically requesting that, which does not seem entirely clear to me. But assuming he was, you think that so long as no one annouced in public that there would be an investigation then everything would be legit? The then we get to:

The challenge with requesting an investigation is almost as fraught: in that in all likelihood, the fact of the investigation (or worse, you requesting it) is almost certain to also come to light.

Exactly, this is how I would have replied to your previous point. Do a 'quiet investigation' and Biden (and many others) would find out anyhow, at least at the point where they were being directly questioned. With the leaks that go on it would be made public, and *then* you know what would happen? It would be announced that Trump was working covertly with a foreign government to undermine a DNC candidate. And you know what? It would be true in a way. By announcing upfront, publicly, that they were doing this there would be no confusion about the reasons for the investigation (i.e. that it's about 2016, not 2020), and it would also ensure that Zelenskyy was for real about it since making a public statement is going to create accountability and make Trump feel more secure that it would actually happen. But avoiding a public statement makes it looks like collusion to mess up to upcoming election, and when Trump would subsequently say that, no, it was really about 2016, he would be accused of lying and changing the story after the fact to cover it up. I see these things as obviously what would happen in that case.

So we're back to: does Biden have total immunity, and if not, how should he have been investigated in a legitimate manner?

[TheDeamon]

He's stuck in a double-think trap. Basically by "ducks in a row" he means

TheDaemon, why do you continue to bring the stupid?  Hint - don't try to guess what I mean, because every time you do put words into my mouth, you miss the mark in such obvious ways as to embarrass yourself.

In most of those cases they're rhetorical (and hyperbolic) counterpoints being raised where you specifically may not actually mean that, but there are plenty others out there where it will be valid, or close enough to not matter.

That said, I'm with Fenring on being intrigues as to what "Democrats" feel would have been "the right way" to go about investigating the Biden family's dealings in Ukraine absent either simply giving them blanket immunity, or setting Trump up for potentially an even larger "scandal" when a "covert investigation" gets leaked through Democrat spin-control?

Because you have created a logical hole in regards to ANY use of foreign assets to investigate political rivals is wrong when it comes to Trump investigating Democrats, but there seems to be no objections to foreign intelligence assets having been used to go after Trump in 2016, so I really want to understand what was different in 2016 in order to make that one acceptable.

[NobleHunter]

I would expect it to be investigated by the FBI (or whatever agency is responsible for investigations with possible international connections) by whatever means assistance from foreign countries is usually requested. Politicians would restrict their involvement to requesting cooperation with the investigation.

It certainly wouldn't involve delayed military aid or phrasing such assistance as a favor.

[Fenring]

I would expect it to be investigated by the FBI (or whatever agency is responsible for investigations with possible international connections) by whatever means assistance from foreign countries is usually requested. Politicians would restrict their involvement to requesting cooperation with the investigation.

Ok, thanks for this answer. So the FBI has the authority to approach foreign governments to ask to do joint operations with them? And who would be the instigator of such an FBI venture? Like, as in, whose idea would it be? Could it come from the President, but be handed off to someone else in the FBI so that the President doesn't have direct access to the investigation? Or would it be off the table for it to even be the President's idea at all? I'm asking because the "no connection to the President" clause is something I actually don't understand (for real) and would like to understand how this would work. Like, if some middle-manager in the FBI wanted to investigate Biden, and approach Ukraine's law enforcement to do it (assuming they could be trusted), but then subsequently Trump made it known to the FBI that he approved of this investigation, would that then make the investigation undoable because now they know the President wants it?

It certainly wouldn't involve delayed military aid or phrasing such assistance as a favor.

I see the objection to this, but it's a bit of a side issue since the methods chosen to leverage a policy goal are a bit separate from the issue of whether the goal itself is legitimate. Whether this type of leveraging is legitimate is an interesting but different topic.

