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.
There are laws. I'm trying to follow them when defining if something is a crime, a bribery, corruption or wrongdoing ? To investigate, you need a factual basis, Trump reminded us of that enough these past years. For me, credible allegations of wrongdoing mean having a lead or some proof, that some action was actually taken that is against the law.
Then you have got ethics (that should be defined by law also, but are not always, as the law doesn't cover ALL bases). This is more in the court of public opinion.
Conflict of interest inquiries are somewhere in the middle. A situation looks prone to bring forth possible corruption/ethics issue, so there are recusals, or investigations to make sure nothing improper happened, even without allegations.
The impeachment vote itself is a political measure, but was not required by the law.
On November 15 2019 19:58 GreenHorizons wrote: It seems to me the liberal position is predicated on the idea that there is no national interest in calling out Biden's petty corruption.
Hunter Biden was bribed and took it. Whether he delivered anything for the bribe is unknown afaik but it takes a high threshold for ones willful suspension of disbelief to imagine it wasn't a bribe.
No, it’s that it’s not legal for the President to use the office for personal advantage. Like a cop pulling over his ex wife for speeding after following her around for days. Speeding is against the public interest but a cop should not be using the powers to harass their ex.
That's one way to frame it, alternatively, the president can (and they all have, except maybe Carter) absolutely benefit personally from using the office to advance "national interests".
So the question becomes, is there a national interest in confronting Hunter Biden getting bribed?
Liberals have to say "no" or acknowledge that he was acting in the national interest (and his own).
Considering the presidents children and their currently held positions. I'd say it's pretty clear Trump has little interest in the idea of qualifications of a job given to children based on their parents position being corruption.
It's also clear that Trump did not use the normal legal channels for an intentional investigation as have a MLAT with Ukraine which dictates that process.
To note that Trump's call doesn't reference Bursima he instead calls for "Biden's Son". He also couples that with a weird request into secret severs that were used by Cloudstrike during their investigation into the Russian hacks into the DNC. Which has nothing to do with reality but does paint the picture that he wants dirt on the democrats and to clear Russia's involvement with the hacks; as that is essentially what that conspiracy theory says. The idea is that Ukraine perpetrated the hacks not Russia, which was spread by Russian trolls after the hack and it not the stance that the US has or any of it's allies.
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.
Except it appears you are beating an invisible unicorn here. You accuse someone of taking bribes, but can't point to anything that is a bribe. Meanwhile, you expect us to see equivalence with Trumps threat to American democracy.
On November 16 2019 02:13 Mohdoo wrote: All federal charges, so interesting to see if Trump pardons it all.
Stone did not testify, and his lawyers called no witnesses in his defense.
Yes, I guess this is the intent... It's a dangerous game to play. Trump is not loyal.
That republican counsel has a tough job at hunting for something... anything... He is asking Yovaniovitch if during her tenure there were investigations on Hunter Biden and his skills, or just for influence... He arrived in 2014 on the board. Yovanovitch was appointed 2 years later in summer 2016... If there were conflicts of interest, they should have happened before that... (and they did)
he is grasping at straws...
"Do you believe it's fair to say that Mr. Trump felt targeted when the black ledgers of Manafort were disclosed ?"
"Well not from the ukrainian perspective, the journalist was raising publicly the amount of corruption and money stolen from the ukrainian nation by the president of ukraine and others. It's a matter of perspective"...... (that corruption was from trump's campaign director, tough luck, that's the risk if you hire only crooks. The world didn't yet revolve around Trump at the time...)
"You can understand that president Trump felt targeted by members of the ukrainian establishment ?"
"These look like isolated incidents... There is no incentive for ukrainians to undermine a political campaign. I would like to remind that OUR intelligence community conclusively determined that those who tampered with the election were in Russia."
On November 15 2019 21:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote: But there is no evidence. You can't just accuse someone of taking bribes (for what exactly?), and then when asked for evidence, you mock that evidence is asked in the first place! You think Hunter is corrupt. Sure, lets say I agree that he is, but what exactly is he guilty off here? Despite what you assert otherwise, taking a position on a board of directors is not a form of bribery.
