[PM hijack] Thanx for the kind words; in the interest of full and accurate disclosure, even though I joined long ago, I got distracted by a bunch of shiny objects soon after and didn’t actually post anything until a coupla weeks ago. [/PM hijack]
[good-natured nitpick] It’s clearly important, IMHO; I hope it also proves consequential. [/good-natured nitpick]
Is the Trump Administration pursuing diligent investigations of all possibilities of malfeasance under the Obama Administration, or is the focus of the requests to Ukraine focusing on Biden, who may be next year’s opponent in the presidential election?
If so, why is Trump focusing on this one suspected instance of treachery? Could it be BECAUSE Biden may be the opponent?
Or is it all just a crazy coincidence?
All this renders the tu quoque attempts to excuse Trump’s conduct completely null and void. The right is seriously contending that the IMF and EU were intent on protecting a son of a vice president from a probe that had been dormant for years?? Then the right is making itself ridiculous.
Likewise with the ‘Trump’s requests of the Ukraine president were no doubt in the interests of the USA’ defense: how can you spin that out of a whistle-blower complaint that was determined by the inspector general to be an “urgent concern”…? It’s not as though those two people–the whistle-blower and the IG–could have made up this story out of whole cloth. The transcripts of the phone call (or calls) could easily be produced to demonstrate the truth of the matter, so lying about it would be a futile exercise.
I can’t see how such defenses of Trump can be advanced in good faith. At the very least, an epic degree of doublethink must be required in order to offer these excuses with a straight face.
You really should be a little more charitable. This wasn’t some blasting across the headlines type news. It would be very easy for less scrupulous news sources to report facts selectively to make this sound bad. The fact that Bden was absolutely following the primary thrust of American foreign policy is what kills the conspiracy – don’t report that and it all looks suspicious.
Yes, there’s no doubt that some in the right-wing bubble haven’t been exposed to the relevant facts.
But notice that even when they finally do get access to those facts, they often cling to the bad arguments.
I’m sure that’s true in some cases but in this particular case, HurricaneDitka hasn’t actually returned to the thread since those facts were pointed out.
It’s a John Solomon piece.
“Then again, Solomon has a history of bending the truth to his storyline.”
“As a reporter for the AP and The Washington Post, he dug up his share of genuine dirt, but he also was notorious for massaging facts to conjure phantom scandals.”
“Similarly, reporters who worked under Solomon as an editor—seven of whom were interviewed for this article—say he often pressured them to mold the truth to his vision of the story. ‘He had this sort of thesis or idea of what the story was,’ says one Center staff member. ‘Facts be damned.’”
Are you sure Solomon was not one of the Republicans for Voldemort?
I don’t think it’s uncommon for the US government to lobby on behalf of a US citizen that is facing legal problems in a foreign country, regardless of their factual innocence or guilt. We do it because we want to try to ensure fair treatment for all our citizens and we know that certain foreign countries do not always treat their defendants fairly and that they don’t respect the human rights of their prisoners.
And, partisanship aside, it’s what we should do.
What we should NOT do is encourage or pressure a foreign government to take legal action against a US citizen and subject them to a justice system that does not adhere to the same rules of fair play as ours does, and a prison system that does not respect the human rights of prisoners the way ours does.
Anyone with any sort of moral compass should see the difference, and it’s sad and a little scary that our government is urging a government that has a horrible and corrupt police and justice system to “go after” a US citizen. Even if that citizen did something wrong.
You’re fine. I don’t feel ‘picked on’, at least not more than usual. To answer your question: no, not really. I think your first sentence is accurate, but that “if” is a huge caveat. By the same token, the Bloomberg article seems really misleading if the Hill has it right, doesn’t it?
There are some things here that I think everyone agrees on. For example, the answer to your first question earlier: Joe Biden pretty unambiguously threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine if the prosecutor was not fired. He said so in his own words, in a very detailed story. There’s no real dispute there.
But there are other things that appear to be very much still in dispute, and the Hill and Bloomberg articles highlight one of those: what was the state of the Burisma Holdings investigation? Bloomberg reports “at the time Biden made his ultimatum, the probe into the company – Burisma Holdings, owned by Mykola Zlochevsky – had been long dormant, according to the former official, Vitaliy Kasko.” OTOH, The Hill reports that Shokin “was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden’s younger son, Hunter, as a board member” and “Shokin told me in written answers to questions that, before he was fired as general prosecutor, he had made “specific plans” for the investigation that “included interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.”” So which was it? Was the investigation “long dormant” or still very much alive and being led by Shokin? Kasko says the former and Shokin the latter. According to Bloomberg, “In an interview with the Ukrainian website Strana.ua published on May 6, Shokin said he believes he was fired because of his Burisma investigation, which he said had been active at the time.”
