|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 28 2019 20:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2019 19:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2019 19:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:Although Hunter Biden’s case is a textbook example of soft, socially accepted corruption (using your name and influence to get a very nice position with a great paycheck), there is not the slightest proof that he committed any kind of crime. Meanwhile your dude committed an impeachable offense in one of the most spectacular corruption scandals affecting a sitting president in decades, but hey, you are not even gonna talk about that because tribalism. I feel compelled to make the link between the "socially accepted corruption isn't a crime" and how Trump got to be where he is in the first place. Part of Trump's fortune (as well as his kids livelihoods) is built on this socially acceptable corruption, had that corruption not been bipartisan and acceptable, we probably never get President Trump. Actually, the real problem with Trump is not soft corruption, it’s real crime. His scandals, from the Trump university, decades if defrauding people working for him to this Ukrainian business are actual offenses. I’m all for addressing the way companies hire influential names in their boards in the hope of obtaining future favours. It’s unacceptable, unethical and has to be addressed. I think Obama’s ban on lobbyists in his administration was a huge step in the right direction, and much more must be done. But Nettles seem to think that this is the core of that Ukrainian scandals, while meanwhile we talk about a president leveraging hundreds of million of dollars in foreign aide and the foreign policy of the US with an extremely sensitive ally to gain dirt on a political opponent’s son. I know this is what Fox News and Breitbart do all day but it’s becoming grotesque.
I'm not attempting to downplay his criminal corruption, I'm saying his socially accepted corruption is what placed him in a position to execute the more definitively criminal corruption.
It's also important to understand the corruption we see from Biden and others in the Democratic party is only legal because it's so ubiquitous among those in power, not because it's less damaging to the social fabric than petty crimes like smoking cannabis.
So the distinction of "but what you did is criminal" or "but his isn't soft corruption, it's "'real crime'" is a counterproductive argument imo.
|
On September 28 2019 19:57 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2019 19:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:Although Hunter Biden’s case is a textbook example of soft, socially accepted corruption (using your name and influence to get a very nice position with a great paycheck), there is not the slightest proof that he committed any kind of crime. Meanwhile your dude committed an impeachable offense in one of the most spectacular corruption scandals affecting a sitting president in decades, but hey, you are not even gonna talk about that because tribalism. Bruh i’m not talking about Hunter, I’m talking about Joe.Joe is on camera bragging how he withheld a billion dollar loan until a Ukrainian prosecutor was fired.Keep up FFS.Here he is admitting it on camera. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CYThe point is the mutual legal assistance treaty on criminal matters signed between the US and Ukraine May cover criminal acts like this...
If withholding aid when you (and allies) deem a country is not fighting corruption enough troubles you, how do you live with US sanctions on foreign countries? This is diplomacy and politics. Nothing says you HAVE to give these countries money. You help them for a reason : doing what you ask.
If Biden wanted that prosecutor fired because of his son, THEN it is corrupt. However the source of that assumption (Ukrainian prosecutor) went back on it and said the company troubles predated Hunter Biden, and he didn't believe bidenor his son had committed any crime. That action becomes fine.
Trump threatening to withhold aid to countries because of support to abortion is shitty, but legal. Him threatening to do the same to further his own agenda or attacks opponents, however, means turning the power of the country for personal gain, and is called corruption.
Even just asking a foreign power to investigate a political opponent (without any solid basis rooted in fact to it, which means trying to dig up dirt) is also corrupt. As you cannot normally start an investigation and discovery without a valid predicate, which the Trump family reminded us enough during the Mueller probe.
See the difference?
