What's new

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

BTW, I was already familiar with this article. I'd be interested to see actual evidence of Shokin's corruption rather than heresay. But as I said before, no matter how corrupt Shokin is, the Biden's have certainly put themselves into a sticky position with regard to the Ukraine. I have yet to see anyone provide evidence that Hunter was providing his client anything other than his father's influence. He apparently has no previous experience in the gas industry, no previous experience in Ukraine, several previous drug related charges, and no willingness to talk to anyone about this situation.
What influence did Biden provide? Aside from pushing to get prosecutors who were willing to pursue corruption charges.

As for Shokin's corruption, you don't have to take our word for it. The current Ukrainian president plans to investigate him and other former prosecutors for their supposed corruption. I'm sure we'll learn a lot more about the entire situation in the months to come.
 
Dem characterizations of the unlawfulness and political implications of Trumps moves to get Ukrainian cooperation on investigating Biden might tip the scales for the inquiry Pelosi is indicating.

But imo so far I could know, the fact that Trump had no personal quid on the table, and the previous Ukraine leaders had sought to give help of a political character to Trump, proving Russian interference through Hillary and Obama and Biden, and Trump did not just take it, makes their case weak. The news about Biden and his son has been out there. He didn't need that politically. It would appear he was seeking high-level support for the DOJ and State Department and other US agencies already charged with US law enforcement. He has every right to do that. In fact, it is his duty to American citizens, as the head of the executive branch, to implement US law and enforce it.

It's pretty dicey. Ukraine making a play for their independence frrom both Russia and the US. Looks like, from Kicky's link above, the Russians have recovered their "in" with Ukraine, and Russia is in this to help the dems to oust Trump.

So all the stuff that the Ukraine did to help Hillary is OK. Wow.

This is a truly partisan hysteria now..... well..... it's been that.
 
What influence did Biden provide? Aside from pushing to get prosecutors who were willing to pursue corruption charges.

As for Shokin's corruption, you don't have to take our word for it. The current Ukrainian president plans to investigate him and other former prosecutors for their supposed corruption. I'm sure we'll learn a lot more about the entire situation in the months to come.

Sounds like regime change happened in the Ukraine. From Fascist to Russian ally socialist??? Damn right they're going to investigate their vanquished opponents, and throw them all in jail, maybe hang them all.

We should all just cheer.

Well, Zombie. You're good. Just following you gives me the real time script from your handlers.
 
Sounds like regime change happened in the Ukraine. From Fascist to Russian ally socialist??? Damn right they're going to investigate their vanquished opponents, and throw them all in jail, maybe hang them all.

We should all just cheer.

Well, Zombie. You're good. Just following you gives me the real time script from your handlers.
Your cluelessness abounds. The "regime change" happened in 2014 with the Ukrainian Revolution which resulted in the ouster of Yanukovych who is currently in exile in Russia.

Neither Zelensky nor his predecessor Poroshenko are pro-Russia.
 
It kind of feels like Trump mistimed this as well. Releasing a transcript that is sure to be far from damning may have enabled him to buy more time and given Democrats on the fence on impeachment an out.

As it is now though, they've called for impeachment inquiries to begin, and that doesn't seem to me to be a battle you start if you aren't going to go full steam ahead.

I’m worried that he’ll shoot out the transcript and although it looks bad it won’t be the “smocking gun” we’ve hoped for. He’ll then claim “total exoneration”, Dems will be deflated and those weak ones will fall apart, the media will claim that he’s been acquitted, and the public will move on.

Democrats, the media, and the public should push forward until the entire whistleblower complaint has been revealed. Not some weak *** transcript which is the equivalent to Barr’s redacted memo.
 
It's not like we can trust president sharpie to release an accurate transcript of the call as well. Didn't he do this already with a Putin call?

Good news is the whistle-blower is ready to meet with the House intelligence committee this week.



I hope he’s more forthcoming and has a better memory than Mueller.
 
I’m worried that he’ll shoot out the transcript and although it looks bad it won’t be the “smocking gun” we’ve hoped for. He’ll then claim “total exoneration”, Dems will be deflated and those weak ones will fall apart, the media will claim that he’s been acquitted, and the public will move on.
I think there's far too much risk for Democrats to begin the fight for impeachment, and then wilt over something that they have no reason to believe will be accurate. That's worse than not committing to impeachment at all.

They do need to make the case that outright Quid Pro Quo is not the standard that needs to be met however.

Just saw that Pelosi is not making that mistake.

 
A few things.

“Thunberg began suffering from depression as a child, by her own admission, in part because she learned about climate change at age eight,” noted the Washington Examiner piece from late August. “She was later diagnosed with autism and obsessive compulsive disorder and gradually became despondent as she obsessed over her fear of climate change. She developed mutism and an eating disorder so severe that she once went two months without food, and she stopped going to school. Her only sibling, a sister named Beata, also suffers from Asperger’s and OCD, as well as ADHD."

The more I read about Thunberg, the more I see how she's coached and taken advantage of. It's sad really.

Yeah, because kids with autism spectrum disorders are so easily coached into showing emotions they don't actually feel.[/sarcasm]
 
I figured it was implied by your comment that there has been no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden. If Trump or any of his associates are ever unwilling to answer one accusation or another people come out of the woodwork saying that their silence on the issue is evidence of their guilt. That doesn't work both ways?

Sure. For example, one of the accusations of Trumps corruption was based on military personnel being put up at more expensive Trump properties than cheaper local properties. As it turns out, there were actual military personnel being put up at actual Trump properties than were more expensive that other, actual, local properties. Now, what's the actual scandal behind Hunter Biden's job? What wrongdoing was committed?
 
