OK - So Rudy is Officially not Credible at all

[Boosted87]

First off - this is a must read if you're interested in the complex mess that is Ukraine. The article is focused on Lutsenko and paints him as a complicated figure. There's way too much in here for me to try and summarize, I just wanted to post some tidbits about Rudy.

The Ukrainian Prosecutor Behind Trump’s Impeachment

To start, Rudy admits that Amb. Yovanovitch was a road block in his effort to get investigations announced/started.

“I believed that I needed Yovanovitch out of the way,” he said. “She was going to make the investigations difficult for everybody.”
​

That's great and all, but here's where it gets really good.

Giuliani compiled a dossier on the Bidens and Yovanovitch, which he sent to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and which was shared with the F.B.I. and with me (Adam Entous).
​

A dossier you say?

One section of the dossier, dated March 28, 2019, contained particularly outlandish claims. Kent, Yovanovitch, and other officials are accused of setting up nabu in order to protect the Bidens rather than to investigate corruption. (Neither Kent nor Yovanovitch was working in Ukraine when the law establishing nabu was passed.) Hunter Biden is alleged to have had breakfast on May 26, 2015, with Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken to discuss Burisma. (At the time, Hunter was at the hospital bedside of his brother, who died four days later.) The section also included a memo that claimed, falsely, that the financier George Soros, a perennial target of right-wing and anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists, had “played a big role” in getting Yovanovitch nominated as Ambassador to Ukraine. “Until she is removed Soros has as much, or more, power over Yovanovitch as the President and Secretary of State,” the memo reads.​

And there it is.

Giuliani recalled that he thought, “State’s going to look at that, and they’re going to see that what they’re saying about Yovanovitch is true. And then they’re going to see, holy shit, there’s a whole big bribery or money-laundering case here. We’ll give it to the Justice Department, so now I’m home free.”
​

 

[Boosted87]

I think there's a good compare and contrast opportunity here between the Rudy Dossier and the Steele Dossier. On the face of it, you could argue that both contain unverified information, handed over to official channels for vetting.

So an analogy here is if Steele had been a direct and private employee of Obama himself. Obama recalls an ambassador that is blocking Steele's efforts. Steele feeds information he finds directly to Obama. Obama repackages the accusations directly to Twitter, while Steele does interview after interview talking about all the bad stuff he has on Trump. Meanwhile, none of the national security experts in Obama's employ support the endeavor and see Steele as a grave threat to the presidency (calling him a hand grenade maybe?).

 

[NinjaKnight]

You're just now figuring this out?

 

[firm_bizzle]

Rudy is the Sec of State, he's credible.

 

[Crazyhole]

Not sure how you're interpreting that article as proof that Rudy is not credible

"In March, 2017, Lutsenko’s office recovered, from a Ukrainian bank, about $1.5 billion in assets allegedly stolen by Viktor Yanukovych and members of his government. Lutsenko credited a prosecutor named Kostiantyn Kulyk with having recovered the assets. American officials learned that Kulyk had been a target of a nabu corruption investigation, and told Lutsenko that they didn’t want to work with him. Lutsenko disregarded their concerns, deepening the distrust."

Not sure what to make of that, quite honestly. Why would we side with nabu when this guy just recovered stolen money?

In March, Toensing and diGenova, Solomon’s private lawyers, introduced Solomon to Parnas, to help him set up interviews with Lutsenko, Shokin, and other Ukrainian officials. Parnas told him that Giuliani was pursuing a similar line of inquiry. Solomon called Giuliani, to see if he had any information to share. According to Solomon, Giuliani said, “I’m not ready and my client’s not ready to decide what to do with this information, and my first inclination is to give it to the U.S. government.” Solomon told me that he responded by saying, “Keep me in the loop.”

That should say a lot. Giuliani's first inclination was to give it to the government. Doesnt that show that he truly believed that crimes were being committed?


I was near the red line, but I didn’t cross it,” Lutsenko said. Giuliani told me, “I was wondering what kind of game he was playing. I felt like we were getting scammed.”

This is a very interesting part of the article. Giuliani felt like Lutsenko wasn't going to investigate Burisma even though Lutsenko had provided documentation on corruption.


In May, Lutsenko met with an American friend, who warned him that his association with Giuliani’s smear campaign against the Bidens and Yovanovitch was causing serious damage to Ukraine’s standing in the United States. The friend told me, of Lutsenko, “He may be ambitious and occasionally reckless, but he is ultimately patriotic.” Lutsenko retreated.

No idea where to place this on the spectrum of bad guy/good guy.


It all made sense, says Lutsenko, when he realized that Adam Schiff was an investor in Franklin Templeton himself.” (A Schiff aide told me, in an e-mail, “As disclosed in his annual, publicly available financial disclosures, Rep. Schiff owns shares in some Franklin Templeton mutual funds, and has since 2009.”)

This kind of muddies the waters a little bit.

