November 4, 2019

"How would it be possible for a Ukraine investigation into Biden to be good for Trump politically unless it was also the kind of thing that voters in the United States would care about?"

"There were two potential outcomes of the requested Ukraine investigation on Biden. Either they would find nothing, or they would find behavior that voters in the United States need to know. Which of those two outcomes is the impeachable one?"

Scott Adams tweeted this morning — here and here.

97 comments:

tim maguire said...

The key to the Ukraine call being an impeachable offense is that Trump needed the Ukraine to make up false evidence against Biden. That's the only way it works.

Curious, then, that there hasn't even been an accusation that Trump did any such thing. Democrats are hoping nobody notices the glaring hole in their theory of the case.

rehajm said...

In answering which one of those two outcomes is the impeachable one it helps to know if Joe Biden is President.

Narr said...

1039AMCST. No comments yet, which means I'll be about thirty-third.

I'm off for a few weeks in Mitteleuropa, Berlin-Elbe River-Prague specifically (and the weather gods cooperate--not much channel in those rivers sometimes). Anyway, and honestly, I'll miss this place--and I'll be very disappointed in all of you if there are still problems in the world when I get back!

Narr
They say not to announce absences like this, but we have security, and by doing this I make you all suspects . . .

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

it's worse than some quid pro quo

a friend of a friend said he knows of a dossier that contained rumors that Biden paid hookers to pee on a bed Bush slept in.

MadisonMan said...

The impeachable one is the one that reflects poorly on the Democrats.
Obvs.

Nonapod said...

A thing can be both good for Trump and good for the country.

Here's the basic facts, and there's no getting around them: First, Hunter Biden recieved a 50k/month sinecure at Burisma. Then Joe Biden bragged on friggin' video that he threatened to withhold a billion in aid if the Ukrainian government did not remove a prosecutor investigating Burisma. If those two facts don't warrent an investigation... I can't honestly imagine what would. Trump has been investigated for far, far less.

rhhardin said...

His periscope died before he could go into endless repeats of the same point, this morning. Technological failure as editor.

cubanbob said...

Biden is a crook. That's the short and to the point explanation of the Ukrainian affair and why the Democrats are using it smear Trump instead of acknowledging that the Vice President Biden was using his office to extort the Ukrainians for his personal benefit.

Ralph L said...

It will be all but impossible to prove that Biden forced them to fire the prosecutor because of Hunter's payoff, but it sure looks horrible, to steal a phrase. The scandal is what is legal in the corridors of power.

Did Hillary's Uranium One payoff become public before the election?

elkh1 said...

How did the collusion between the Hillary Campaign and the Russians become a collusion between Trump and the Russians?

Because the Democrats and their propaganda wing said so.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The headlined tweet is the old "no one would be so stupid to commit this crime" defense. The second one leaves out a third outcome, that Ukraine would make something up. That is what Schiff has alleged Trump was trying to get Ukraine to do.

Lucid-Ideas said...

No one - and I mean no one - would think for one hot minute that the bureaucratic apparatus of this country, dead-set against this man and the people that support him, would not use their power - which is considerable (I know) - to discredit and attack him.

The 'deep state' is real (I know). It is a massive problem that must be dealt with long after this administration is over. These institutions serve the United States and the United States serves its citizens. Not vice versa. The United States does not exist to provide these people with a job.

It is my firm opinion - despite working with many men and women in their ranks - that the FBI and CIA should be defunded. That their people should be re-evaluated and those assessed to have the appropriate mindset reformed into a new entity. The name I leave to the administration.

These entities and their people are constantly emerged in shit, and must deal with the absolute worst that humanity has to offer. Complete scum. But the nation, their families, their friends and their futures are the guiding light in the wild. I believe the FBI Counterterrorism Unit and the CIA have lost this.

Like I said, this is a problem that will be ongoing long long beyond Trump's presidency is over. Keep your eye focused and on the goal. These things serve the people of the United States, not themselves.

mccullough said...

Four outcomes: find nothing, but mad at Trump for investigating; find nothing, but don’t care; find something, mad at Biden; find something but don’t care.

Only way Trump gets removed is one. Biden is in a bad spot. The impeachment inquiry looks like it’s a coverup for his family’s corruption.

Trump will run on The Dems Are Circling the Wagons to protect their corrupt leaders.

clint said...

I assume the Democrats' answer is that President Trump was pressuring the Ukrainian government to fabricate lies about Biden.

Sort of like the lies the Clinton campaign hired Steele to pay Russians for.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

As Mike S asked - where is the proof the prosecutor in Ukraine was corrupt.
The guy Biden threatened (on tape!) be fired or else - no tax payer money to Ukraine.
- is it proven he was corrupt?


Bob Boyd said...

Which of those two outcomes is the impeachable one?"

The latter, obviously.

Amexpat said...