You are obviously concerned about corruption, but it's absurd that you don't think that corruption that threatens democracy in USA is worth pursuing, yet an undefined business corruption in a country most Americans can't point out on a map is worth investigating instead?
The point you may be missing that GH hasn't explicitly stated is that taking the job is evidence of corruption/bribery in and of itself. The reports are that Hunter was unqualified and overpaid for the position he was granted, and that he was granted the position by virtue of his father's position.
On November 15 2019 21:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote: But there is no evidence. You can't just accuse someone of taking bribes (for what exactly?), and then when asked for evidence, you mock that evidence is asked in the first place! You think Hunter is corrupt. Sure, lets say I agree that he is, but what exactly is he guilty off here? Despite what you assert otherwise, taking a position on a board of directors is not a form of bribery.
You are obviously concerned about corruption, but it's absurd that you don't think that corruption that threatens democracy in USA is worth pursuing, yet an undefined business corruption in a country most Americans can't point out on a map is worth investigating instead?
The point you may be missing that GH hasn't explicitly stated is that taking the job is evidence of corruption/bribery in and of itself. The reports are that Hunter was unqualified and overpaid for the position he was granted, and that he was granted the position by virtue of his father's position.
On November 15 2019 21:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote: But there is no evidence. You can't just accuse someone of taking bribes (for what exactly?), and then when asked for evidence, you mock that evidence is asked in the first place! You think Hunter is corrupt. Sure, lets say I agree that he is, but what exactly is he guilty off here? Despite what you assert otherwise, taking a position on a board of directors is not a form of bribery.
You are obviously concerned about corruption, but it's absurd that you don't think that corruption that threatens democracy in USA is worth pursuing, yet an undefined business corruption in a country most Americans can't point out on a map is worth investigating instead?
The point you may be missing that GH hasn't explicitly stated is that taking the job is evidence of corruption/bribery in and of itself. The reports are that Hunter was unqualified and overpaid for the position he was granted, and that he was granted the position by virtue of his father's position.
Like the trump kids?
exactly like the trump kids... so like GH has been trying to point out. there is hypocrisy in being upset about them without having the same level of outrage over hunter.
On November 15 2019 21:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote: But there is no evidence. You can't just accuse someone of taking bribes (for what exactly?), and then when asked for evidence, you mock that evidence is asked in the first place! You think Hunter is corrupt. Sure, lets say I agree that he is, but what exactly is he guilty off here? Despite what you assert otherwise, taking a position on a board of directors is not a form of bribery.
You are obviously concerned about corruption, but it's absurd that you don't think that corruption that threatens democracy in USA is worth pursuing, yet an undefined business corruption in a country most Americans can't point out on a map is worth investigating instead?
The point you may be missing that GH hasn't explicitly stated is that taking the job is evidence of corruption/bribery in and of itself. The reports are that Hunter was unqualified and overpaid for the position he was granted, and that he was granted the position by virtue of his father's position.
On November 15 2019 21:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote: But there is no evidence. You can't just accuse someone of taking bribes (for what exactly?), and then when asked for evidence, you mock that evidence is asked in the first place! You think Hunter is corrupt. Sure, lets say I agree that he is, but what exactly is he guilty off here? Despite what you assert otherwise, taking a position on a board of directors is not a form of bribery.
You are obviously concerned about corruption, but it's absurd that you don't think that corruption that threatens democracy in USA is worth pursuing, yet an undefined business corruption in a country most Americans can't point out on a map is worth investigating instead?
The point you may be missing that GH hasn't explicitly stated is that taking the job is evidence of corruption/bribery in and of itself. The reports are that Hunter was unqualified and overpaid for the position he was granted, and that he was granted the position by virtue of his father's position.
Like the trump kids?
exactly like the trump kids... so like GH has been trying to point out. there is hypocrisy in being upset about them without having the same level of outrage over hunter.
I think you have that swapped around, no? A more reasonable way to put it would be: It's unreasonable to be upset about Hunter Biden without also bring upset about the Trump kids. One has been (reluctantly) accepted for years, but now Trump wants to go after someone for doing the exact same thing he did?
Don't get me wrong, I don't accept nepotism in either case. But let's not talk about hypocracy in glass houses here.
