President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Overheal · 15-11-2019 12:07am

To keep reality straight for everyone else,

"Shokin -- in the eyes of U.S. leaders, their Western allies, the International Monetary Fund and many Ukrainians -- wasn’t that he was being too aggressive about corruption, but that he was being far too lax. In May, Bloomberg News reported* that prosecutors in Ukraine had shelved the investigation into Zlochevsky by 2015, meaning Hunter Biden didn’t stand to benefit from the prosecutor’s ouster. Vitaliy Kasko, who pursued the case against Burisma’s owner as deputy prosecutor and is now first deputy prosecutor in the new government, told Bloomberg News that there had been no U.S. pressure to close that case. Former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko also told Bloomberg News that Biden never asked him to close any cases."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-09/on-bidens-and-ukraine-wild-claims-with-little-basis-quicktake

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/timeline-in-ukraine-probe-casts-doubt-on-giuliani-s-biden-claim

*Timeline in Ukraine Probe Casts Doubt on Giuliani’s Biden Claim
By Stephanie Baker and Daryna Krasnolutska
May 7, 2019, 12:00 AM EDT Updated on May 7, 2019, 11:37 AM EDT

“There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky,” Kasko said in an interview last week. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015.”

Kasko’s assessment adds a wrinkle to one of the first political intrigues of the 2020 election season. It undercuts the idea that Biden, now a top Democratic presidential candidate, was seeking to sideline a prosecutor who was actively threatening a company tied to his son. Instead, it appears more consistent with Biden’s previous statements that he was pressing for the removal of a prosecutor who was failing to tackle rampant corruption: According to public reports and internal documents from the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office, U.S. officials had expressed concern for more than a year about Ukrainian prosecutors’ failure to assist an international investigation of Zlochevsky.

U.K. Probe

Questions about the potential Ukraine conflict resurfaced with recent reports of a video in which Joe Biden described how he’d threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees from Ukraine unless its leaders dismissed Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. The New York Times reported on May 1 that Hunter Biden had a stake in the outcome because at the time he was on the board of Zlochevsky’s company, where he was paid as much as $50,000 a month for his work.

Hunter Biden joined the board in April 2014, two months after U.K. authorities requested information from Ukraine as part of a probe against Zlochevsky related to money laundering allegations. Zlochevsky had been minister of environmental protection under then-President Viktor Yanukovych, who fled to Russia in February 2014 after mass protests.

After the U.K. request, Ukrainian prosecutors opened their own case, accusing Zlochevsky of embezzling public funds. Burisma and Zlochevsky have denied the allegations.

The case against Zlochevsky and his Burisma Holdings was assigned to Shokin, then a deputy prosecutor. But Shokin and others weren’t pursuing it, according to the internal reports from the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office reviewed by Bloomberg.

In a December 2014 letter, U.S. officials warned Ukrainian prosecutors of negative consequences for Ukraine over its failure to assist the U.K., which had seized Zlochevsky’s assets, according to the documents.

Those funds, $23.5 million, were unblocked in 2015 when a British court determined there wasn’t enough evidence to justify the continued freeze, in part because Ukrainian prosecutors had failed to provide the necessary information.

No Action
Shokin became prosecutor general in February 2015. Over the next year, the U.S. and the International Monetary Fund criticized officials for not doing enough to fight corruption in Ukraine.

Shokin took no action to pursue cases against Zlochevsky throughout 2015, said Kasko, who was Shokin’s deputy overseeing international cooperation and helping in asset-recovery investigations. Kasko said he had urged Shokin to pursue the investigations.

The U.S. stepped up its criticism in September 2015, when its ambassador to Ukraine, during a speech, accused officials working under Shokin of “subverting” the U.K. investigation.

Kasko resigned in February 2016, citing corruption and lawlessness in the prosecutor general’s office.

The U.S. plan to push for Shokin’s dismissal didn’t initially come from Biden, but rather filtered up from officials at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, according to a person with direct knowledge of the situation. Embassy personnel had called for U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine to be tied to broader anti-corruption efforts, including Shokin’s dismissal, this person said.

Biden’s threat to withhold $1 billion if Ukraine didn’t crack down on corruption reportedly came in March. That same month, hundreds of Ukrainians demonstrated outside President Petro Poroshenko’s office demanding Shokin’s resignation, and he was dismissed.