The impeachable offense here is conditioning aid to Ukraine on investigating a political rival (if that in fact happened). Whether or not it was in Trump's political interest to do so is not relevant. Foolishly serving his interests does not exculpate Trump from a crime or impeachment.

Wince said...

Either they would find nothing, or they would find behavior that voters in the United States need to know.

Well, that explains why Schiff & Co. had to create the "digging-up dirt" narrative that Trump was somehow asking Ukraine to fabricate false claims or impertinent opposition research against Biden.

Mike Sylwester said...

Joe and Hunter Biden say they did not do anything wrong!

Bob Boyd said...

Progressive-ism is based on the idea that the voters don't need to know things that aren't helpful.

Brent said...

And Scott is completely correct.
The dishonest we-planned-to-impeaxh-him-starting-the-day-after-the-election crowd needs to answer 2 simple questions:
Who's job is it to check out possible corruption by foreign governments that affect the United Stated?
And if that corruption is being investigated, why does it have to stop just because someone decides to become a Presdoential Candidate (free pass)?

Wince said...

Ha, Adams addressed the "digging-up dirt" narrative here.


PenTool Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
Fact...

Trump repeatedly pushed a foreign leader for damaging information on a domestic rival while withholding US taxpayer money that was allocated for defensive aid to Ukraine for their battle against Russian aggression.

He has put his own interest before the USA’s.

@ScottAdamsSays

Incorrect. He asked for a legal investigation. You are having a CNN fever dream about "digging up dirt."


https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1191326526106742784

Yancey Ward said...

And that right there summarizes why impeaching Trump for the Ukraine business isn't going to succeed and will almost surely backfire- you can't deny the facts about Biden and his son- those facts make a prima facie case of influence peddling and bribery, and no amount of media diversion can cover that up. Trump wasn't asking for "dirt" on Biden, he was pointing to specific and damaging facts about the Bidens.

Just note how the media have tried to cover for the Bidens- none of the stories defending him mention the facts- they all speak of the Bidens actions in a generic, factless fashion, and then end by claiming there is no proof of corruption.

Here are the facts: (1) Hunter Biden got over a million dollars from Burisma after his father became Obama's point man for Ukrainian policy; (2) Joe Biden bragged on video about getting Shokin, a Ukrainian prosecutor fired in return for getting US aid; (3) Shokin himself has given a sworn affadavit claiming he was fired because he was investigating Burisma and others, and he specifically stated he was warned off of Burisma by Poroshenko who explicitly said it was at the behest of Biden himself.

You don't have to believe Shokin- he could be lying, but there is ample reason to investigate these claims since they are first hand witness testimony from the guy Biden got canned.

Bill Harshaw said...

We believe the worst, where there's smoke there's fire, so an official investigation announced by the Ukrainian president, which is what Trump asked for, would be harmful, even if it petered out into nothingness. (See the Obama birth certificate, the Benghazi investigation, etc. etc.)

Mark said...

"There were two potential outcomes of the bank robbery. Either they would get away clean, or they would get caught. Which of those two outcomes is the criminal one?"

A little substitution reveals the issue with his question.

stevew said...

Exactly. It's not as if Trump was attempting to fabricate a story of corruption or get Ukraine to create stories that would be embarrassing to Biden or to entrap Biden and his campaign into colluding with Ukraine for an advantage in the 2020 election.

jimbino said...

"unless it was also the kind of thing that voters ..." in English would read "unless it were also the kind of thing that voters ...."

Voters love hearsay and gossip, two things that do not reliably indicate criminal behavior, much like posting your nude photos doesn't. Trading away Amerika's interests for your own personal gain is criminal behavior if you are sworn to uphold the Constitution.

Derek Kite said...

I think that Trump has exposed a festering sore that Washington doesn't want exposed. The desire to impeach is the desire for self preservation.

bleh said...

I think it depends on what was known or reasonably suspected by the Ukrainians, or what they intended to do, before Trump asked them about the Bidens.

(1) If the Ukrainians were already investigating the Bidens, or were intending to investigate, then really it's no big deal at all. Trump could say his attention and involvement were needed to ensure that the Ukrainians were able to their job investigating and prosecuting Americans for corruption, which the US government has an interest in rooting out. In this scenario, Trump is promoting the national interest as well as his personal, political interests. Justified.

(2) If the Bidens were, by all appearances, on the up-and-up, and if there wasn't an ongoing investigation, then Trump's conduct would be very troubling. Basically, he would be using taxpayer money to take a stab in the dark at his domestic opponents. Trump could not really be said to be promoting the national interest, at least if the investigation turned up nothing. Not justified. If the investigation did turn something up, it would be less bad for Trump, but still impeachable, I think.

