If Biden wins, should he aggressively prosecute the previous administration...including Trump?

Politics & Elections
181

I think we have answered this about as well as is possible on a message board.

The Articles of Impeachment spell all of this out in great detail. Starting from what the law says to how the law is implemented in the courts as a matter of practice to how Trump’s actions easily fit into those crimes.

You have two things going on here. Whether Trump was correct and Hunter/Joe Biden committed crimes and whether Trump committed a crime in his efforts to have the Hunter/Joe Biden prosecuted.

We have excellent evidence that Trump committed a crime here. More than enough to have it go to court and sorted out.

It is telling Trump decided to bribe officials rather than just start an investigation.

Put it this way, if you had solid evidence that the Bidens had committed a crime would you tell the police or commit a crime yourself to prove it?

182

While I do see the point of the ones that think it is better to not prosecute the previous administration, as a student of history I will have to say that there is one item that is not being taken into account.

Not investigating aggressively does leave also the ones that protected or aided a former president with their malfeasance to walk with virtually no taint that allowed them to come back in later administrations ready to do more harm with more reprehensible presidents.

183

Again from Wikipedia, showing that you’ve skipped over relevant facts:
" Chris Heinz, John Kerry’s stepson, opposed his partners Devon Archer and Hunter Biden joining the board in 2014 due to the reputational risk.[36] Biden served on the board of Burisma until his term expired in April 2019,[39] receiving compensation of up to $50,000 per month in some months.[39][38] Because Vice President Biden played a major role in U.S. policy towards Ukraine, some Ukrainian anti-corruption advocates[41][42] and Obama administration officials expressed concern that Hunter Biden’s having joined the board could create the appearance of a conflict of interest and undermine Vice President Biden’s anti-corruption work in Ukraine.[12][36]"

Hunter Biden had no background in the oil and gas industry, no experience working in eastern Europe, and from what I’ve read no particular expertise in corporate governance best practices. Nevertheless, he was hired by a Ukrainian gas company on a contract for hundreds of thousands of dollars to advise them on corporate governance. A company, as previously noted, with dodgy characters as owners. Please do explain to me any realistic basis for that contract besides the fact that Hunter was Joe Biden’s son.

Hunter Biden is essentially a lobbyist with connections, not a business expert. It’s much easier to believe that he was hired by Burisma because of those connections. Do you think the New York Times is a pedlar of “a nutty conspiracy theory”? From them in 2015:
“Edward C. Chow, who follows Ukrainian policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the involvement of the vice president’s son with Mr. Zlochevsky’s firm undermined the Obama administration’s anticorruption message in Ukraine.”

As stated before, should Joe Biden win the presidency, his administration will in my opinion have a justifiable case for pursuing Trump for bribery as outlined in the impeachment articles which were excerpted above. But if he does so, he’s going to be hit with backlash over his son’s involvement in Ukraine’s corruption, and his own lack of response to that involvement.

184

I agree with you that if Trump wanted the Bidens’ activities in Ukraine investigated, he should have requested that investigation through the proper channels. However, a failure to do so isn’t a crime. I’m not even sure if it meets the standards of circumstantial evidence.

185

The nutty conspiracy theory you posted is, “Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma Holdings, a Ukraine natural gas company owned by a post-communism oligarch and also a politician turned money launderer, to act as a shield for the anti-corruption investigations being requested by the US.”

You have failed utterly to support that and posted cites that show that it isn’t true. There is absolutely no evidence supporting this theory.

Hunter Biden didn’t shield Burisma from anti-corruption investigations. Victor Shokin did. Or he did until he was removed from his position at the request of Joe Biden and others.

186

I would lean toward following the precedent of not going after Trump and his cronies (although maybe not going so far as Gerald Ford did by pardoning his predecessor). But I do want there to be an extensive fact-finding mission as to what all went on from 2017-2020. In particular, just what the hell is really going on with Russia. If it can be determined beyond the shadow of a doubt that it really was as treasonous as it lookd from the outside, all bets are off.

187

You’re right. A Failure to do so is not a crime.

What is a crime is bribery to get others to say there was a crime.

We know that happened. Not the Biden crime…the Trump bribery crime.

Again, if Biden was guilty of a crime it would have been trivial for Trump to get him busted using his own justice department. But he didn’t do that.

Do you wonder why?

188

My speculation is that Trump had an adversarial relationship with the FBI and the Department of Justice such that he didn’t trust them to not be obstructionist to a “proper channels” request. He also had a desire for a quick response that would not be forthcoming by going through proper channels. Third, he had an egotistical belief in his prowess as a deal maker such that he thought putting pressure on Ukraine was the surest way of achieving his goals. Last, I speculate that Trump didn’t believe he was violating a a federal statute by withholding an appropriation while making a demand for personal benefit. He probably thought he was engaged in rough-and-tumble politics, which he apparently enjoys so long as he wins.