 

[Boosted87]

Not sure how you're interpreting that article as proof that Rudy is not credible

So yea in the world of trying to understand Lutsenko I think this article was fantastic and I agree with your assesment of "good guy / bad guy" being muddled. I think what's really important to keep in mind is that good/bad is based on perspective. We should always keep in mind that foreign actors should be judged on working in the best interests of their own citizens, not the United States.

Why I say Rudy isn't credible? Did you read the highlights shared from his dossier? That Kent and Yovanovitch formed nabu to protect the Bidens? Rudy seems like he'll swallow any narrative he thinks might help Trump.

Regarding Schiff and Franklin Templeton - that's another great example. Schiff owns mutual funds. That's how weak sauce this is. Not a private business venture, not real estate deal, not an ownership stake in Franklin Templeton itself - MUTUAL FUNDS. Rudy is standing that up as evidence of something? Really?

 

[Crazyhole]

So yea in the world of trying to understand Lutsenko I think this article was fantastic and I agree with your assesment of "good guy / bad guy" being muddled. I think what's really important to keep in mind is that good/bad is based on perspective. We should always keep in mind that foreign actors should be judged on working in the best interests of their own citizens, not the United States.

Why I say Rudy isn't credible? Did you read the highlights shared from his dossier? That Kent and Yovanovitch formed nabu to protect the Bidens? Rudy seems like he'll swallow any narrative he thinks might help Trump.

Regarding Schiff and Franklin Templeton - that's another great example. Schiff owns mutual funds. That's how weak sauce this is. Not a private business venture, not real estate deal, not an ownership stake in Franklin Templeton itself - MUTUAL FUNDS. Rudy is standing that up as evidence of something? Really?

I have to think that Rudy saying Yovanovitch and kent were part of forming nabu is either a typo or a misunderstanding. We know the basis of nabu and it predates both of their influence in Ukraine. If he had said they were "using" it, the statement would make a lot more sense.

What I read there is a mixture of good/bad and grey area among all of the actors. I can't dismiss out of hand the idea that Shokin, Lutsenko, Poroshenko, Zelensky and Giuliani are all lying and that Yovanovitch is telling the truth but I'm willing to bet that the truth is somewhere in the middle. My question is why? On one hand, there is a sentiment to being non-partisan by all characters but on the flip side there are too many opposing stories among the Ukranians. The author didn't mention the issues with Sytnyk so it portrayed him as being either a good guy or not an important factor which are both untrue. I do think that it paints Solomon in a good light for the most part, just doing the same work that any investigative journalist would do.

 

[fried-chicken]

@Crazyhole . I've just resigned to the fact that you're going to spend the rest of your life searching for justification for shit that you know is wrong.

You're the saddest one on this board. You know that what they are doing is an abuse of power and while others are just happy to admit they don't care that the president Is a crook as long as he's their crook, you have taken to desperately searching for any way to justify the actions so you can keep your values intact.

In a past life you would be mad about the executive branch usurping authority from the other branches of government. You would be mad that dozens of associates of the Trump campaign are in jail. That taxpayer money was used to procure political value in an election. There are many things that would have made you mad in the past but now you search for any way to justify what's going on. I think you should realize at this point that the values you think of as strong are actually just plain old GOP partisanship disguised as libertarianism. I'm sure you'd be defending a democrat that had taken the same steps that Trump has.

 

[UCFWayne]

@Crazyhole . I've just resigned to the fact that you're going to spend the rest of your life searching for justification for shit that you know is wrong.

You're the saddest one on this board. You know that what they are doing is an abuse of power and while others are just happy to admit they don't care that the president Is a crook as long as he's their crook, you have taken to desperately searching for any way to justify the actions so you can keep your values intact.

In a past life you would be mad about the executive branch usurping authority from the other branches of government. You would be mad that dozens of associates of the Trump campaign are in jail. That taxpayer money was used to procure political value in an election. There are many things that would have made you mad in the past but now you search for any way to justify what's going on. I think you should realize at this point that the values you think of as strong are actually just plain old GOP partisanship disguised as libertarianism. I'm sure you'd be defending a democrat that had taken the same steps that Trump has.

yet you remained silent during the obama years and his power grabs. you only care when the other team has that same power.

 

[Happy Hands]

Don't care about any of this, but what's up with that little hot broad that works for him? She a Russian mole? Femme fatale? Stripper just working for him to pay her tuition? She fine doe.

 

[fried-chicken]

yet you remained silent during the obama years and his power grabs. you only care when the other team has that same power.

Now do u.

You're silent right now. I was 20 and didn't care about politics very much, what's your excuse? If you can't see the problem that an erosion of values and a must win political enviroment causes then youre not paying attention.

At some point there will be a democrat president. If you don't hold Trump accountable for the shit he's done then it becomes acceptable. You know its not acceptable now but you're willing to over look it because he's on your team but the president isn't always going to be someone on your team. You're not going to want to normalize this.

