Impeachment Hearings

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I don’t see any of this as about winning and losing. We’re all losing right now.

We’re focused on the reality tv bullshit instead of the things which truly matter in our lives and the lives of those we love.

Were not only shitting on our collective present, but on the future potential of our children. 

That, winning and losing, was with regard to the outcome of the 2020 election. You don't believe this has anything to do with that?

Clearly it is very much about that.

Assuming the context I think you went with I would agree. What if the same effort went into finding common ground and moving forward?

[iNow]

57 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What if the same effort went into finding common ground and moving forward?

Obama tried that consistently for 8 + years. Matters only got worse. 

[Airbrush]

Did Trump bribe or extort Ukraine?  Here are a few definitions I could find in some dictionaries.  It looks like extortion is a special kind of bribery, to extort is a bribe that includes a threat, such as threatening Ukraine to cope without military aid, in a hot war in the east.  Trump committed bribery, but a bribery that was also extortion.

bribe - bribery

"dishonestly pay someone to act in one’s favor -- pay with javelins for personal political favor

the giving or offering of a bribe -- Trump offered Ukraine a bribe

persuade someone to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement

money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust

something that serves to induce or influence

to influence the judgment or conduct of someone with or as if with offers of money or favor

to induce or influence

 extort - extortion

to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power

to gain especially by ingenuity or compelling argument

To extort is literally to wrench something out of someone. Extortion is a mainstay of organized crime. Just as the school bully extorts lunch money from the smaller kids in exchange for not beating them up, thugs extort "protection" money from business owners with threats of violence. But that's only one kind of extortion; a mobster might extort favors from a politician with threats of revealing some dark secret, just as you might extort a favor from a brother or sister by promising not to tell on them."

Edited November 17, 2019 by Airbrush

[MigL]

I don't think any Americans reading the news or watching the hearings are checking the definitions of bribery and extortion to see if they fit the President's actions. I think most know that what he did was wrong, even Republicans. His base and the a*s-kissers will no doubt stick with him.
But all these revelations, angry spiteful tweets, and his refusals to release information have to be damaging him some.
And if these hearings were next summer or it keeps fresh in people's minds for a year, we may get a one term President.

[LaurieAG]

https://youtu.be/UXA--dj2-CY

If what Trump did was wrong how can this be ok?

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, LaurieAG said:

https://youtu.be/UXA--dj2-CY

If what Trump did was wrong how can this be ok?

It wouldn't be if true. But the evidence uncovered so far doesn't support it. 

In any case Shokin wasn't Prosecutor General in 2006. 

But the facts that are known are fairly suspicious, to say the least.

Trump asking that it be investigated is not in itself a problem politically, IMO, unless the American voter considers Hunter Biden to have provided value beyond influence stemming from his father. It's hard to believe they would be that credulous.

And Trump did get a mandate to "drain the swamp".

It was right up there with building a Mexico funded border wall.

[John Cuthber]

4 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

https://youtu.be/UXA--dj2-CY

If what Trump did was wrong how can this be ok?

Are you aware that two wrongs don't make a right?

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Are you aware that two wrongs don't make a right?

Here's the question; Since what Hunter Biden was doing was obviously suspicious, making it reasonable for Trump to ask for it to be investigated, is Trump obligated to not ask to have it looked into due to the fact Joe Biden is a main political opponent?

The counter argument would be that corruption in Washington is so rampant that the level of influence peddling as seen or perceived by the Biden's is never questioned, and so asking for investigation is clearly motivated solely by political motivation.

 

[dimreepr]

Asking Trump to "drain the swamp" is like asking.

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The counter argument would be that corruption in Washington is so rampant that the level of influence peddling as seen or perceived by the Biden's is never questioned

It was questioned. It was investigated. It was found that nothing untoward occurred. It was debunked, including by Trumps own ambassadors, but then Rudy went on a campaign of gaslighting trying to show smoke where there was no fire. Then Trump extorted Ukraine president to go on CNN to say they were investigating Biden by holding up congressionally mandated military aid that would save Ukrainian lives in their fight with Russia. The only thing which made the payment proceed was the whistle blower who followed all appropriate channels and policies but had their concern suppressed by the White House in a manner that broke our whistleblower laws. It wasn’t until congress said they were investigating that funding went through without the Ukrainian President lying on Trumps behalf to further gaslight and damage Biden. 

