Partisanship Doesn’t Entirely Explain Trump’s Impeachment

[Cordelier]

As far as Hunter helping clean things up, I’d be more inclined to accept that if he had any prior experience in energy, Ukraine or cleaning up a corrupt company. He had none of that. The only thing he had was a connection to the US State Department through his father.

Hunter Biden, like His father and Trump, should be presumed innocent but the situation, especially in light of concerns even from the Obama administration, makes questioning what was going on quite reasonable.

I’ll add one more thing, Trump was effectively prohibited from looking into any of that stuff while the Mueller investigation was going on. Doing so would have been called obstruction. Once that investigation wrapped up he had more freedom to dig into it.

Like I said in my post, I don't think Biden was the prime mover and shaker in Zlochevsky's ouster... but I certainly think he would have represented a vote on the board in favor of it. He wouldn't have needed extensive experience to give his support to more experienced reform-minded members of the board of directors like Kwasniewski or Alan Apter. When push came to shove and it came time for the Burisma board to decide between being pro-Zlochevsky or anti-Zlochevsky, do you really think Biden would have voted with the minority?

As far as giving President Trump any presumption of innocence, I think the main stumbling point for me is the involvement of Rudy Giuliani in this matter - both in his activities within the Ukraine and his mention within the phone conversation. I've tried squaring the circle from every angle I can think of, and whatever way I look at it, any official efforts on the part of the President to aid Giuliani's activities are a clear abuse of his power. I don't see how anyone looking at this objectively can get around that basic fact. A President has two sides to his existence... there are things he does as President and there are things he does as a private individual. Once you cross the line between the two and start taking actions as President to benefit the individual, then you necessarily abuse the powers of the office.

 

[Cynical]

I agree with this sentiment entirely, and so in that spirit, let's take a closer look at Burisma and it's founder, Mykola Zlochevsky. I think we can both agree that Zlochevsky used his positions in the pro-Russian Yanukovich Government to enrich himself, but once Yanukovich was overthrown in Feb. 2014, then Zlochevsky's had to scramble to keep on top of events. It couldn't be "business as usual" anymore. He needed to totally remake his image... and that meant remaking his board of directors. So out went his own cronies who looked the other way while he was wheeling-and-dealing under Yanukovich, and in came new faces that would be more friendly to the new pro-Western Government in Kiev. Among these were the former President of Poland, Aleksandr Kwasniewski and, of course, Hunter Biden. It was a total house-cleaning that bought Zlochevsky some time... but that eventually came at a cost to him. You bring in reformers and sooner or later they're going to want to reform things... and that they did. By Dec. of 2014, Zlochevsky had been ousted as CEO of Burisma.

So, if you take a step back and take the broader perspective, couldn't the argument be made that Hunter Biden might have played a positive role in helping to clean up the corruption in Burisma? I'm not saying that he was a leading light on that front or anything - I'm inclined to give former President Kwasniewski credit for that - but I do think Biden might very well have given Kwasniewski a much-needed supporting vote on the board.

I'm not saying I have any more evidence for my pro-Biden case than you do for your anti-Biden one. But the broader perspective you advocate should at least embrace both possibilities, should it not? That being the case, and without any evidence of wrong-doing on the part of Biden, is he not due a certain measure of presumption of innocence? I'm not against his being called as a witness in the President's Senate trial, but I do think the President's defense should present evidence amounting to reasonable suspicion against him before that happens.

Does this description sound like they could not find anybody better suited for that role?

A messy divorce put Hunter Biden on the front pages again. A 2019 Vanity Fair profile on him said his estranged first wife Kathleen Biden claimed in divorce papers that Hunter had allegedly “blown money on prostitutes, strip clubs, and drugs,” but the magazine noted that “the split was settled without the allegations being litigated.”

Kathleen accused Hunter of “spending extravagantly on his own interests (including drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, strip clubs and gifts for women with whom he has sexual relations), while leaving the family with no funds to pay legitimate bills,” according to The Associated Press. Kathleen became close friends with Michelle Obama after their daughters attended the same tony private school, according to The New Yorker article.

