US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1889

On November 15 2019 21:12 GreenHorizons wrote:...
More like I'm trying to make clear the connection between how the pretending it isn't obvious Hunter Biden was getting bribed is a necessary precursor to being outraged that Trump made aid conditional on Ukraine publicly confronting it. That it's an extension of 2016's "extremely careless", Bush's "they hate our freedom", and so on.

On November 15 2019 21:22 GreenHorizons wrote:


I haven't heard Democrats expressing outrage at the bribing of Hunter though. You can see dmcd taking the position there's not even evidence of bribery.

On November 15 2019 21:40 Aquanim wrote:

Are you saying it's okay for Trump to use the presidential office to specifically target Democrat-affiliated individuals as long as those individuals are (potentially) corrupt?

On November 15 2019 21:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think that about sums it up. "No evidence" and comparing it to blaming Trump for JFK.

I know folks think I'm the out of touch one but I'm telling you that taking that tack is a huge part of why it will work politically for Republicans to pretend they don't see Trump's obvious corruption (or refuse to hold him accountable for it).

Until they are ready to grapple with that they'll keep being correct about Republican corruption and still losing ground to them.

On November 15 2019 20:52 servolisk2 wrote:


I think if it is so opinion based it should be a matter left to the voters instead of a partisan officials in pre-determined opposition to judge. I'd also expect using this rationale for impeachment would lead to a future congress of a different party contriving reasons to make a conflict of interest a basis for impeachment. Personally, I might be inclined to believe Trump's motive was to hurt Biden if there was a big worry about losing to Biden, but it cannot be fully separated from a legitimate interest that was being investigated along with other concerns. It's incredibly weak for impeachment grounds.

I confess I did not watch all of the hearings, but, it is mysterious evidence can be supportive of your interpretation when it was mostly not primary accounts, assuming you're referring to the public hearings that happened rather than leaks. Persuasively establishing a corrupt motive is extremely difficult to begin with, it is very hard to imagine 4th hand opinion of a witness saying someone else's opinion was Trump was doing this for his own advantage in the election is persuasive.

The transcript also did not say he wanted the Ukrainian President to make a public announcement, he said "look into it". The wanting an announcement of the investigation has been alleged but not established, correct? If true, it would make it look like Trump was taking advantage of the situation, but I think there has been no confirmed evidence that showed aid was tied to this. It has only been alleged and denied that Giuliani asked someone in Ukraine to do this, I believe...

On November 15 2019 21:53 Gorsameth wrote:
I will 100% bet you that the people standing behind Trumps behaviour will remain standing behind Trump if the Democrats vigorously fight corruption at every turn, especially among their won. They will just be laughing harder.

On November 15 2019 21:55 GreenHorizons wrote:


You're not wrong about Trump supporters, however, the 100,000,000+ people that aren't Trump or Democrat supporters might think you give a damn about actually addressing corruption.

On November 15 2019 21:55 GreenHorizons wrote:


You're not wrong about Trump supporters, however, the 100,000,000+ people that aren't Trump or Democrat supporters might think you give a damn about actually addressing corruption.

On November 15 2019 21:59 Gorsameth wrote:
nah, they will just find something to complain about as an excuse not to vote.

On November 15 2019 22:03 Nouar wrote:

What are you even accusing Hunter Biden of doing ? Evidence of WHAT ? You talked about bribery, but bribery on what topic ?
Before talking about "proof" I'd like to even know what we are talking about. The US govt investigated him and found nothing, and Ukraine investigated him and found nothing. You don't do a fishing expedition, you need a basis to start an investigation ? On what grounds would you ?


If you want corruption, maybe have a look for example at the RNC having their events at Trump's Doral, for 150k last year, and more than 600k this year in revenue for Trump.

On November 15 2019 22:52 GreenHorizons wrote:



Just to be clear that part of my point is about Hunter Biden's "job" in Ukraine. I'm not interested in arguing whether it meets a legal definition of bribery, the point is pretending that's what makes it bribery is why people don't take Democrats appeals to addressing corruption seriously and rather (rightfully imo) see them as using it as a cudgel against a political opponent.

Democrats taking the position that Ukrainians wanted Biden's legal and business advice and weren't attempting to buy influence is an extension of Bush and Ellen chumming it up, Sean Spicer Dancing on TV, Bolton fishing for a book deal, etc...

Sept. 24, 2015 – U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt excoriates officials in the Prosecutor General’s Office for stymying anti-corruption investigations, including those involving Burisma

Pyatt’s speech was part of a regular drumbeat by U.S. and other Western leaders, including Vice President Biden, and a swath of Ukrainian civil society seeking to pressure President Poroshenko to force his officials, especially in the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) to crack down more, not less, on corruption. “Corruption kills,” Pyatt said in the address to the Odesa Financial Forum for business leaders. “It kills productivity and smothers inspiration. Ideas are lost in its shadow. Innovation and entrepreneurship lag under the weight of bribery, back room dealing, and bullying.”

