Trump allegedly requests foreign election interference

[tstorm823]

I agree with you wholeheardedly. I literally said the same in my message.

That's not the point. The argument isn't "What about Biden, he was bad too!"

Imagine some hypotheticals: a police officer shoots an unarmed person without any instigation. You say "that's bad", I agree with you. Done. Instead, a police officer shoots a man who is firing his own gun at a group of children. That isn't bad, you shouldn't find that to be bad. Imagine I said that the second cop was in the right because the man he shot was going to slaughter children, and you responded with this "they can both be wrong" crap.

That's what is going on here. Trump deciding for himself to investigate Biden with no instigation would be bad. Trump agreeing with investigating Biden because he has information that makes it seem like a crime was committed or because the Ukrainian president perceives a need to investigate would be fine. Not because two wrongs make a right, but because investigating someone is wrong or right depending on if there's proper justification to do so.

Consider, in testimony, we've had a dinner described where the US officials from those texts told Ukrainian officials not to investigate the former Ukrainian President. Probably fine advice, prosecuting former leaders isn't exactly a good look. They respond by pulling out pictures of loved ones who died, they believe, because of that president's decisions. They intended to investigate corruption, they were not happy with the suggestion that they shouldn't. Bill Taylor (one of the star witnesses at this point) has testified to another meeting, where he told President Zelenskyy and Andrei Yermak to not get involved in US elections, which is to say not to investigate the Bidens, and the two were visibly irritated by that suggestion. The new Ukrainian government ran on an anti-corruption platform, they intend to fight corruption, they don't want the US telling them not to. And in all the written evidence we have, Ukrainians are the ones bringing up investigating Burisma. And at one point Yermak asked US officials to tell Ukraine to investigate Burisma. In the July 25th phone call, Zelenskyy says he wanted to tell Trump about the prosecutor Biden got fired. There is every indication that the Ukrainians under Zelenskyy want to investigate the Bidens and were looking for US approval before investigating a US presidential candidate. If that's going on, Trump isn't deciding for himself to investigate Biden. If Biden's guilty, the Ukrainians are justified in investigating. If, however, the Bidens are innocent and only Trump thinks they aren't, the investigation isn't justified. That's why it matters.

 

[Saelune]

I agree with you wholeheardedly. I literally said the same in my message.

That's not the point. The argument isn't "What about Biden, he was bad too!"

Imagine some hypotheticals: a police officer shoots an unarmed person without any instigation. You say "that's bad", I agree with you. Done. Instead, a police officer shoots a man who is firing his own gun at a group of children. That isn't bad, you shouldn't find that to be bad. Imagine I said that the second cop was in the right because the man he shot was going to slaughter children, and you responded with this "they can both be wrong" crap.

That's what is going on here. Trump deciding for himself to investigate Biden with no instigation would be bad. Trump agreeing with investigating Biden because he has information that makes it seem like a crime was committed or because the Ukrainian president perceives a need to investigate would be fine. Not because two wrongs make a right, but because investigating someone is wrong or right depending on if there's proper justification to do so.

Consider, in testimony, we've had a dinner described where the US officials from those texts told Ukrainian officials not to investigate the former Ukrainian President. Probably fine advice, prosecuting former leaders isn't exactly a good look. They respond by pulling out pictures of loved ones who died, they believe, because of that president's decisions. They intended to investigate corruption, they were not happy with the suggestion that they shouldn't. Bill Taylor (one of the star witnesses at this point) has testified to another meeting, where he told President Zelenskyy and Andrei Yermak to not get involved in US elections, which is to say not to investigate the Bidens, and the two were visibly irritated by that suggestion. The new Ukrainian government ran on an anti-corruption platform, they intend to fight corruption, they don't want the US telling them not to. And in all the written evidence we have, Ukrainians are the ones bringing up investigating Burisma. And at one point Yermak asked US officials to tell Ukraine to investigate Burisma. In the July 25th phone call, Zelenskyy says he wanted to tell Trump about the prosecutor Biden got fired. There is every indication that the Ukrainians under Zelenskyy want to investigate the Bidens and were looking for US approval before investigating a US presidential candidate. If that's going on, Trump isn't deciding for himself to investigate Biden. If Biden's guilty, the Ukrainians are justified in investigating. If, however, the Bidens are innocent and only Trump thinks they aren't, the investigation isn't justified. That's why it matters.