Hunter Biden: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

 

[Cordelier]

Does this description sound like they could not find anybody better suited for that role?

A messy divorce put Hunter Biden on the front pages again. A 2019 Vanity Fair profile on him said his estranged first wife Kathleen Biden claimed in divorce papers that Hunter had allegedly “blown money on prostitutes, strip clubs, and drugs,” but the magazine noted that “the split was settled without the allegations being litigated.”

Kathleen accused Hunter of “spending extravagantly on his own interests (including drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, strip clubs and gifts for women with whom he has sexual relations), while leaving the family with no funds to pay legitimate bills,” according to The Associated Press. Kathleen became close friends with Michelle Obama after their daughters attended the same tony private school, according to The New Yorker article.

Hunter Biden: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

Without getting too much into gossip and innuendo about Biden's personal life - he's never run for office, and so it's not for us to make judgment calls one way or the other - I think the kind of behavior you draw attention to would have made him the ideal candidate for someone like Zlochevsky in early 2014 - he would have wanted somebody with the right name and pedigree, but someone who also probably wouldn't have "made waves". Keep in mind that Zlochevsky was in a very tough spot then.... the new people coming into office would have viewed him as pro-Russian and tied to the old regime. He was vulnerable to corruption charges. If he wanted to stay in charge of Burisma, he needed to make deals with the new Government. That included an overhauled Board of Directors. I think bringing on Kwasniewski was a big concession on the part of Zlochevsky - Kwasniewski was closely allied with acting President Turchynov... so it wouldn't have been something he wanted to do. On the other side of the token, I think Biden would have been a good "image" candidate for Zlochevsky to put forward.

When you get right down to it, there are three types of Corporate Directors - 1) "Activists" who take the job of corporate governance seriously and will hold the CEO's feet to the fire; 2) "Stuffed Shirts" who look great on the surface, but don't really know or do much in practice; and 3) "Cronies" who will rubber-stamp whatever the CEO tells them to rubber stamp. I think when Yanukovich was in power and Zlochevsky was accumulating his fortune, Burisma's board was full of Cronies.... but after the Euromaidan, Zlochevsky was forced to clean house and fill his board with Activists and Stuffed Shirts... given the choice - and to preserve his own position and power - he would have wanted as many of the latter (and as few as the former) as possible. Biden was just a handy stuffed shirt - but I think he would have been one who leaned more in support of the Activists than the CEO.

 

[washunut]

From the editor of the conservative National Review, Jonah Goldberg

He basically said that Trump gave the Democrats an excuse to impeach him because of his unethical behavior. He spent the first few paragraphs doing some cover of his reputation as a conservative using some rhetoric, but then came to the meat
of his argument.



In other words, although he wants to complain about the Democrats wanting to impeach, he also is acknowledging, well, it managed to get through the house because of Trumps own actions.

Really a very weakly thought out opinion piece. Lets remember that the writer is an avowed "never trumper". So not sure where anyone starts with an anti-Trump opinion piece by a never trumper. The only glimmer of bi-partisanship in the impeachment vote were a few democrats who did not vote for it.

 

[Mr Person]

For someone to suggest he was impeached because of "partisanship" would itself be partisan hackery of the highest order.

He used the power of his office and our tax dollars for personal gain via extorting dirt on Hunter Biden from Ukraine.

 

[CRModeration]

From the editor of the conservative National Review, Jonah Goldberg

He basically said that Trump gave the Democrats an excuse to impeach him because of his unethical behavior. He spent the first few paragraphs doing some cover of his reputation as a conservative using some rhetoric, but then came to the meat
of his argument.



In other words, although he wants to complain about the Democrats wanting to impeach, he also is acknowledging, well, it managed to get through the house because of Trumps own actions.

The National Review has already been considered a "RINO" publication by avid Trump supporters. Any and all opinions aside from undying support are relevant to them.