This seems like a fairly classic case of two men (Kasko and Shokin) telling conflicting stories. I doubt you or I, sitting at our respective computers in 2019, have the capacity to really ascertain with certainty which one (if either one) is telling the truth. Several posters in this thread seem content to take Kasko at his word. I don’t feel so inclined, but I can’t say for certain whether my attitude (or the attitude of the other posters) is influenced, or to what degree, by our preferred outcomes in this case. The New York Times summed it up this way:
I don’t think that “considerable debate” has been settled yet, but YMMV.
Anyways, I’ll do some further reading on this and I’m sure we can continue the discussion. As I’ve said, my thoughts / feelings are still rather fluid on the subject.
Not so sure that I can get on board with this.
Aren’t some of the traits of the US supposed to be fairness and justice?
What’s fair or just about defending an evildooer because he’s on your team?
Ensure his punishment is in line with your moral code is good, and that the evidence against him stacks up is the correct thing.
But not a blind defence of the guilty.
Brevity courtesy of phone typing sorry
One of those is a news article and the other is an opinion piece.
As it stands now, a US citizen or national is entitled to claim consular protection abroad, regardless of the evidence of guilt, the nature of the alleged crime, or the status of the US citizen. Even if they are Democrats. That first sentence was taken directly from the Department of State website and has been non-controversial for a long time now, I believe.
Yes, US citizens traveling abroad are subject to the laws of the countries they are visiting. But let’s take a more extreme example. It’s quite possible that Otto Warmbier actually did break the North Korean laws he was accused of breaking. Would you be outraged if Trump and Kim Jong Un had conversations to assure that he got the punishment that was his due under NK law? Or would this display of international cooperation appeal to your sense of fairness and justice?
I’d be outraged, myself. Human rights are very important to me and our strong defense of them is one of the things that makes the US a great country. And the Ukraine does not have a good human rights record and they use their criminal justice system as a political weapon. Our government should not be colluding with them in order to persecute our political enemies.
Anything’s an impeachable offense if you got the votes.The Dems don’t have the votes, and at least to date, this doesn’t look to be something that will get them the votes. There is enough slop-over/both-sides-do-it that it will be difficult in the minds of the general public to use it to get Trump without hurting Biden.
I could be wrong - maybe more facts will come out. Allegedly now the whistle-blower wasn’t in the room when the conversation took place. Biden has denied ever talking about it with his son, which may or may not be strictly true. If it turns out that Biden did discuss it, that might be innocent and he just forgot. But that plays into the narrative for Biden that he is old and loses track of what he is saying, or said.
But I don’t know. Maybe this is finally the thing that the Dems can use to get Trump at last. But maybe not. No doubt there will be investigations, and then investigations of the investigations. And when and if Trump is re-elected, investigations of the investigations of the investigations.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m asking whether you, Shodan, think this is something he should be impeached over. I get that there will never be support in the Senate for impeachment. For example, if it turns out that Trump was actually effecting bribing or extorting the Ukraine in order to investigate Biden, I think that would be impeachable, but my standard is lower than yours, since I think the obstruction, or attempted obstruction, laid out in the Mueller report was impeachable as well, and probably the removal of sanctions on a Chinese company for dealing with Iran when China made a loan to the Trump organization, and also probably the payoff using campaign funds to Daniels, and probably the various violations of the emoluments clause.
So, I’m not that interested in the politics of it, but whether Trump supporters or conservatives in general think that this moves the needle, that it’s a difference in kind from all the previous stuff.
And if not, why not?
That’s fair enough. The answer being what I said - I don’t know, at least not yet.
I am sure I can rely on CNN and MS/NBC and my friends at the Dope to present whatever facts they can find to present the case against Trump. The other facts, if any, I will have to glean from other sources. It would be, in my estimation, to take the word of the Democrats at face value or as if they were a complete analysis of the situation. At least to date.
It’s not true that this could never amount to anything that would make me support impeachment. It’s also not true that it has already.
Regards,
Shodan
Why are you relying on Democrats and the liberal media? Don’t you trust Republicans and conservative media to investigate claims of corruption and illegal behavior within their own ranks? Don’t Republicans care about those things?
Because, so far, it *isn’t *any different from what Dems have been saying since Trump because President, and before that about emoluments and obstruction of justice and the inauguration and Russian hookers peeing on the bed and heaven knows what.
I’m not. I said I was confident that the Left will present every fact and semi-fact that they can find that makes this look bad for Trump. The rest of the facts - probably not so much.
Regards,
Shodan