 

[fried-chicken]

You can look at the Border Wall "national emergency." 100% a democrat will follow this playbook. Its going to be for climate change, student debt, gun control, or many other things that can't make it through Congress.

I think you know its just a matter of time before it happens and when it does happen you'll be really mad at whatever dem eventually does it but you'll only have Trump to blame.

 

[UCFBS]

... So an analogy here is if Steele had been a direct and private employee of Obama himself ...

Define 'employee'?

Steele was directly paid by Republicans, then the Clinton campaign, and then ... well, the ball rolls from there. This 'splitting hairs' is getting old.

 

[Boosted87]

I have to think that Rudy saying Yovanovitch and kent were part of forming nabu is either a typo or a misunderstanding. We know the basis of nabu and it predates both of their influence in Ukraine. If he had said they were "using" it, the statement would make a lot more sense.

What I read there is a mixture of good/bad and grey area among all of the actors. I can't dismiss out of hand the idea that Shokin, Lutsenko, Poroshenko, Zelensky and Giuliani are all lying and that Yovanovitch is telling the truth but I'm willing to bet that the truth is somewhere in the middle. My question is why? On one hand, there is a sentiment to being non-partisan by all characters but on the flip side there are too many opposing stories among the Ukranians. The author didn't mention the issues with Sytnyk so it portrayed him as being either a good guy or not an important factor which are both untrue. I do think that it paints Solomon in a good light for the most part, just doing the same work that any investigative journalist would do.

We're relying on the journalist here who says he has access to Rudy's dossier. He specifically sites the Kent/Yovanovitch/nabu angle as I described it, so it's not a matter of Rudy mis-speaking - but we are relying on the journalist's retelling of the dossier itself.

The story did make clear that Ukrainians changed behavior simply because Hunter was on the board. I thought that was fascinating. They live in a world where you don't piss off powerful people. Placing your kid on a board in Ukraine might be a way to signal that the company is off limits. Burisma may well have figured this into their plans. They didn't even need Joe Biden to do anything corrupt, they may have just gambled that elected officials and prosecutors would avoid actions that *might* anger a key player like Biden.

 

[UCFWayne]

Now do u.

You're silent right now. I was 20 and didn't care about politics very much, what's your excuse? If you can't see the problem that an erosion of values and a must win political enviroment causes then youre not paying attention.

At some point there will be a democrat president. If you don't hold Trump accountable for the shit he's done then it becomes acceptable. You know its not acceptable now but you're willing to over look it because he's on your team but the president isn't always going to be someone on your team. You're not going to want to normalize this.

first i didnt even for for trump in 2016. ive voiced concerns about trump before and ive said numerous things i dont like about him. if the search function actually worked i would provide you with links, but i know it doesnt matter to you.

 

[Boosted87]

Define 'employee'?

Steele was directly paid by Republicans, then the Clinton campaign, and then ... well, the ball rolls from there. This 'splitting hairs' is getting old.

Yea not sure what hairs I've split. I mean employee in terms of the direct reporting nature of the relationship, not in a technical sense of who writes the paycheck.

I'm pointing out the interesting parallels between Rudy the opposition researcher who creates a dossier of unverified information and Steele the opposition researcher who creates a dossier of unverified information.

 

[Crazyhole]

Yea not sure what hairs I've split. I mean employee in terms of the direct reporting nature of the relationship, not in a technical sense of who writes the paycheck.

I'm pointing out the interesting parallels between Rudy the opposition researcher who creates a dossier of unverified information and Steele the opposition researcher who creates a dossier of unverified information.

It very well could be true that Rudy's dossier is full of BS but we dont know yet, and the people involved waffle too much to have any idea when they were being honest. I guess where the 2 situations diverge is that in the former, people clearly are guilty of perpetuating a false narrative and in the latter, we just dont know what the heck was going on. In both situations there are several people in power or in the intelligence community who have made moves that clearly are corrupt, trump included. The way I read the article, if you look at this from an anti-trump POV we have to assume that at any given time every single person from Ukraine that is cited is corrupt and cannot be trusted, but that's hard to reconcile when they take both sides depending on the day. Common logic would say that half of the time they are being honest and half of the time they are lying. The same goes for Sondland. So where does that leave us if we leave confirmation bias out of the equation? At best, giuliani and trump received legitimate information and acted on it. At worst, giuliani had an agenda and convinced trump to go along. I really doubt that either side of this story is completely true but I am much more skeptical of the idea that the whole thing is made up when we have 5 high level ukranian officials corroborating it at times.

If in fact we have the worst case scenario, the US should completely cut ties with Ukraine. Stop giving them weapons and financial aid, kick them out of NATO and let them deal with Russia on their own.

 

[Crazyhole]

@Crazyhole . I've just resigned to the fact that you're going to spend the rest of your life searching for justification for shit that you know is wrong.