Shokin has denied any accusations of wrongdoing and declined to provide immediate comment for this article. In an interview with the Ukrainian website Strana.ua published on May 6 [2019 - article was updated], Shokin said he believes he was fired because of his Burisma investigation, which he said had been active at the time.

In October 2017, Burisma issued a statement saying Ukrainian prosecutors had closed all legal and criminal proceedings against it.

No Convictions
Earlier this year, Ukraine’s current prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, met with Trump attorney Giuliani, and the two discussed the Burisma investigation, according to Lutsenko’s spokeswoman Larysa Sargan.

Sargan said the prosecutor general hasn’t reopened the case into Burisma or Zlochevsky, contradicting a claim in the New York Times that the Ukrainian prosecutor is scrutinizing millions of dollars of payments from Burisma to the firm that paid Hunter Biden. Ari Isaacman Bevacqua, a Times spokeswoman said, “We stand by our reporting, which is detailed and well documented.”

Ukraine’s incoming president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, is likely to appoint his own top prosecutor to replace Lutsenko. Under Poroshenko, Ukraine hasn’t convicted any high-ranking officials of corruption.

Giuliani has been pressing for greater scrutiny of the Biden matter. “Biden conflicts are too apparent to be ignored and should be investigated quickly and expeditiously,” Giuliani tweeted, sharing a link to the Times’s story.

https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1123931549353771010?s=20

Calhoun · 15-11-2019 12:15am

I wonder if they will get anything to stick on him, seems to be the republicans are trying to drag the arse out of it and stall.

mcmoustache · 15-11-2019 1:34am

JRant wrote: »

Why?
So you can insult me the same way you do Pete?
I'll think I'll pass on that one as I don't want to play that silly game.

Pete just repeats the Trump point of the day which often contradicts tomorrow's point of the day. It's unfortunate that his nonsense is so easily pointed out but that's just how he is. It happens to a lot of people when they go full trump. You should never go full trump.

It's possible that you could do better than Pete. You shouldn't bind yourself to Pete's level - I think that you have it within you to be better than Pete.

You shouldn't be afraid of that, Spread your wings and fly - don't feel like you're in Pete's shadow.

Be your own man and have some balls.

Outlaw Pete · 15-11-2019 2:15am

volchitsa wrote: »

No it wouldn't, Pete. What would go some way to doing that would be a list of ten other foreign companies, possibly with other Americans on their boards, on which Trump expended an equal amount of energy trying it get investigations started. How many of those are there?
I'd settle for half a dozen, even.

What's that? None?

Thought so.

I have addressed this point multiple times already:

First of all, if US citizens are alleged to have been involved in corruption within a foreign country there are channels available to deal with that. The two countries involved would still cooperate though, but just at a much lower level. However, we're not talking about any individual here, we are talking about someone who was the last US Vice President and so of course an investigation into the activities of such a high profile individual as that (along with his son) would require the heads of state of both countries to have a discussion about it before then delegating it to people within their respective justice departments.

Again, imagine if shortly after Obama came to power a video had surfaced of Dick Cheney bragging about firing a top Ukraine prosecutor. A prosecutor who had recently investigated a corrupt gas company which a member of Dick Cheney's family sat on and a made a fortune from and which he had lobbied the US State Dept on behalf of with regards to having their corrupt reputation expunged.

Does anyone really believe congress would try and impeach Barack Obama had he asked Zelensky to look into the activities of Dick Cheney under the same circumstances? Not a hope. What would happen is the media would be going nuts to find out who the disgruntled republican Bush holdovers were that were leaking information about Obama's calls and demanding that they be prosecuted.

Overheal · 15-11-2019 2:37am

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

First of all, if US citizens are alleged to have been involved in corruption within a foreign country there are channels available to deal with that.

Yes. There are...

The two countries involved would still cooperate though, but just at a much lower level.

Yes

However, we're not talking about any individual here, we are talking about someone who was the last US Vice President and so of course an investigation into the activities of such a high profile individual as that (along with his son) would require the heads of state of both countries to have a discussion about it before then delegating it to people within their respective justice departments.

No.

Again, imagine if shortly after Obama came to power a video had surfaced of Dick Cheney bragging about firing a top Ukraine prosecutor. A prosecutor who had recently investigated a corrupt gas company which a member of Dick Cheney's family sat on and a made a fortune from and which he had lobbied the US State Dept on behalf of with regards to having their corrupt reputation expunged.

