What's new
By:

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

Joe Bagadonuts said:
This is a perfectly sound statement as long as you are willing to rely on hearsay as proof.
Click to expand...
It is not secret information that Kavannaugh was a booze-hound ****head in college. The only thing in dispute is whether he’s also a rapist; something the administration has steered investigative efforts away from finding.

This doesn’t touch that he was gung-ho on taking Clinton down, then when working for Bush stating that presidents should be immune from prosecution while in office. He was hand-picked to keep Trump in office.
 
NUMBERICA said:
It is not secret information that Kavannaugh was a booze-hound ****head in college. The only thing in dispute is whether he’s also a rapist.

This doesn’t touch that he was gung-ho on taking Clinton down, then when working for Bush stating that presidents should be immune from prosecution while in office. He was hand-picked to keep Trump in office.
Click to expand...
The rape accusations are a pretty big issue, don't you think? Are you aware of anyone who wouldn't be harmed by such suggestions if proof was deemed to be unnecessary (as it has with the left under these circumstances). Innocent until proven guilty used to be a thing.
 
Catchall said:
He made a joke here about how spies were treated in the past. He's not calling for someone to be killed.
Click to expand...
You are working overtime to rationalize a clear threat. He knows exactly what he’s doing, he did this in 2016 to incite violence against protestors at his rallies.

Also, for the record, absolutely **** the “good old days”.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
The rape accusations are a pretty big issue, don't you think? Are you aware of anyone who wouldn't be harmed by such suggestions if proof was deemed to be unnecessary (as it has with the left under these circumstances). Innocent until proven guilty used to be a thing.
Click to expand...
I do think sexual assault is a huge issue, I don’t think anyone that has attempted it should be a judge, and I think Kavannaugh has committed it numerous times.

Proof was deemed necessary, there was a mock investigation, but that gives credence to the seriousness. Also, besides that Ford’s testimony was largely deemed credible, she’s not the only one to come forward.

For the record, I think trying to get rid of Kavannaugh now is a waste of time since it’s not going to happen.

It is strange to me that the thing that makes a rape allegation a big deal to you is the harm it does to the perpetrator.
 
NUMBERICA said:
I do think sexual assault is a huge issue, I don’t think anyone that has attempted it should be a judge, and I think Kavannaugh has committed it numerous times.

Proof was deemed necessary, there was a mock investigation, but that gives credence to the seriousness. Also, besides that Ford’s testimony was largely deemed credible, she’s not the only one to come forward.

For the record, I think trying to get rid of Kavannaugh now is a waste of time since it’s not going to happen.

It is strange to me that the thing that makes a rape allegation a big deal to you is the harm it does to the perpetrator.
Click to expand...
Rape is obviously a terrible thing for a person to endure. I detest anyone who would commit that sort of a crime. But an accusation does not prove anything. I realize that it's imperfect and inconvenient, and that it means that some rapists will get away with their heinous acts despite having been accused, but accused rapists have just as much right to due process and presumption of innocence as anyone else.

I'm confident that if someone accused you of rape and you knew you were innocent you would suddenly have an aha moment regarding this topic.
 
sirkickyass said:
Weintraub's position is pretty clear.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fec-ch...m-foreign-national-in-us-election-2019-06-13/

A violation of these rules would have to be enforced by....the department of justice, which has taken the position that they will not prosecute a sitting president.

It's not a mystery why a case hasn't been brought, and it's a practical consideration related to DOJ policy - not about an interpretation of the underlying statute. You know, sort of like the Mueller report on obstruction.
Click to expand...

I didn't know the DOJ wouldn't prosecute so I'll take that portion back.

What definition of anything of value do you prefer that isn't so broad that the regulations are meaningless? Let's not be facetious. "Trump praised Kim, praise is a thing of value, impeach!" Where does that arbitrary nonsense end? Previously, anything of value has been measurable, monetary value. Find an FEC case otherwise. I didnt search too hard but I couldn't, and apparently neither could Mueller and nobody else is speaking up. The BRCA is all about money, getting soft money out of politics. The FEC was created for and previously has always been about finance, not non-monetary favors like smiles from pretty girls.