Except Donald Trump and Donald Trump did exactly what they are acusing Hunter Biden and Joe Biden of. I mean, we literally live in a world where Donald Trump acuses Hunter Biden of using his father's name to get ahead when Donald Trump does not even have his own name and is literally named after his father, Donald Trump.

 

[tstorm823]

Except Donald Trump and Donald Trump did exactly what they are acusing Hunter Biden and Joe Biden of. I mean, we literally live in a world where Donald Trump acuses Hunter Biden of using his father's name to get ahead when Donald Trump does not even have his own name and is literally named after his father, Donald Trump.

No, they didn't. It's not just nepotism. It's not just using your dad's name to get ahead. It's that Hunter Biden was on the board of a not-good company. If you followed any of the hearing today, you might have heard one of the Democrats' star witnesses explaining that the owner of Burisma deserved to be investigated, and Kent personally feels the US shouldn't be working with Burisma at all, including Hunter Biden, that it's not in the US's best interest to do so. And it certainly isn't in Ukraine's interest to stop their own corruption charges against an oligarch. If Burisma was the motivation for Joe Biden to get the prosecutor fired, it's not a matter of nepotism, it's a matter of going explicitly against US and Ukrainian interests for nepotism.

 

[Hades]

Except Donald Trump and Donald Trump did exactly what they are acusing Hunter Biden and Joe Biden of. I mean, we literally live in a world where Donald Trump acuses Hunter Biden of using his father's name to get ahead when Donald Trump does not even have his own name and is literally named after his father, Donald Trump.

No, they didn't. It's not just nepotism. It's not just using your dad's name to get ahead. It's that Hunter Biden was on the board of a not-good company. If you followed any of the hearing today, you might have heard one of the Democrats' star witnesses explaining that the owner of Burisma deserved to be investigated, and Kent personally feels the US shouldn't be working with Burisma at all, including Hunter Biden, that it's not in the US's best interest to do so. And it certainly isn't in Ukraine's interest to stop their own corruption charges against an oligarch. If Burisma was the motivation for Joe Biden to get the prosecutor fired, it's not a matter of nepotism, it's a matter of going explicitly against US and Ukrainian interests for nepotism.

By all accounts the prosecutor in question got removed for being too lax about corruption rather than to strict. This wasn't exactly a new revelation since all European partners already complained about it. So the prosecutor being fired to protect dear Hunter hinges on either everyone but Biden being wrong in their assumption the prosecutor was willfully ineffective or Biden alone being dumb enough not to realize it and risking replacing an ineffective prosecutor with an effective one.

If Trump had valid suspicions he should have gone through the proper channels. Trump not doing so but instead playing rogue agent implies he didn't have much faith in his own suspicions. Trump should have let the judiciary handle the matter because now he's personally investigating someone who he must dearly wish to be guilty. Biden being Trump's electoral rival isn't some quirky coincidence but the very point of Trump's actions. Its far more likely that Trump just wants to handicap a rival rather than the openly corrupt president really being concerned about corruption. If the suspicions were oh so dire then that's all the more reason he should have gone through the judiciary and let it be investigated by someone who doesn't have a deeply seated personal interest in Biden's guilt.

 

[tstorm823]

By all accounts the prosecutor in question got removed for being too lax about corruption rather than to strict. This wasn't exactly a new revelation since all European partners already complained about it. So the prosecutor being fired to protect dear Hunter hinges on either everyone but Biden being wrong in their assumption the prosecutor was willfully ineffective or Biden alone being dumb enough not to realize it and risking replacing an ineffective prosecutor with an effective one.