[Fenring]

Btw the reason I'm asking this kind of detailing re: FBI or whichever other agency, is not because I'm trying to blockage the answer and force anyone to provide information they obviously don't have to createa a gotcha. Rather it's because when a positive statement is made that 'X is the wrong way to do something' I would assume the person holding that position knows the right way to do it; otherwise how would they know the other way is wrong? It's like telling someone they can do something better, in which case you'd actually better know exactly how they can do it better to make that claim. Without that knowledge it just seems like guessing or something, like 'well I hope there's a better way' or something like that.

[NobleHunter]

The thing with the actual right way for these things to happen is that its normally a bit of bureaucratic trivia. I don't think it's necessary to know exactly how it's done to know that care should be taken to avoid the appearance of partisan interests.

How could such an investigation come from the President? He's can't do any investigation or much research. Even if he had the information from a diplomatic contact, I'd expect it to get passed off to an intelligence service for review before launching a formal investigation.

[cherrypoptart]

There wasn't any right way to do it. It was always a trap. Darned if you do and darned if you don't. Catch-22. Kobayashi Maru. No way out.

[Fenring]

The thing with the actual right way for these things to happen is that its normally a bit of bureaucratic trivia. I don't think it's necessary to know exactly how it's done to know that care should be taken to avoid the appearance of partisan interests.

I guess the question is whether it's realistically possible for the President to be totally out of the loop on something like this, or whether such initiatives with foreign countries are regularly involving the senior diplomatic staff (who report to the President). How in fact does one avoid the appearance of partisan interests in a situation like this? If you keep it quiet and it later comes out that Trump was involved you get the accusation of partisan PLUS covert; announce it openly and you get partisan but at least out in the open.

How could such an investigation come from the President? He's can't do any investigation or much research. Even if he had the information from a diplomatic contact, I'd expect it to get passed off to an intelligence service for review before launching a formal investigation.

Just to play devil's advocate, since it's possible Trump really didn't do this and was just talking out of his butt, how do you know what Trump's intelligence sources were prior to deciding to ask Zelenskyy for an investigation? Would your attitude on this change if he had already based his decision on real intelligence and decided it was worth doing? And if so, was it still wrong to take it right to Zelenskyy himself? There's no reason to assume that Trump was personally going to participate in the investigation; from what the call shows he just wanted it started and was making sure that got done. So assuming he did base this desire on intelligence reports, is it ok then?

[NobleHunter]

I guess the question is whether it's realistically possible for the President to be totally out of the loop on something like this, or whether such initiatives with foreign countries are regularly involving the senior diplomatic staff (who report to the President). How in fact does one avoid the appearance of partisan interests in a situation like this? If you keep it quiet and it later comes out that Trump was involved you get the accusation of partisan PLUS covert; announce it openly and you get partisan but at least out in the open.

Given Biden's prominence, of course the President would be informed. What he shouldn't be is an instigator or actively interfering. Also worth pointing out that it wasn't announced openly, otherwise we wouldn't have heard about it because of a whistleblower.

Just to play devil's advocate, since it's possible Trump really didn't do this and was just talking out of his butt, how do you know what Trump's intelligence sources were prior to deciding to ask Zelenskyy for an investigation? Would your attitude on this change if he had already based his decision on real intelligence and decided it was worth doing? And if so, was it still wrong to take it right to Zelenskyy himself? There's no reason to assume that Trump was personally going to participate in the investigation; from what the call shows he just wanted it started and was making sure that got done. So assuming he did base this desire on intelligence reports, is it ok then?

There'd also need to be evidence that non-political avenues had been attempted and needed higher-level intervention to get them moving. Again, it'd also be good if it wasn't phrased as a favor in response to aid but simply an obligation of participating in an international system.

Given how prominent conspiracy theories are in Trump's communications, I'm pretty sure he's not basing his foreign policy on intelligence reports.

[Fenring]

Given Biden's prominence, of course the President would be informed. What he shouldn't be is an instigator or actively interfering.

