What's new
By:

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

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.
Click to expand...

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*
 
The Thriller said:
Phew



The transcript can’t derail this now. Right?
Click to expand...

Well, Trump wouldn't be releasing the transcripts without a messaging rollout that will trickle down to the GOP faithful, and find its way into the way the media reports on it.

I absolutely expect it to be a repeat of the Barr letter, the Democrats need to get ahead of this by not placing too much emphasis on the "transcript" when it's released as you've mentioned before.
 
The Thriller said:
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...
Click to expand...

Idiot.

Lol
 
sirkickyass said:
So you would agree that Congress is entitled to, and needs to see, the report in question so that they can see the full contents of the allegations and evaluate their merits.

Congrats, you're with US.



I'm going to go through this bit by bit, because everything you've heard is pure spin. Please remember, Ukraine/Russia is the part of the world I've been most interested in studying for a couple of years, and I put enough time into it that it's effectively a part time job.

Important background information:

Victor Yanukovych was the Russian backed president of Ukraine from 2010 to 2014. He's an important figure in the US/Ukrainian relationship for a couple reasons.

1. Paul Manafort worked on Yanukovich's political campaigns, funded largely with the help of Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, including his 2010 Presidential campaign. He did so even though the US government opposed Yanukovich's candidacy - effectively working AGAINST stated US interests in the region. Manafort later was Trump's campaign manager during the critical primary and convention period. (Source: https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/28/politics/mueller-search-warrants-manafort/index.html). Manafort was ultimately convicted of crimes related to this work.

2. Yanukoych's work as President of Ukraine ultimately led to a revolution in the country in the 2014. I've posted pictures of the Maidan before where the revolution happened. The country largely revolted over Yanukovych corruptly turning his back on further integration with the West through a cooperation agreement with the European Union. Yanukovych did so because he was personally profiting by stronger relationships with Europe. He committed treason against his country as president by putting his own financial interests ahead of Ukraine's. Yanukovych has been in exile in Southern Russia for more than five years and was convicted, in absentia, of treason. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych )


These dates, and names are important because Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma Holdings, a large oil and gas extraction company in Ukraine, approximately two months after the Euromaidan revolution. Further, Burisma was founded by Mykola Zlochevsky, who was a Yanukovich political ally, to the extent that he served as the minister of ecology and natural resources during the early portions of the Yanukovich administration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykola_Zlochevsky

The investigation into Burisma holdings was tied to Zlochevsky's position as the minister of ecology and natural resources. This is a position that he held from 2010 -2012. Zlochevksy later had a position on the national security council in Ukraine from 2012, until the government collapsed in February 2014. The allegation (probably true) was that Zlochevksy used his position in the government to grant his own companies, including Burisma, licenses that it would not have otherwise gotten. In effect, self-dealing. (Source: https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/trump-whistleblower-scandal-explained-from-ukraine.html) . No one has EVER alleged that any of those activities occurred after Hunter Biden was named to the board of Burisma - a few months after Zlochevsky and Yanukovich fled the country. As a result, it is completely and utterly incorrect to suggest that any prosecutor in Ukraine was ever looking into Hunter Biden personally. The conduct that Burisma was investigated for happened entirely before he was ever involved with the company.

The Prosecutor:

Viktor Shokin is the former general prosecutor of Ukraine, and was appointed in 2015 - some three years after the investigation into Zlovhevsky's activities had been initiated. After the 2014 revolution, the position of general prosecutor turned over several times. Shokin was the third general prosecutor appointed to the position in twelve months. Several allies of the Yanukovych administration remained in various governmental positions and were frustrating investigations into the previous administration by stonewalling and hiding information. Prosecutors had been sabotaging investigations into Zlochevsky's activities since at least 2014, more than a year before Shokin came into office. (Source (Russian language): https://gordonua.com/news/politics/...r_cju1d0zj90sut8gci7ucvnbxaeb9jqfeas8woba4f30 )

Shokin was prosecutor for barely a year and was INTENSELY unpopular in Ukraine, public protests were held demanding his resignation approximately six months before Joe Biden pushed for his firing. (Source: https://www.unian.info/society/1170...nce-demanding-shokins-resignation-photos.html). The irony here is that the complaint was that Shokin was not doing ENOUGH to prosecute old corruption cases. Shokin was not a anti corruption crusader who was looking into the wrong people. In fact, under Shokin's watch, the Ukrainian government agreed to unfreeze $23.5 million worth of property claimed by Zlochevsky. Shokin was a non-functioning officer in a country with deep seated corruption problems who was not actively prosecuting these cases.

There is also no indication that Shokin took any particular interest in the Burisma case until there was an opportunity for reprisal against Joe Biden. The best English language Kyiv newspaper was unable to find any public statements by Shokin about Burisma or Hunter Biden while in office. ( https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/trump-whistleblower-scandal-explained-from-ukraine.html ). As a result, there's literally no reason for anyone to believe that either Joe or Hunter Biden perceived Shokin as a personal threat. For there to be a conflict of interest, they would have to know that Shokin was actually potentially a detriment to their personal fortunes. There is no evidence that this was true.

Feel free to share with all your conservative friends. And I'm willing to answer follow up questions. Reading the GOP story about this whole thing is beyond frustrating if you follow the local news there.
Click to expand...
This seems to be very good information, but it doesn't address what I see as a very large concern. What was Burisma paying Hunter Biden for? What work did he do? What expertise did he have? Why won't he answer questions to that effect? Is it reasonable to believe that his father has never had a conversation with him regarding his work in the Ukraine? I don't believe for a second that anyone on the left would be okay leaving these sorts of questions unanswered if they related to the dealings of a conservative politician. We'd be getting lectures on how their silence on these matters is proof of their guilt.
 
LOL SHOOT ME NOW.

Kevin McCarthy just lectured us about how Democrats need to put legislation and the country ahead of politics. The same Kevin who said:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top