You're the saddest one on this board. You know that what they are doing is an abuse of power and while others are just happy to admit they don't care that the president Is a crook as long as he's their crook, you have taken to desperately searching for any way to justify the actions so you can keep your values intact.

In a past life you would be mad about the executive branch usurping authority from the other branches of government. You would be mad that dozens of associates of the Trump campaign are in jail. That taxpayer money was used to procure political value in an election. There are many things that would have made you mad in the past but now you search for any way to justify what's going on. I think you should realize at this point that the values you think of as strong are actually just plain old GOP partisanship disguised as libertarianism. I'm sure you'd be defending a democrat that had taken the same steps that Trump has.

Just go back to your first paragraph and tell me whether or not you think the steele dossier was legit and how the intelligence community dealt with it is appropriate.

 

[DaShuckster]

If in fact we have the worst case scenario, the US should completely cut ties with Ukraine. Stop giving them weapons and financial aid, kick them out of NATO and let them deal with Russia on their own.

Gee, who would that benefit?

Funny how the Russian Counterintelligence effort that our intelligence community has verified is never factored into the equation.

I can't imagine how corrupt Ukrainian officials could ever be enticed to manipulate Americans looking for dirt on those 'lefties.'

 

[UCFBS]

I can't imagine how corrupt Ukrainian officials could ever be enticed to manipulate Americans looking for dirt on those 'lefties.'

Lots of Democrats that registered as a foreign agent on behalf of Moscow in Kiev, like Podesta, for starters.

Also, these are the same intelligence communities that made the flawed and incorrect arguments, systematic, in the FISA courts.

All the US intelligence communities agree upon is that the Russians attempt to influence American voters. The first time was not 2016 either, and the Republicans have been complaining about it since the Russians paid the US Media to lie in 2007-2008 about the Georgian situation, among other things.

At some point, this Trump-only focus is a joke.

 

[Crazyhole]

Gee, who would that benefit?

Funny how the Russian Counterintelligence effort that our intelligence community has verified is never factored into the equation.

I can't imagine how corrupt Ukrainian officials could ever be enticed to manipulate Americans looking for dirt on those 'lefties.'

Wargame this out for me. Trump wants dirt on his political opponent in return for anti-tank missiles that Ukraine can use against Russia. Trump threatens to shoot down Russian jets over Syria. Trump places economic sanctions on Russia that has nearly collapsed their currency. Trump walks away from an agreement with Iran, one of Russias closest allies and by doing so has brought that country to the brink of revolution.

How do we do the math and come to the conclusion that Trump is doing the bidding of Russia?

 

[Cubs79]

Wargame this out for me. Trump wants dirt on his political opponent in return for anti-tank missiles that Ukraine can use against Russia. Trump threatens to shoot down Russian jets over Syria. Trump places economic sanctions on Russia that has nearly collapsed their currency. Trump walks away from an agreement with Iran, one of Russias closest allies and by doing so has brought that country to the brink of revolution.

How do we do the math and come to the conclusion that Trump is doing the bidding of Russia?

I think you are taking quite a few liberties with some of these assertions. One, the Russian economy wasn't doing well several years before Trump ever game into office, and has actually rebounded to a certain degree since he has been president, though it has began to slow again. But also, when people say Trump is pro Russia, they mean Pro Putin. Putin doesn't really care about growth with the Russian economy either. So unless it hurts the oligarchy, then can still be "pro Russian".
https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/russia/publication/rer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_financial_crisis_(2014–2017)

We never shot down a Russian plane in Syria, and Russia is still very involved in Syria. So you are basically touting an empty threat as a Trump achievement against Russia. That threat meant absolutely nothing and accomplished nothing.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/30/russia-is-the-only-winner-in-syria/

The Iran deal isn't a Russia policy. Just because they are allies doesn't mean it is directly involved with Russia.

The weapons for Ukraine were approved by Congress, not Trump, and he tried to essentially extort them to even get the weapons (allegedly), hardly a pro Ukraine move.

 

[Crazyhole]

I think you are taking quite a few liberties with some of these assertions. One, the Russian economy wasn't doing well several years before Trump ever game into office, and has actually rebounded to a certain degree since he has been president, though it has began to slow again. But also, when people say Trump is pro Russia, they mean Pro Putin. Putin doesn't really care about growth with the Russian economy either. So unless it hurts the oligarchy, then can still be "pro Russian".
https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/russia/publication/rer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_financial_crisis_(2014–2017)

We never shot down a Russian plane in Syria, and Russia is still very involved in Syria. So you are basically touting an empty threat as a Trump achievement against Russia. That threat meant absolutely nothing and accomplished nothing.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/30/russia-is-the-only-winner-in-syria/

The Iran deal isn't a Russia policy. Just because they are allies doesn't mean it is directly involved with Russia.

The weapons for Ukraine were approved by Congress, not Trump, and he tried to essentially extort them to even get the weapons (allegedly), hardly a pro Ukraine move.