My speculative points aren’t justifications for Trump’s actions. Rather, they’re potential explanations on why his decision to intervene with Ukraine directly rather than through proper channels is not strong evidence of a crime.

189

The issue here is not Trump’s criminal incompetence, that’s a given.

The issue is - how would a Trump purge benefit Biden?

190

What you seem to be saying is that the FBI and DOJ were not yes men who would come to the results of an investigation that Trump wanted. So, since the systems that are set up to ensure justice were not giving him the answers he wanted, he went shopping for someone more amenable.

He had a desire for the answer he wanted, that was not going to come through legitimate law enforcement organizations.

In this you are correct. He was enough of a selfish narcissist that he would go against the will of congress and endanger the security of an ally in order to get the answer he wanted.

I agree with you that Trump had no care to find out the laws before he broke them. He says article 2 lets him do whatever he wants, and he believes it. Can I get away with that? Can I use as an affirmative defense that I didn’t believe I was violating the law, or that I was above the law?

Right, they are the excuses you make to justify his criminal actions.

Let me ask you this, say you offended Trump in some way, some petty slight. What actions on his part would you say are justified in his attempts to find or manufacture evidence of wrongdoing on your part?

191

Do you believe that when Trump pursued his suspicions of Hunter Biden’s and Joe Biden’s corruption outside of the proper channels, which is presumably the FBI or some other Department of Justice body, that he was committing a crime? The crime under discussion in the last few posts is bribery. You seem to be going back to the earlier allegation of Honest Services Fraud and I don’t think a substantive argument has been made that Trump is guilty of that crime. There’s a big difference between what you or I think the president should do, and what he is constitutionally or legally required to do.

Since you’ve decided to, by analogy, make me the victim of Trump’s wrath, let’s examine the situation. I’m not a political opponent of Trump. Nevertheless, suppose I decide to write something mean about Trump on the Internet. Trump reads it and decides to call Boris Johnson and asks for Wrenching Spanners to be investigated. Has Trump broken a law? My answer is no, but I’m happy if a more informed person will correct me.

In this analogy, it sucks to be me, and while I would hope that the US president would refrain from using his office to pursue an ordinary person, I don’t believe he is constrained from doing so. Manufacturing evidence, which presumably means creating false evidence rather than a biased request for an investigation, would be a different matter. However, I think that fails to find a place in the analogy. When did Trump request a foreign government to manufacture false evidence?

192

During a July 25, 2019, call between President Trump and President Zelensky, President Zelensky expressed gratitude for U.S. military assistance. President Trump immediately responded by asking President Zelensky to “do us a favor though” and openly pressed for Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden and the 2016 conspiracy theory.

You can read an annotated transcript of the July 25th phone call. And look at a timeline of all the events that happened on this pivotal day.

In turn, President Zelensky assured President Trump that he would pursue the investigation and reiterated his interest in the White House meeting.

Trump pushed Zelensky to meet with his top cop, US Attorney General William Barr, who was overseeing a review into the origins of the Russia investigation. The President also asked Zelensky to meet with Giuliani, who was pushing both the conspiracy theory that Ukraine was trying to bring down Trump’s campaign in 2016 and the idea that Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, should be investigated. Trump brought up the Bidens during his call with Zelensky. There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.

Although President Trump’s scheme intentionally bypassed many career personnel, it was undertaken with the knowledge and approval of senior Administration officials, including the President’s Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry. In fact, at a press conference weeks after public revelations about the scheme, Mr. Mulvaney publicly acknowledged that the President directly tied the hold on military aid to his desire to get Ukraine to conduct a political investigation, telling Americans to “get over it.”

It’s notable that none of the people mentioned here have cooperated with the impeachment inquiry. Mulvaney did hold the news conference as described, though he later tried to walk back the idea there was any “quid pro quo.”

It’s beyond question that Trump bypassed career personnel. That in itself is probably not inappropriate conduct since, as President, he technically sets the policy. It becomes inappropriate if and when he makes policy to benefit himself instead of the national interest.

Ukraine’s Zelensky Bowed to Trump’s Demands, Until Luck Spared Him

Aides to Ukraine’s leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, decided that military aid and support for peace talks outweighed the risks of appearing to take sides in American politics.

193

I’ve now read both the transcript and the New York Times article. Both agree that Trump was requesting an investigation of Biden. It’s interesting, as that’s the first time I’ve read that transcript, how little Biden is mentioned. His name pops up three times in one short paragraph.

The President
“The former ambassador from the United States, the woman was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, here’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.”

I’m sure there was a lot of background communication going on and I don’t dispute that Trump was asking for an investigation into the Bidens as a condition for the release of the military aid. Nevertheless, There is nothing that you have cited that indicates Trump was asking Ukraine to manufacture false evidence. At best, your cites indicate Trump was making defamatory statements against the Bidens. Defamation isn’t a criminal offence.

194

Hunter Biden is a total Hijack here, since this is about what Biden will do to trump and his cronies after Biden wins.

