House Impeachment Inquiry

[acbytesla]

I did not hide the fact it was a right-wing source.

I never suggested you did.

This whole argument that there is no there there because Hunter was this incredible lawyer right out of school, and it was all legal, and Joe had nothing to do with it and ... misses the point.

No, i get the point. We all get the point. NO ONE is denying that Hunter Biden is what Creedence Clearwater referred to as "The Fortunate Son". But those people are all around us. Did Biden relatives benefit from Joe's position? Almost certainly. But what we don't know is if Joe took an active and dishonest role in advancing his son's career.

 

[Belz...]

I never suggested you did.



No, i get the point. We all get the point. NO ONE is denying that Hunter Biden is what Creedence Clearwater referred to as "The Fortunate Son". But those people are all around us. Did Biden relatives benefit from Joe's position? Almost certainly. But what we don't know is if Joe took an active and dishonest role in advancing his son's career.

In fact, we know that he did the exact opposite when the time came.

 

[jadebox]

He did the right thing.
He used his office to fire the guy [improperly] investigating it [Bursima] for corruption.

He had two interests which were in conflict. His loyalty to his son, and his loyalty to his oath of office. He had a conflict of interest, and chose the right path. His hands would have been legally tied from doing anything at all either way if it had been his wife and not his son on the board, though.

Are we agreed?

No. Shokin was forced out because he was not fighting corruption.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...orced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm guessing you're familiar with that Dr. von Hayek character quoted.

Yes indeed. My alternative term for the Thatcher-Reagan Revolution is "the Chicago School Discontinuity". I and like-minded people predicted that this would take us back to the Gilded Age and another Great Crash, which of course we got in 2007-8. The difference between that and 1929 was that after 2008 Keynesian counter-cyclical spending policies came suddenly (and temporarily) back into fashion to save the banks and the rich folk who had their money in them.

The Chicago School rationale was that tax-cuts would increase incentives to work, but the priority tax addressed was inheritance tax - which Republicans and the UK Tories (aka the Republican Party, England Chapter) want to do away with entirely.

 

[phiwum]

But as the Republican response, it is a poor argument and lies or, at the very least CT-style JAQ'ing. At what point can we agree that the GOP response has been good and thoroughly debunked and get on to the real meat of the issue?

That's a fair point. I don't mind saying that the issue has been covered sufficiently. I objected to the notion that it shouldn't be discussed at all because such discussion plays into Republicans' hands.

 

[phiwum]

No. Shokin was forced out because he was not fighting corruption.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...orced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/

You are not contradicting kellyb's claim.

 

[d4m10n]

Bribery?

I would want to see Democrats who favor impeachment to make their case as Constitutionally-grounded as possible, but the obvious question is whether there's a credible case to be made that the President might have engaged in treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

The federal bribery statute at 18 U.S.C. §201(b)(2) "requires a showing that something of value was...corruptly demanded, sought, received, accepted, or agreed to be received or accepted by a public official...in return for 'being influenced in the performance of any official act'" according to the Supreme Court in United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 526 U.S. 398, pp. 404-405 (1999).

When Zelenskyy brought up the subject of American support against Russian invasion, Trump said he needed a favor though. The two favors Trump asked for were indeed something of value, and they both inure to the benefit of the Trump Campaign rather than U.S. national security interests, thereby meeting the element of corrupt intent.

I do not mean to imply that Supreme Court interpretation of federal statute law provides us with a controlling interpretation of more foundational constitutional law—especially when dealing with this new and heavily originalist iteration of the high court—it is possible the founders had a narrower conception of bribery in mind. As to that, we'd best consult Blackstone:

Bribery is the next species of offence against public justice, which is when a judge, or other person concerned in the administration of justice, takes any undue reward to influence his behavior in his office.

The undue reward here consists of the two favors Trump specifically asked Zelenskyy to come up with, the first designed to clear the Trump 2016 campaign of wrongdoing and the second designed to help give a boost to Trump 2020.

