Official Impeachment Thread

[Goodspeed]

Let's play a hypothetical out for a moment, Biden threatens to hold back foreign aid from Ukraine like he did, he rings up Poroshenko (however you spell it), like he did and says you don't get your foreign aid unless you fire the man investigating my son's company. Now is that corruption?

The MSM started talking about Trump withholding foreign aid after people started talking about how Biden did that. It's a tactic of theirs to accuse their opposition of what they're doing. The difference is that Biden outright admitted to withholding foreign aid as a threat to get the prosecutor fired. But with Trump doing it, you have to take two events and build a narrative connecting the two. That's how the media fabricates scandals. They blast accusations from politicians across the air waves, getting to retain impartiality as it's just quoting figureheads. But then they report on random incidents, and try to imply a connecting narrative. (without making any accusations themselves, mind you) This gives confirmatory feelings towards people who believe that narrative. However, it's rarely a consistently founded belief. That's why you can ask people who believe in these things why they believe it, and they just trip over their own words or act like it's so obvious that it doesn't need to be said.

This post does an excellent job defining irony. If you were trolling I'd give you a medal for this one

It's important to bring Biden up, because if he is corrupt - or appears to be - then it was perfectly fine for Trump to say Ukraine should look into his corruption.

Trump telling a foreign government to investigate his political rivals by leveraging the power of his office is not perfectly fine. If an investigation had previously found that Biden broke the law, then it would be fine for the DOJ to prosecute, but no such finding exists.

That's what I'm trying to explain,

Wait, what? Then why are you even pretending you're not defending Trump?

It's not about saying "hey, but Biden is corrupt too" in order to excuse Trump.

[Dolan]

I mean Trump is abusing the office to expose another abuse of office, basically.

Not sure if that exonerates his action in any way, that's a matter for courts to decide (or the US Senate).

But well, all this stuff is happening because Trump has this concept of running a country like a CEO runs a business. So he probably thinks that whatever dirty tricks he was using while doing business can work in the WH too. Such as using state aid as leverage for political gains.

It's not like this is anything new, though. This practice is as old as politics. Every politician has used his office to serve some political interests, at some point. And frankly state aid is not something that Ukraine is entitled to. It's contingent on some requirements being met. If it's a decision that is completely at the president's discretion, then he can pretty much decide whether to allow such aid on any possible whim, which includes reasons that serve his political interests.

[Goodspeed]

I mean Trump is abusing the office to expose another abuse of office, basically.

Not sure if that exonerates his action in any way, that's a matter for courts to decide (or the US Senate).

Wouldn't you say that's a necessary clarification to make after replying "that's what I was trying to explain" to Amsel's post saying that if Biden is corrupt Trump's actions are "perfectly fine"?
Or are you saying it's morally fine, if not legally?

[n0el]

Let's just say (even though its not correct), that him investigating Biden is legit. How do you defend the second part of the package? Demanding Ukraine take ownership of election interference and absolve Russia of any wrong doing?

[Amsel_]

"Telling countries to enforce their laws is breaking the law."

yikes

[wardyb1]

Show hidden quotes

We already know he broke the law numerous times

When?

Well since someone has gone to the trouble and written it out already and sourced it all, I'll just hit you with the link.

Spoiler

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comme ... dium=web2x

Wow. It's fucking nothing.

Imagine if we actually established principles of what is and isn't treason based on this, instead of recognizing that the media is just building a narrative off of incidental events.

What would happen to AIPAC?

Or you know, don't ask foreign governments to do your dirty work? This is the exact sort of thing that treason should be based on. If you don't fight against this form of treason then, you have sold your republic and it's values out for nothing. Then good luck with the free for all on your elections. Let's play a hypothetical out for a moment, Trump holds back foreign aid from Ukraine like he did, he rings up Zelenksy (however you spell it), like he did and says you don't get your foreign aid (again like he already implied) unless you kill Biden. Now is that treason? Now I can already hear the "oh that's different" but is it? It is definitely now murder but he has still attempted to take out his main opponent from a free election. Both have the same result, the dismantling of a fair and free election through the abuse of power of his office. Why don't you ask your elected officials to portray the beliefs they should hold, instead of letting them act like a group of 10 year olds would act trying to be class president.

Let's play a hypothetical out for a moment, Biden threatens to hold back foreign aid from Ukraine like he did, he rings up Poroshenko (however you spell it), like he did and says you don't get your foreign aid unless you fire the man investigating my son's company. Now is that corruption?