195

That doesn’t mater either. Biden will probably do nothing. What matters is the Presidents extortion of an ally. Doesn’t even matter that it was for personal gain (which we all know it was)

196

This is where you’re making your first mistake. Trump did not have suspicions of Hunter Biden’s and Joe Biden’s corruption and did not pursue the suspicions he didn’t have. It is made up nonsense and everybody, including Trump, knows it. There is no there there when you look at the Biden’s activities in Ukraine. Your own cites demonstrate this.

197

From the article:

But a public statement that raised doubts about Russian meddling and Mr. Biden, whom the president regarded as the greatest threat to his re-election, would be far more useful politically to Mr. Trump. Not only would it smear Mr. Biden, it could also appear to undermine the Mueller investigation into Russian electoral interference by pinning some blame on Ukraine.

A tug-of-war ensued between a senior aide to Mr. Zelensky, Andriy Yermak, and another of Mr. Trump’s envoys to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, over the wording of the proposed public statement. Mr. Volker went so far as to draft a statement for Mr. Zelensky that mentioned both investigations.

Mr. Yermak pushed back, suggesting language that mentioned investigations but in general terms, so as not to antagonize the Democrats. Late in the negotiations, the American diplomats consented to dropping mention of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.

It was clear that the demand was to make a public statement that was manufactured, there was really no serious investigation going on, what was needed by Trump was an statement to control the narrative of the media in the USA.

198

It’s a partial hijack. A question which is within the scope of the thread title is whether Biden, should he be elected president, should pursue criminal bribery charges against Trump for withholding appropriation payments to Ukraine unless Ukraine opened up an investigation against Biden. In other words, should a Biden administration pursue the earlier impeachment charges through a criminal court. If the hypothetical President Biden does so, he’ll be exposing himself and his son Hunter to the question of if corruption actually existed, and if it was within the scope of Trump’s executive powers to request that Ukraine investigate that alleged corruption.

My view is that neither of the Bidens were acting honourably when Hunter Biden was employed by Burisma, and therefore the hypothetical President Biden should stay away from this issue. However, going by this thread, that’s apparently the best shot for convicting Trump of a crime committed while in office. So the dilemma is whether the hypothetical President Biden should instigate negative focus against himself and his son in order to instigate vengeance against Trump. If the Bidens are totally innocent of any malfeasance, then there is no dilemma. However, Hunter Biden clearly was hired by Burisma solely on the basis of his connections. That’s a clear signal of a corrupt situation. Joe Biden did nothing to mitigate that situation. That’s a further signal of corruption. So we’re debating whether there’s a case for the Bidens to answer to (there is), how strong that case is (probably worthy of investigation, doubtfully worthy of criminal prosecution), and whether the alleged corruption on the Bidens’ behalf should give pause to a hypothetical Biden administration pursuing a criminal bribery case against Trump.

199

My cite states that:
“the credibility of the vice president’s anticorruption message may have been undermined by the association of his son, Hunter Biden, with one of Ukraine’s largest natural gas companies, Burisma Holdings, and with its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky” which “as part of an investigation into money laundering, British officials froze London bank accounts containing $23 million that allegedly belonged to Mr. Zlochevsky. Britain’s Serious Fraud Office, an independent government agency, specifically forbade Mr. Zlochevksy, as well as Burisma Holdings, the company’s chief legal officer and another company owned by Mr. Zlochevsky, to have any access to the accounts.”

For you to say that there is no corruption involved in this circumstance, that it is “made-up nonsense” is preposterous.

Note that you still haven’t answered why Hunter Biden was hired on a very expensive contract for any reason other than his connections, with his father being his biggest connection. Care to answer that question?

Or if you’d like a different cite:
“Hunter Biden and his American business partners were part of a broad effort by Burisma to bring in well-connected Democrats during a period when the company was facing investigations backed not just by domestic Ukrainian forces but by officials in the Obama administration. Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma prompted concerns among State Department officials at the time that the connection could complicate Vice President Biden’s diplomacy in Ukraine, former officials said.”

According to this article, which makes no allegations against Hunter Biden, he never actually visited the company:
“Biden never visited Ukraine for company business during that time, according to three of the people.”

And from Politifact:
“When asked if he would have been invited onto the Burisma board if he’d had a different last name, he [Hunter Biden] said, ‘I don’t know. Probably not.’”

It astounds me that you’re trying to claim that Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma for any other reason than his relationship to his father. Does Hunter Biden’s acceptance of the position determine criminal conduct on his behalf or his father’s behalf? No. Does it create probable cause that a corrupt situation existed, especially when you look at the nature of Burishma’s ownership and the US’s selective pursuit of anti-corruption activity that was going on at the time when and after Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma? I think it does.

200

An investigation into a crime is not evidence of a crime.
A request to investigate a crime is not evidence of a crime.
An improper request for an investigation into a crime, based on a quid-pro-quo deal, is not evidence against the crime under proposed investigation.

You’re discussing made-up charges, not made-up evidence.