I'm not sure how it matters who instigates the idea of an investigation; isn't the point just that it's conducted impartially? As for interfering, in what way does it seem Trump was interfering in the investigation? I guess that point might not have been a statement of fact but rather a qualifier of another thing that would be bad.

Also worth pointing out that it wasn't announced openly, otherwise we wouldn't have heard about it because of a whistleblower.

Isn't half (most of?) the issue being raised that Trump was requesting a public statement about the investigation? That is an open announcement, is it not? That fact that what Trump wanted didn't seem to go exactly according to plan is seemingly another matter. He clearly wanted it to be publicly stated.

There'd also need to be evidence that non-political avenues had been attempted and needed higher-level intervention to get them moving.

My issue here is that we (the general public) don't know squat about how things are conducted with 'irregular' countries like Ukraine. I call it 'irregular' because these aren't normal allies with a good history of communications and back-and-forth. Rather this is a country that was quite recently feared to be in the pocket of Russia and even now is only on the brink of maybe being brought closer to the West. In other words I don't know what sorts of "non-political avenues" even exist in such situations, especially when the matter at hand is specifically corruption within the previous government and law enforcement system there. We can't exactly just trust a country like the Ukraine to have a smooth operating system that can be relied upon to help. I have no doubt that any big changes being made over there would have to involve high-level channels; whatever other means are available I really don't know, and I suspect no one else does either. NGO's are often floating around such countries doing whatever it is they do, but I can scarcely tell you a thing about the ones hanging around in the Ukraine, and whether they have any 'official' connection to the U.S. government (I suspect many or most have unofficial connections, through money).

Given how prominent conspiracy theories are in Trump's communications, I'm pretty sure he's not basing his foreign policy on intelligence reports.

This just goes back to "he's probably guilty because we already know we don't trust him." I would submit that you may be guessing correctly that he doesn't bother with getting solid confirmation about facts before acting, but that doesn't quite translate into a positive statement that he definitely didn't do things in the right order. Maybe, maybe not. If the entire issue were just down to whether he had properly consulted with intelligence or whether he stupidly went ahead on his own, I would be a lot closer to agreeing with your position because I could definitely believe the latter.

[NobleHunter]

Instigation concerns the factual basis of the investigation as well as preserving the non-partisan basis for criminal investigations. He was interfering with the investigation as he seemed to starting or directing it.

As far as I know, Trump's request of the public statement including Ukraine making it sound like the investigation was started by them or at least eliding his involvement in spurring it along. That's not exactly an open announcement.

It's a bit of a leap from no long-established channels to it needing to be conducted at the highest and most political level. Especially since avoiding the appearance of impropriety is a necessary if you want the results of the investigation to stick.

If the entire issue were just down to whether he had properly consulted with intelligence or whether he stupidly went ahead on his own, I would be a lot closer to agreeing with your position because I could definitely believe the latter.

Given his history of disregarding the US intelligence services, I don't see it as a stretch that he didn't consult with anyone.

[Fenring]

NH,

A lot of your points seem to be in the vein of "maybe there were other channels", or "he may not have consulted with anyone." That's all fine, maybe so. It's a big leap to get from those very plausible hypotheticals to "This is an unacceptable and illegal breach of the public trust warranting impeachment." Note that - despite what DonaldD has implied - none of my questions or points are positive defenses of what Trump has done, but rather are challenges to the very direct and self-assured comments stating definitively that he has broken the law, done things all wrong, is not allowed to investigate a political rival, and should be impeached for it. In other words, I'm not trying to make the hard case - which I agree with you would be hard (i.e. to prove that Trump did everything right, which he rarely does). I am challenging others who seem to think that it's trivially obvious that the reverse hard case is already in evidence: that Trump did it all wrong and that it was illegal.