Lol. You seem to be suggesting that i think trump is anti-Russian, when all I am doing is countering the suggestion that trump is pro-Russian. Provide any evidence of any kind that Trump is pro-Russia. Provide any soundbites that indicate he is more friendly to Putin than Obama or Bush were.

I'm on record for stating that trump should be impeached because he didn't follow congressional dictates on Ukranian aid. That being said, the same claim (different details) could be laid at the feet of every president for at least 70 years. Eisenhower is probably the last president that we've had that didn't do something that was impeachable.

 

[Boosted87]

It very well could be true that Rudy's dossier is full of BS but we dont know yet, and the people involved waffle too much to have any idea when they were being honest. I guess where the 2 situations diverge is that in the former, people clearly are guilty of perpetuating a false narrative and in the latter, we just dont know what the heck was going on. In both situations there are several people in power or in the intelligence community who have made moves that clearly are corrupt, trump included. The way I read the article, if you look at this from an anti-trump POV we have to assume that at any given time every single person from Ukraine that is cited is corrupt and cannot be trusted, but that's hard to reconcile when they take both sides depending on the day. Common logic would say that half of the time they are being honest and half of the time they are lying. The same goes for Sondland. So where does that leave us if we leave confirmation bias out of the equation? At best, giuliani and trump received legitimate information and acted on it. At worst, giuliani had an agenda and convinced trump to go along. I really doubt that either side of this story is completely true but I am much more skeptical of the idea that the whole thing is made up when we have 5 high level ukranian officials corroborating it at times.

If in fact we have the worst case scenario, the US should completely cut ties with Ukraine. Stop giving them weapons and financial aid, kick them out of NATO and let them deal with Russia on their own.

One of the primary purposes of a disinformation campaign isn't to get you to believe a particular false narrative, it's to get you to throw up your hands in frustration and accept a world where you can't find the truth. No matter how muddy the waters are, no matter how many competing narratives exists, you have to keep that in mind.

Rudy has admitted what he was doing. Trump hasn't denounced him and thrown him under the bus. Despite what Republicans are arguing here, the debate isn't over facts. Do we know everything with irrefutable proof? Of course not. Do we have to make logical inferences? Of course. So the debate isn't over facts, it's over normalization. Trump's demand of absolute loyalty of his perfect calls results in a mandate that Republicans normalize the behavior.

That's the biggest single difference with the Clinton impeachment. Clinton admitted he screwed up. Members of his own party criticized him and even supported the inquiry. So even though he wasn't removed from office, a precedent was still set that a POTUS lying under oath is going to be a really big deal. Instead, Trump is doubling down by enabling Rudy to continue. As a result, the Republican position on this is normalization.

I'm much less pro-impeachment than I am anti-normalization. Ask yourself this - don't give Trump the benefit of the doubt for a second. Assume his motives were purely political and he did leverage his unique power with Ukraine to help Rudy's efforts. If he gets through with 100% party backing and no real trial in the senate, what is he emboldened to do next?

 

[UCFBS]

That's the biggest single difference with the Clinton impeachment. Clinton admitted he screwed up.

Not until after he perjured himself. That's the thing. Also, that was just over 1 thing. All the other accusations, from financial to sexual assault, were never part of the debate.

SIDE NOTE: Just as many people were convicted, and over the same duration, with Starr as Mueller -- something the US Media has repeatedly lied about.

And that's what's going on here. Americans have a lot of problems with Trump, just like they did Clinton. But this whole situation, this 1 thing, is the problem. And then, there's 1 other, major issue ...

Members of his own party criticized him

As are Republicans. In fact, look at the numbers, and it's similar.

and even supported the inquiry

Because the inquiry was bi-partisan! That's the huge difference here! Republicans aren't necessarily defending Trump, but taking major issue with the inquiry! And I don't blame them.

It's a complete political tactic not to actually impeach Trump, but to affect the 2020 election. Hence why Trump wants it 'drawn out.'

So even though he wasn't removed from office, a precedent was still set that a POTUS lying under oath is going to be a really big deal. Instead, Trump is doubling down by enabling Rudy to continue. As a result, the Republican position on this is normalization.

What do you expect out of a Reality TV Star?

And did you complain about the prior administration that kept pushing Executive authority and privilege when he didn't get what he wanted out of Congress? And what about Obama's 'friendliness' with Russia until they interfered in the Ukraine? What about all the Democratic politicians and lawyers that were invested in Moscow, even registered foreign agents in Kiev on-behalf of Moscow?

Oh, we're not interested in that, just Trump. That's why so much of that was redacted from the Mueller report.

I'm much less pro-impeachment than I am anti-normalization.

And were you vocal about this during Obama? W.? Even Clinton?

