Oops, that was a silly use of “literally”. Sorry, guys.
Thanks for replying!
It looks like you’re saying that Biden was threatening to withhold aid from the Ukraine? Is that what’s alleged to have happened during the Obama administration? I haven’t read that, but I get most of my news from here.
The most serious allegation that I’ve heard is that Trump threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine unless they reopened an investigation into Hunter Biden. If that were the case, would you change your mind at all? Do you think it’s the role of the president to try and force another country to investigate the alleged wrongdoing of an American? Because that seems very bizarre to me – I could see withholding aid unless they free an American that they have in their jails or something, but not the opposite.
I, too, commend HurricaneDitka for stepping up to the plate in this thread, and I look forward to his reply to both questions (1. Granted none of us knows all the facts, but does he have reason to believe the Obama administration threatened or pressured Ukraine in this way; 2. If true, would the alleged Trump quid-pro-quo threat to Ukraine be a serious offense?).
I ask Ditka keep these answers separate, though. His initial reply is too close to mere “tu qouque” — “maybe my guy did it, but it doesn’t matter, because your guy did it, too.” Just the kind of obfuscation we must avoid.
Although in this case it is “My guy did it, but it doesn’t matter because maybe your guy did it too.” Near as I can tell the evidence against Biden and his son is sketchy at best, while the evidence against Trump seems to be direct.
Keep in mind that whatever he did was so alarming that someone relatively high up in the IC (high enough to be on a call with Trump) that they blew the whistle to the IG. And the IG found the matter credible and urgent. Let’s take any spin off the table right now with trying to claim that he’s seeking justice for America, because people don’t blow the whistle on that.
Also, he’s violating the law by not releasing the IG complaint to congress. Again, if he’s doing right by America because Biden is bad, then why violate the law by blocking the IG complaint?
Yes, that’s exactly what happened. Here’s Biden in his own words:
Here’s the meaty bit of an article written back in April (so, well before this latest bit of reporting involving President Trump):
Hopefully that adequately answers RitterSport’s first question and JKellyMap’s question #1
As for the second question:
I admit my own thinking / feelings on this question are a bit fuzzier, but my initial hunch is that I think that’s not particularly likely to change my mind, and that it doesn’t, at least at this stage, strike me as a serious offense. It would depend somewhat on the specifics: If the “threat” from President Trump were worded along the lines of what Sherrerd suggested earlier (“he wanted them to come up with a story that could sink the candidacy of his rival Biden” - and I have not yet been given any reason to believe it was worded like that) that would obviously be more troubling and concerning than something more bland along the lines of ‘we want you to continue the anti-corruption probes that were underway before, and we’re withholding aid unless you do so’.
Anyways, I hope that serves to somewhat explain my early thinking on this matter. Feel free to follow up with whatever rebuttal or further questions you feel like.
Doesn’t the fact that there were widespread calls from western leaders for that prosecutor to be fired make all that rather dubious as a smoking gun? I mean, do you think Obama just let Biden take all the decisions on that?
So sort of like if Trump said "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest? " That would be OK because he didn’t directly order the Archbishop killed.
AFAICT, no evidence has been presented that the Ukrainian prosecutor in question (Victor Shokin) was pushed out due to any involvement or investigation into anyone in the Biden family. AFAICT, the actual evidence strongly suggests that the reason he was pushed out was because he wasn’t investigating corruption seriously (i.e. the prosecutor was corrupt and close to corrupt officials/persons), not because he was investigating anyone in particular. Numerous non-US partners, including the IMF and the EU, urged that he be fired because he wasn’t going after corruption.
Yes it does, thanks! Looks like you’re keeping an open mind on the second part, so let’s see how that develops, I guess. Feels like there must be something serious for the justice department to block the testimony of the whistlevblower, but who knows. Maybe they just block any cooperation with the House.
Thank you, HurricaneDitka. Your Biden quote and the article you linked to helped me better understand that matter.
Okay…if we, for the sake of argument, assume the allegations against both Biden and Trump are true, then I think both deserve some sort of punishment (“punishment” in the broadest sense, to possibly include something as mild as a slight drop in favorablility polls) — BUT I think Trump’s punishment should be more severe, perhaps much more. Not because of my partisan bias, but because doing something as a party of one, specifically to “get” a single, specific person, where the only beneficiary is the same party of one — that is different than doing something with others, all of whom agree that the entire country (two countries, actually) would benefit from the action. That Biden’s son would happen benefit from the action more directly is an unfortunate coincidence, and I agree Biden should have been more frank about this. How hard would it have been for Biden to essentially “recuse” himself from this particular assignment? A mistake. “Appearance of impropriety,” indeed.
As opposed to Trump’s action which, if true, was clearly no mere appearance.
All things end.
More details about the dubiousness (i.e. complete bullshit) of Giuliani’s claims about Biden:
Assuming that Trump did make an inappropriate request of the President of Ukraine, this would be significant because the Ukrainians at least would also know about it. This opens up an extortion/blackmail hold they could have over Trump.
Well, not anymore. Trump is acknowledging that he had a “perfectly appropriate” call with the Ukraine leader.
I guess my OP wasn’t clear. I agree this seems bad, but the media sources I see seem to be treating it as really bad, a different kind of bad than all the previous cases of lying, corruption, potential obstruction of justice, violating of election laws, giving out of secret information, attacks on the press and our allies, cozying up with our rivals and dictators, and so on and so on.
I don’t see why this is being treated as a bigger deal than all the rest. “Well, if this doesn’t lead to impeachment, then impeachment as a remedy is dead” – really? I don’t see how this is a difference in kind from all the rest of the crap.
Maybe because it feels like a more direct clash of “personal interests” and “national interests” than anything we’ve seen before. We’ve seen Trump abuse his elected power for personal gain, and we’ve seen him trash what are surely clear national interests for stupid reasons…but I don’t recall such a clear clash of personal gain and national interest in a single action before (if it’s true) — that we know of, of course.
From the cited source:
Thanks, mjm…well worth highlighting, methinks. You have just 78 posts in 16 years — but you’re choosing them well. This could be quite important.
Wow, that article from The Hill cited by HD seems really misleading if Bloomberg has it right. HD, given this (the apparent non-issue in the Biden thing), does this move the needle for you?
I don’t mean to pick on you, but we don’t have too many Trump supporters here, so you’ll have to be my barometer.
From today’s broadcast of Face the Nation, wherein (after discussion of the Iran/Saudi situation) former Secretary of State John Kerry was asked about the Biden/Ukraine story (transcript; linked page includes link for free streaming video of entire broadcast, and I’m sure they’d appreciate your webtraffic)