You mustn't have been reading the thread too hard then, Trainrunnef: it's all been written in the the last 8 hours.
On November 15 2019 19:58 GreenHorizons wrote: It seems to me the liberal position is predicated on the idea that there is no national interest in calling out Biden's petty corruption.
Hunter Biden was bribed and took it. Whether he delivered anything for the bribe is unknown afaik but it takes a high threshold for ones willful suspension of disbelief to imagine it wasn't a bribe.
On November 15 2019 20:15 GreenHorizons wrote: That's one way to frame it, alternatively, the president can (and they all have, except maybe Carter) absolutely benefit personally from using the office to advance "national interests".
So the question becomes, is there a national interest in confronting Hunter Biden getting bribed?
Liberals have to say "no" or acknowledge that he was acting in the national interest (and his own).
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 21:19 GreenHorizons wrote: They certainly are. That you don't just acknowledge Hunter was obviously being bribed and Trump used it as a cover to benefit politically is a major reason why Trump admitting the quid pro quo works for him.
Rrereading his posts I've noticed GH seems to have written rule of law and proof doesn't matter as he regard both as "political" and he has already determined Hunter Biden took bribes on the basis of "empirical data". Entirely delusional. Or amazing doublethink. War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. At this point you have to wonder what GH's motivation is.
On November 15 2019 19:58 GreenHorizons wrote: It seems to me the liberal position is predicated on the idea that there is no national interest in calling out Biden's petty corruption.
Hunter Biden was bribed and took it. Whether he delivered anything for the bribe is unknown afaik but it takes a high threshold for ones willful suspension of disbelief to imagine it wasn't a bribe.
On November 15 2019 20:15 GreenHorizons wrote: That's one way to frame it, alternatively, the president can (and they all have, except maybe Carter) absolutely benefit personally from using the office to advance "national interests".
So the question becomes, is there a national interest in confronting Hunter Biden getting bribed?
Liberals have to say "no" or acknowledge that he was acting in the national interest (and his own).
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 21:19 GreenHorizons wrote: They certainly are. That you don't just acknowledge Hunter was obviously being bribed and Trump used it as a cover to benefit politically is a major reason why Trump admitting the quid pro quo works for him.
You only have to write bribe and greenhorizon in search, but it's all been written in the last few pages in the last 24 hours. Rrereading his posts I've noticed GH seems to have written rule of law and proof doesn't matter as he regard both as "political" and he has already determined Hunter Biden took bribes on the basis of "empirical data". Entirely delusional. Or amazing doublethink. War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. At this point you have to wonder what Gh's motivation is.
What are you trying to say trainrunnef? That taking a job = bribe? Wasn't that the opposite of what you said the previous post?
On November 16 2019 03:38 Trainrunnef wrote: The point you may be missing that GH hasn't explicitly stated is that taking the job bribe is evidence of corruption/bribery in and of itself.
Makes perfect sense...
The impeachment is about Trump using statepower and money to attack political rivals. It's got nothing to do with the obvious corruption with Trump's offspring. There is no hypocrisy, other than you completely backtracking on what you just wrote.
On November 15 2019 21:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote: But there is no evidence. You can't just accuse someone of taking bribes (for what exactly?), and then when asked for evidence, you mock that evidence is asked in the first place! You think Hunter is corrupt. Sure, lets say I agree that he is, but what exactly is he guilty off here? Despite what you assert otherwise, taking a position on a board of directors is not a form of bribery.
You are obviously concerned about corruption, but it's absurd that you don't think that corruption that threatens democracy in USA is worth pursuing, yet an undefined business corruption in a country most Americans can't point out on a map is worth investigating instead?
The point you may be missing that GH hasn't explicitly stated is that taking the job is evidence of corruption/bribery in and of itself. The reports are that Hunter was unqualified and overpaid for the position he was granted, and that he was granted the position by virtue of his father's position.
Like the trump kids?
exactly like the trump kids... so like GH has been trying to point out. there is hypocrisy in being upset about them without having the same level of outrage over hunter.
I think you have that swapped around, no? A more reasonable way to put it would be: It's unreasonable to be upset about Hunter Biden without also bring upset about the Trump kids. One has been (reluctantly) accepted for years, but now Trump wants to go after someone for doing the exact same thing he did?