Clinton used to open OPM and FBI files, as well as issue IRS audits. Heck, the whole reason the Trump administration didn't know they had a 'documented wife beater' with a TS/SCI is because the elected and political appointees of the elected Executive are not allowed to view OPM and FBI files! Only permanent staffers. And the reason he passed his SSBI was because both of his ex-wives told the OPM and FBI that he wasn't a national security threat.

Ask yourself this - don't give Trump the benefit of the doubt for a second.

I do not give Trump the benefit of the doubt! But that means I hold everyone to the same standard -- elected as well as political appointees. A 'Conflict of Interest' is a 'Conflict of Interest,' which brings me to ...

Assume his motives were purely political and he did leverage his unique power with Ukraine to help Rudy's efforts. If he gets through with 100% party backing and no real trial in the senate, what is he emboldened to do next?

How's that work out for Clinton's CGI and Biden with his son? Have you seen the sheer 'political connecitivity' of the Biden situation?

This is the problem with the Democratic argument. Don't give Trump the benefit of the doubt, there was a potential Conflict-of-Interest, even though no witness has claimed they have material evidence and proof, let alone there are other witnesses -- who the Democratic party won't let be called -- that counter those. So ... when we look at Biden and Clinton, how do they 'escape' that too?

Clinton was a political appointee of an elected official, while Biden very much was an elected official, Vice President!

This is why we Libertarians are not against Trump being impeached, but damn it ... we're tired of the one-way BS.

 

[Crazyhole]

One of the primary purposes of a disinformation campaign isn't to get you to believe a particular false narrative, it's to get you to throw up your hands in frustration and accept a world where you can't find the truth. No matter how muddy the waters are, no matter how many competing narratives exists, you have to keep that in mind.

Rudy has admitted what he was doing. Trump hasn't denounced him and thrown him under the bus. Despite what Republicans are arguing here, the debate isn't over facts. Do we know everything with irrefutable proof? Of course not. Do we have to make logical inferences? Of course. So the debate isn't over facts, it's over normalization. Trump's demand of absolute loyalty of his perfect calls results in a mandate that Republicans normalize the behavior.

That's the biggest single difference with the Clinton impeachment. Clinton admitted he screwed up. Members of his own party criticized him and even supported the inquiry. So even though he wasn't removed from office, a precedent was still set that a POTUS lying under oath is going to be a really big deal. Instead, Trump is doubling down by enabling Rudy to continue. As a result, the Republican position on this is normalization.

I'm much less pro-impeachment than I am anti-normalization. Ask yourself this - don't give Trump the benefit of the doubt for a second. Assume his motives were purely political and he did leverage his unique power with Ukraine to help Rudy's efforts. If he gets through with 100% party backing and no real trial in the senate, what is he emboldened to do next?

That's a fair point, and it's why I have been in favor of the impeachment hearing, ultimately siding with the dems. Congress has ceded far too much power so they needed to take a stand. I just felt like it was far too partisan in how they conducted the hearings.

 

[Boosted87]

Not until after he perjured himself. That's the thing. Also, that was just over 1 thing. All the other accusations, from financial to sexual assault, were never part of the debate.

I'm contrasting the two situations, not defending Clinton or Democrats. I have zero doubt that every decision Clinton made was purely political. Regardless, his decision to publicly acknowledge wrong doing and appear accountable, allowed Democrats to publicly rebuke him while still arguing it didn't rise to the constitutional standard of impeachment.

I'm A-OK with Republicans making the case that Trump's behavior was unpresidential, but ultimately not impeachable. That's where they SHOULD be right now. But Trump demands loyalty to himself above all else. They can't take that position without unleashing a tweet storm and maybe getting primaried.

As are Republicans. In fact, look at the numbers, and it's similar.

I mean, gimme some numbers then.

Because the inquiry was bi-partisan! That's the huge difference here! Republicans aren't necessarily defending Trump, but taking major issue with the inquiry! And I don't blame them.

I dislike the speed of the inquiry, but I find the Administration's assertion of total immunity and refusal to participate at all in the house process far worse. While I may dislike the speed and parts of the process, the House has full constitutional authority to do it however the majority chooses. The Administration has no legal basis for its blanket refusal to allow testimony or supply documents.

And they are blaming the process because it's all they have. When the facts aren't on your side, blame the process right?

And did you complain about the prior administration that kept pushing Executive authority and privilege when he didn't get what he wanted out of Congress? And what about Obama's 'friendliness' with Russia until they interfered in the Ukraine? What about all the Democratic politicians and lawyers that were invested in Moscow, even registered foreign agents in Kiev on-behalf of Moscow?
.....

And were you vocal about this during Obama? W.? Even Clinton?

I know you claim independence on this board as libertarian. I used to argue on this board years back from a Republican/Libertarian perspective. I've long been weary of creeping executive power. I wasn't weary of it because of Bush or Obama. I was weary of it because one day, the public would screw up and elect a demagogue.

How's that work out for Clinton's CGI and Biden with his son? Have you seen the sheer 'political connecitivity' of the Biden situation?