He would have referred it off to the DOJ and left it alone. If the DOJ needed cooperation from a foreign intelligence agency, the State Department is there for that, not to mention hundreds of CIA field offices around the world.

Obama is the defacto leader of the Democrat party, for the incoming President to go micromanaging prosecutions into Republican leaders would have been seen immediately as the farce it would have been.

Does anyone really believe congress would try and impeach Barack Obama had he asked Zelensky to look into the activities of Dick Cheney under the same circumstances? Not a hope. What would happen is the media would be going nuts to find out who the disgruntled republican Bush holdovers were that were leaking information about Obama's calls and demanding that they be prosecuted.

Congress would have absolutely impeached Obama, and several congressman expressed a desire to do just that during his Presidency for a host of reasons. Even pretending for a minute that the DNC Congress did not, and all other facts were the same, the GOP congress that came back in 2010 and then controlled Congress for 6/8 years of Obama's presidency, certainly would have. The roles will have been reversed but the merits will have remained the same.

Anyway, it's all your speculation and opinion; a whataboutism.

Overheal · 15-11-2019 4:21am

Which is a great segue for this recap on Republican Talking Points, digest version:

On the quid pro quo:

There is no quid pro quo.

You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo.

We do quid pro quos all the time.

On the value of hearsay:

Testimony from second-hand witnesses is hearsay, which is unreliable.

The anonymous so-called whistleblower had no firsthand knowledge.

The whistleblower must be forced to testify.

On the format of hearings:

The Democrats are working in a secret bunker in the Capitol basement.

Transcripts cannot substitute for live testimony because of body language.

The Democrats are staging a televised “show trial.”

On Trump’s view of aid to Ukraine:

Trump holds a deep-seated, genuine and reasonable skepticism of Ukraine.

Trump has always been skeptical about foreign aid and doesn’t want to give any to Ukraine.

Military aid to Ukraine has substantially improved under Trump.

On the July 25 phone call:

Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president was perfect.

Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president sounds exactly like what Joe Biden did.

What the Bidens did was horribly corrupt, and both Joe and Hunter should be forced to testify.

On the significance of the whistleblower:

Whoever gave information to the whistleblower is close to a spy and could be executed for treason.

Almost everything the whistleblower said was “sooo wrong.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/14/confused-by-impeachment-defense-strategies-republicans-yeah-so-are-they/

Outlaw Pete · 15-11-2019 5:36am

No insults from you in this post and so I'll reply to it ..

mcmoustache wrote: »

There's a legal framework already in place for investigating US citizens getting up to shenanigans abroad.

Joe Biden is not your average US Citizen, he was afterall Vice President of the United States in the last administration, and so while normal channels might be fine for requesting a country to investigate the alleged corruption of a Joe Bloggs, high profile political figures are a different matter entirely.

It's the Corrupt Foreign Practices Act and investigations can be run by the DOJ and the DOE.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the current Attorney General of the DOJ, one William Barr? And isn't that precisely who the POTUS said he was going to have call Zelensky with regards to the investigations?

I believe it was:

"..I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it..."

So while you waffle about 'that's not how this works' you then in fact implied that Trump should have done the very thing he did do, which was arrange for the DOJ to look into it.

Overheal · 15-11-2019 5:44am

Joe Biden is not your average US Citizen, he was afterall Vice President of the United States in the last administration, and so while normal channels might be fine for requesting a country to investigate the alleged corruption of a Joe Bloggs, high profile political figures are a different matter entirely.

So if I get your contributions in the thread correctly:

1) Joe Biden should be investigated like any regular citizen
2) Joe Biden should be investigated not like any other citizen; not through normal channels but specially and personally by the President and his political appointees, not nonpartisan career professionals
3) It's a sham that Trump is being investigated

Exactly what about "high profile political figures" warrants a different criminal investigations approach outside of normal apolitical channels (with the obvious exception of Impeachment)? Please, explain that theory to me.

