House Impeachment Inquiry

[kellyb]

That is not the post which is a problem, that is the scramble to revise the post that was.



Biden used his office to fire the prosecutor slow walking the investigation, not the prosecutor investigating Burisma.
This is the error.

Oh, FFS. It's the same prosecutor. One dude. He was doing a crappy job of investigating Bursima.

JFC.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, he did.

Joe Biden had the prosecutor investigating corruption in the company Hunter worked for fired. It was a (legal) conflict of interest, even though Biden was acting in accordance with a strong international consensus that the prosecutor was corrupt and needed to be fired.

If it had been Joe Biden's wife instead of son working for the company, it would have been blatantly illegal (and I'm sure some family lawyer would have prevented her from even accepting the gig in the first place for that reason.)

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?

Oh, FFS. It's the same prosecutor. One dude. He was doing a crappy job of investigating Bursima.

JFC.

Riiiight.

 

[kellyb]

The error's been pointed out to you multiple times by many posters, so your pretense of not being aware of it is not very credible.

I'll wait until you catch up.

There was no error.

This is hilarious.

 

[kellyb]

Riiiight.

Are you saying he was NOT doing a crappy job of investigating Bursima? Or, are you unaware of the fact that he had an open case against them?

Y'all really want to play this dumba$$ game?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Some simple questions to highlight what appears to be a miscommunication:

Who was the Ukrainian prosecutor tasked with investigating Burisma prior to Joe getting involved?

Who did Joe have fired?

If you read carefully, form the beginning, kellyb has been clear about her position. That others have read more into it than she has said is a little bit enlightening, but really not kellyb's fault.

 

[Belz...]

There was no error.

This is hilarious.

Did you not say this:

Joe Biden had the prosecutor investigating corruption in the company Hunter worked for fired.

Do you mean to tell us that this wasn't meant to imply that he shielded the company from this investigation? Because that's not what happened. That's the error: the prosecutor wasn't investigating the company. His lax attitude towards corruption is why Biden was sent to pressure Ukraine for his dismissal.

Again: what Joe Biden did was against the interests of his own son and in the interests of the US. There was no conflict in that action; quite the opposite.

You said and implied that the reverse was true. Since it's not the case, you were, at best, in error. But since you refuse to admit it, I'm starting to think that you have other reasons for insisting on it.

 

[kellyb]

The error's been pointed out to you multiple times by many posters, so your pretense of not being aware of it is not very credible.

Just you and skeptigirl, homie.

 

[Belz...]

Just you and skeptigirl, homie.

Yeah sure, jadebox doesn't actually exist.

In any event, that's a multiple. Stop playing stupid games, lassie.

 

[Belz...]

Some simple questions to highlight what appears to be a miscommunication:

Who was the Ukrainian prosecutor tasked with investigating Burisma prior to Joe getting involved?

Who did Joe have fired?

If you read carefully, form the beginning, kellyb has been clear about her position. That others have read more into it than she has said is a little bit enlightening, but really not kellyb's fault.

Tell you what: since Kelly is unable to do so, how about you clarify it for the rest of us?

 

[varwoche]

What error?

I see no error, although I also see how posters got the wrong impression.

It's a misunderstanding, people.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Several people have erroneously said the prosecutor was investigating Burisma (however poorly). HE WAS NOT, not at all.

USA Today: Explainer: Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn't pursue corruption cases

At the heart of Congress' probe into the president's actions is his claim that former Vice President and 2020 Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden strong-armed the Ukrainian government to fire its top prosecutor in order to thwart an investigation into a company tied to his son, Hunter Biden. ...

But sources ranging from former Obama administration officials to an anti-corruption advocate in Ukraine say the official, Viktor Shokin, was ousted for the opposite reason Trump and his allies claim.

This is a critical point in arguing with those Trumpers who insist the fired prosecutor was investigating Burisma.

Their assertion is contradicted by former diplomatic officials who were following the issue at the time.

Burisma Holdings was not under scrutiny at the time Joe Biden called for Shokin's ouster, according to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, an independent agency set up in 2014 that has worked closely with the FBI.

Shokin's office had investigated Burisma, but the probe focused on a period before Hunter Biden joined the company, according to the anti-corruption bureau.