Don't get me wrong, I don't accept nepotism in either case. But let's not talk about hypocracy in glass houses here.
then in this case democrats have been unreasonable by being upset about the trump kids from the get go, while not so reluctantly accepting hunter's position.
On November 15 2019 21:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote: But there is no evidence. You can't just accuse someone of taking bribes (for what exactly?), and then when asked for evidence, you mock that evidence is asked in the first place! You think Hunter is corrupt. Sure, lets say I agree that he is, but what exactly is he guilty off here? Despite what you assert otherwise, taking a position on a board of directors is not a form of bribery.
You are obviously concerned about corruption, but it's absurd that you don't think that corruption that threatens democracy in USA is worth pursuing, yet an undefined business corruption in a country most Americans can't point out on a map is worth investigating instead?
The point you may be missing that GH hasn't explicitly stated is that taking the job is evidence of corruption/bribery in and of itself. The reports are that Hunter was unqualified and overpaid for the position he was granted, and that he was granted the position by virtue of his father's position.
Like the trump kids?
exactly like the trump kids... so like GH has been trying to point out. there is hypocrisy in being upset about them without having the same level of outrage over hunter.
I had that discussion with GH a few days ago. Most administration boards are shams. They are not illegal though. So him taking the job is NOT evidence of corruption or bribery. Or you'd put all boards in prison (which GH agreed with, due to his political opinions. I can get why in thoses cases. However, the law is what it is, the current law that we must abide to, not a wishlist.)
You don't find it hypocritical from Trump to investigate Biden for this, while he is doing it himself and shamelessly pushing back against accusations of it being improper ? The democrats aren't impeaching or investigating his children for having been on the payroll (criticizing, yes). Maybe for some actions they took.
So, who is the hypocrit there ?
Jim Jordan telling that the "master plan" would have been to replace an uncooperative ambassador by Taylor, the "star witness" ? God that was a bad plan ! He conveniently forgets that he tasked Sondland, a political donor and ally, with these matters. Someone who should have no authority over most matters about Ukraine.
Ninja-ing my own post to add a little tidbit that I missed at the time, by Zelensky. It's a good laugh and might lighten the mood a little ^^
On November 16 2019 04:08 Trainrunnef wrote: then in this case democrats have been unreasonable by being upset about the trump kids from the get go, while not so reluctantly accepting hunter's position.
Again, the impeachment has nothing to do with Trumps flagrant nepotism. Why do you keep bringing up Trump's kids? Their disgusting nepotism and corruption has nothing to do with the impeachment. Where are you even getting info about the impeachment from? You are just making things up or whatever your source is, is lying to you.
On November 15 2019 21:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote: But there is no evidence. You can't just accuse someone of taking bribes (for what exactly?), and then when asked for evidence, you mock that evidence is asked in the first place! You think Hunter is corrupt. Sure, lets say I agree that he is, but what exactly is he guilty off here? Despite what you assert otherwise, taking a position on a board of directors is not a form of bribery.
You are obviously concerned about corruption, but it's absurd that you don't think that corruption that threatens democracy in USA is worth pursuing, yet an undefined business corruption in a country most Americans can't point out on a map is worth investigating instead?
The point you may be missing that GH hasn't explicitly stated is that taking the job is evidence of corruption/bribery in and of itself. The reports are that Hunter was unqualified and overpaid for the position he was granted, and that he was granted the position by virtue of his father's position.
Like the trump kids?
exactly like the trump kids... so like GH has been trying to point out. there is hypocrisy in being upset about them without having the same level of outrage over hunter.
I think you have that swapped around, no? A more reasonable way to put it would be: It's unreasonable to be upset about Hunter Biden without also bring upset about the Trump kids. One has been (reluctantly) accepted for years, but now Trump wants to go after someone for doing the exact same thing he did?
Don't get me wrong, I don't accept nepotism in either case. But let's not talk about hypocracy in glass houses here.
then in this case democrats have been unreasonable by being upset about the trump kids from the get go, while not so reluctantly accepting hunter's position.
You are aware that Hunter's position HAS BEEN investigated for conflict of interests by the Obama administration ? This is already a lot more than what Trump did with his :-D
EPT