Overheal · 15-11-2019 6:15am

The Sideshow Bob defense takes a new low

“Okay. Here’s the problem, yeah, of course, Nancy, it’s in the Constitution, we can read: ‘The president may be impeached for bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors,'” Ingraham snarked, before unveiling her own unique defense of Trump’s conduct. “Even assuming the Democrats’ strained and ridiculous interpretation of the facts — and I do not assume them —but just for the sake of their argument, attempted bribery is not in the Constitution.”

https://www.mediaite.com/news/laura-ingraham-defends-trump-attempted-bribery-is-not-listed-as-impeachable-offense-in-the-constitution/

Outlaw Pete · 15-11-2019 7:40am

Overheal wrote: »

That's an awfully broad axe to cleave: the State Department makes foreign policy decisions, I would imagine, numerous times per day. Some of those policy decisions benefit the world...

lol Yeah, they were all incidental benefits I'm sure :P

And he is also running for President of the United States in the 2020 election.

Biden is not above the law because he's running for office.

all that Paul Manafort nonsense yes, but I'm confused why you'd bring this up:

No you're not one bit confused and the wall of text you posted in an obvious effort to obfusticate and undermine the point makes that clear. You just want to try and make it appear as if Trump asking Zelensky to look into certain Ukrainians, and the part they played in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, was just him chasing a right-wing conspiracy theory. Well, it wasn't. Yeah, the server talk is nonsense, but Trump was on the money otherwise.

For example, Trump said to Zelensky: "I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people" and this is a clear reference to Serhiy Leshchenko who Zelensky had been getting advice from for a period of time this year (but apparently is not now). This is someone who was instrumental in the 'black ledger' coming to the fore and he was also a source for the Steele Dossier.

Now this is where you run off and Google this stuff and then come back and cut & paste the MSM's view of all this right-wing conspiracy theory stuff, but that's to miss the point, which is that even if Serhiy is as straight as a die, and Chalupa too, all above board, that doesn't mean that Trump is doing something wrong asking Zelensky to look into it.

That's quite a bit fascist Pete. And your sentiments, while a completely natural response of frustration, are dangerously unethical if acted upon.

I was being hyperbolic.

I see Yovanovitch is up today. Another 'Heard it from a friend whooo' witness. Should be fun. No doubt the democrats will (again) milk the "Well, she's going to go through some things" comment Donald J made on the call.

Overheal · 15-11-2019 8:06am

Still not an honest broker I see

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Biden is not above the law because he's running for office.

Show me anyone, anywhere on this thread who has said otherwise?

No you're not one bit confused and the wall of text you posted in an obvious effort to obfusticate and undermine the point makes that clear. You just want to try and make it appear as if Trump asking Zelensky to look into certain Ukrainians, and the part they played in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, was just him chasing a right-wing conspiracy theory. Well, it wasn't. Yeah, the server talk is nonsense, but Trump was on the money otherwise.

For example, Trump said to Zelensky: "I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people" and this is a clear reference to Serhiy Leshchenko who Zelensky had been getting advice from for a period of time this year (but apparently is not now). This is someone who was instrumental in the 'black ledger' coming to the fore and he was also a source for the Steele Dossier.

Now this is where you run off and Google this stuff and then come back and cut & paste the MSM's view of all this right-wing conspiracy theory stuff, but that's to miss the point, which is that even if Serhiy is as straight as a die, and Chalupa too, all above board, that doesn't mean that Trump is doing something wrong asking Zelensky to look into it.

Obvious projection is obvious

I was being hyperbolic

is that your new euphemism for Triggered?

Outlaw Pete · 15-11-2019 8:27am

Overheal wrote: »

Show me anyone, anywhere on this thread who has said otherwise?

When you keep highlighting that he's running for office, the implication of that is that such people are in some way above the law and that running for president gives them some kind of immunity, even if it's just an immunity from the POTUS being able to request that another country, in conjunction with the US, take a look at their activities should they appear to have done something untoward within another country.

Nope, running for office should not give you immunity from investigation of any kind.

Should be found that a POTUS orchestrated events and called an investigation into someone running for office when there was nothing to justify doing so, and that therefore it was done purely for political motives... well then that is a horse of a different colour and that for sure should not be allowed, and dare I say it, should be impeached over it.

In other news:

https://twitter.com/alexsalvinews/status/1195158931141562368

Overheal · 15-11-2019 8:39am

You’re just circling the argument about the same point: of course a candidate can be investigated. Of course a president can start an inquiry into something. But neither of them, running for office, can solicit something of value from a foreign government. That’s how it is. It’s irrelevant so happens that the thing of value is an investigation. I can own a gold plated rolls Royce and I can run for President but if Putin offers me one while I’m running for President that’s an illegal bribe; nobody is telling me I don’t have the right to drive a car - this is what it sounds like your argument boils down to in terms of your fallacy.