All accounts are trying to misdirect you. Both of these things can be true at once.

By all accounts, the prosecutor Victor Shokin was too lax about corruption for his personal allies. Zlochevsy, the owner of Burisma, was decidedly not his personal ally. Shokin was trying to prosecute Zlochevsky. Burisma hired Biden to make friendly with the US. Shokin was forced to resign, and the case against Zlochevsky was closed for a time.

It's entirely possible Joe Biden's actions have nothing to do with Burisma specifically. It's also possible both Biden's were just working to protect non-Russian energy interests in Ukraine. But the people saying "he was ousted for not being hard enough on corruption!", as though that meant Burisma would be scrutinized more after he left, are trying to mislead you. Shokin was, without a doubt, trying to take down Zlochevsky.

 

[Asita]

By all accounts the prosecutor in question got removed for being too lax about corruption rather than to strict. This wasn't exactly a new revelation since all European partners already complained about it. So the prosecutor being fired to protect dear Hunter hinges on either everyone but Biden being wrong in their assumption the prosecutor was willfully ineffective or Biden alone being dumb enough not to realize it and risking replacing an ineffective prosecutor with an effective one.

All accounts are trying to misdirect you. Both of these things can be true at once.

By all accounts, the prosecutor Victor Shokin was too lax about corruption for his personal allies. Zlochevsy, the owner of Burisma, was decidedly not his personal ally. Shokin was trying to prosecute Zlochevsky. Burisma hired Biden to make friendly with the US. Shokin was forced to resign, and the case against Zlochevsky was closed for a time.

It's entirely possible Joe Biden's actions have nothing to do with Burisma specifically. It's also possible both Biden's were just working to protect non-Russian energy interests in Ukraine. But the people saying "he was ousted for not being hard enough on corruption!", as though that meant Burisma would be scrutinized more after he left, are trying to mislead you. Shokin was, without a doubt, trying to take down Zlochevsky.

False. Shokin's slow-walking of the cases against Zlochevsky was actually among the evidence of Shokin's corruption, to the point that it was suspected that Shokin was using the threat of prosecution to solicit bribes from him (ie, "give me money and I'll keep doing nothing". Protection money, in essence). This matches testimony from Ukrainian officials and internal reports from the prosecutors's office, all of which indicate that the investigation was dormant during Shokin's tenure. In fact, in late 2014 the US specifically criticized Shokin and his office for his stonewalling of a UK investigation of Zlochevsky. As was later directly put by Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt in 2015:

We have learned that there have been times that the PGO not only did not support investigations into corruption, but rather undermined prosecutors working on legitimate corruption cases.

For example, in the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, the U.K. authorities had seized 23 million dollars in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people. Officials at the PGO?s office were asked by the U.K to send documents supporting the seizure.

Instead they sent letters to Zlochevsky?s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a result the money was freed by the U.K. court and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus.

The misconduct by the PGO officials who wrote those letters should be investigated, and those responsible for subverting the case by authorizing those letters should ? at a minimum ? be summarily terminated.

Additionally, court documents similarly show that while Shokin did formally open another case against Zlochevsky in 2015 as he was ordered to do by the country's parliament, the only investigative step his office took was to transfer the files to another agency. All available evidence suggests that the idea that "Shokin wanted to take down Zlochevsky" is little more than wishful thinking.

 

[tstorm823]

False. Shokin's slow-walking of the cases against Zlochevsky was actually among the evidence of Shokin's corruption, to the point that it was suspected that Shokin was using the threat of prosecution to solicit bribes from him (ie, "give me money and I'll keep doing nothing". Protection money, in essence). This matches testimony from Ukrainian officials and internal reports from the prosecutors's office, all of which indicate that the investigation was dormant during Shokin's tenure. In fact, in late 2014 the US specifically criticized Shokin and his office for his stonewalling of a UK investigation of Zlochevsky. As was later directly put by Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt in 2015:

We have learned that there have been times that the PGO not only did not support investigations into corruption, but rather undermined prosecutors working on legitimate corruption cases.