|
On September 28 2019 20:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2019 20:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 28 2019 19:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2019 19:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:Although Hunter Biden’s case is a textbook example of soft, socially accepted corruption (using your name and influence to get a very nice position with a great paycheck), there is not the slightest proof that he committed any kind of crime. Meanwhile your dude committed an impeachable offense in one of the most spectacular corruption scandals affecting a sitting president in decades, but hey, you are not even gonna talk about that because tribalism. I feel compelled to make the link between the "socially accepted corruption isn't a crime" and how Trump got to be where he is in the first place. Part of Trump's fortune (as well as his kids livelihoods) is built on this socially acceptable corruption, had that corruption not been bipartisan and acceptable, we probably never get President Trump. Actually, the real problem with Trump is not soft corruption, it’s real crime. His scandals, from the Trump university, decades if defrauding people working for him to this Ukrainian business are actual offenses. I’m all for addressing the way companies hire influential names in their boards in the hope of obtaining future favours. It’s unacceptable, unethical and has to be addressed. I think Obama’s ban on lobbyists in his administration was a huge step in the right direction, and much more must be done. But Nettles seem to think that this is the core of that Ukrainian scandals, while meanwhile we talk about a president leveraging hundreds of million of dollars in foreign aide and the foreign policy of the US with an extremely sensitive ally to gain dirt on a political opponent’s son. I know this is what Fox News and Breitbart do all day but it’s becoming grotesque. I'm not attempting to downplay his criminal corruption, I'm saying his socially accepted corruption is what placed him in a position to execute the more definitively criminal corruption. It's also important to understand the corruption we see from Biden and others in the Democratic party is only legal because it's so ubiquitous among those in power, not because it's less damaging to the social fabric than petty crimes like smoking cannabis. So the distinction of "but what you did is criminal" or "but his isn't soft corruption, it's "'real crime'" is a counter-productive argument imo. Considering the GOP supported a suspected paedophile in his Senate race because they needed the vote I don't think social acceptability of corruption had any real effect on Trump's election.
I agree with you tho that there are socially acceptable levels of corruption and that we shouldn't be accepting of it.
|
On September 28 2019 20:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2019 20:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2019 20:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 28 2019 19:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2019 19:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:Although Hunter Biden’s case is a textbook example of soft, socially accepted corruption (using your name and influence to get a very nice position with a great paycheck), there is not the slightest proof that he committed any kind of crime. Meanwhile your dude committed an impeachable offense in one of the most spectacular corruption scandals affecting a sitting president in decades, but hey, you are not even gonna talk about that because tribalism. I feel compelled to make the link between the "socially accepted corruption isn't a crime" and how Trump got to be where he is in the first place. Part of Trump's fortune (as well as his kids livelihoods) is built on this socially acceptable corruption, had that corruption not been bipartisan and acceptable, we probably never get President Trump. Actually, the real problem with Trump is not soft corruption, it’s real crime. His scandals, from the Trump university, decades if defrauding people working for him to this Ukrainian business are actual offenses. I’m all for addressing the way companies hire influential names in their boards in the hope of obtaining future favours. It’s unacceptable, unethical and has to be addressed. I think Obama’s ban on lobbyists in his administration was a huge step in the right direction, and much more must be done. But Nettles seem to think that this is the core of that Ukrainian scandals, while meanwhile we talk about a president leveraging hundreds of million of dollars in foreign aide and the foreign policy of the US with an extremely sensitive ally to gain dirt on a political opponent’s son. I know this is what Fox News and Breitbart do all day but it’s becoming grotesque. I'm not attempting to downplay his criminal corruption, I'm saying his socially accepted corruption is what placed him in a position to execute the more definitively criminal corruption. It's also important to understand the corruption we see from Biden and others in the Democratic party is only legal because it's so ubiquitous among those in power, not because it's less damaging to the social fabric than petty crimes like smoking cannabis. So the distinction of "but what you did is criminal" or "but his isn't soft corruption, it's "'real crime'" is a counter-productive argument imo. Considering the GOP supported a suspected paedophile in his Senate race because they needed the vote I don't think social acceptability of corruption had any real effect on Trump's election. I agree with you tho that there are socially acceptable levels of corruption and that we shouldn't be accepting of it.