Anyway, Biden’s role on that board was questioned, it was investigated, and it was found to be a non-issue. This was the consensus even among Trumps officials. Likewise with the debunked Crowd Strike conjecture that it was Ukraine who interfered in US elections, not Russia. 

Trumps own Homeland Security secretary told him directly and repeatedly that one was bullshit, but truth wasn’t the goal here.

[John Cuthber]

30 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Here's the question; Since what Hunter Biden was doing was obviously suspicious, making it reasonable for Trump to ask for it to be investigated, is Trump obligated to not ask to have it looked into due to the fact Joe Biden is a main political opponent?

The counter argument would be that corruption in Washington is so rampant that the level of influence peddling as seen or perceived by the Biden's is never questioned, and so asking for investigation is clearly motivated solely by political motivation.

 

Kind of misses the point.
It's reasonable for Trump to say "You should look into this"

It is not reasonable for Trump to say "You should look into this  or I will withhold US government support for your country"

Do you see the difference there?

Have you missed all the references to "quid pro quo or did you not understand them " ?

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Kind of misses the point.
It's reasonable for Trump to say "You should look into this"

It is not reasonable for Trump to say "You should look into this  or I will withhold US government support for your country"

Do you see the difference there?

Have you missed all the references to "quid pro quo or did you not understand them " ?

I do. Can you link your source for "You should look into this  or I will withhold US government support for your country"?

2 hours ago, iNow said:

It was questioned. It was investigated. It was found that nothing untoward occurred. It was debunked, including by Trumps own ambassadors, but then Rudy went on a campaign of gaslighting trying to show smoke where there was no fire. Then Trump extorted Ukraine president to go on CNN to say they were investigating Biden by holding up congressionally mandated military aid that would save Ukrainian lives in their fight with Russia. The only thing which made the payment proceed was the whistle blower who followed all appropriate channels and policies but had their concern suppressed by the White House in a manner that broke our whistleblower laws. It wasn’t until congress said they were investigating that funding went through without the Ukrainian President lying on Trumps behalf to further gaslight and damage Biden. 

Anyway, Biden’s role on that board was questioned, it was investigated, and it was found to be a non-issue. This was the consensus even among Trumps officials. Likewise with the debunked Crowd Strike conjecture that it was Ukraine who interfered in US elections, not Russia. 

Trumps own Homeland Security secretary told him directly and repeatedly that one was bullshit, but truth wasn’t the goal here.

So, having bought that narrative, how do you explain Hunter Biden's "legitimate" hiring and role on the board for Burisma Holdings?

Second, assuming somehow that it is in fact legitimate, why would you expect Trump to believe it?

Even if it is, somehow, reasonable to believe what you are saying, if Trump is skeptical he still has legitimate cause to ask for it to be investigated.

What he can't do is ask that the Ukrainians make something up, a narrative put forward by Schiff that he has no evidence for...surpassing even the standard Democrat overreach.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

do. Can you link your source for "You should look into this  or I will withhold US government support for your country"?

Either you’re not following the situation closely enough to comment here or you’re being obtuse / willfully ignorant. That’s obviously not a quote, but is an accurate summary. Since you asked, here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-guide-to-trumps-allegations-about-ukraine-china-and-the-bidens/

 

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

how do you explain Hunter Biden's "legitimate" hiring and role on the board for Burisma Holdings?

I don’t have to. Hunter Biden is not the one under impeachment investigations and it’s an obvious red herring.

That said, I personally don’t think he should’ve been on that board, but also accept the conclusions of our diplomats and intelligence agencies that there was nothing untoward about his having that seat. It was dumb, had bad optics, and frankly wouldn’t have happened if his daddy wasn’t VP, but it was not illegal or corrupt. It’s also a distraction I have no interest in chasing with you. 

You seem to accept the argument that Trump was interested merely in weeding out corruption in Ukraine to ensure our money was spent appropriately, and that this was not actually about smearing a political opponent for personal gain, that it just “happened” to be that the Biden’s were involved, but the true focus here was on avoiding corruption. 

Sure. Okay, fine. For purposes of this discussion, Let’s go with that. 