I've no idea how the GOP folks are going to work around this one, but I'm guessing they are going to focus on the requirement of corrupt intent. They will perhaps come up with plausible sounding reasons to be chasing down a bizarre conspiracy theory about a DNC server which was somehow exfiltrated from the United States.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

List of witnesses the Republicans want to call

The list includes Hunter Biden and the whistleblower.

Oh my word. except for a couple people Trump thinks will shore up the BS that the memorandum doesn't say what we can all read it said, some of those witnesses are aimed at Trump still trying to re-litigate the Mueller investigation (witch hunt), or they are intended to taint Biden, and there's one whataboutism there claiming the DNC sought dirt on Trump from Ukraine.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He did the right thing.
He used his office to fire the guy [improperly] investigating it [Bursima] for corruption.

Kelly dear, we have tried multiple times to correct you on this. Biden forced the prosecutor out who was slow-waking the investigation (IE protecting) the Burisma oligarch or whoever he was.

He had two interests which were in conflict. His loyalty to his son, and his loyalty to his oath of office. He had a conflict of interest, and chose the right path. His hands would have been legally tied from doing anything at all either way if it had been his wife and not his son on the board, though.

Are we agreed?

No, unless you are talking about some hypothetical that never came up. Biden could have recused himself, problem solved.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It may not be the central point of discussion, but this really reinforces my opinion that politicians and lawyers (there's a huge overlap there) really need to get writing lessons.

Four pages to say what should have taken one.

Dear Guys

Here's a list of people of people we want to call.

• A
• list
• of
• people

GOP out.

That would have been a missed opportunity to repeat talking points, d'uh.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I never suggested you did.



No, i get the point. We all get the point. NO ONE is denying that Hunter Biden is what Creedence Clearwater referred to as "The Fortunate Son". But those people are all around us. Did Biden relatives benefit from Joe's position? Almost certainly. But what we don't know is if Joe took an active and dishonest role in advancing his son's career.

As I have said numerous times, it looks bad.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are not contradicting kellyb's claim.

Yes he was!

 

[Tero]

Trump is trying to wiggle through this. He did not necessarily want success with Bidens. He just wanted "but her emails" to turn into "but Ukraine" whether any real proof showed up. Fox News would spin it for election: Democrats are entitled!

But he got this. All the quid pro quos will come out.

 

[Armitage72]

Donald Trump speaking about Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman: "I don't know them. I don't know about them. I don't know what they do but I don't know, maybe they were clients of Rudy. You'd have to ask Rudy, I just don't know."

Inauguration galas, an intimate dinner, and a White House party: Trump's 10 interactions with indicted Giuliani associates

President Donald Trump has had at least 10 encounters with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, the indicted associates of Rudy Giuliani the President has adamantly claimed not to know.

Since their indictment, Trump has stated publicly that he doesn't know Parnas and Fruman.
The interactions, of which many new details are being reported here for the first time, include VIP photos at campaign events, attendance at high-dollar fundraisers and a retreat. They also include a pre-inauguration gala for high-dollar donors, an intimate dinner with the President and photos at the White House Hanukkah dinner with the President, Vice President and Giuliani.

On seven of the occasions, Trump posed for photos with either Fruman or Parnas.

I don't know them. I've never heard of them. What's that ... I invited them to be the godparents of my children? Who are they again?

Ironically, one of the meetings was an America First summit

 

[Minoosh]

You are not contradicting kellyb's claim.

As I understand it the two claims are contradictory. He wasn't fired because he was investigating corruption but because he wasn't investigating it robustly enough to please the EU or the Obama Administration. At least, that is the official story.

 

[phiwum]

As I understand it the two claims are contradictory. He wasn't fired because he was investigating corruption but because he wasn't investigating it robustly enough to please the EU or the Obama Administration. At least, that is the official story.

I don't think kellyb is saying otherwise.

She's saying that Hunter Biden's presence on the board created a conflict of interest for Joe Biden, but not one that legally required recusal (as it would have had it been Biden's wife rather than adult son). The law has an unnecessary exception for adult children.

She is not saying that Biden's decision was based on loyalty to his son. Biden did nothing illegal here nor was he motivated by loyalty to family over country, but there was a conflict of interest nonetheless (a conflict that is not addressed by the law that kelly cited).