I'm not just talking about the election. I'm talking about being a prominent person capable of even competing in the first place
|
On September 28 2019 20:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2019 20:31 Gorsameth wrote:On September 28 2019 20:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2019 20:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 28 2019 19:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2019 19:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:Although Hunter Biden’s case is a textbook example of soft, socially accepted corruption (using your name and influence to get a very nice position with a great paycheck), there is not the slightest proof that he committed any kind of crime. Meanwhile your dude committed an impeachable offense in one of the most spectacular corruption scandals affecting a sitting president in decades, but hey, you are not even gonna talk about that because tribalism. I feel compelled to make the link between the "socially accepted corruption isn't a crime" and how Trump got to be where he is in the first place. Part of Trump's fortune (as well as his kids livelihoods) is built on this socially acceptable corruption, had that corruption not been bipartisan and acceptable, we probably never get President Trump. Actually, the real problem with Trump is not soft corruption, it’s real crime. His scandals, from the Trump university, decades if defrauding people working for him to this Ukrainian business are actual offenses. I’m all for addressing the way companies hire influential names in their boards in the hope of obtaining future favours. It’s unacceptable, unethical and has to be addressed. I think Obama’s ban on lobbyists in his administration was a huge step in the right direction, and much more must be done. But Nettles seem to think that this is the core of that Ukrainian scandals, while meanwhile we talk about a president leveraging hundreds of million of dollars in foreign aide and the foreign policy of the US with an extremely sensitive ally to gain dirt on a political opponent’s son. I know this is what Fox News and Breitbart do all day but it’s becoming grotesque. I'm not attempting to downplay his criminal corruption, I'm saying his socially accepted corruption is what placed him in a position to execute the more definitively criminal corruption. It's also important to understand the corruption we see from Biden and others in the Democratic party is only legal because it's so ubiquitous among those in power, not because it's less damaging to the social fabric than petty crimes like smoking cannabis. So the distinction of "but what you did is criminal" or "but his isn't soft corruption, it's "'real crime'" is a counter-productive argument imo. Considering the GOP supported a suspected paedophile in his Senate race because they needed the vote I don't think social acceptability of corruption had any real effect on Trump's election. I agree with you tho that there are socially acceptable levels of corruption and that we shouldn't be accepting of it. I'm not just talking about the election. I'm talking about being a prominent person capable of even competing in the first place Ok?
My point still stands. Stuff much worse then mild socially unacceptable corruption hasn't stopped people from competing in the past.
Again, the failures of a 2 party system where the choice is your side, no matter how bad they are, or the enemy.
|
On September 28 2019 20:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2019 20:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2019 20:31 Gorsameth wrote:On September 28 2019 20:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2019 20:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 28 2019 19:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2019 19:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:Although Hunter Biden’s case is a textbook example of soft, socially accepted corruption (using your name and influence to get a very nice position with a great paycheck), there is not the slightest proof that he committed any kind of crime. Meanwhile your dude committed an impeachable offense in one of the most spectacular corruption scandals affecting a sitting president in decades, but hey, you are not even gonna talk about that because tribalism. I feel compelled to make the link between the "socially accepted corruption isn't a crime" and how Trump got to be where he is in the first place. Part of Trump's fortune (as well as his kids livelihoods) is built on this socially acceptable corruption, had that corruption not been bipartisan and acceptable, we probably never get President Trump. Actually, the real problem with Trump is not soft corruption, it’s real crime. His scandals, from the Trump university, decades if defrauding people working for him to this Ukrainian business are actual offenses. I’m all for addressing the way companies hire influential names in their boards in the hope of obtaining future favours. It’s unacceptable, unethical and has to be addressed. I think Obama’s ban on lobbyists in his administration was a huge step in the right direction, and much more must be done. But Nettles seem to think that this is the core of that Ukrainian scandals, while meanwhile we talk about a president leveraging hundreds of million of dollars in foreign aide and the foreign policy of the US with an extremely sensitive ally to gain dirt on a political opponent’s son. I know this is what Fox News and Breitbart do all day but it’s becoming grotesque. I'm not attempting to downplay his criminal corruption, I'm saying his socially accepted corruption is what placed him in a position to execute the more definitively criminal corruption. It's also important to understand the corruption we see from Biden and others in the Democratic party is only legal because it's so ubiquitous among those in power, not because it's less damaging to the social fabric than petty crimes like smoking cannabis. So the distinction of "but what you did is criminal" or "but his isn't soft corruption, it's "'real crime'" is a counter-productive argument imo. Considering the GOP supported a suspected paedophile in his Senate race because they needed the vote I don't think social acceptability of corruption had any real effect on Trump's election. I agree with you tho that there are socially acceptable levels of corruption and that we shouldn't be accepting of it. I'm not just talking about the election. I'm talking about being a prominent person capable of even competing in the first place Ok? My point still stands. Stuff much worse then mild socially unacceptable corruption hasn't stopped people from competing in the past.