[Seriati]

I don't see anyway for Trump to use channels that the left will accept as proper.  You have significant amount of resistance in the bureaucracy of the government that is supposed to be reporting to Trump and taking it's direction from him, which is the exact opposite of what you had with Obama.  With 95% of political donations from such persons going to DNC candidates it's not hard to understand why.

So if Trump hears from the media about Hunter's sweet deal on a corrupt Ukrainian Board and sees Joe Biden bragging on tv about getting the prosecutor fired, and learns that this interfered with an investigation into that corrupt company.  Why exactly would he trust a deep state report that says there's nothing to see?  We already know if the names where "Trump" instead of "Biden" this too would be "overwhelming and clear" evidence of impeachable conduct.  That's the same career group that seemingly ignored the issue in the first place.  That's the same group that has been leaking his own communications in ways designed to hurt him politically, without regard to the harm to the country.  It's the same group that literally, conducted a fake investigation into non-existant Russian ties - that he knew was fake - and then tried to investigate him for "obstruction" that was almost entirely related to him publicaly defending himself.

it looks an awful lot like the federal bureaucracy is in the tank for the left or even for the left and the establishment right.  Leaving it to them to "impartially" investigate is, in my view and likely in Trump's view, tantamount to letting them bury it without regard to whether its real.

In any event, the requests were for "transparent investigations" and to coordinate with AG Barr.  Literally, the exact things that are above board to ask for.

[TheDeamon]

The thing with the actual right way for these things to happen is that its normally a bit of bureaucratic trivia. I don't think it's necessary to know exactly how it's done to know that care should be taken to avoid the appearance of partisan interests.

I guess the question is whether it's realistically possible for the President to be totally out of the loop on something like this, or whether such initiatives with foreign countries are regularly involving the senior diplomatic staff (who report to the President). How in fact does one avoid the appearance of partisan interests in a situation like this? If you keep it quiet and it later comes out that Trump was involved you get the accusation of partisan PLUS covert; announce it openly and you get partisan but at least out in the open.

One word: Interpol

International "low level cooperation" happens on a semi-routine basis, but largely in relation to "low-level crime." The higher the "level" the crime is allegedly happening at, I'd expect to find a correspondingly higher level of leadership becoming involved in at least ensuring access.

In a lot of respects, in particular with respect to a Oligarchic structure like Ukraine has, that if you're asking for an investigation of both their own Oligarchs, as well as some of "your own" high level people, there is going to be a tendency to balk at Joe Friday making inquires through Interpol, or other means. If you want to see movement on that matter, you're going to need high profile of equal or greater stature than the one to be investigated to "bless" the investigation. Which basically translates in PotUS needing to get involved, as they were looking at the activities of a former VP of the US and his family.

There may very well be evidence of an escalation chain leading up to this that the House has failed to pursue. It also is possible Trump's Admin pulled a Keystone Cop routine on this.

It could also be that Trump and company "probably understood/read the situation" based on past experience, and that is why they went about it the way they did. Something we'd undoubtedly hear about should this come a Senate Impeachment trial, but I'm pretty sure the Dems won't let it get that far.

[DonaldD]

I must admit I'm baffled. Are you declining to believe anything I write, and instead deciding my questions mean something other than what I outright say they mean?

Not at all - I said a) that there were multiple questions, and statements that were not actually questions (so the whole post could not be "a question", by definition, and b) I wrote that the questions "read as rhetorical" not that you intended them as such.

That being said, I did answer several of the questions, regardless.

It's been pretty clear you think that Trump did it wrong. What I wanted to know is how you think it should have been done right.

I guess what you are not getting is that sometimes, there is no "right" way to do something.  What is the "right" way to embezzle?  What is the "right" way argue that blacks are inferior to other races? And of course, it also depends on what you meant by "it".  There really is no "right" way for the president to 'request' a foreign leader to announce investigations into a political opponent.