(3) The trickier scenario is if there was ample reason to suspect the Bidens of criminal wrongdoing, but Ukraine officials had no intention to investigate them for whatever reason, perhaps due to their own corruption. In this scenario, Trump's entreaty or offer would be material in inducing the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens, his domestic political opponents, but at the same time there would actually be something to investigate. In this case, it matters more what Trump and the US government knew. Harder to justify than scenario (1), but probably not impeachable.

Barry Dauphin said...

In fact, if they didn’t find anything, wouldn’t that be good for Biden? Maybe Trump did him a favor, assuming there’s no there there.

TreeJoe said...

Which is why asking a foreign country to investigate potential abuses by a political competitor is not an impeachable offense. It may be a delicate matter being handled by an indelicate president, but it's not impeachable.

They are saying it was a quid pro quo - which is also not illegal. Further, there's a lot of evidence that the aid was never held up for an investigation into Biden....in fact, there's evidence the aid was released without an investigation ever taking place. So evidence against a quid pro quo.

All of this backdropped by the Media and democrats just blindly saying there's no hint of corruption in a vice president's son being on the board of a major ukrainian energy company, getting paid ridiculous sums of money, with no prior experience in energy or in the country or region itself....while the vice president is personally handling US policy with that country.

sy1492 said...

None. Thus, the impeachment is a hoax. The democrats know it and most of the voters know it.

readering said...

Trump and Giuliani weren't even interested in an investigation. They were interested in and insistent upon the announcement of an investigation.

Mark said...

If you have to explain, he is never going to get it.

Also, how about we just forget about the political outcomes and just focus on the merits of the Bidens' corruption?

Real American said...

Exactly. Someone needs to explain why investigating corruption is illegal or impeachable. Just because the president somehow "benefits" from an investigation doesn't not mean he can't or shouldn't do it. He has a duty to do it. And if you think Joe Biden should be immune because he's running for President just say so.

Jupiter said...

The Democrats know that when they investigate someone, finding nothing is not one of the options.

Kevin said...

Either they would find nothing, or they would find behavior that voters in the United States need to know. Which of those two outcomes is the impeachable one?"

Nancy Pelosi tells us it's the second.

Sebastian said...

"Which of those two outcomes is the impeachable one?"

It doesn't matter: it's whatever Dems want. In this case, it's the penumbra of the emanation of the ask. "Outcomes" are irrelevant.

DeVere said...

OK, that's a useful take. Trump's behavior was potentially impeachable if he asked them to look into non-existent corruption. Oh, wait - that' wouldn't harm Biden. If Trump asked them to look into corruption that actually occurred, that's Trump's job, and is not impeachable.

Skylark said...

Don’t accept their premise. The transcript of the call, which none of the witnesses dispute, is that he was investigating election interference in 2016. This is the tactic the Clinton machine used to claim that impeachment was about a blowjob, not perjury in a well founded sexual harassment lawsuit. Always make it about something other than what it is, but that is tangentially related, that is easier to spin against your opponents.

robother said...

Scott is not allowing for Democrat projection. The 3rd option is that Ukraine investigators, like their Russian counterparts compose a dossier of plausible dirty deeds of Joe and his son ranging from golden parachutes to golden showers, which will be useful in the campaign regardless of the truth value.

Skylark said...

Same as Katie Hill, she is trying to make it about revenge porn, when the problem was sex with underlings, not the pictures.

Skylark said...

What the newspapers, cable news, and networks will not say is that there is a lot of credible evidence, including an admission by Ukraine, which I won’t link anymore because it’s clear that the people pushing the big lie against Trump don’t care about inconvenient evidence and everybody else has seen it over and over.

Skylark said...

"Trump and Giuliani weren't even interested in an investigation.” readering

There is another lie. There is plenty of evidence that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 election. Go ahead, call bullshit. You won’t because you know it’s true.

Drago said...

Left Bank of the Charles: "The headlined tweet is the old "no one would be so stupid to commit this crime" defense. The second one leaves out a third outcome, that Ukraine would make something up. That is what Schiff has alleged Trump was trying to get Ukraine to do."

Hey dummy. The Ukrainians already admitted to making something up...in 2016...at the behest of the Clinton campaign. That's how we got that fake payment ledger the Ukrainians coughed up at the orders of the Clinton campaign and for which the Ukrainian govt has already apologized for.

Every single thing the lefties lie about republicans doing is the very thing they've been doing x1000.

But only Every Single Time.

traditionalguy said...

Trump is setting a trap. He is baiting the Globalist Deep State Dems and RINOs to expose their long time practice of US foreign aid and IMF loans requiring that a third of the cash to be kicked back into Dem and RINO politicians in secret, personal laundered slush funds.

Leland said...

Trump and Giuliani weren't even interested in an investigation. They were interested in and insistent upon the announcement of an investigation.

And the whistleblower and Schiff played into Trump's hands by making the announcement? That's some level of voodoo 3D chess. Alas, I think everything you wrote is hilarious and silly.