Perhaps, I just don't see it's connection to mine? My point isn't that the social acceptability made his corruption non-disqualifying in the view of the voting public, it's that he wouldn't be a well connected plutocrat capable of mounting a viable presidential campaign in the first place.
|
On September 28 2019 20:16 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2019 19:57 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 28 2019 19:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:Although Hunter Biden’s case is a textbook example of soft, socially accepted corruption (using your name and influence to get a very nice position with a great paycheck), there is not the slightest proof that he committed any kind of crime. Meanwhile your dude committed an impeachable offense in one of the most spectacular corruption scandals affecting a sitting president in decades, but hey, you are not even gonna talk about that because tribalism. Bruh i’m not talking about Hunter, I’m talking about Joe.Joe is on camera bragging how he withheld a billion dollar loan until a Ukrainian prosecutor was fired.Keep up FFS.Here he is admitting it on camera. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CYThe point is the mutual legal assistance treaty on criminal matters signed between the US and Ukraine May cover criminal acts like this... If withholding aid when you (and allies) deem a country is not fighting corruption enough troubles you, how do you live with US sanctions on foreign countries? This is diplomacy and politics. Nothing says you HAVE to give these countries money. You help them for a reason : doing what you ask. If Biden wanted that prosecutor fired because of his son, THEN it is corrupt. However the source of that assumption (Ukrainian prosecutor) went back on it and said the company troubles predated Hunter Biden, and he didn't believe bidenor his son had committed any crime. That action becomes fine. Trump threatening to withhold aid to countries because of support to abortion is shitty, but legal. Him threatening to do the same to further his own agenda or attacks opponents, however, means turning the power of the country for personal gain, and is called corruption. Even just asking a foreign power to investigate a political opponent (without any solid basis rooted in fact to it, which means trying to dig up dirt) is also corrupt. As you cannot normally start an investigation and discovery without a valid predicate, which the Trump family reminded us enough during the Mueller probe. See the difference?
Why do you say the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden was corrupt? Because Joe Biden said so? The same Joe Biden who thought he was in Vermont when he was in New Hampshire and claimed his admin would cure cancer?.... this opinion piece from The Hill discussing memos disputes that and makes several important counterclaims
Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents — many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its legal troubles — conflict with Biden’s narrative.
The memos raise troubling questions:
1.) If the Ukraine prosecutor’s firing involved only his alleged corruption and ineptitude, why did Burisma's American legal team refer to those allegations as “false information?"
2.) If the firing had nothing to do with the Burisma case, as Biden has adamantly claimed, why would Burisma’s American lawyers contact the replacement prosecutor within hours of the termination and urgently seek a meeting in Ukraine to discuss the case?
Ukrainian prosecutors say they have tried to get this information to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) since the summer of 2018, fearing it might be evidence of possible violations of U.S. ethics laws. First, they hired a former federal prosecutor to bring the information to the U.S. attorney in New York, who, they say, showed no interest. Then, the Ukrainians reached out to President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story
If there is truth to these memos Trump has nothing to worry about.It’s the Dems with the problems.
|
On September 28 2019 20:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2019 20:51 Gorsameth wrote:On September 28 2019 20:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2019 20:31 Gorsameth wrote:On September 28 2019 20:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2019 20:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 28 2019 19:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2019 19:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:Although Hunter Biden’s case is a textbook example of soft, socially accepted corruption (using your name and influence to get a very nice position with a great paycheck), there is not the slightest proof that he committed any kind of crime. Meanwhile your dude committed an impeachable offense in one of the most spectacular corruption scandals affecting a sitting president in decades, but hey, you are not even gonna talk about that because tribalism. I feel compelled to make the link between the "socially accepted corruption isn't a crime" and how Trump got to be where he is in the first place. Part of Trump's fortune (as well as his kids livelihoods) is built on this socially acceptable corruption, had that corruption not been bipartisan and acceptable, we probably never get President Trump. Actually, the real problem with Trump is not soft corruption, it’s real crime. His scandals, from the Trump university, decades if defrauding people working for him to this Ukrainian business are actual offenses. I’m all for addressing the way companies hire influential names in their boards in the hope of obtaining future favours. It’s unacceptable, unethical and has to be addressed. I think Obama’s ban on lobbyists in his administration was a huge step in the right direction, and much more must be done. But Nettles seem to think that this is the core of that Ukrainian scandals, while meanwhile we talk about a president leveraging hundreds of million of dollars in foreign aide and the foreign policy of the US with an extremely sensitive ally to gain dirt on a political opponent’s son. I know this is what Fox News and Breitbart do all day but it’s becoming grotesque. I'm not attempting to downplay his criminal corruption, I'm saying his socially accepted corruption is what placed him in a position to execute the more definitively criminal corruption. It's also important to understand the corruption we see from Biden and others in the Democratic party is only legal because it's so ubiquitous among those in power, not because it's less damaging to the social fabric than petty crimes like smoking cannabis. So the distinction of "but what you did is criminal" or "but his isn't soft corruption, it's "'real crime'" is a counter-productive argument imo. Considering the GOP supported a suspected paedophile in his Senate race because they needed the vote I don't think social acceptability of corruption had any real effect on Trump's election. I agree with you tho that there are socially acceptable levels of corruption and that we shouldn't be accepting of it. I'm not just talking about the election. I'm talking about being a prominent person capable of even competing in the first place Ok? My point still stands. Stuff much worse then mild socially unacceptable corruption hasn't stopped people from competing in the past. Perhaps, I just don't see it's connection to mine? My point isn't that the social acceptability made his corruption non-disqualifying in the view of the voting public, it's that he wouldn't be a well connected plutocrat capable of mounting a viable presidential campaign in the first place.