To have a conflict of interest just means one is put in a tight spot in which his duties are in conflict with other loyalties or considerations. In this case, leaving Shokin in place would perhaps have benefited Burisma and therefore Hunter, but the US and other Western nations wanted Shokin out. Biden did his part in pushing for the removal of Shokin so no harm came from this conflict, but it was present nonetheless.

Kellyb will, I'm sure, correct me if I'm misrepresenting her.

 

[acbytesla]

Donald Trump speaking about Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman: "I don't know them. I don't know about them. I don't know what they do but I don't know, maybe they were clients of Rudy. You'd have to ask Rudy, I just don't know."

Inauguration galas, an intimate dinner, and a White House party: Trump's 10 interactions with indicted Giuliani associates


I don't know them. I've never heard of them. What's that ... I invited them to be the godparents of my children? Who are they again?

Ironically, one of the meetings was an America First summit

In all fairness Trump says the same thing about his wives.


And his children sometimes. "Who's this person Eric?"

 

[phiwum]

In all fairness Trump says the same thing about his wives.

To be fair, my wife sometimes denies knowing me. And she sometimes has good reason to.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I don't think kellyb is saying otherwise.

She's saying that Hunter Biden's presence on the board created a conflict of interest for Joe Biden, but not one that legally required recusal (as it would have had it been Biden's wife rather than adult son). The law has an unnecessary exception for adult children.
She is not saying that Biden's decision was based on loyalty to his son. Biden did nothing illegal here nor was he motivated by loyalty to family over country, but there was a conflict of interest nonetheless (a conflict that is not addressed by the law that kelly cited).

To have a conflict of interest just means one is put in a tight spot in which his duties are in conflict with other loyalties or considerations. In this case, leaving Shokin in place would perhaps have benefited Burisma and therefore Hunter, but the US and other Western nations wanted Shokin out. Biden did his part in pushing for the removal of Shokin so no harm came from this conflict, but it was present nonetheless.

Kellyb will, I'm sure, correct me if I'm misrepresenting her.

I don't think it is unnecessary. If there were not such an exclusion the Hunter Biden's of the world would be even more valuable as they could influence who could and could not work on certain projects within the US government.

Don't wan't Barr leading an investigation into your company, hire his adult family members to your board. Now the investigation has to be run in a way that excludes Barr from participating. The hire has had a hard literal impact on the investigation, instead of the possibility of the appearance of a conflict of interest. If you have deep enough pockets you can pick and choose quite a few relatives of key players and actually force the investigation to be handled by who you choose not to hire.

Unintended consequences and all of that.

And lets remember, these are adults who are not politicians and should be able to accept whatever offer of employment comes their way. Every job I have ever gotten, save one, I have been considered primarily because of a contact I had at the company. Most people I hire are based on personal contacts. That is the entire basis of Linked-In, develop and maintain business contacts so when you need someone you can find them quickly. Maybe not the best person, but someone you have a contact with. Outlawing this sort of hiring would be very difficult to pull off without hurting a lot of people. This outlier is not sufficient reason for such a change.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think kellyb is saying otherwise.

She's saying that Hunter Biden's presence on the board created a conflict of interest for Joe Biden, but not one that legally required recusal (as it would have had it been Biden's wife rather than adult son). The law has an unnecessary exception for adult children.

She is not saying that Biden's decision was based on loyalty to his son. Biden did nothing illegal here nor was he motivated by loyalty to family over country, but there was a conflict of interest nonetheless (a conflict that is not addressed by the law that kelly cited).

To have a conflict of interest just means one is put in a tight spot in which his duties are in conflict with other loyalties or considerations. In this case, leaving Shokin in place would perhaps have benefited Burisma and therefore Hunter, but the US and other Western nations wanted Shokin out. Biden did his part in pushing for the removal of Shokin so no harm came from this conflict, but it was present nonetheless.

Kellyb will, I'm sure, correct me if I'm misrepresenting her.

That's pure hypothetical, unrelated to and unneeded in a discussion of current events.

If anything, move it to the 2020 candidates thread.