It’s fascinating then that Trump ignored his Pentagons own certification that the country was already doing enough to weed our corruption and that the aid should go through without delay... His own people signed off:  https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/09/29/trump-claim-on-stalled-aid-for-ukraine-draws-new-scrutiny/

Quote

President Donald Trump has said he withheld nearly $400 million in military aid from Ukraine because of corruption in the country, but recently released Pentagon documents undercut that explanation and add fuel to the whistleblower complaint 

<...>

Trump denies putting a hold on the aid because of 2020 politics, and initially said this week he had concerns about corruption in Ukraine, a U.S. priority for years.

However, the Pentagon in May officially certified that it had seen enough anti-corruption progress to justify releasing the congressionally authorized aid, according to documents provided to The Associated Press.

The defense undersecretary for policy, John Rood, wrote in a May 23 letter to Congress that the Pentagon had made a thorough assessment of Ukraine’s anti-corruption actions and other reforms.

“On behalf of the secretary of defense, and in coordination with the secretary of state, I have certified that the government of Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purpose of decreasing corruption” and making other improvements, Rood wrote.

Rood wrote that his certification, legally required before the aid could be released, was based on insights gained in “persistent U.S. engagement” with Ukraine, including meetings between the U.S. defense secretary and his Ukrainian counterpart.

 

[John Cuthber]

23 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

an you link your source for "You should look into this  or I will withhold US government support for your country"?

I take it that you understand paraphrasing

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/06/trump-impeachment-inquiry-ukraine-testimony-bill-taylor

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I take it that you understand paraphrasing

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/06/trump-impeachment-inquiry-ukraine-testimony-bill-taylor

 

 

Thanks for the link.

[Airbrush]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't think any Americans reading the news or watching the hearings are checking the definitions of bribery and extortion to see if they fit the President's actions. I think most know that what he did was wrong, even Republicans. His base and the a*s-kissers will no doubt stick with him....

The word bribery is very important because it appears Trump bribed Ukraine, and bribery is one of the specific crimes listed in the constitution as impeachable, the other being treason.  Yet Democrats never mentioned "bribery" until recently.  It was just "quid-pro-quo."  Yet Republicans keep saying what Trump did was not impeachable.

Can any Republicans out there please explain HOW what Trump did was NOT bribery?

But not only bribery but also extortion.  Trump said (in effect) "nice country you have here...it would be a shame if it was overrun by Russian tanks."

Edited November 17, 2019 by Airbrush

[J.C.MacSwell]

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

That said, I personally don’t think he should’ve been on that board, but also accept the conclusions of our diplomats and intelligence agencies that there was nothing untoward about his having that seat. It was dumb, had bad optics, and frankly wouldn’t have happened if his daddy wasn’t VP, but it was not illegal or corrupt. It’s also a distraction I have no interest in chasing with you. 

 

 

You have supplied no evidence whatsoever that it wasn't corrupt. No explanation as to why it might have been a legitimate hiring.

Nor can I reasonably expect you to. I don't expect anyone can. (but willing to listen)

But you can't brush it off as not relevant. It is very much relevant and on topic...as "inconvenient" as it may seem to you.

 

Edited November 17, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[StringJunky]

18 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You have supplied no evidence whatsoever that it wasn't corrupt. No explanation as to why it might have been a legitimate hiring.

Nor can I reasonably expect you to. I don't expect anyone can. (but willing to listen)

But you can't brush it off as not relevant. It is very much relevant and on topic...as "inconvenient" as it may seem to you.

 

Isn't a lot of personal advancement based on "Who you know and not what you know"? That's the way the world is and if he's guilty of corruption then so are many other respectable people in the world. Daddy just happened to be VP.

[iNow]

23 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No explanation as to why it might have been a legitimate hiring.

Sigh. 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hunter-biden-ukraine/what-hunter-biden-did-on-the-board-of-ukrainian-energy-company-burisma-idUSKBN1WX1P7

Quote

Interviews with more than a dozen people, including executives and former prosecutors in Ukraine, paint a picture of a director who provided advice on legal issues, corporate finance and strategy during a five-year term on the board

<...>
In an interview with Reuters in September, former Ukraine prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko said Hunter Biden’s position on the board when his father was vice-president raised no red flags. “From the point of view of Ukrainian law, (Hunter Biden) didn’t violate anything,” Lutsenko said.