Being a suspected paedophile is non-disqualifying in the views of certain parts of the voting public. He shouldn't have been a well connected senator capable of mounting a viable re-election campaign in the first place.
My point is that there is a big enough group that doesn't care how dirty, corrupt or strait up criminal someone is so long as they hear the right words and are convinced he is 'one of them'.
|
On September 28 2019 21:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2019 20:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2019 20:51 Gorsameth wrote:On September 28 2019 20:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2019 20:31 Gorsameth wrote:On September 28 2019 20:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2019 20:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 28 2019 19:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2019 19:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:Although Hunter Biden’s case is a textbook example of soft, socially accepted corruption (using your name and influence to get a very nice position with a great paycheck), there is not the slightest proof that he committed any kind of crime. Meanwhile your dude committed an impeachable offense in one of the most spectacular corruption scandals affecting a sitting president in decades, but hey, you are not even gonna talk about that because tribalism. I feel compelled to make the link between the "socially accepted corruption isn't a crime" and how Trump got to be where he is in the first place. Part of Trump's fortune (as well as his kids livelihoods) is built on this socially acceptable corruption, had that corruption not been bipartisan and acceptable, we probably never get President Trump. Actually, the real problem with Trump is not soft corruption, it’s real crime. His scandals, from the Trump university, decades if defrauding people working for him to this Ukrainian business are actual offenses. I’m all for addressing the way companies hire influential names in their boards in the hope of obtaining future favours. It’s unacceptable, unethical and has to be addressed. I think Obama’s ban on lobbyists in his administration was a huge step in the right direction, and much more must be done. But Nettles seem to think that this is the core of that Ukrainian scandals, while meanwhile we talk about a president leveraging hundreds of million of dollars in foreign aide and the foreign policy of the US with an extremely sensitive ally to gain dirt on a political opponent’s son. I know this is what Fox News and Breitbart do all day but it’s becoming grotesque. I'm not attempting to downplay his criminal corruption, I'm saying his socially accepted corruption is what placed him in a position to execute the more definitively criminal corruption. It's also important to understand the corruption we see from Biden and others in the Democratic party is only legal because it's so ubiquitous among those in power, not because it's less damaging to the social fabric than petty crimes like smoking cannabis. So the distinction of "but what you did is criminal" or "but his isn't soft corruption, it's "'real crime'" is a counter-productive argument imo. Considering the GOP supported a suspected paedophile in his Senate race because they needed the vote I don't think social acceptability of corruption had any real effect on Trump's election. I agree with you tho that there are socially acceptable levels of corruption and that we shouldn't be accepting of it. I'm not just talking about the election. I'm talking about being a prominent person capable of even competing in the first place Ok? My point still stands. Stuff much worse then mild socially unacceptable corruption hasn't stopped people from competing in the past. Perhaps, I just don't see it's connection to mine? My point isn't that the social acceptability made his corruption non-disqualifying in the view of the voting public, it's that he wouldn't be a well connected plutocrat capable of mounting a viable presidential campaign in the first place. Being a suspected paedophile is non-disqualifying in the views of certain parts of the voting public. He shouldn't have been a well connected senator capable of mounting a viable re-election campaign in the first place. My point is that there is a big enough group that doesn't care how dirty, corrupt or strait up criminal someone is so long as they hear the right words and are convinced he is 'one of them'.
Bipartisan acceptance of old men hitting on (and worse) young girls (Epstein) and boys (catholic church) is certainly part of all this too, but your argument doesn't really have any discontinuity with mine as far as I can tell.
|
On September 28 2019 17:52 Savant wrote:
I don't think even many Trump supporters genuinely like or admire him on a personal level, but that's not the point. True Trump believers are authoritarians: they want the nastiest person available to validate their way of life and attack the objects of their hatred. While I believe Trump's a genuine imbecile, he's also aware that acting like one arouses the wingnuts just like anything else that pokes the "elites" in the eye.