For example, in the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, the U.K. authorities had seized 23 million dollars in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people. Officials at the PGO?s office were asked by the U.K to send documents supporting the seizure.

Instead they sent letters to Zlochevsky?s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a result the money was freed by the U.K. court and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus.

The misconduct by the PGO officials who wrote those letters should be investigated, and those responsible for subverting the case by authorizing those letters should ? at a minimum ? be summarily terminated.

Additionally, court documents similarly show that while Shokin did formally open another case against Zlochevsky in 2015 as he was ordered to do by the country's parliament, the only investigative step his office took was to transfer the files to another agency. All available evidence suggests that the idea that "Shokin wanted to take down Zlochevsky" is little more than wishful thinking.

What a lovely and compelling case you've made here.

The UK money freeze, as you say, happened in 2014 [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/12/the-money-machine-how-a-high-profile-corruption-investigation-fell-apart]. The money was released in January 2015.

Victor Shokin [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Shokin] was appointed Prosecutor General in February of 2015.

Any other anachronisms you'd like to argue?

Edit: Just to be clear, the source for the claim that he was holding back investigations and blackmailing Zlechevsky comes from the New York Times citing anonymous allies of Zlochevsky. That's like 8 red flags in just as many words.

 

[Asita]

False. Shokin's slow-walking of the cases against Zlochevsky was actually among the evidence of Shokin's corruption, to the point that it was suspected that Shokin was using the threat of prosecution to solicit bribes from him (ie, "give me money and I'll keep doing nothing". Protection money, in essence). This matches testimony from Ukrainian officials and internal reports from the prosecutors's office, all of which indicate that the investigation was dormant during Shokin's tenure. In fact, in late 2014 the US specifically criticized Shokin and his office for his stonewalling of a UK investigation of Zlochevsky. As was later directly put by Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt in 2015:

We have learned that there have been times that the PGO not only did not support investigations into corruption, but rather undermined prosecutors working on legitimate corruption cases.

For example, in the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, the U.K. authorities had seized 23 million dollars in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people. Officials at the PGO?s office were asked by the U.K to send documents supporting the seizure.

Instead they sent letters to Zlochevsky?s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a result the money was freed by the U.K. court and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus.

The misconduct by the PGO officials who wrote those letters should be investigated, and those responsible for subverting the case by authorizing those letters should ? at a minimum ? be summarily terminated.

Additionally, court documents similarly show that while Shokin did formally open another case against Zlochevsky in 2015 as he was ordered to do by the country's parliament, the only investigative step his office took was to transfer the files to another agency. All available evidence suggests that the idea that "Shokin wanted to take down Zlochevsky" is little more than wishful thinking.

What a lovely and compelling case you've made here.

The UK money freeze, as you say, happened in 2014 [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/12/the-money-machine-how-a-high-profile-corruption-investigation-fell-apart]. The money was released in January 2015.

Victor Shokin [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Shokin] was appointed Prosecutor General in February of 2015.

Any other anachronisms you'd like to argue?

Edit: Just to be clear, the source for the claim that he was holding back investigations and blackmailing Zlechevsky comes from the New York Times citing anonymous allies of Zlochevsky. That's like 8 red flags in just as many words.

As opposed to your favored Federalist-sourced stories? Do you really want to play that game again?

Shokin wasn't appointed as Prosecutor General until February 2015, but he had been the Deputy Prosecutor General since 2002.

 

[Saelune]

Except Donald Trump and Donald Trump did exactly what they are acusing Hunter Biden and Joe Biden of. I mean, we literally live in a world where Donald Trump acuses Hunter Biden of using his father's name to get ahead when Donald Trump does not even have his own name and is literally named after his father, Donald Trump.