This is the problem with the Democratic argument. Don't give Trump the benefit of the doubt, there was a potential Conflict-of-Interest, even though no witness has claimed they have material evidence and proof, let alone there are other witnesses -- who the Democratic party won't let be called -- that counter those. So ... when we look at Biden and Clinton, how do they 'escape' that too?

Clinton was a political appointee of an elected official, while Biden very much was an elected official, Vice President!

So I think Clinton and Trump were the two worst major party nominees of my adult life. I think either of them would have lost to just about candidate the other side could have put up. I wish Democrats would admit what a terrible candidate Clinton was and acknowledge that clearing the field for Hillary ultimately allowed Trump to win. They need to own that.

Here's the difference with Trump. A traditional "corrupt" politician in the United States had to live within certain bounds. Certain actions or things going public would simply destroy your career. Prior to Trump, the idea that a major candidate would lead chants to jail his political rival would have been absurd. The idea that candidate could win, would have been outrageous. In Ukraine, we see examples (like Lutsenkso) where if your party loses an election, you expect a political prosecution and jail time at the other end. We may not be Ukraine, but we took a clear and deliberate step in that direction. Those norms are on life support now.

There is a monumental difference between being corrupt behind the scenes, knowing that exposure ends your career, and being able to publicly flaunt your corruption without consequence. The former is the normal course of politics, the latter is Banana Republic. The consequences of exposure acts as a substantial check. Trump is destroying this norm. It's the narcissists prayer applied to politics.

 

[Boosted87]

That's a fair point, and it's why I have been in favor of the impeachment hearing, ultimately siding with the dems. Congress has ceded far too much power so they needed to take a stand. I just felt like it was far too partisan in how they conducted the hearings.

I think that's a reasonable position. I only disagree in the sense that Republican strategy from day one was to make this as partisan as possible. It's a great strategy and it's worked well for them. Hold closed depositions and your doing everything in secret. Hold open hearings and it's all political theater. If the dems ceded on certain demands, Republicans would have simply made new ones and held those out as evidence of partisanship.

So I agree it's a wholly partisan exercise, but I think that's a shared responsibility.

 

[Crazyhole]

I think that's a reasonable position. I only disagree in the sense that Republican strategy from day one was to make this as partisan as possible. It's a great strategy and it's worked well for them. Hold closed depositions and your doing everything in secret. Hold open hearings and it's all political theater. If the dems ceded on certain demands, Republicans would have simply made new ones and held those out as evidence of partisanship.

So I agree it's a wholly partisan exercise, but I think that's a shared responsibility.

There was plenty of political theater from the beginning. It started with the protests over the closed depositions, followed with Schiff pre-emptively invoking whistleblower protection and reading Trumps tweets, then culminated with Jim Jordan being a crackhead lawyer. Hank johnson tried to outdo him but couldn't quite get there.

At the end of the day, it was just a terrible process from day 1 and was solely political on every level. If all we were dealing with is the facts that were laid out I would vote against impeachment, but to me that isn't the point. Congress should have impeached both Bush and Obama on several occasions, so it's their fault that we got to this point by looking the other way.

 

[DaShuckster]

At the end of the day, it was just a terrible process from day 1 and was solely political on every level.

Ambassador Sondland said the withholding of Congressionally-approved military aid and a WH visit for Ukraine and its President in exchange for the announcement of a Biden investigation wasn't a Guliani 'long wolf' deal but a department-wide policy. The terrible part about the process is that the people who could address "how high did this go?" were Mulvaney, Pompeo, Perry, Bolton and Guiliani. Yet Trump ordered these people to ignore their House subpoenas to testify -- and got away with it. If this whole process was such a 'witch hunt,' why not allow these individuals to testify?

So I am curious to know exactly how this was all "political theatre" by the Dems?

 

[UCFBS]

I'm contrasting the two situations, not defending Clinton or Democrats. I have zero doubt that every decision Clinton made was purely political.

Which is why I want all politicians held accountable.

Regardless, his decision to publicly acknowledge wrong doing and appear accountable, allowed Democrats to publicly rebuke him while still arguing it didn't rise to the constitutional standard of impeachment.

I really don't care what 'qualifies' for impeachment. Impeachment has always been a 100% political, 0% judicial, process. It can be over BS.

The difference from Clinton is that this 'process' is completely and utterly partisan. Why? Read on ...

I'm A-OK with Republicans making the case that Trump's behavior was unpresidential, but ultimately not impeachable. That's where they SHOULD be right now. But Trump demands loyalty to himself above all else. They can't take that position without unleashing a tweet storm and maybe getting primaried.

The problem is that the Republicans are too busy trying to get the Democratic party to implement an impeachment process remotely close to the one used for Clinton. Had the Democratic party done that, they would have had far more support.

But the reason why the Democrats will not is because it would bring Biden into the situ. It's just that simple. You cannot have witnesses talking about Trump asking for an investigation into Biden, without bringing in the witnesses who wanted it in the Ukraine itself, and all those details. That's why.