Unknown said...

Honest questions:

1. What criminal acts are being investigated in the 'impeachment investigation'?

2. If the articles of impeachment do not cite a criminal act, can the House be sued for violation of the Constitution (or maybe a violation of civil rights)?

Hagar said...

The reality of the Burisma payments to the Bidens have not been contested (other than whether Hunter Biden got $53,000 or $83,000 per month, that is), so we may assume they occurred without further proof, especially in view of the Bidens' statements on TV, and Trump has got everybody talking about that.
Bye, bye Joe!

As for pressuring the new Ukrainian government, it sounds more like assuring them that his administration would not punish them if they went ahead investigating Burismas misdeeds.
The withholding funds part seems to be something that was talked about somewhere in Washington at one time, but actually never happened and the Ukrainians did not even hear about until later.

readering said...

Leland: But there was been no announcement by Ukraine of an investigation, which angered Giuliani and Trump. Keep up.

gilbar said...

someone (i think Brent) said...
Who's job is it to check out possible corruption by foreign governments that affect the United States?
And if that corruption is being investigated, why does it have to stop just because someone decides to become a Presdoential Candidate (free pass)?


This raises an interesting scenario , what if:
There was a foreign government (let's say, Russia) whose corruption affected the US
And WHILE that corruption was being investigated, it was found that it involved an american (let's say, a real estate tycoon).... AND WHAT IF!
That real estate tycoon decided to become a Presidential Candidate?
Would our government be required to halt the investigation?

Now, in my scenario, you'll say: " but that real estate tycoon never was a 'real' candidate... so it's different, right?

Jim at said...

We believe the worst,

No. You - and people like you - believe the worst.

The rest of us simply read the damn transcript.

Skylark said...

"But there was been no announcement by Ukraine of an investigation”

More bullshit. In fact the Ukrainians did publicly admit to having interfered in US elections prior to the phone call. In fact Democrats had asked in 2016 for the Ukrainian prime minister to publicly denounce Manafort. I have provided links to this in mainstream publications.

“Always accuse Repubicans of what Democrats are really doing.”

Skylark said...

"hat Ukraine would make something up. That is what Schiff has alleged Trump was trying to get Ukraine to do.”

So Trump was asking for the kind of stuff that Russia did for Hillary? A “dossier”? Does Schiff have any evidence of that? Or is it because there wasn’t already plenty of evidence that Biden and the Democrats were playing Ukraine, both for graft, laundered kickbacks on US aid, and for political help in 2016.

Skylark said...

"As for pressuring the new Ukrainian government, it sounds more like assuring them that his administration would not punish them if they went ahead investigating Burismas misdeeds. “

Yep, Trump assured him that he thought that the kind of pressure that Biden put on them to interfere with their internal political affairs was reprehensible.

Lyle Smith said...

Oh shoot... and Biden looks to be the Democrat’s nominee.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

CIA, FBI Informant Was Washington Post Source For Russiagate Smears

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/04/scoop-cia-fbi-informant-was-washington-post-source-for-russiagate-smears/

tim maguire said...

Unknown said...If the articles of impeachment do not cite a criminal act, can the House be sued for violation of the Constitution (or maybe a violation of civil rights)?

Most likely, any court asked to adjudicate would say it is a non-justiciable political question. An impeachable offense is whatever congress says it is. We depend on their patriotism, respect for the office, and fear of public backlash to not misuse the power.

Skylark said...

McKinley, meanwhile, said in his deposition that part of the reason he resigned was he was a witness to State Department officials trying to dig up dirt on the president’s opponents—something he hadn’t seen “in 37 years in the Foreign Service.”

Not what the Ukrainian say! They said that in 2016 Democrats were pressuring them for dirt on Trump.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/441892-ukrainian-embassy-confirms-dnc-contractor-solicited-trump-dirt-in-2016

Skylark said...

What does it say at the very top?

Excerpts from Joint Interview

More bullshit on stilts.

Unknown said...

Article 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

So far, Congress has used criminal activity as the basis for impeachment. It is defined, and not an unbounded political question in the Constitution. If the House decides an impeachable offense is something other than "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." I don't see in the words that 'because I said so' works. Any more than 'patriotism, respect for the office, and fear of public backlash' will keep them from misusing the power.

narciso said...

a decision in a Ukraine court in 2017, proved there was such interference, excerpts from an audio tape by the chief anti corruption prosecutor are available,

ConradBibby said...