Outlaw Pete · 15-11-2019 8:43am

Only thing wrong with that narrative is, it never happened.

Overheal · 15-11-2019 8:45am

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Only thing wrong with that narrative is, it never happened.

You’ve already decided the outcome of the inquiry seemingly

I mean no disrespect to the role of the devils advocate but so far I’ve remained disappointed by the strength of the effort. I don’t thinks that’s your fault; nobody in DC seems confident in their ability to defend Trump against the allegations and public exhibits either

duploelabs · 15-11-2019 8:47am

Overheal wrote: »

You’ve already decided the outcome of the inquiry seemingly

Did you expect anything more? I wasn't

Overheal · 15-11-2019 8:54am

I mean we’ve already had well-meaning good ol boy Republicans try to shift to “okay it happened and it’s bad but it’s not impeachable” before Trump whipped them back.

Outlaw Pete · 15-11-2019 9:01am

Overheal wrote: »

You’ve already decided the outcome of the inquiry seemingly

What are you on about?

You said Trump can't solicit something of value from a foreign government and I'm saying that is not what happened, it's just spin, a democrat talking point, little else.

You no doubt will say 'But it's of value to Trump if Biden is investigated as he's his political opponent' but that's purely incidental. As I said to you, if a president can be shown to have called for an unjust investigation into a political opponent, that's a different matter, as there would then be a case for suggesting the investigation was only being requested for personal gain, but as it stands now: there is NOTHING to suggest there wasn't sufficient grounds for asking Zelensky to look into the situation with the Bidens and Burisma.

Overheal wrote: »

I mean we’ve already had well-meaning good ol boy Republicans try to shift to “okay it happened and it’s bad but it’s not impeachable” before Trump whipped them back.

Well, in a general sense, he had a point given that it was what Biden did when he withheld aid until a prosecutor was fired.

Beasty · 15-11-2019 9:48am

mcmoustache wrote: »

Pete just repeats the Trump point of the day which often contradicts tomorrow's point of the day. It's unfortunate that his nonsense is so easily pointed out but that's just how he is. It happens to a lot of people when they go full trump. You should never go full trump.

It's possible that you could do better than Pete. You shouldn't bind yourself to Pete's level - I think that you have it within you to be better than Pete.

You shouldn't be afraid of that, Spread your wings and fly - don't feel like you're in Pete's shadow.

Be your own man and have some balls.

Discuss the topic, not other posters

JRant · 15-11-2019 12:22pm

Overheal wrote: »

There are no games to play if you stick to the facts.

If you object to my posts by all means report them

Isn't this whole enquiry about finding the facts? Until then everything else is just opinion. Unless you know something the rest of us are not privy to?

JRant · 15-11-2019 12:31pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

Pete just repeats the Trump point of the day which often contradicts tomorrow's point of the day. It's unfortunate that his nonsense is so easily pointed out but that's just how he is. It happens to a lot of people when they go full trump. You should never go full trump.

It's possible that you could do better than Pete. You shouldn't bind yourself to Pete's level - I think that you have it within you to be better than Pete.

You shouldn't be afraid of that, Spread your wings and fly - don't feel like you're in Pete's shadow.

Be your own man and have some balls.

As I said to the other member of the Squad, I'll pass on playing silly games.

People are entitled to have differing opinions but that level of discourse is not something I want to get engaged in.

Listening to the witnesses so far it is clear there is very little substance to the Dems claim. It's going to take a hell of a lot more that what we've seen to date to get rid of him this way.

osarusan · 15-11-2019 12:46pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

That's not how this works. It's not how any of this works.

There's a legal framework already in place for investigating US citizens getting up to shenanigans abroad. It's the Corrupt Foreign Practices Act and investigations can be run by the DOJ and the DOE. An off-the-books scheme cooked up by a president and his personal lawyer is not how these things are handled outside of Trumpland.

I agree with you on this, but if the off-the-books scheme cooked up by a president and his personal lawyer actually unearth some dodgy stuff by the Bidens, then it goes a long way to legitimising what Trump did, even if he went about it the wrong way.

Expect to see various partisan youtube and twitter hacks in the coming weeks 'expose' the Bidens' dealings in incredibly tenuous yet BOMBSHELL ways.

duploelabs · 15-11-2019 12:49pm

JRant wrote: »

Isn't this whole enquiry about finding the facts? Until then everything else is just opinion. Unless you know something the rest of us are not privy to?