 

[Lutherf]

Like I said in my post, I don't think Biden was the prime mover and shaker in Zlochevsky's ouster... but I certainly think he would have represented a vote on the board in favor of it. He wouldn't have needed extensive experience to give his support to more experienced reform-minded members of the board of directors like Kwasniewski or Alan Apter. When push came to shove and it came time for the Burisma board to decide between being pro-Zlochevsky or anti-Zlochevsky, do you really think Biden would have voted with the minority?

As far as giving President Trump any presumption of innocence, I think the main stumbling point for me is the involvement of Rudy Giuliani in this matter - both in his activities within the Ukraine and his mention within the phone conversation. I've tried squaring the circle from every angle I can think of, and whatever way I look at it, any official efforts on the part of the President to aid Giuliani's activities are a clear abuse of his power. I don't see how anyone looking at this objectively can get around that basic fact. A President has two sides to his existence... there are things he does as President and there are things he does as a private individual. Once you cross the line between the two and start taking actions as President to benefit the individual, then you necessarily abuse the powers of the office.

I don't see why Giuliani is a problem (other than being a thorn in the side of career diplomats). Trump made quite clear that Giuliani would be involved in investigating things related to 2016 and Giuliani has experience doing stuff like that from when he was a prosecutor in NY. Trump also had Barr involved but Barr had other responsibilities with the DoJ as well so having Giuliani taking the lead outside the US seems reasonable. If he came up with something significant he could go to Barr...who was also mentioned in the call.

 

[Bullseye]

From the editor of the conservative National Review, Jonah Goldberg

He basically said that Trump gave the Democrats an excuse to impeach him because of his unethical behavior. He spent the first few paragraphs doing some cover of his reputation as a conservative using some rhetoric, but then came to the meat
of his argument.



In other words, although he wants to complain about the Democrats wanting to impeach, he also is acknowledging, well, it managed to get through the house because of Trumps own actions.

You do know Goldberg, for all his good work, is a staunch never-trumper, right? National Review ran a whole issue about why Trump should never be President.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Trump just does crooked things. it's who he is.

it's why he lied about releasing his tax returns. the guy is just dirty.


i'm glad he has cash on hand. US banks won't loan him a dime.

 

[vesper]

I don't see why Giuliani is a problem (other than being a thorn in the side of career diplomats). Trump made quite clear that Giuliani would be involved in investigating things related to 2016 and Giuliani has experience doing stuff like that from when he was a prosecutor in NY. Trump also had Barr involved but Barr had other responsibilities with the DoJ as well so having Giuliani taking the lead outside the US seems reasonable. If he came up with something significant he could go to Barr...who was also mentioned in the call.

Giuliani claims his investigation has uncovered corruption involving Ukrainians and persons associated with our government and the Democratic party. He has also stated he is turning over all the evidence to the DOJ. I have no doubt that if what Giuliani says is true, then there are some folks that may be inclined to not want to let the information come to the light of day.

 

[Cordelier]

I don't see why Giuliani is a problem (other than being a thorn in the side of career diplomats). Trump made quite clear that Giuliani would be involved in investigating things related to 2016 and Giuliani has experience doing stuff like that from when he was a prosecutor in NY. Trump also had Barr involved but Barr had other responsibilities with the DoJ as well so having Giuliani taking the lead outside the US seems reasonable. If he came up with something significant he could go to Barr...who was also mentioned in the call.

Luther... to whom is Rudy Giuliani accountable?

 

[Cordelier]

Giuliani claims his investigation has uncovered corruption involving Ukrainians and persons associated with our government and the Democratic party. He has also stated he is turning over all the evidence to the DOJ. I have no doubt that if what Giuliani says is true, then there are some folks that may be inclined to not want to let the information come to the light of day.

Giuliani can claim whatever he wants. He can travel to the ends of the Earth on Donald Trump's dime manufacturing whatever "proof" he wants. Doesn't mean a damn thing, though. And you know what else? If the resources and/or personnel of the US Government aided him whatsoever in his "crusade" on the orders of the President, it means the President has abused his power.

We're supposed to be a democracy... democracies don't brook secret police forces.