Trump was already well aware of Hunter's gig with Burisma and Joe's explicit quid pro quo. If Trump was planning to use that obvious conflict/slash/apparent corruption as a weapon to defeat his "political rival," the former VP, he hardly needed Ukraine to investigate the matter any further. What's to investigate? The facts are clear as day and they're more than compelling enough for Trump to have used the issue against Biden in the 2020 campaign. The idea that the American people wouldn't care about this issue unless and until they learned that Ukraine had opened an investigation into it is preposterous. I think people in this country are fairly sophisticated and cynical when they hear that someone is being investigated. I don't think it moves the needle on public opinion that much, even if it's a U.S. agency doing the investigation. Until the facts come out, most people assume it's politics or payback. Do you think that voters would really put that much stock in the fact that the government of Ukraine was investigating someone? Do you think Trump regarded an investigation BY UKRAINE as some kind of linchpin in his plan to defeat Biden??

Gk1 said...

There is a similarity in how the press and hillary friendly media never really dug into her illegal mail server and how they are treating the Biden's Ukranian corruption. The chicanery is evident even as they try to pretend "no big deal" and wave their hands and say "it's already been investigated" when it clearly had not. To this day the media has 0 interest in knowing what was in the approximately 33k emails Hillary and her lawyers destroyed. And no, having her personal lawyer read the subject heading of the email and then telling the FBI it was a personal email does not suffice. No shit! Look it up.

So now I am to understand there were no ethics laws or statutes covering Hunter "Cokie" Biden getting millions of dollars for a no show job from Ukrainian energy oligarchs and Chinese money managers while his dad was VP overseeing policy in both? Really? Nothing covers this? Its totally legal? If not isn't this something we should have a hearing on so we can prevent these obvious ethical and moral lapses of our betters in Washington?

Greg the class traitor said...

Amexpat said...
The impeachable offense here is conditioning aid to Ukraine on investigating a political rival (if that in fact happened). Whether or not it was in Trump's political interest to do so is not relevant. Foolishly serving his interests does not exculpate Trump from a crime or impeachment.

Bzzt.

Trump was asking Ukraine to investigate the previous VP of America.

If it's an "impeachable offense" to investigate the crimes of the proceeding Administration, then let us know now.

Because that would mean any promise by a Democrat to investigate Trump once he leaves office is a "high crime"

narciso said...

that is largely why the campaign legal center and ciaremella, both have tried to throw shade on john Solomon, through different angles,

twhp said...

Like so many questions these days, this one provides a rorschach test in which each of us finds what we are already deeply conditioned to find. For me, it seems obvious that Adams has left out the two likeliest possibilities; first that Trump had no idea what the investigators were likely to find but expected to profit politically from the mere fact of the announced investigations in a couple of ways. Since he has long argued, or at least suggested, that Russian interference in 2016 was actually Ukrainian interference in 2016, he would be pleased to have those waters re- or further muddied. And an announced investigation into Biden might cause just enough trouble at just the right time to weaken Biden in the primaries, as the Comey announcement of a re-opened email investigation damaged Hillary in the days before the 2016 election. The investigation didn't actually have to find anything to tip the polls a crucial few points.

The second possibility--perfectly plausible to those of us long accustomed to believing the worst of Trump (and convinced that the evidence supports those beliefs) is that he expected, in the way of shrewd dealmakers everywhere, that the Ukrainian president would understand him perfectly and would understand that the Trump administration would be most pleased to hear bad news of Trump's opponents. In the Ukraine (and not just there), a country in which the chief investigators of corruption might also be corrupt themselves, it wouldn't be difficult to produce evidence on any side of these questions.

Michael K said...


Blogger cubanbob said...

Biden is a crook. That's the short and to the point explanation of the Ukrainian affair and why the Democrats are using it smear Trump instead of acknowledging that the Vice President Biden was using his office to extort the Ukrainians for his personal benefit.


The problem is that they are all crooks and Trump is looking into dark corners that are protected.

I wonder when Julian Assange will "accidentally hang himself in prison?"

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Let's not forget this little fact. After Biden got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired (supposedly for being corrupt and not doing a real investigation) the newly appointed US backed prosecutor HALTED THE BURISMA INVESTIGATION!

roesch/voltaire said...

Trump was played by the circle of scum around him: Parkas, Fruman and the bankroller behind them Firtash wanted for racketeering charges. This odd trio will be hard to shake off.

Amexpat said...

If it's an "impeachable offense" to investigate the crimes of the proceeding Administration, then let us know now. Because that would mean any promise by a Democrat to investigate Trump once he leaves office is a "high crime"

The DOJ has the right to investigate any crimes of the proceeding administration that violate US law. And there is nothing wrong to try to obtain evidence from a foreign government in that investigation. But that's not the issue here. What is alleged here is that the POTUS was pressuring the Ukraine government, by threatening to withhold aid, to investigate the Bidens for a violation of Ukrainian law.

If the DOJ or Trump thought truly thought the Bidens violated US law, they should have started a US investigation and not pressure a corrupt country, needy of US aide, to do that for them.

Skylark said...

The New York Times has done extensive reporting on Hoover Biden’s questionable ethics. There was no need to go digging in Ukraine, and in fact Giuliani was simply preparing his client’s defense in the Russiagate smear. Since when is the prosecution, Schiff, able to define the scope of a president’s defense?