Trump is what weak men think a strong man acts like. When your entire self image is in complete shambles, seeing someone who openly says "I'm a genius and everyone loves me", it is intoxicating. These are men who are barely held together by holding underlying assumptions that women and minorities will always be half a tier below them.
There's a reason Incel communities overlap with alt right communities.
|
They more than overlap, they’re basically the same circle 
|
|
|
Yes it's an MLAT that would be the proper channel to start an investigation in the Ukraine on behalf of the US, ie not using a personal lawyer as a go between. DOJ -> State department -> legal attache in Ukraine -> which would help start an investigation in Ukraine.
On September 28 2019 19:57 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2019 19:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:Although Hunter Biden’s case is a textbook example of soft, socially accepted corruption (using your name and influence to get a very nice position with a great paycheck), there is not the slightest proof that he committed any kind of crime. Meanwhile your dude committed an impeachable offense in one of the most spectacular corruption scandals affecting a sitting president in decades, but hey, you are not even gonna talk about that because tribalism. Bruh i’m not talking about Hunter, I’m talking about Joe.Joe is on camera bragging how he withheld a billion dollar loan until a Ukrainian prosecutor was fired.Keep up FFS.Here he is admitting it on camera. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CYThe point is the mutual legal assistance treaty on criminal matters signed between the US and Ukraine May cover criminal acts like this...
More than a year after the investigation into burisma already ended and dismissed. You forget the IMF(bailing out $14 billion) and EU(bailing out $16.5 billion) also recommenced that Shokin be removed because he was accused of being soft on corruption.
Kind of the opposite of the conspiracy theory that Shokin was actually secretly investigating Hunter when he was forced out. They wanted Shokin removed because he didn't do shit against corruption.
Timeline doesn't fit, narrative relies on selective listening. It's comical that it depends on a bad prosecutor who didn't do his job actually doing his job this one time.
You can easily cross reference this from articles in 2016 when the IMF and the EU were giving money to the Ukraine completely separate from the US effort to give money to Ukraine.
|
On September 28 2019 20:59 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2019 20:16 Nouar wrote:On September 28 2019 19:57 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 28 2019 19:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:Although Hunter Biden’s case is a textbook example of soft, socially accepted corruption (using your name and influence to get a very nice position with a great paycheck), there is not the slightest proof that he committed any kind of crime. Meanwhile your dude committed an impeachable offense in one of the most spectacular corruption scandals affecting a sitting president in decades, but hey, you are not even gonna talk about that because tribalism. Bruh i’m not talking about Hunter, I’m talking about Joe.Joe is on camera bragging how he withheld a billion dollar loan until a Ukrainian prosecutor was fired.Keep up FFS.Here he is admitting it on camera. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CYThe point is the mutual legal assistance treaty on criminal matters signed between the US and Ukraine May cover criminal acts like this... If withholding aid when you (and allies) deem a country is not fighting corruption enough troubles you, how do you live with US sanctions on foreign countries? This is diplomacy and politics. Nothing says you HAVE to give these countries money. You help them for a reason : doing what you ask. If Biden wanted that prosecutor fired because of his son, THEN it is corrupt. However the source of that assumption (Ukrainian prosecutor) went back on it and said the company troubles predated Hunter Biden, and he didn't believe bidenor his son had committed any crime. That action becomes fine. Trump threatening to withhold aid to countries because of support to abortion is shitty, but legal. Him threatening to do the same to further his own agenda or attacks opponents, however, means turning the power of the country for personal gain, and is called corruption. Even just asking a foreign power to investigate a political opponent (without any solid basis rooted in fact to it, which means trying to dig up dirt) is also corrupt. As you cannot normally start an investigation and discovery without a valid predicate, which the Trump family reminded us enough during the Mueller probe. See the difference? Why do you say the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden was corrupt? Because Joe Biden said so? The same Joe Biden who thought he was in Vermont when he was in New Hampshire and claimed his admin would cure cancer?.... this opinion piece from The Hill discussing memos disputes that and makes several important counterclaims Show nested quote +Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents — many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its legal troubles — conflict with Biden’s narrative.
The memos raise troubling questions:
1.) If the Ukraine prosecutor’s firing involved only his alleged corruption and ineptitude, why did Burisma's American legal team refer to those allegations as “false information?"