Facts are underpinned by verified sources, something that is mainly lacking on one side of the debate

Penn · 15-11-2019 12:49pm

osarusan wrote: »

I agree with you on this, but if the off-the-books scheme cooked up by a president and his personal lawyer actually unearth some dodgy stuff by the Bidens, then it goes a long way to legitimising what Trump did, even if he went about it the wrong way.

I think both can be wrong for different reasons. Even if Trump uncovers something wrong by the Bidens, he absolutely must be held accountable for the manner in which he did so. Likewise, Biden & his son must then be held accountable for whatever illegal actions they undertook.

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 15-11-2019 12:50pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What are you on about?

You said Trump can't solicit something of value from a foreign government and I'm saying that is not what happened, it's just spin, a democrat talking point, little else.

You no doubt will say 'But it's of value to Trump if Biden is investigated as he's his political opponent' but that's purely incidental. As I said to you, if a president can be shown to have called for an unjust investigation into a political opponent, that's a different matter, as there would then be a case for suggesting the investigation was only being requested for personal gain, but as it stands now: there is NOTHING to suggest there wasn't sufficient grounds for asking Zelensky to look into the situation with the Bidens and Burisma.

Well, in a general sense, he had a point given that it was what Biden did when he withheld aid until a prosecutor was fired.

Can it be purely incidental that biden/UK/EU wanted rid of the corrupt prosecutor that just so happened to be investigating the company Hunter was on?

osarusan · 15-11-2019 1:09pm

Penn wrote: »

I think both can be wrong for different reasons. Even if Trump uncovers something wrong by the Bidens, he absolutely must be held accountable for the manner in which he did so. Likewise, Biden & his son must then be held accountable for whatever illegal actions they undertook.

Is the new 'wrong' that Trump would be guilty of still something that will carry weight as an impeachable offence?

alastair · 15-11-2019 1:13pm

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Can it be purely incidental that biden/UK/EU wanted rid of the corrupt prosecutor that just so happened to be investigating the company Hunter was on?

He wasn’t investigating the company. That’s why (amongst other inaction) they wanted him removed. He was failing to investigate corruption. The company was subsequently investigated and had to pay back taxes.

Penn · 15-11-2019 1:30pm

osarusan wrote: »

Is the new 'wrong' that Trump would be guilty of still something that will carry weight as an impeachable offence?

Yes. He was soliciting a foreign government to investigate a political opponent, and attempting to cover it up by using his personal lawyer and other non-government officials to carry out to bulk of it, and therefore outside of official channels. Certainly impeachable, regardless of whether or not an investigation into the Bidens turns up anything.

If all Trump wanted to was combat corruption in Ukraine, there was no need for Giuliani, and no need to mention Biden or Burisma. Trump wanted them specifically investigated because it would help him in the election, regardless of whether Biden was the Democratic nominee or not. If Biden was the nominee, great, Trump would have something to pin on him. If any other Dem was the nominee, great, Trump would do everything he could to link them with Biden (photos together, all Dems are crooked just like Biden etc).

Trump wanted dirt on Biden, and was using his power as President to help achieve it, while also going outside of governmental channels to carry it out. That's absolutely worth an impeachment inquiry regardless of what either of the Bidens did.

osarusan · 15-11-2019 1:52pm

Penn wrote: »

Yes. He was soliciting a foreign government to investigate a political opponent, and attempting to cover it up by using his personal lawyer and other non-government officials to carry out to bulk of it, and therefore outside of official channels. Certainly impeachable, regardless of whether or not an investigation into the Bidens turns up anything.

If all Trump wanted to was combat corruption in Ukraine, there was no need for Giuliani, and no need to mention Biden or Burisma. Trump wanted them specifically investigated because it would help him in the election, regardless of whether Biden was the Democratic nominee or not. If Biden was the nominee, great, Trump would have something to pin on him. If any other Dem was the nominee, great, Trump would do everything he could to link them with Biden (photos together, all Dems are crooked just like Biden etc).

Trump wanted dirt on Biden, and was using his power as President to help achieve it, while also going outside of governmental channels to carry it out. That's absolutely worth an impeachment inquiry regardless of what either of the Bidens did.

Certainly, this is what the Democrat argument will be, if any dirt on Biden turns up.