Biden Faces Conflict of Interest Questions That Are Being Promoted by Trump and Allies. (Republicans pounce!)

Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine appears to have been well compensated. Burisma paid $3.4 million to a company called Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC from mid-April 2014, when Hunter Biden and Mr. Archer joined the board, to late 2015, according to the financial data provided by the Ukrainian deputy prosecutor. The payments continued after that, according to people familiar with the arrangement.

Rosemont Seneca Bohai was controlled by Mr. Archer, who left Burisma’s board after he was charged in connection with a scheme to defraud pension funds and an Indian tribe of tens of millions of dollars. Bank records submitted in that case — which resulted in a conviction for Mr. Archer that was overturned in November — show that Rosemont Seneca Bohai made regular payments to Mr. Biden that totaled as much as $50,000 in some months.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html

It’s a long article full of dirt on Hunter.

If you are wondering why the conviction was overturned, it wasn’t because the charges were not true, as the court makes clear, but that they couldn’t prove that Hunter Biden’s company “intended” to defraud the people they defrauded.

Skylark said...

Nellie Ohr, the wife of senior U.S. Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, worked in 2016 as a contractor for Fusion GPS, the same Hillary Clinton–funded opposition research firm that hired Christopher Steele, the British spy who wrote the now-debunked dossier linking Trump to Russia collusion.

Nellie Ohr testified to Congress that some of the dirt she found on Trump during her 2016 election opposition research came from a Ukrainian parliament member. She also said that she eventually took the information to the FBI through her husband — another way Ukraine got inserted into the 2016 election.


https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/462658-lets-get-real-democrats-were-first-to-enlist-ukraine-in-us-elections

Why isn’t Trump’s lawyer allowed to investigate the source of charges against him?

James K said...

If Trump asked them to look into corruption that actually occurred, that's Trump's job, and is not impeachable.

Unfortunately, "impeachable" is anything that can get 218 members of the House to vote in favor, including removing the mattress label or speaking with his mouth full.

Skylark said...

Bruce Ohr, then the DOJ’s assistant deputy attorney general, began collecting anti-Trump information on July 30, 2016, from former MI6 agent Steele and pushing it on the top levels of the DOJ and the FBI.

At the time, Ohr knew his wife, Nellie, and Steele worked for the Fusion GPS research firm on the same project to dig up Russia dirt on Trump, to help the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) win the 2016 election. Furthermore, Ohr told the FBI he knew Steele was a foreigner “desperate” to stop a Trump presidency, FBI memos show.


Giuliani had NO RIGHT to look into the plot to railroad his client!

Which raises a question: Could it be the Ukraine tale currently being weaved by Democrats and their allies in the media is nothing more than a smoke screen designed to distract us from the forthcoming Justice Department inspector general report into abuses during the Democratic-inspired Russia collusion probe?

It’s a question worth asking.
. - The Hill

No shit Shirlock!

Skylark said...

Trump was played by the circle of scum around him: Parkas, Fruman and the bankroller behind them Firtash wanted for racketeering charges.

A couple of small time grifters get nailed by a New York prosecutor hot to use the power of his position to prosecute anybody who can give him an anti-Trump headline?

Don’t you have some lawns to mow or something?

Gk1 said...

Amexpat "If the DOJ or Trump thought truly thought the Bidens violated US law, they should have started a US investigation and not pressure a corrupt country, needy of US aide, to do that for them."

That's adorable if you really believe that. You don't think the democrats/media wouldn't have reacted like a scalded monkey had Trump opened up an investigation on the Biden's? As it is one of their current defences is that Trump or any president should not be able to investigate a potential opponent. So which is it? Presidents should be able to investigate wrong doing when they suspect it or just not Trump? Help me out here.

Lydia said...

Strange we've not heard more about this, from October 3 -- "GOP senator says he doesn't remember signing 2016 letter urging 'reform' of Ukraine prosecutor's office":

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told reporters Thursday he did not recall signing a letter urging reforms in the office of the Ukrainian prosecutor President Trump has alleged former Vice President Joe Biden improperly had ousted, The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported.

Trump has repeatedly alleged Biden used his office to have Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin fired and prevent him from investigating a gas company whose board included Biden’s son Hunter.

CNN on Thursday reported that three Republican senators, including Johnson, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and then-Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) signed a 2016 letter urging “urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General’s office and Judiciary.” ...

Johnson did acknowledge the letter in an interview Thursday on WIBA's "The Vicki McKenna Show," saying "The whole world, by the way, including the Ukranian caucus, which I signed the letter, the whole world felt that this that Sholkin wasn't doing a [good] enough job. So we were saying hey you've ... got to rid yourself of corruption."
[my emphasis]

Greg the class traitor said...