 

[Airbrush]

Republicans keep reminding everyone that all Obama gave to Ukraine was blankets, Trump gave them javelin anti-tank missiles.

It wasn't until May of 2019 that the issue of Ukraine corruption had been satisfied, and should not stand in the way of the anti-tank missiles delivery.  During Obama's administration there were still open questions of Ukrainian corruption.

Edited November 17, 2019 by Airbrush

[MigL]

I would have to advise President Trump not to 'throw rocks when he lives in a glass house', JC.
Claiming that H Biden's position was undeserved ,and due to nepotism, as his father is VP, is hypocritical.
How many members of his family ( D Trump's ) are 'working' for the US government ?
( I wouldn't doubt the little kids are drawing substantial salaries )
Without any previous government experience ?
But I guess that's OK; The President himself has no previous government experience.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Either you’re not following the situation closely enough to comment here or you’re being obtuse / willfully ignorant.

QFT

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

I would have to advise President Trump not to 'throw rocks when he lives in a glass house', JC.
Claiming that H Biden's position was undeserved ,and due to nepotism, as his father is VP, is hypocritical.
How many members of his family ( D Trump's ) are 'working' for the US government ?
( I wouldn't doubt the little kids are drawing substantial salaries )
Without any previous government experience ?
But I guess that's OK; The President himself has no previous government experience.

The one with all the broken windows? What does he have to lose, exactly? (but even to the degree it is good advice...you'd be asking Trump to first of all understand it...and then if he did how long can he help himself to take it? )

Trump hypocritical?  He would be the first to claim he doesn't have a hypocritical bone in his body...so colour me shocked!

Trump is simply unfit for the office he holds...no different today than when the American people saw fit to elect him.

But that doesn't mean the Democrat's tactics are solid...and won't backfire.

If they can't find a reasonable candidate with an overwhelming chance to beat him there is something wrong with America...and not just on the right.

[CharonY]

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Here's the question; Since what Hunter Biden was doing was obviously suspicious, making it reasonable for Trump to ask for it to be investigated, is Trump obligated to not ask to have it looked into due to the fact Joe Biden is a main political opponent?

Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept of "conflict of interest" and how these issues are normally navigated. Let's assume for a moment that the allegations are credible. A normal (assuming that this also means non-corrupt) President (or other person of power) who has a conflict of interest would step away from such investigation and would task the respective organization (e.g. DOJ) to run point. Ideally with someone heading the investigation who is sufficiently removed so that the investigation is not tainted by the conflict of interest. An example of a similar situation was appointing Robert Mueller, for example. Key point here is that one is removed from direct interference to resolve the conflict. Especially considering the scope of the Presidency, investigation of individuals is generally not something that a President would personally be involved in, instead the respective branches of law enforcement should have taken point (which they would not do, if there was no real reasons to do so...)

A number of things that you would not do would include for example:

- circumvent normal communication channels and get folks involved that are more loyal, but normally not part of the process 

- get folks involved that work for you directly (say, personal attorneys) and not for the organization you work for

- fire folks who warn you of a potential conflict of interest

- hide evidence for a conflict of interest.

- demand persecution of political rivals or persons connected to them, if there are investigations, they should be handled as independently as possible (see above, and also note the lack of interaction between the Obama WH and FBI).

 

As you can see, it is not an either or situation. There are, in fact, a lot of things one might do and many more things one should not do in cases of conflict. And you may take a guess or two to what Trump decided to do in this matter.

[rangerx]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If they can't find a reasonable candidate with an overwhelming chance to beat him there is something wrong with America...and not just on the right.

This has nothing to do with the discussion yet always lands at the end. There's a thread about that topic where you've abundantly posted yet brought it over here again and again. where you'll incessantly perpetuate the fallacy that the Dems are by default worse than the criminal running the place now.

Anything but the substance is what we expect from American Republicans in this matter. Yet when Canadians repeat that nonsense ad nauseam, it's obvious we're already down the tubes and it's the conservatives instilling it.

Conservatives would do well to clean up their own house before admonishing others. That's what's wrong with this continent.