I'm not aware of the Covington High School thing, and none of what you typed supports the idea she's being coached or coerced in some way.

The high school kid who was standing in front of a Native American drummer while some other kids were chanting in the background.
 
BTW, I was already familiar with this article. I'd be interested to see actual evidence of Shokin's corruption rather than heresay. But as I said before, no matter how corrupt Shokin is, the Biden's have certainly put themselves into a sticky position with regard to the Ukraine. I have yet to see anyone provide evidence that Hunter was providing his client anything other than his father's influence. He apparently has no previous experience in the gas industry, no previous experience in Ukraine, several previous drug related charges, and no willingness to talk to anyone about this situation.

It is not particularly uncommon for companies to hire names that lend them prestige, particularly when those names are transactional lawyers that sit on the board and do occasional work. Back when I was a baby lawyer, at one of the top Silicon valley law firms, it was common for one of our firm's founders to serve on boards as a "service" to lend companies credibility - this was particularly true for companies that were dealing with stock option backdating scandals in the late 00's that wanted to give the appearance of taking corporate governance more seriously.

Biden was a transactional attorney at Rosemont Partners, which had a preexisting relationship with Burisma. The company initially brought on Devon Archer, Biden's business partner, as part of its effort to get better access to Western markets. Source (Russian language): https://www.capital.ua/ru/publicati...-napominaet-exxon-na-zare-svoego-stanovleniya It looks like Archer brought his business partner on board, likely because it carried lucractive fees for Rosemont to have two members. The Burisma board also included a former Polish president at the time. If you take a look at virtually any Silicon valley company's board composition there will be a lot of names that don't make a surface level sense. Board members aren't involved in day to day operation, they are an oversight body for the company's officers.

At some point the criticism becomes "Person X had a job and a famous father." At the presidential level, every business entanglement is a potential conflict of interest because the famous father can influence. There's gotta be a little more before you can impute something more sinister, and without any evidence that anyone believed Shokin was actively going after Burisma, there's just nothing there in this case.
 
Last edited:
Ohh gotcha. I'm struggling to find a connection there.

Yeah, that’s typically the case. But they heard it from Shapiro or saw it on Facebook so obviously it makes sense to them. If you disagree, you’re a hopelessly hateful and bigoted person. Convince me otherwise.

They’re both teens so obviously it’s the same thing...
 
I think there's far too much risk for Democrats to begin the fight for impeachment, and then wilt over something that they have no reason to believe will be accurate. That's worse than not committing to impeachment at all.

They do need to make the case that outright Quid Pro Quo is not the standard that needs to be met however.

Just saw that Pelosi is not making that mistake.



I hope you’re right. Maybe I’m just being overly pessimistic here. But we know that trumpworld is going to try and spin this as:

1. Look it’s not that bad on the transcript! Trump is just misunderstood and the Dems are out to get him because they lost in 2016 and Mueller failed.
2. Trumpworld hopes the media will catch on to this transcript narrative and clear trump and divide Democrats.
3. I can easily see Democrats screwing this up. Some even coming out and saying, “dammit, this is another mueller nothingburger! The transcript is damning but not impeachable.” While repubs circle the wagons and deflect, claiming that Biden now needs to be investigated.

And the media and public at large is too stupid to recognize that they were just played but Trumpworld.
 
I took a spin through babe's comments, but honestly it's a mish-mash of disconnected ideas that is so comically off base that it would take hours to respond to. It zig zags wildly from stray comments about Stalin, to conspiracy theories involving Lyndon Larouche, to accusations that Zelensky is somehow a Russian plant (?). It's just not an efficient time investment to treat this like it's informed commentary that's worth responding to.

I think the easiest way to demonstrate that babe is shooting from the hip is to note that he doesn't even seem sure about the country's name - alternatively referring to it as "Ukraine" and "the Ukraine." This is a tell for the informed about the region that Rudy Giuliani often also engages in.

(Below is a bit of self plagiarism from something I wrote elsewhere)

This is both a linguistic and diplomatic faux pas. Neither the Ukrainian nor Russian languages have definite articles. There is no practical way, when talking about Ukraine, for the natives to call it "The Ukraine." It cannot possibly be how Ukrainians refer to their own land.

Further, the terminology in calling it "The Ukraine" is a holdover from how western writers referred to the area when it was a Republic of the USSR, and was used to refer to the large borderland area of the country. "Ukraine" etymologically, shares roots with the term "borderland." So during the Soviet period, referring to the "The Ukraine" was the equivalent of talking about "The Outback" in Australia. It designated a region rather than an independent nation.

Since 1991, Ukraine has been its own nation and state. The name of the country is "Ukraine." It's written "Украина" in their Declaration of Independence and their Constitution. The abandonment of the definite article by Westerners is hugely symbolic to native Ukrainians - it's an acknowledgement that Ukraine is its own place and not just a region of Russia.

So babe writing about "the Ukraine" gives you a sense of the era his thoughts are locked in, and how informed the sources he's reading and listening to really are. This is truly just the tip of the iceberg that I can respond to quickly. Babe can say that he "sees things differently" than me in Ukraine but at the end of the day the only thing that he said that I unequivocally agree with is:

babe said:
I don't know enough to specifically debunk a dedicated, fairly well-based account like this in specifics.

Babe's posts have a tribal epistemology problem - the only "facts" he's willing to accept are those that conform to his pre-existing worldview. He's reasoning backwards.

Everything I "know" about Ukraine (not enough) is the product of a very specific effort to understand them as they see themselves. That's why I default to their newspapers, watch their tv shows, and try to read their books and fairy tales. Our processes for understanding this controversy have different starting points, and he can't really engage with what I'm doing given the tools he's using.

*Shrug*
 
Back
Top