While giving Shokin a last chance to shape up (Pyatt says, “We want to work with Prosecutor General Shokin so the PGO is leading the fight against corruption.”), the ambassador criticizes “officials at the PGO’s office” for not providing documents that were needed for the British investigation of Burisma owner Zlochevskiy and effectively allowing Zlochevskiy to transfer $23 million of what Pyatt says were Ukrainian taxpayer assets to Cyprus. In other words, Pyatt is critical of the prosecutor’s office for not aiding in investigations of Burisma’s owner, which was in line with Biden’s criticism that the office was blocking corruption investigations. Pyatt specifically called for the investigation and removal of officials who were involved in the failure to help the British authorities investigate Zlochevskiy:



Full text of Ambassador Pyatt’s speech.[See also early February 2015 entry for then-deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv George Kent’s scolding deputy general prosecutor for corrupt protection of Zlochevsky.]



Oct. 8, 2015 – U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland continues the drumbeat on the need for stepped-up anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine, telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in testimony that “the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) has to be reinvented as an institution that serves the citizens of Ukraine, rather than ripping them off.” She continues, “That means it must investigate and successfully prosecute corruption and asset recovery cases, including locking up dirty personnel in the PGO itself.”

Fall 2015 – Biden, along with the EU, publicly calls for ouster of Prosecutor General Shokin for failure to work on anti-corruption efforts.

John E. Herbst, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine under George W. Bush, later testified before Congress:



Dec. 8, 2015 – Vice President Biden makes a speech to Ukraine’s Parliament urging the country to step up anti-corruption measures.

On November 15 2019 23:21 Nouar wrote:


We discussed about this earlier. There are so many things like this happening in nearly all administration boards, and they don't warrant an investigation. Even less an investigation abroad, queried by the president himself, with the purpose to hurt his opponent.
These types of things aren't even investigated in the US ! And it being a private company, it pretty much does what it wants with its money, if it wants to hire people that don't have the skills.

On the other hands, what you imply means that every "known" person, or their families, cannot get a job without scrutiny. If there is a clear concern that Burisma, or Biden, have done something illegal with that influence they tried to gain according to you, then maybe it warrants an investigation.
But just him being there ? No.

I would like to show something as well : in 2015, which means when Biden was in Burisma, and when Biden was VP, just before his speech arguing to fire the prosecutor general, one of the reasons of that speech is that this particular prosecutor general DIDN'T investigate Burisma's boss, Zlochevskiy, who is the one suspected of corruption in this.

Hardly a good result, if Burisma hired Biden to buy influence to protect itself, no ?



https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/
(I don't know what that website is, I am just looking at the quotes to verify the speeches content)

Lutsenko told the LA Times that he had numerous conversations with Guiliani on the phone. He also tells the paper that Giuliani pressed him repeatedly to open an investigation on the Bidens and Burisma, even though Lutsenko had seen no evidence of legal wrongdoing.

Giuliani and Lutsenko meet in New York over the space of two-to-three days. They discuss “the Ukrainian political situation and the fight against corruption,” Bloomberg News reports, paraphrasing Lutsenko. “Giuliani asked him about investigations into the owner of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, as well as whether the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was `not loyal to President Trump,’” the article says.

March 2019 –- Ukraine Prosecutor General Lutsenko opens two investigations — one into the 2016 U.S. presidential election and a second into Burisma and Biden.

Following his meetings with Giuliani, Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko announces he is opening two investigations.

“The decision to reopen the investigation into Burisma was made … by the current Ukrainian prosecutor general [Lutsenko], who had cleared Hunter Biden’s employer more than two years ago. The announcement … was seen in some quarters as an effort by the prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, to curry favor from the Trump administration for his boss and ally, the incumbent president,” the New York Times reported (in May 2019).

On November 15 2019 23:36 Nouar wrote:
By the way, from the same link, a little follow up because the timeline is pretty hard to follow sometimes.

After Shokin was fired, Lutsenko was appointed prosecutor general. He had a lot of dealings with Giuliani, and finally ended up opening investigations into Burisma and the 2016 election after intense lobbying by Giuliani.





Then Lutsenko starts making interviews all over alleging wrongdoing by the US embassy to force publication of Manafort shady deals, to help Clinton's bid for 2016, and Burisma. He then comes back and reneges on these allegations a few monthes later.
Then the incumbent president loses, the new one is elected, appoints a new prosecutor, and the more "known" history of the quid-pro-quo begins.



@ GH : I'm not splitting hairs. If I see credible allegations of wrongdoing by democrats, I am going to argue against them, too. I do the same for French politics, doesn't matter from which side (retrocommissions and the Karachi affair in France for example, which is a rampant investigation over the last decades, where after a weapon sale from France to Pakistan, retro-commissions were re-injected into political campaigns, and ended up with a terror attack that killed a lot of people)

credible allegations of wrongdoing

On November 15 2019 23:56 GreenHorizons wrote:


Feels like I'm beating a dead horse at this point but I'll try one more way.



seems innocuous enough, but it's where all the magic happens. It's not hard to see that what fits the definitions of those words is a political decision, not an empirical one.

On November 16 2019 00:18 Nouar wrote:

Having a job is not an allegation of wrongdoing. And it was already investigated anyway...

Fyi I considered Hillary's private email server a credible allegation that warranted an investigation. I agree also with the result of that investigation related to the classified information it hosted.

In this case, I just cannot see anything ? Except political retaliation since the second investigation he asked stems from Manafort, ousted after criminal activity, and that activity was uncovered, and Manafort sentenced (which is what Trump calls interference in a political campaign by Ukraine on Clinton's behalf).