No, they didn't. It's not just nepotism. It's not just using your dad's name to get ahead. It's that Hunter Biden was on the board of a not-good company. If you followed any of the hearing today, you might have heard one of the Democrats' star witnesses explaining that the owner of Burisma deserved to be investigated, and Kent personally feels the US shouldn't be working with Burisma at all, including Hunter Biden, that it's not in the US's best interest to do so. And it certainly isn't in Ukraine's interest to stop their own corruption charges against an oligarch. If Burisma was the motivation for Joe Biden to get the prosecutor fired, it's not a matter of nepotism, it's a matter of going explicitly against US and Ukrainian interests for nepotism.

If you believed this, you would not support Trump. It is hypocritical to support Trump while criticizing Biden for this.

Donald Trump Jr, Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, that is 3 cases of Trump doing exactly what he is accusing the Bidens of.

 

[tstorm823]

As opposed to your favored Federalist-sourced stories? Do you really want to play that game again?

Shokin wasn't appointed as Prosecutor General until February 2015, but he had been the Deputy Prosecutor General since 2002.

Shokin had retired in 2007 prior to his return to the Deputy Prosecutor position in mid-2014.And the person he replaced who was making the decisions you've brought as evidence was chased out for, you guessed it, not prosecuting people enough.

If you believed this, you would not support Trump. It is hypocritical to support Trump while criticizing Biden for this.

Donald Trump Jr, Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, that is 3 cases of Trump doing exactly what he is accusing the Bidens of.

Those things aren't even remotely comparable. Hiring your children and your child getting hired by a foreign oligarch to try and gain unwarranted US support are not the same act by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Asita]

As opposed to your favored Federalist-sourced stories? Do you really want to play that game again?

Shokin wasn't appointed as Prosecutor General until February 2015, but he had been the Deputy Prosecutor General since 2002.

Shokin had retired in 2007 prior to his return to the Deputy Prosecutor position in mid-2014.And the person he replaced who was making the decisions you've brought as evidence was chased out for, you guessed it, not prosecuting people enough.

Curiously, there seems to be conflicting evidence on this. The Ukrainian Weekly indicates that (at the time of his appointment of Prosecutor General) Shokin "was appointed deputy procurator general in December 2004 and has served in that position ever since". Meanwhile at the same time the Kyiv Post said that he had been "a deputy prosecutor general since June and had occupied the
same position in 2002-2003 and in 2004-2007". One thing that the articles are consistent on, however, is that even at the time of his appointment Shokin faced the same criticisms as Yamera.

Fiery debate preceded the vote in which critics warned he'd perform just as badly as Mr. Yarema, having served at the heart of Ukraine?s corrupt law enforcement system for more than a decade, including under the Yanukovych administration. Mr. Shokin spent most of his career as a prosecutor, starting in 1980.

Shokin has been a deputy prosecutor general since June and had occupied the same position in 2002-2003 and in 2004-2007. Shokin, who could not been reached for comment, is believed to be close to Poroshenko and has also been accused of ties to businessman Oleksiy Chebotaryov, an ally of Yanukovych. Like Yarema, he has been blamed for stalling high-profile investigations against Yanukovych's entourage.

 

[Saelune]

As opposed to your favored Federalist-sourced stories? Do you really want to play that game again?

Shokin wasn't appointed as Prosecutor General until February 2015, but he had been the Deputy Prosecutor General since 2002.

Shokin had retired in 2007 prior to his return to the Deputy Prosecutor position in mid-2014.And the person he replaced who was making the decisions you've brought as evidence was chased out for, you guessed it, not prosecuting people enough.

If you believed this, you would not support Trump. It is hypocritical to support Trump while criticizing Biden for this.

Donald Trump Jr, Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, that is 3 cases of Trump doing exactly what he is accusing the Bidens of.

Those things aren't even remotely comparable. Hiring your children and your child getting hired by a foreign oligarch to try and gain unwarranted US support are not the same act by any stretch of the imagination.