The regulations could have used broader terminology such as "any benefit", or "any form of compensation", but it does not. Congress didn't grant them that scope.

Civilly, the FEC has to attach a monetary value in order to settle, including an indirect economic benefit portion or not. If circumstances surrounding the illegal value received is more than a civil violation then we turn criminal. There has always been a measurable, monetary value calculated and attached to settlement fines and criminally prosecuted cases. Something to pay back.

So what definition of "anything of value" are you using that changes the scope of the reg from what it has historically been into what you now want it to also include?
 
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...
In light of your obvious interest and understanding of Ukraine I am very interested in your opinion/explanation of the claims made in this document. Some of them appear to be incompatible with the things you have purported about this situation:
 
I've already said more than I care to (I think Trump deserves to be impeached for telling African-American congresswomen to go back to where they came from, so go find a valid reason), but one more thing: Anything Zelensky offered was illusory at best. There was no quid. He is saying there was no quid pro quo, and his people are suggesting that even if there was anything given, it was a "yeah, whatever, we'll look at it". That's not even an illusory promise IMO.

They'll need to get Trump on something other than FEC regs. If that were the Avenue then go after him for paying the hookers hush money. Didn't someone on his team already plead guilty to that one? And on that note, does anyone know if horse face had to pay back her illegal gains?
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
I didn't know the DOJ wouldn't prosecute so I'll take that portion back.

What definition of anything of value do you prefer that isn't so broad that the regulations are meaningless? Let's not be facetious. "Trump praised Kim, praise is a thing of value, impeach!" Where does that arbitrary nonsense end? Previously, anything of value has been measurable, monetary value. Find an FEC case otherwise. I didnt search too hard but I couldn't, and apparently neither could Mueller and nobody else is speaking up. The BRCA is all about money, getting soft money out of politics. The FEC was created for and previously has always been about finance, not non-monetary favors like smiles from pretty girls.

The regulations could have used broader terminology such as "any benefit", or "any form of compensation", but it does not. Congress didn't grant them that scope.

Civilly, the FEC has to attach a monetary value in order to settle, including an indirect economic benefit portion or not. If circumstances surrounding the illegal value received is more than a civil violation then we turn criminal. There has always been a measurable, monetary value calculated and attached to settlement fines and criminally prosecuted cases. Something to pay back.

So what definition of "anything of value" are you using that changes the scope of the reg from what it has historically been into what you now want it to also include?
Click to expand...

See the FEC chair's statement, which I linked to here: https://jazzfanz.com/threads/the-official-lets-impeach-trump-thread.113221/page-128#post-1823243
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
I didn't know the DOJ wouldn't prosecute so I'll take that portion back.

What definition of anything of value do you prefer that isn't so broad that the regulations are meaningless? Let's not be facetious. "Trump praised Kim, praise is a thing of value, impeach!" Where does that arbitrary nonsense end? Previously, anything of value has been measurable, monetary value. Find an FEC case otherwise. I didnt search too hard but I couldn't, and apparently neither could Mueller and nobody else is speaking up. The BRCA is all about money, getting soft money out of politics. The FEC was created for and previously has always been about finance, not non-monetary favors like smiles from pretty girls.

The regulations could have used broader terminology such as "any benefit", or "any form of compensation", but it does not. Congress didn't grant them that scope.

Civilly, the FEC has to attach a monetary value in order to settle, including an indirect economic benefit portion or not. If circumstances surrounding the illegal value received is more than a civil violation then we turn criminal. There has always been a measurable, monetary value calculated and attached to settlement fines and criminally prosecuted cases. Something to pay back.

So what definition of "anything of value" are you using that changes the scope of the reg from what it has historically been into what you now want it to also include?
Click to expand...

Kind of seems that Trump attached a monetary value to it by connecting to hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top