It doesn't strike me as anywhere near as strong an argument as the 'baseless smear' argument that they have been using so far.

I mean strong in terms of swaying public opinion enough that Republicans will see it as in their own best interests to impeach (or, far more likely, to pressure Trump to resign before any such vote).

duploelabs · 15-11-2019 2:03pm

osarusan wrote: »

Certainly, this is what the Democrat argument will be, if any dirt on Biden turns up.

It doesn't strike me as anywhere near as strong an argument as the 'baseless smear' argument that they have been using so far.

I mean strong in terms of swaying public opinion enough that Republicans will see it as in their own best interests to impeach (or, far more likely, to pressure Trump to resign before any such vote).

' if any dirt on Biden turns up'

You can be guilty of a crime even if you're not successful in achieving your goals

osarusan · 15-11-2019 2:04pm

duploelabs wrote: »

' if any dirt on Biden turns up'

You can be guilty of a crime even if you're not successful in achieving your goals

What do you mean?

Overheal · 15-11-2019 2:09pm

osarusan wrote: »

What do you mean?

While they don’t give Nobel Prizes for attempted chemistry, attempted murder is a crime. As is conspiracy to commit a felony.

SJW Lover · 15-11-2019 2:10pm

Overheal wrote: »

Disingenuous Pete is disingenuous.

No, Pete is bang on the money. Disingenuous would be hearing the ABC anchor talking about what she had on Epstein and Bill Clinton and deciding that there must be some footage prior to her comments that negate the black and white comments she is on camera making. Now that is completely disingenuous.

JRant · 15-11-2019 2:20pm

duploelabs wrote: »

Facts are underpinned by verified sources, something that is mainly lacking on one side of the debate

Unfortunately it is severely lacking on both sides and this whole thing is a complete farce. We actually had witnesses give 2nd and 3rd hand accounts of what they believe happened. On the other side we've had the "yeah but Hillary" nonsense.

If nothing else this has given us an incredible quote for the ages though "hearsay can be much better evidence than direct" from Quigley.

Overheal · 15-11-2019 2:28pm

JRant wrote: »

Unfortunately it is severely lacking on both sides and this whole thing is a complete farce. We actually had witnesses give 2nd and 3rd hand accounts of what they believe happened. On the other side we've had the "yeah but Hillary" nonsense.

In addition to answering questions on matters which they didn’t have first hand knowledge of the witnesses did speak to several matters they did have firsthand knowledge including their direct involvement in the efforts to make aid conditioned on a deliverable, like Bill Taylor’s texts, and conversations with Sondland and others regarding aid being conditioned on The Deliverable.

That Kent for example gave 3rd hand accounts of phone calls from Kyiv with the President for example, the point is that won’t be where the buck stops: Kent has named people who have more direct knowledge than he does. Those people will be invited to testify, and so we will have more and more firsthand accounts. We would have more firsthand accounts and direct evidence but the White House refuses to cooperate and has ordered individuals with direct information to not testify.

mcmoustache · 15-11-2019 2:48pm

Sondland will have first hand info and he'll be testifying soon. There has only been one day of public hearings so far so it's a bit early to be making sweeping judgements on these hearings.

Overheal · 15-11-2019 2:48pm

Speak of the devil that very person, David Holmes, will be deposed this afternoon to speak to Kent’s testimony regarding follow-on call from Trump to track status of Deliverable he overheard in Kyiv/wherever they were in Ukraine and recently reported to Kent about:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/impeachment-hearings-live-updates/2019/11/15/c4b9f0f4-0726-11ea-8292-c46ee8cb3dce_story.html

duploelabs · 15-11-2019 2:55pm

Just to point out that we haven't had any first hand testimony (yet) as trump has blocked any first handers from doing so, hence the Bolton case the other day

Penn · 15-11-2019 3:04pm

It's also important to schedule the ones making the testimonies correctly. Working from the bottom up (eg. those furthest away from what happened) means those closer to events already know people have testified saying (X did this, X said that, We spoke about it on this date etc), which means it's harder to lie or feign ignorance.

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 15-11-2019 3:10pm

Some of the GOP were making out the STAR witnesses were Kent and Taylor and that was based on hearsay not allowing for the ones that will follow to corroborate what was said. They're star witnesses along with vindman for the service they've given to the US, Taylor for the notes he kept personally also.
The key witnesses are sondland/vindman and if they can get him mulvaney.