 

[Lutherf]

Luther... to whom is Rudy Giuliani accountable?

Himself? Nobody? Sounds like there's supposed to be a point in there somewhere.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Himself? Nobody? Sounds like there's supposed to be a point in there somewhere.

Rudy’s accountable to his boo-boo

 

[Lutherf]

Giuliani can claim whatever he wants. He can travel to the ends of the Earth on Donald Trump's dime manufacturing whatever "proof" he wants. Doesn't mean a damn thing, though. And you know what else? If the resources and/or personnel of the US Government aided him whatsoever in his "crusade" on the orders of the President, it means the President has abused his power.

We're supposed to be a democracy... democracies don't brook secret police forces.

Rudy isn't anything close to "secret police". He's doing exactly the same kind of investigating that international news reporters used to do before they all ended up affiliated with one political party or another.

 

[Cordelier]

Himself? Nobody? Sounds like there's supposed to be a point in there somewhere.

You're damn right there's a point there... he's accountable only to his client, Donald Trump. Not the President of the United States - he's not employed by the Department of Justice or any other entity of the US Government. He's Donald Trump's personal lawyer... his own personal Grand Inquisitor manufacturing "evidence" against heretics who dare oppose him. And yet he has officials within the Government doing his bidding at the behest of the President. "Talk to Rudy". He has the President himself using US foreign aid to leverage meetings for him with top Ukrainian officials. And you seriously see nothing wrong with this?

Christ, open your eyes. Rudy Giuliani has effectively become the President's secret police. Might as well give the man a Badge that says "Agent #1". Because if this is allowed to stand, I have no doubt there will be others. There probably are more already.

 

[Cordelier]

Rudy isn't anything close to "secret police". He's doing exactly the same kind of investigating that international news reporters used to do before they all ended up affiliated with one political party or another.

Bull****. He's doing exactly the same thing the Plumbers were doing in Watergate - digging up dirt on political adversaries - with Government assistance.

 

[rocket88]

Democrats were shouting impeachment on the day he took the oath. This was an impeach first and find a crime second. If dems thought this was going to play well in the American theatre then that is a fascinating failure of judgement.

You're going to carry on with that myth?

As i proved in another thread, no, basically there has been no movement in the polls. There was no massive backlash and still aren't.

It played to the base, but that's about all they accomplished. You call Trump a genius when he does it.

 

[rocket88]

Rudy isn't anything close to "secret police". He's doing exactly the same kind of investigating that international news reporters used to do before they all ended up affiliated with one political party or another.

When exactly was this mythical time when there was no bias in media?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Like I said in my post, I don't think Biden was the prime mover and shaker in Zlochevsky's ouster... but I certainly think he would have represented a vote on the board in favor of it. He wouldn't have needed extensive experience to give his support to more experienced reform-minded members of the board of directors like Kwasniewski or Alan Apter. When push came to shove and it came time for the Burisma board to decide between being pro-Zlochevsky or anti-Zlochevsky, do you really think Biden would have voted with the minority?

As far as giving President Trump any presumption of innocence, I think the main stumbling point for me is the involvement of Rudy Giuliani in this matter - both in his activities within the Ukraine and his mention within the phone conversation. I've tried squaring the circle from every angle I can think of, and whatever way I look at it, any official efforts on the part of the President to aid Giuliani's activities are a clear abuse of his power. I don't see how anyone looking at this objectively can get around that basic fact. A President has two sides to his existence... there are things he does as President and there are things he does as a private individual. Once you cross the line between the two and start taking actions as President to benefit the individual, then you necessarily abuse the powers of the office.

Honest question, do you think he could have trusted the State Department, the FBI or the CIA to do their utmost? Giuliani was there because Trump trusted him and nearly everyone would know who he was from all the 9/11 reputation.

I personally don't think Trump trusts any of the three agencies I mentioned, and with fairly good reason.

 

[Cordelier]

Honest question, do you think he could have trusted the State Department, the FBI or the CIA to do their utmost? Giuliani was there because Trump trusted him and nearly everyone would know who he was from all the 9/11 reputation.