Amexpat said...

I said:
If it's an "impeachable offense" to investigate the crimes of the proceeding Administration, then let us know now. Because that would mean any promise by a Democrat to investigate Trump once he leaves office is a "high crime"

The DOJ has the right to investigate any crimes of the proceeding administration that violate US law. And there is nothing wrong to try to obtain evidence from a foreign government in that investigation. But that's not the issue here. What is alleged here is that the POTUS was pressuring the Ukraine government, by threatening to withhold aid, to investigate the Bidens for a violation of Ukrainian law.

The crimes took place in Ukraine. The only way they can be successfully investigated is in Ukraine, which means by the government of Ukraine.

All those whining about the "emoluments clause" are going to be really unhappy if the rule is that "no foreign crimes of the previous Administration can be investigated."

Sorry, but your position is utter garbage.

"Trump just wanted the Ukraine gov't to announce they were investigating Biden!" So, I guess that means that every Democrat in Congress who "just wants the House of Reps to Impeach Trump", but doesn't care about getting the Senate to remove him, is committing a crime, and should be impeached.

"Trump wanted to pressure the Ukraine gov't to make up dirt on Biden!" So I guess Schiff needs to be impeached, for pushing witnesses to say bad things about Trump.

You have nothing. No law, no reason, no principles, no facts, no justification. All you have is a pathetic hatred that makes you stupid.

Drago said...

Breaking Breaking Breaking

"Memos detailing Hunter Biden's contacts with Obama State Department released. VP son's Ukrainian gas firm pressed US officials to end corruption allegations ... just a month before Joe Biden forced firing of prosecutor overseeing case."
https://t.co/APtdGUrnxn

r/v hardest hit.


BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Yancey @ 11:17

And that right there summarizes why impeaching Trump for the Ukraine business isn't going to succeed and will almost surely backfire- you can't deny the facts about Biden and his son- those facts make a prima facie case of influence peddling and bribery, and no amount of media diversion can cover that up. Trump wasn't asking for "dirt" on Biden, he was pointing to specific and damaging facts about the Bidens.

Just note how the media have tried to cover for the Bidens- none of the stories defending him mention the facts- they all speak of the Bidens actions in a generic, factless fashion, and then end by claiming there is no proof of corruption.

Here are the facts: (1) Hunter Biden got over a million dollars from Burisma after his father became Obama's point man for Ukrainian policy; (2) Joe Biden bragged on video about getting Shokin, a Ukrainian prosecutor fired in return for getting US aid; (3) Shokin himself has given a sworn affadavit claiming he was fired because he was investigating Burisma and others, and he specifically stated he was warned off of Burisma by Poroshenko who explicitly said it was at the behest of Biden himself.


*fingers in ears* no no no! lalalalalala

Skylark said...

Meanwhile Schiff releases “excerpts” from his secret hearings. How is that different than his cherry picked leaks? Because now the cherry picked excerpts are “official”? This could be Andy Kaufman playing us! Maybe he really isn’t dead!

Can you imagine if Trump had released “excerpts” from the call transcript?

Even Vindman has testified that it accurately represents the content of the call, which he was on, for those of you thinking of jumping to that.

Skylark said...

"The Inspector General shall not disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines that such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation ...”

Sorry, but Trump has a right to look at this guy’s motivations and his actions in Ukraine during the Obama Adminstraion.

The Times made the case, correctly, that personal details about the whistleblower were a key part of judging the credibility of his complaint. We already know, if the Times is correct, that he is a career CIA officer with deep expertise in Ukraine and Central European affairs. But the public is entitled to know all the facts about the whistleblower and not just the facts as characterized by journalists, or certain facts judged relevant by journalists while others are kept hidden. Credibility goes both ways. Party affiliation, past political activities, job performance, and any connections to investigators are all things that merit proper public scrutiny.. - Washington Examiner

Also, everybody knows who he is, so holding back his name does nothing to protect him, so that’s a pretty flimsy argumetn to put up against the right of Americans to know all of the context of his complaint.

narciso said...

Matthew Whitaker had opened up a fec complaint in 2017, a year before he became atty general, through his advocacy group, but sessions wouldn't move because reasons,

readering said...

Drago: Interesting. To my mind, anything that sees the veep off the stage is to be welcomed. (Does not change the problem for Trump.)

Mr. Majestyk said...

Amexpat said:

"The DOJ has the right to investigate any crimes of the proceeding administration that violate US law. And there is nothing wrong to try to obtain evidence from a foreign government in that investigation. But that's not the issue here. What is alleged here is that the POTUS was pressuring the Ukraine government, by threatening to withhold aid, to investigate the Bidens for a violation of Ukrainian law."