Overheal · 15-11-2019 3:12pm

And Trump

Will have to watch Yovanovitch testimony on delay later.

osarusan · 15-11-2019 3:19pm

Overheal wrote: »

While they don’t give Nobel Prizes for attempted chemistry, attempted murder is a crime. As is conspiracy to commit a felony.

I still don't understand the point tbh.

If no dirt on the Bidens turns up, it makes things worse for Trump, because it helps the argument that it was nothing other than a smear.

If some dirt does turn up, it strengthens his argument that the concept of investigating them was sound, even if the means was all wrong.

Penn · 15-11-2019 3:29pm

osarusan wrote: »

I still don't understand the point tbh.

If no dirt on the Bidens turns up, it makes things worse for Trump, because it helps the argument that it was nothing other than a smear.

If some dirt does turn up, it strengthens his argument that the concept of investigating them was sound, even if the means was all wrong.

You're right. He may be okay on the concept of investigating them if something turns up. But it's clear the reason why he specifically did this to the Ukraine, why he went around standard governmental procedure by using Giuliani, and why he tried to conceal it all, is because his reason wasn't corruption in Ukraine, it was targeting a political opponent.

Look at it this way; say an FBI agent really hates someone. They use the tools at their disposal as an FBI agent to target that person, finds, say an outstanding warrant for not paying a fine or something, alerts the local authorities and that person gets a much bigger fine. That FBI agent may have found something legitimately incriminating against that person, but the reasons why he targeted them and his methodology for finding it out was a substantial abuse of power and if discovered, he'd likely be fired over it.

Now imagine that FBI agent is the President.

osarusan · 15-11-2019 3:44pm

Penn wrote: »

You're right. He may be okay on the concept of investigating them if something turns up. But it's clear the reason why he specifically did this to the Ukraine, why he went around standard governmental procedure by using Giuliani, and why he tried to conceal it all, is because his reason wasn't corruption in Ukraine, it was targeting a political opponent.

Again, I agree with you. But I'm not looking at it from the perspective of what we all know to be what really happened, I'm looking at it from the perspective of what Trump can offer as an alternative version of events, and what he can't.

What I'm wondering is what would need to happen for public opinion to sway against him so badly that Republicans to decide the best course of action is to pressure Trump to resign.

Dirt on the Bidens, no matter how it was uncovered, would make that a lot less likely to happen in my opinion.

Overheal · 15-11-2019 3:49pm

osarusan wrote: »

Again, I agree with you. But I'm not looking at it from the perspective of what we all know to be what really happened, I'm looking at it from the perspective of what Trump can make a defence against, and what he can't.

What I'm wondering is what would need to happen for public opinion to sway against him so badly that Republicans to decide the best course of action is to pressure Trump to resign.

Dirt on the Bidens, no matter how it was uncovered, would make that a lot less likely to happen in my opinion.

Precisely why one half of these hearings is badgering witnesses about whether Hunter speaks Ukrainian etc. rather than taking the time to go investigate that all separately and apolitically. It hinges on them convincing the public that the Biden conspiracy is at least a legitimate concern, whether or not it is tangible. To me and hopefully most Americans though it doesn’t justify the nakedly unethical way Trump went about it based on the findings thus far.

Overheal · 15-11-2019 3:57pm

Side note here’s some refreshingly good news out of Trump:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/new-trump-rule-to-make-more-health-care-rates-public/2019/11/15/4733c222-0721-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html

Hospital and medical expenses information will be more accessible to patients in theory.

Edit whoops this isn’t the Politics megathread /off-topic

Outlaw Pete · 15-11-2019 4:01pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTvEfW2eUCM

Overheal · 15-11-2019 4:40pm

Thanks Pete; I much prefer CPSAN over any cable feed that can plaster everything with spin and chyrons and digital vomit

JRant · 15-11-2019 4:46pm

Overheal wrote: »

Thanks Pete; I much prefer CPSAN over any cable feed that can plaster everything with spin and chyrons and digital vomit

Absolutely, the words speak for themselves and we don't need an army of talking heads to interpret them.

Cody montana · 15-11-2019 4:58pm

duploelabs wrote: »

Just to point out that we haven't had any first hand testimony (yet) as trump has blocked any first handers from doing so, hence the Bolton case the other day

He tried to block everyone.

President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Comments