2.) If the firing had nothing to do with the Burisma case, as Biden has adamantly claimed, why would Burisma’s American lawyers contact the replacement prosecutor within hours of the termination and urgently seek a meeting in Ukraine to discuss the case?
Ukrainian prosecutors say they have tried to get this information to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) since the summer of 2018, fearing it might be evidence of possible violations of U.S. ethics laws. First, they hired a former federal prosecutor to bring the information to the U.S. attorney in New York, who, they say, showed no interest. Then, the Ukrainians reached out to President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-storyIf there is truth to these memos Trump has nothing to worry about.It’s the Dems with the problems.
Remove your one-way goggles for a second and look at the big picture. Don't tell me Biden induced Maidan protestors into riots in 2015 to fire that guy, and the whole of Europe and the IMF. I'll just quote Wikipedia here, go on the page for several articles from that time period.
Ukraine on 10 February 2015, replacing Vitaly Yarema.[4] He was a controversial appointee due to his perceived role in blocking prosecutions against those accused of shooting demonstrators in the 2014 Ukrainian revolution.[5] As Prosecutor General, he was accused of blocking major cases against allies and influential figures and hindering the fight against corruption in Ukraine.[6]
Various street protests demanding Shokin's resignation were held.[7] On 2 November 2015, there was an assassination attempt against him when an unidentified sniper fired three shots into his office, but was foiled by the bulletproof glass window.[8] His office carried out raids against one of Ukraine’s leading anti-corruption groups, the Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC), claiming that it had misappropriated aid money. AntAC was a frequent critic of the Prosecutor General's Office under Shokin.[9] In one notorious case, two of Shokin's prosecutors were caught with stashes of diamonds, cash and valuables in their homes, likely indicating bribery. Prosecutors from another department of Shokin's office were fired or reassigned when they attempted to bring a prosecution against the so-called "diamond prosecutors".[10]
Through 2015 and early 2016, domestic and international pressure (including from the IMF, the EU, and the EBRD) built for Shokin to be removed from office. The Obama Administration withheld a billion dollars in loan guarantees to pressure the Ukrainian government to remove Shokin from office.[11][12][13] His defenders nonetheless argued that he played an important role "balancing competing political interests".[14] His Deputy Prosecutor, Vitaly Kasko, resigned on 15 February 2016 denouncing the corruption and lawlessness of the Prosecutor's office.
His own deputy resigned to complain...
There were reasons to want him out. Lots. What happens abroad does (did) not revolve uniquely around the us politics. Assuming Biden had a corrupt intent (always possible), he at best took advantage of the situation but did not initiate it.
The legal team of a defendant trying to get in the good graces of the new prosecutor general by buttering him up does not really strike me as odd, though there are some concerning items in the piece you linked to. Politics and law are dirty businesses. Nothing as nakedly corrupt as what Trump is doing though, since he lacks any finesse in his behaviour.
|
So far I haven't said anything about this Ukraine stuff because it seemed like it might be a typical Trump story, where all information contrary to the media narrative was left out of initial reporting. Amazingly, that turned out to be true again! I'll use this story as kind of a springboard... AG Barr didn't find out until weeks later that Trump named him in the call.
WASHINGTON (AP) — As Washington plunges into impeachment, Attorney General William Barr finds himself engulfed in the political firestorm, facing questions about his role in President Donald Trump’s outreach to Ukraine and the administration’s attempts to keep a whistleblower complaint from Congress.
Trump repeatedly told Ukraine’s president in a telephone call that Barr and Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani could help investigate Trump’s Democratic rival Joe Biden, according to a rough transcript of that summertime conversation. Justice Department officials insist Barr was unaware of Trump’s comments at the time of the July 25 call.
When Barr did learn of that call a few weeks later, he was “surprised and angry” to discover he had been lumped in with Giuliani, a person familiar with Barr’s thinking told The Associated Press. This person was not authorized to speak about the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
...
The department insists Barr wasn’t made aware of the call with Zelenskiy until at least mid-August.
Barr has not spoken with Trump about investigating Biden or Biden’s son Hunter, and Trump has not asked Barr to contact Ukranian officials about the matter, the department said. Barr has also not spoken with Giuliani about anything related to Ukraine, officials have said.[
Combine this with the fact that the Ukrainians didn't find out the money was being delayed until a month after the call, this doesn't appear to be any sort of extortion. At least the Ukrainians didn't see it that way. I think reading the transcript and marrying it with everything I know about the way Trump talks made that look likely, but it's almost certain now.