The MSM started talking about Trump withholding foreign aid after people started talking about how Biden did that. It's a tactic of theirs to accuse their opposition of what they're doing. The difference is that Biden outright admitted to withholding foreign aid as a threat to get the prosecutor fired. But with Trump doing it, you have to take two events and build a narrative connecting the two. That's how the media fabricates scandals. They blast accusations from politicians across the air waves, getting to retain impartiality as it's just quoting figureheads. But then they report on random incidents, and try to imply a connecting narrative. (without making any accusations themselves, mind you) This gives confirmatory feelings towards people who believe that narrative. However, it's rarely a consistently founded belief. That's why you can ask people who believe in these things why they believe it, and they just trip over their own words or act like it's so obvious that it doesn't need to be said.

I'll just give you the fact checked article to clear up what really happened. https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump ... d-ukraine/ It is quite clear from all parties involved that Shokin was removed for failing to clean up corruption. Also why would Biden's threat to withhold 1 billion in aid move Ukraine, when the IMF was threatening to withhold 40 billion? The investigation into the leaders of the Ukrainian gas companies occured before Hunter Biden joined the board, so that narrative makes no sense. So would it be corruption if he actually did what you said? Sure, but that isn't close to what happened.

[Amsel_]

I'll just give you the fact checked article to clear up what really happened. https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump ... d-ukraine/ It is quite clear from all parties involved that Shokin was removed for failing to clean up corruption. Also why would Biden's threat to withhold 1 billion in aid move Ukraine, when the IMF was threatening to withhold 40 billion? The investigation into the leaders of the Ukrainian gas companies occured before Hunter Biden joined the board, so that narrative makes no sense. So would it be corruption if he actually did what you said? Sure, but that isn't close to what happened.

Your article doesn't even deny any of the points I'm making. It relies mainly on the fact that Biden didn't up and confess to getting the prosecutor fired solely to protect his son. And Biden himself says that he's the one who got the prosecutor fired, so it's odd to deny that he was the one who moved Ukraine. But there is one detail that I found really interesting. It mentioned that his role wasn't just as a board member, but as a top lawyer as well. So let's look at this timeline:

1)High level executives in Burisma allegedly commit money laundering
2)Hunter Biden is hired because of his last name, and he's charged with protecting the company legally
3)An investigation is launched into Burisma
4)Biden's dad, then the Vice President, gets the prosecutor fired, helping Burisma legally
6)Trump publicly accuses Biden of helping his son, to Fox News
7)Trump privately accuses Biden of helping his son, to the President of Ukraine
8)The President of Ukraine says that he was already planning for his new prosecutor to look into Burisma specifically

I really have trouble interpreting these events in a way where Trump is worse than Biden & Biden.

[wardyb1]

I'll just give you the fact checked article to clear up what really happened. https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump ... d-ukraine/ It is quite clear from all parties involved that Shokin was removed for failing to clean up corruption. Also why would Biden's threat to withhold 1 billion in aid move Ukraine, when the IMF was threatening to withhold 40 billion? The investigation into the leaders of the Ukrainian gas companies occured before Hunter Biden joined the board, so that narrative makes no sense. So would it be corruption if he actually did what you said? Sure, but that isn't close to what happened.

Your article doesn't even deny any of the points I'm making. It relies mainly on the fact that Biden didn't up and confess to getting the prosecutor fired solely to protect his son. And Biden himself says that he's the one who got the prosecutor fired, so it's odd to deny that he was the one who moved Ukraine. But there is one detail that I found really interesting. It mentioned that his role wasn't just as a board member, but as a top lawyer as well. So let's look at this timeline:

1)High level executives in Burisma allegedly commit money laundering
2)Hunter Biden is hired because of his last name, and he's charged with protecting the company legally
3)An investigation is launched into Burisma
4)Biden's dad, then the Vice President, gets the prosecutor fired, helping Burisma legally
6)Trump publicly accuses Biden of helping his son, to Fox News
7)Trump privately accuses Biden of helping his son, to the President of Ukraine
8)The President of Ukraine says that he was already planning for his new prosecutor to look into Burisma specifically

I really have trouble interpreting these events in a way where Trump is worse than Biden & Biden.

2 things, once again your timeline is wrong. The investigation is launched before Biden is hired. Why does Biden need to protect Hunter when his son wasn't at the company when the alleged crimes happened, it makes no sense. 2nd of all, it is still irrelevant to the the actual charge that Trump abused the powers of his office. Whether corruption is happening or not, Trump can't legally do what he did. I wish Biden was found to have wrongdoing, but you can't hold the position that what Biden was doing was wrong, while simultaneously saying Trump was fine to do what he did.