I personally don't think Trump trusts any of the three agencies I mentioned, and with fairly good reason.

Trust them to do what, exactly? Manufacture a baseless investigation against his political rivals? No, I can see why he couldn't trust legitimate agencies of the Government to do that.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Trust them to do what, exactly? Manufacture a baseless investigation against his political rivals? No, I can see why he couldn't trust legitimate agencies of the Government to do that.

Was there a legitimate investigation being conducted on Burisma that was quashed when the AG type for the Ukraine was sacked?

BTW, spin not accepted.

 

[MTAtech]

Basically, the National Review piece is saying, ‘yes, Democrats hate Trump and wanted to impeach him long ago, but that does mean Trump didn’t commit impeachable offenses.’

A defense for getting a speeding ticket isn’t that the police car was waiting behind bushes eager to give someone a ticket, so I must be innocent.

 

[vesper]

Giuliani can claim whatever he wants. He can travel to the ends of the Earth on Donald Trump's dime manufacturing whatever "proof" he wants. Doesn't mean a damn thing, though. And you know what else? If the resources and/or personnel of the US Government aided him whatsoever in his "crusade" on the orders of the President, it means the President has abused his power.

We're supposed to be a democracy... democracies don't brook secret police forces.

What are you afraid of Cordelier? Are you afraid that Giuliani may have found some really ugly stuff involving our own government and the Democratic party?

Are you not aware that the DOJ announced months ago that Ukraine involvement in our 2016 elections is something that John Durham was looking into? That it was included in his investigation? Evidently Durham's team sees some there, there to pursue an investigation. After all last I heard Ukraine was listed as the third most corrupt country in the world.



I haven't seen anything that Giuliani has uncovered in the way of documents. I did hear him say he was turning over all the evidence to the DOJ. I also heard Lindsey Graham say that he will hold a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee with Giuliani to present his evidence after the Impeachment fiasco is over.

 

[Cordelier]

Was there a legitimate investigation being conducted on Burisma that was quashed when the AG type for the Ukraine was sacked?

BTW, spin not accepted.

In answer to that, I'll offer this quotation from Ambassador Volker's Oct. 3 Deposition (Pg. 36-37):

Q. (Daniel Noble, Senior Counsel, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence). Okay. Let's go to the second allegation. And we're going to come back to the President's interest in that investigation later on. But could you describe, you said there was a second allegation?

Ambassador Volker: Yes. The second allegation is the one about Burisma and Hunter Biden and Vice President Biden. And the allegation there is that Hunter Biden was put on the board of a corrupt company that a prior prosecutor general, Shokin -- I believe it's S-h-o-k-i-n -- was seeking to investigate that company and that Vice President Biden weighed in with the President of Ukraine to have that prosecutor general, Shokin, fired. That's the allegation.

Q. Okay. And to your knowledge, is there any evidence to support that allegation?

Ambassador Volker: There is clear evidence that Vice President Biden did indeed weigh in with the President of Ukraine to have Shokin fired, but the motivations for that are entirely different from those contained in that allegation.

Q. That were pushed by Prosecutor General Lutsenko ---

Ambassador Volker: Correct.

Q. --- and adopted by John Solomon in The Hill and then repeated on televised news?

Ambassador Volker: Correct. When Vice President Biden made those representations to President Poroshenko he was representing U.S. policy at the time. And it was a general assumption - I was not doing U.S. policy at the time - but a general assumption among the European Union, France, Germany, American diplomats, U.K., that Shokin was not doing his job as a prosecutor general. He was not pursuing corruption cases.

Q. So it wasn't just former Vice President Biden who was pushing for his removal, it was those other parties you just mentioned?

Ambassador Volker: I don't know about any other specific efforts. It would not surprise me.

If you can find anybody credible who has gone on the record as saying Viktor Shokin was an effective Prosecutor who was wrongly removed from office by Vice President Biden's actions, I'd be interested in reading their testimony.