And this is just part of it (but perhaps the biggest part).
|
The fact that Barr and his executive office deny that he knew anything about this is remarkably unremarkable...of course they would say that, Barr got the job because he knows how to kiss Trump’s ring.
|
Barr not knowing about it isn't relevant to the case of Trump using the office to go after his political opponents.
Barr is in potential trouble over stopping the whistleblowers report from being send to congressional oversight despite every report of that classification having to be send by default.
|
On September 29 2019 05:35 Introvert wrote:So far I haven't said anything about this Ukraine stuff because it seemed like it might be a typical Trump story, where all information contrary to the media narrative was left out of initial reporting. Amazingly, that turned out to be true again! I'll use this story as kind of a springboard... AG Barr didn't find out until weeks later that Trump named him in the call. Show nested quote +WASHINGTON (AP) — As Washington plunges into impeachment, Attorney General William Barr finds himself engulfed in the political firestorm, facing questions about his role in President Donald Trump’s outreach to Ukraine and the administration’s attempts to keep a whistleblower complaint from Congress.
Trump repeatedly told Ukraine’s president in a telephone call that Barr and Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani could help investigate Trump’s Democratic rival Joe Biden, according to a rough transcript of that summertime conversation. Justice Department officials insist Barr was unaware of Trump’s comments at the time of the July 25 call.
When Barr did learn of that call a few weeks later, he was “surprised and angry” to discover he had been lumped in with Giuliani, a person familiar with Barr’s thinking told The Associated Press. This person was not authorized to speak about the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
...
The department insists Barr wasn’t made aware of the call with Zelenskiy until at least mid-August.
Barr has not spoken with Trump about investigating Biden or Biden’s son Hunter, and Trump has not asked Barr to contact Ukranian officials about the matter, the department said. Barr has also not spoken with Giuliani about anything related to Ukraine, officials have said.[ Combine this with the fact that the Ukrainians didn't find out the money was being delayed until a month after the call, this doesn't appear to be any sort of extortion. At least the Ukrainians didn't see it that way. I think reading the transcript and marrying it with everything I know about the way Trump talks made that look likely, but it's almost certain now. And this is just part of it (but perhaps the biggest part).
I am not surprised at all, since Trump seems to assume that he has cronies everywhere doing his bidding, and not a (dis)functional administration with set tasks.
He probably thought just giving some commands here and there would be enough to make sure the money was on hold. But since it's unusual, who was going to actually tell it to the counterpart ? There is no set policy in this administration. Well there somewhat is, but it's contradicted every 2h by the president himself. So I am not surprised that civil workers wait for the storm to pass, or for clear orders or at least a clear pattern of intent, before acting on things.
It's somewhat like the UK currently. Johnson is telling about amazing progress in talks blablabla, that his administration has prepared a whole lot of things. When in fact, they've barely got some drafts, rehashed from the previous administration, that they are not even willing to share with EU negotiators, because they are full of air. And nobody wants to own it, since it's just the PM talking.
About Barr though, I have no doubts he was not aware of this call, but I cannot understand how he did not immediately remove himself from any decision-taking in this whistleblower case, since his name is mentioned in it, even if he was unaware.
|
edit: @farv, though this applies generally.
I haven't found it, but I think the Ukrainians have also denied it. "Ah, but they would, to stay on Trump's good side!" We have no contrary reporting on that matter and everything else we know fits with it being true. Trump still has hard feelings over the Ukraine/DNC work in 2016, heard that Zelenskiy is an anti-corruption guy, hates the idea of foreign aid (espeically when he feels like the US is doing all the work). He speaks stream of consciousness and just regurgitates what he's heard. And surely Zelenskiy knew this, as we can see his flattery efforts on full display. He was prepped.
Trump was mouthing off, talking about one thing then another, not connecting the two. And again, it seems that the Ukrainians understood that. Guliaini's role is more troubling, but from all we know, he took this up on his own accord and Trump still doesn't grasp that it's not Rudy's job. I mean Rudy's been talking about this publicly for months.
|
The problem with the “Rudy is a rogue agent” theory is that both he and Trump have indicated that Rudy is Trump’s personal lawyer and acting on his behalf. If that’s true, Trump is bound by Rudy’s acts committed while acting on Trump’s behalf. Trump doesn’t even need to know what Rudy’s doing for that to be a huge problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