When the accusation is nepotism and your defense is literally the definition of nepotism, you just proved yourself wrong.

 

[tstorm823]

Curiously, there seems to be conflicting evidence on this. The Ukrainian Weekly indicates that (at the time of his appointment of Prosecutor General) Shokin "was appointed deputy procurator general in December 2004 and has served in that position ever since". Meanwhile at the same time the Kyiv Post said that he had been "a deputy prosecutor general since June and had occupied the
same position in 2002-2003 and in 2004-2007". One thing that the articles are consistent on, however, is that even at the time of his appointment Shokin faced the same criticisms as Yamera.

And I'm not going to dispute that he probably deserved that criticism. All sources seem to agree the man likely brown-nosed his way into his positions of authority and had no ambitions of fulfilling his duties faithfully. But before Shokin was prosecutor general, Zlochevsky had the case against him closed. While he was prosecutor general, the case against Zlochevsky was opened again. And after Sholkin "resigned", the case against Zlochevsky was closed again (only to be reopened again again at a later date).

The man might be a weasel, but the argument that Shokin was actually the one letting Burisma off the hook is a poorly founded claim at best.

When the accusation is nepotism and your defense is literally the definition of nepotism, you just proved yourself wrong.

I just said the accusation isn't nepotism.

 

[Saelune]

Curiously, there seems to be conflicting evidence on this. The Ukrainian Weekly indicates that (at the time of his appointment of Prosecutor General) Shokin "was appointed deputy procurator general in December 2004 and has served in that position ever since". Meanwhile at the same time the Kyiv Post said that he had been "a deputy prosecutor general since June and had occupied the
same position in 2002-2003 and in 2004-2007". One thing that the articles are consistent on, however, is that even at the time of his appointment Shokin faced the same criticisms as Yamera.

And I'm not going to dispute that he probably deserved that criticism. All sources seem to agree the man likely brown-nosed his way into his positions of authority and had no ambitions of fulfilling his duties faithfully. But before Shokin was prosecutor general, Zlochevsky had the case against him closed. While he was prosecutor general, the case against Zlochevsky was opened again. And after Sholkin "resigned", the case against Zlochevsky was closed again (only to be reopened again again at a later date).

The man might be a weasel, but the argument that Shokin was actually the one letting Burisma off the hook is a poorly founded claim at best.

When the accusation is nepotism and your defense is literally the definition of nepotism, you just proved yourself wrong.

I just said the accusation isn't nepotism.

The accusation is nepotism though, and you know it and are trying to move the goalposts because you have no defense.


This is a guy who writes a book about how he has no voice and is being silenced. Guess what! If you're selling books, you are NOT silenced. Go figure.

Also Hannity and Fox are trash too, but its a right-wing source for you.

 

[tstorm823]

The accusation is nepotism though, and you know it and are trying to move the goalposts because you have no defense.

In one sentence, you are moving the goalposts for me while accusing me of moving them.

 

[Asita]

Curiously, there seems to be conflicting evidence on this. The Ukrainian Weekly indicates that (at the time of his appointment of Prosecutor General) Shokin "was appointed deputy procurator general in December 2004 and has served in that position ever since". Meanwhile at the same time the Kyiv Post said that he had been "a deputy prosecutor general since June and had occupied the
same position in 2002-2003 and in 2004-2007". One thing that the articles are consistent on, however, is that even at the time of his appointment Shokin faced the same criticisms as Yamera.

And I'm not going to dispute that he probably deserved that criticism. All sources seem to agree the man likely brown-nosed his way into his positions of authority and had no ambitions of fulfilling his duties faithfully. But before Shokin was prosecutor general, Zlochevsky had the case against him closed. While he was prosecutor general, the case against Zlochevsky was opened again. And after Sholkin "resigned", the case against Zlochevsky was closed again (only to be reopened again again at a later date).

The man might be a weasel, but the argument that Shokin was actually the one letting Burisma off the hook is a poorly founded claim at best.