Now, is there a "right" way for the US to investigate former vice presidents' and their offspring for malfeasance?  Yes, of course.  The right way would be, top down, to set policy in such a way as to prioritize resources in certain areas; for those policies to lead to specific investigations, which might then find evidence of malfeasance by certain parties, some of which might or might not be former VPs and their offspring; and for the departments responsible for investigating crimes to follow up on the evidence, and eventually, if found, to provide the evidence to the respective parties in charge of prosecution.  Oh, that does not have the effect of immediately tarnishing the reputation of one's opponent?  Or more benignly, that doesn't get the criminally-involved opponent charged prior to the next election cycle?  That's really unfortunate.

But starting off with the president naming a political opponent as the subject of investigation as the very first step?  The reason why that is stupid is because it leads directly to situations like the current: the president himself being investigated for urging foreign parties to interfere with US elections (or more generally, with the president being investigated for using the office itself to politically assassinate opponents.)

[DonaldD]

It could also be that Trump and company "probably understood/read the situation" based on past experience, and that is why they went about it the way they did.

If past experience is anything to go by, if the daily stormer or breitbart tweeted that the moon was made out of cheese, Trump would probably invest in cheddar futures and initiate a new moon program.  That is, after all, the amount of investigation that went into the Burisma affair, after all is said and done.

[Fenring]

I guess what you are not getting is that sometimes, there is no "right" way to do something.  What is the "right" way to embezzle?  What is the "right" way argue that blacks are inferior to other races? And of course, it also depends on what you meant by "it".  There really is no "right" way for the president to 'request' a foreign leader to announce investigations into a political opponent.

You seem to be conflating the request for an investigation with the request that there be a public announcement of it. Which of those is the problem? Half the time people seem to be saying it's the public announcement, and the other half it's that the investigation itself seems to be illegitimate. So we keep pushing and pulling in our conclusions between "Biden cannot be invesigtated" and between "Trump did this in his usual blunt and piggish way." No one is going to dispute the latter, and the former seems to be tough to get a straight answer about. The only thing we've seen so far is 'it would be good' if Biden could have been investigated using alternate channels, but what I'm not hearing is anyone actually knowing whether there really are such channels available. I don't exactly expect us here to know that sort of thing either, but don't you think that sort of knowledge would be necessary prior to making a pronouncement that the wrong channels were used?

Now, is there a "right" way for the US to investigate former vice presidents' and their offspring for malfeasance?  Yes, of course.  The right way would be, top down,

Isn't the President at the top? So anything coming from him would be the definition of top-down, wouldn't it?

to set policy in such a way as to prioritize resources in certain areas; for those policies to lead to specific investigations, which might then find evidence of malfeasance by certain parties, some of which might or might not be former VPs and their offspring; and for the departments responsible for investigating crimes to follow up on the evidence, and eventually, if found, to provide the evidence to the respective parties in charge of prosecution.

Here it sounds like the "top-down" is a reference specifically to U.S. law enforcements hierarchy. Except for one thing: the Ukraine isn't part of the U.S., so how does their top-down structure in any way intersect with the Ukraine's government? U.S. law enforcement has no juridiction there at all. Someone else named interpol, but that's not at all top-down in terms of U.S. policy.

But starting off with the president naming a political opponent as the subject of investigation as the very first step?  The reason why that is stupid is because it leads directly to situations like the current: the president himself being investigated for urging foreign parties to interfere with US elections (or more generally, with the president being investigated for using the office itself to politically assassinate opponents.)

This is starting to sound again like the 'Biden can't be named because he's a candidate' thing. Even if it's stated outright that he's being investigated for 2016 possible misconduct it's going to be framed as "interfering with an upcoming election." May I ask why, along that same line of argument, you aren't considering the investigations into Trump to be interfering with the upcoming election? After all, Biden is only a Primary candidate, whereas Trump is the incumbent, who will definitely be in the general. So why is investigating Trump not interfering (and yeah they made a public show of it, it wasn't quiet like you want for Biden) but investigating Biden is interfering, when both cases are for past conduct?