Well, the whistleblower/partisan hack may have alleged that is what POTUS did, but the transcript, the accuracy of which no one seems to seriously dispute, shows that that allegation is flat out wrong. First, Trump did NOT "pressure" the Ukrainian government to investigate Biden. He said:

"The other thing, there;s a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so what ever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it . . . It sounds horrible to me."

Where's the pressure? "so whatever you can do . . . would be great." "if you can look into it." That's pressure? I don't think so.

Second, as the quoted excerpt makes clear, Trump most assuredly did NOT "threaten to withhold aid."

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

From Drago's link to John Solomon's report on emails he FOIA'd:

Just three weeks before Burisma’s overture to State, Ukrainian authorities raided the home of the oligarch who owned the gas firm and employed Hunter Biden, a signal the long-running corruption probe was escalating in the middle of the U.S. presidential election.

Hunter Biden’s name, in fact, was specifically invoked by the Burisma representative as a reason the State Department should help, according to a series of email exchanges among U.S. officials trying to arrange the meeting. The subject line for the email exchanges read simply “Burisma.”


Oops.

narciso said...

he was just an agency analyst, with some unique language skills, re rubini's review, who was shoe horned in by brennan, who also had strong arabist sympathies,

Lydia said...

Shokin himself has given a sworn affadavit claiming he was fired because he was investigating Burisma and others, and he specifically stated he was warned off of Burisma by Poroshenko who explicitly said it was at the behest of Biden himself.

All depends on Shokin's integrity, no? Which some folks question:

“Neither Shokin nor Poroshenko wanted to investigate [Burisma owner Mykola​] Zlochevsky,” says Sakvarelidze [deputy prosecutor]. “They simply began a criminal case, arrested a few assets, and began negotiating with the corruptioneer for a bribe.”

For activists, Shokin’s prosecutorship is remembered for its failure to secure convictions for crimes of the previous regime. These include the killing of more than 100 protesters during the Euromaidan revolution.

“Shokin impeded those fighting for justice,” said Vitaly Tytych, a lawyer representing the families of the victims. “It is wrong to call what he did investigations. Because if there is one thing Shokin never did it is investigate.”


More here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/viktor-shokin-ukraine-prosecutor-trump-biden-hunter-joe-investigation-impeachment-a9147001.html

Skylark said...

readering, in your opinion, does Trump have a right to gather evidence in his defense on the RussiaGate thing?

Lot of questions then, eh Lydia? A lot of he said she said. Almost looks like maybe it should be looked into carefully since there is a lot of smoke there, and since Biden’s kid was involved in it.

Awfully convenient that he gets fired “You have six hours” right when he could have dragged Biden’s name into it durng the 2016 primaries, and Burisma clearly was paying Hunter Biden as a human shield. Burisma was sure worried, based on their communications with Kerry’s State Department, as you could read in the links above, that they were being investigated for realz.

Skylark said...

“They simply began a criminal case, arrested a few assets, and began negotiating with the corruptioneer for a bribe.”

Is there evidence of this? Or is it just made up, like Schiff’s “parody."

Skylark said...

I can easily imagine Obama telling Biden, as the prosecution of Burisma began to heat up: “Clean this up Joe.” And son of a bitch, he did.

Drago said...

readering: "Drago: Interesting. To my mind, anything that sees the veep off the stage is to be welcomed. (Does not change the problem for Trump.)"

LOL

How dense are you?

Trump doesn't have a "problem". The dems launched this latest hoax to cover up the failure of their previous hoaxes and the rampant decades long corruption of our foreign policy by our establishment types (primarily democrats) who sold out the US to line their own pockets.

Durhams investigation has these establishment idiots running scared and your continued hyping the of the latest dem hoax convinces no one.

The nation no longer listens to any of you. Even a majority of dems say they think the news is slanted against Trump.

Your latest worthless lies will go the way of all your previous worthless lies, as they should.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Shokin's failure to prosecute the shooters in Maidan was to protect the new Ukrainian government. We know for a fact the first snipers were protesters shooting police. That is not in dispute.

The question has always been who shot the protesters.

Here is the report from the Estonian Foreign Minister to the EU.


"So she also showed me some photos, she said that as medical doctor, she can say it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it's really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don't want to investigate what exactly happened."

"So there is a stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers it was not Yanukovych, it was somebody from the new coalition," Paet says.

narciso said...

There is that, but even a cursory examination tells you tytich was dissapointed with practically every aslect of poroshenkos administration, not surprising because guess who is behind kollmoisky.

Skylark said...

Remember when Democrats were saying that the Burisma prosecution was inactive at the time Biden forced them to fire that prosecutor? Good times... good times...

Now the story is different, he was investigating Burisma, but only to shake them down for bribes.

Of course there is no reason to look into any of this! It’s all clear as day that there is no wrongdoing1

Stephen said...

Well now we appear to have the answer to this one. Trump didn’t actually want an investigation. He only wanted a public announcement of one, in a form approved by his personal attorney.