[Amsel_]

2 things, once again your timeline is wrong. The investigation is launched before Biden is hired.

Your factcheck.org article says that Hunter was hired in May 2014, and the investigation into Zlochevsky started in December 2015.

Why does Biden need to protect Hunter when his son wasn't at the company when the alleged crimes happened, it makes no sense.

I find it doubtful that Hunter would not have faced financial damage if Zlochevsky was arrested. I also doubt that Joe would like the public to know his family is involved in corruption ahead of a bid for the presidency. And there's the simple likelihood that Hunter was hired specifically to cover for Burisma after they committed crimes. His job was to help them legally.

2nd of all, it is still irrelevant to the the actual charge that Trump abused the powers of his office. Whether corruption is happening or not, Trump can't legally do what he did. I wish Biden was found to have wrongdoing, but you can't hold the position that what Biden was doing was wrong, while simultaneously saying Trump was fine to do what he did.

I don't see how telling countries to enforce their laws is illegal.

[Amsel_]

Oh no no no no no



https://dcwhispers.com/doh-did-you-know ... ng-crimes/
https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc1 ... tdoc16.pdf

To the Senate of the United States: With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex, signed at Kiev on July 22, 1998. I transmit also, for the information of the Senate, an exchange of notes which was signed on September 30, 1999, which provides for its provisional application, as well as the report of the Department of State with respect to the Treaty.

The Treaty is one of a series of modern mutual legal assistance treaties being negotiated by the United States in order to counter criminal activities more effectively. The Treaty should be an effective tool to assist in the prosecution of a wide variety of crimes, including drug trafficking offenses. The Treaty is self-executing. It provides for a broad range of cooperation in criminal matters. Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state. I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Treaty and give its advice and consent to ratification.

Wtf bros, you said Trump was done for this time. We were banking on this! How the fuck are we supposed to flip the rust-belt after supporting free-healthcare for undocumented migrants and the green new deal? How are we supposed to hold the suburbs in Nevada and New Hampshire with all the tax-hikes we're proposing? Impeachment was supposed to be the start of Bernie's rise to glory! This is Pelosi's fault.

[n0el]

Where’s the DOJ investigation that they would be supporting?

[Amsel_]

Where’s the DOJ investigation that they would be supporting?

Does the treaty state that the DOJ needs to be involved? Regardless, I believe the transcripts of the phone call mention the Attorney General working with Ukraine.

[n0el]

The paper trail also mentions 2016 election interference, as I said earlier. What’s the defense for that?

[Riotcoke]

Is there any evidence ?

[n0el]

Of what? @Riotcoke

[Riotcoke]

Election interference

[n0el]

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/t ... s-n1062096

[Goodspeed]

Election interference

Cambridge analytica. You should know about them, they fucked your country over too.

[n0el]

Not for Riot, he doesn't like Eastern European immigrants remember?

[Riotcoke]

Not for Riot, he doesn't like Eastern European immigrants remember?

There is no proof of this.

[n0el]

Okay one of the main reasons is people don't like eastern europeans, i'll be honest i'm not too fond of the ones i've met either. If it was just western europe it'd be fine.

[Riotcoke]

In terms of the EU they're bad yeah, overall i have nothing against them.

[fightinfrenchman]

In terms of the EU they're bad yeah, overall i have nothing against them.

Why do you think this was good to post

[Amsel_]

@Riotcoke Stop being racist towards Slavs. You're going to cost us 2020 and the next Brexit referendum!

[Dolan]

>Eastern Europeans
>Slavs

Ahem, some of us are not Slavs. And yeah, there are good reasons why some Brits dislike Eastern Europeans. After our countries joined the EU, what happened is that a lot of people went there to look for jobs. And when borders between countries are open, you get both the brightest and the most vicious people from other countries. The media will always show the most vicious types in their news pieces, because that's what stirs up emotions. You don't get page views and clicks if you write about Romanians studying at Oxford or working in some financial firm in London, that's just boring. You get page views if you write about Romanian gypsies or boors pickpocketing in shops or abusing welfare services. Nobody writes about the silent majority of Eastern Europeans simply doing their jobs or minding their own business.

Secondly, before Eastern European countries joined the EU, I think EU members had a certain mentality about being a member. They thought it was an exclusive club for posh countries and being part of it made your country look superior by default. Once the poorer part of Europe joined in, that image got diluted and you're now in the same boat with poorer people. Ewwww, how disgusting, these Eastern Euros are really cramping your lordly style. It's a "posh club" mentality.