The investigation dealt with the Ministry of Ecology, which allegedly granted special permits to Burisma between 2010 and 2012, the agency said. Hunter Biden did not join the company until 2014.

Any investigation of Burisma was completed, had been, over and done, before Hunter joined Burisma.

No investigation of Burisma was involved at all. How many times do people need to hear that? The more it is repeated Shokin was investigating Burisma, the more the GOP falsehood gets imprinted on their brains.

 

[kellyb]

Did you not say this:



Do you mean to tell us that this wasn't meant to imply that he shielded the company from this investigation?

It was NOT meant to imply any such thing. It was a mere statement of fact. I'm sorry I failed to add a sufficient additional amount of pro-Biden information to the very simple fact I stated.

the prosecutor wasn't investigating the company.

Can you prove he wasn't doing anything at ALL, even a little tiny bit, at a snail's pace, which served to imply (but not prove) he was functionally covering the corruption? What sort of corruption was he looking into with Bursima, to your knowledge?

Again: what Joe Biden did was against the interests of his own son and in the interests of the US.

That's what I said.

There was no conflict in that action; quite the opposite.

WTF is a "conflict in action"?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'll wait 'til you catch up again.

 

[kellyb]

Any investigation of Burisma was completed, had been, over and done, before Hunter joined Burisma.

The case was still legally open when Shokin was fired.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...e8d3fa-e68d-11e9-a6e8-8759c5c7f608_story.html

But the chief prosecutor from 2015 to 2016, Viktor Shokin, did little to move those or other corruption cases along. Eventually, Western officials, including then-Vice President Joe Biden, sought his ouster. Shortly after Shokin was fired, the case against Burisma was closed.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Tell you what: since Kelly is unable to do so, how about you clarify it for the rest of us?

Joe Biden had the prosecutor investigating corruption in the company Hunter worked for fired.

While this is an over simplification of what happened, it is a factually true statement.

That kellyb did not drag out the well known context that shows the statement is both technically true and misleadingly oversimplified, looks like a reflection of her overconfidence in the sophistication of her readers.

Her point appears to be that if we can't deal with that factual statement without losing our collective ****, then we will have no success in exposing the depth of Trump's misdeeds. Luckily she did not have to look far to find confirmation.

 

[kellyb]

I see no error, although I also see how posters got the wrong impression.

It's a misunderstanding, people.

Thank you.

I'm fully willing to admit I suck at communicating sometimes.

 

[kellyb]

While this is an over simplification of what happened, it is a factually true statement.

That kellyb did not drag out the well known context that shows the statement is both technically true and misleadingly oversimplified, looks like a reflection of her overconfidence in the sophistication of her readers.

Her point appears to be that if we can't deal with that factual statement without losing our collective ****, then we will have no success in exposing the depth of Trump's misdeeds. Luckily she did not have to look far to find confirmation.

The main problem I see right now is that the (totally unnecessary!) over-sugar coating of fact can actually serve to be factually misleading, and lead people to believe things like:

Any investigation of Burisma was completed, had been, over and done, before Hunter joined Burisma.

And if a moderately informed Republican catches a democrat believing a small factual error like that, in their mind, it's proof we're all not worth listening to, and should just be trolled and laughed off.

You should state your opponent's best argument BETTER than they can FIRST, and THEN prove how it's wrong.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Can the thread return to discussing impeachment rather than discussing the thread itself now?

 

[Upchurch]

Can the thread return to discussing impeachment rather than discussing the thread itself now?

I've been listening to the public hearing on and off this morning. Ambassador Taylor is not doing Trump any favors today.

 

[Belz...]

It was NOT meant to imply any such thing. It was a mere statement of fact.

Yes, and it was in error.

Can you prove he wasn't doing anything at ALL

No, and I can't prove that he wasn't cheating on his wife, either. Get back to me when you've conclusively proved that there isn't a teapot around Saturn.

, even a little tiny bit, at a snail's pace, which served to imply (but not prove) he was functionally covering the corruption?

That's what he was ousted for!

WTF is a "conflict in action"?

I have no idea. Where did I say there was or wasn't a "conflict in action"? What I said is that there was no conflict (of interests) in a particular action.