Again, the investigation was opened because parliament ordered it reopened, and by all available evidence, the only investigative step his office took was to transfer the files to another agency. At the time Lutsenko closed the case, contemporary writings suggested that it was a continuous problem starting with Yamera, continuing through Shokin and culminating in Lutsenko. "No one in the Prosecutor General's Office has been punished for the dumping of Zlochevskyi's case. No prosecutor or investigator has been found liable. The leadership of the office, which tried to cover up the dumping of the criminal case concerning Zlochevsky, resigned only under enormous public and diplomatic pressure."

This is further corroborated by testimony from Andrii Borovyk of Transparency International, who noted that Shokin had a reputation for not investigating anyone, and Daria Kaleniuk of Kyiev's Anti-Corruption Center, who directly challenged the assertion at the heart of this. "But it is not true that Prosecutor Shokin was [a] tough prosecutor who was willing to investigate Burisma. Absolutely to the contrary! Prosecutor Shokin was dumping this investigation, and I have evidence of that. I'm following this investigation since 2013[footnote]2013, 2014? I couldn't quite make out what year she said[/footnote] Shokin, his predecessor, and the next prosecutor after Shokin - Yuriy Lutsenko - they all were contributing to killing this case."

But we're perhaps getting away from the heart of it. You invoked something in the Comcast thread that I think has applicability here; the 'but-for' test. So let's apply it here: If Hunter had not been involved with Burisma, would Joe Biden have pushed for Shokin's removal? The answer to that is a resounding yes. At the time there was bipartisan support for the move in the States and widespread consensus among the international community - including the EU, the IMF, the G-7, and global watchdog organizations - that Shokin was an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts in the Ukraine and consequentially had to go. Trump et al and the pundits supporting him have tried to cast this as a Biden initiative, but the truth is that Biden was only a part of an international effort.

 

[tstorm823]

But we're perhaps getting away from the heart of it. You invoked something in the Comcast thread that I think has applicability here; the 'but-for' test. So let's apply it here: If Hunter had not been involved with Burisma, would Joe Biden have pushed for Shokin's removal? The answer to that is a resounding yes. At the time there was bipartisan support for the move in the States and widespread consensus among the international community - including the EU, the IMF, the G-7, and global watchdog organizations - that Shokin was an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts in the Ukraine and consequentially had to go. Trump et al and the pundits supporting him have tried to cast this as a Biden initiative, but the truth is that Biden was only a part of an international effort.

If I'm giving my actual opinion of the matter, I am inclined to think Burisma mattered. But not because Hunter was there, rather Hunter was there because it mattered. It's a Ukrainian oil and gas company that was trying to befriend the US instead of Russia after the invasion of Crimea. The US isn't exactly shy about pushing to keep oil interests US friendly instead of Russia.

 

[Agema]

This is a guy who writes a book about how he has no voice and is being silenced. Guess what! If you're selling books, you are NOT silenced. Go figure.

As far as I can tell Hunter Biden is an overprivileged mediocrity with huge latitude to "fail upwards" because of his dad. But consequently, the idea of Donald fucking Trump fucking Jr. - of all people - having a go at him transcends irony.

 

[Saelune]

The accusation is nepotism though, and you know it and are trying to move the goalposts because you have no defense.

In one sentence, you are moving the goalposts for me while accusing me of moving them.

I moved them back to their original position after you lied about it not being about nepotism.

 

[Saelune]

This is a guy who writes a book about how he has no voice and is being silenced. Guess what! If you're selling books, you are NOT silenced. Go figure.

As far as I can tell Hunter Biden is an overprivileged mediocrity with huge latitude to "fail upwards" because of his dad. But consequently, the idea of Donald fucking Trump fucking Jr. - of all people - having a go at him transcends irony.

I am fine with everyone guilty of nepotism being punished for it. I just want punishment to be evenly applied. I am not defending Hunter Biden, I am calling out Donald Trump and his son Donald Trump.