At first I thought this was just some rumor turned Trump'ism. But it's not. It's an extremely poor look for Biden, with its own quid pro quo. Hunter was an avenue, and they used him. I thought it was crackpot at first, but nope ... it's not.

The funny thing is ... until Trump, State was all about quid pro quo. Now it's not, but only because of Trump. I've been against State doing quid pro quo for decades. But now ... it's impeachable. So, how was that not the case with Biden and Clinton then? Seriously.

And yes, we can impeach cabinet officials, even Senators, and we've done it over a dozen times to federal judges.

I mean, gimme some numbers then.

There are several dozen Republicans publicly taking issue with what Trump did. They have stated publicly such. I'm sure you could find over a hundred Republicans that have serious issues with it.

But, again, the problem is that the impeachment process wasn't implemented like the bi-partisan Clinton hearings. A huge reason is because of Biden is part of the very set of conversations regarding Trump. So we'll never know if as many Republicans would have joined the process, we can only go on hearsay.

I dislike the speed of the inquiry,

I could care less. What bothered me was utter disregard for calling other witnesses, even witnesses with evidence to disprove non-material evidence prior (of which -- again -- no material evidence has been presented). That's why it's being rushed, and it's partisan.

but I find the Administration's assertion of total immunity and refusal to participate at all in the house process far worse.

But that's not the argument in general, but a specific case of a clearly partisan, Congressional avenue. That's why Trump is getting a lot of Republican support right now, because it'll be repeated again and again.

While I may dislike the speed and parts of the process, the House has full constitutional authority to do it however the majority chooses. The Administration has no legal basis for its blanket refusal to allow testimony or supply documents.

In general, yes. In the context they are arguing ... not so fast. Context is everything, and I have to admit, the administration and Congressional Republicans have a basis for a counter-argument.

And they are blaming the process because it's all they have. When the facts aren't on your side, blame the process right?

What material evidence has been shown? And why are witnesses not being allowed to testify?

I know you claim independence on this board as libertarian. I used to argue on this board years back from a Republican/Libertarian perspective. I've long been weary of creeping executive power. I wasn't weary of it because of Bush or Obama. I was weary of it because one day, the public would screw up and elect a demagogue.

I'm totally against Executive Power. I have serious issues with the Trump administration -- and we can definitely thank the late Obama administration for that (from emergencies to executive orders). And much of the DNC 2020 field says they are going to 1'up Trump on those too.

And yet ... the Republican argument isn't generic, but specific. It has merit. It's about who is requesting, and what processes. The Democrats didn't get what they wanted from Mueller. If they did, this wouldn't have happened.

I'm just going to disagree here, and I've flipped on the 'Deep State' viewpoint over the last six (6) months. All your other comments about 'corruption' is like the US Media. The fact of the matter is ... the political establishment is corrupt, and Trump was a non-politician (rich? yes. lobbyist? yes.), who they did everything to prevent from getting into office, and are now doing everything they can to remove from office.

Trump is an 'in your face' type leader, disgusting, wrong at times, but at the same time ... he's no worse than the political establishment that 'knows how to play the game,' even if they are just as guilty, civics and legally. Ironically it's only because the fact that Trump won that we finally got to see the ugliness of the FISA court system, and how easily it is abused, taking full advantage of the lack of due process, even if the judges are as impartial as they can be. So ... while I won't vote for Trump ...

I can understand why people do, precisely because of this. The left doesn't want to remotely be held as accountable. And even if they impeach Trump, even if Trump is gone in 2020 ... it's going to get ugly. And the left is responsible for that. Heck, they are responsible for Trump getting elected in the first place. He was only polling at 4%.

 

[DaShuckster]

Jesus, somebody please give UCFBS some Valium.

 

[Boosted87]

What material evidence has been shown? And why are witnesses not being allowed to testify?

I mean, I don't know where to start. I've followed this as closely as I reasonably could. There is OVERWHELMING testimonial and circumstantial evidence that the central thesis here is correct - That Trump leveraged his unique power as POTUS to prioritize a political benefit over National Security. Equally as important, there is no alternative theory, consistent with the evidence, that creates a reasonable doubt to the central thesis. I've tried myself to construct one. They all fall apart.

Trump has an awful record supporting conspiracy theories, so it's really hard to give his judgement the benefit of the doubt. The CrowdStrike theory that he mentions in the call literally makes no sense. The Biden accusations at least pass a basic logic test. But If he legitimately thought Joe Biden was a threat to National Security, as opposed to simply trying to damage his opponent, then he had an obligation to the public to build a record to justify the action - along with support from all the resources at his command - to pursue this.

In other words - if Trump has the NSC and FBI on board with investigating Biden because they have a properly predicated investigation - this is an entirely different story. We're rightfully upset with the FBI over the FISA process, but at least there was a process - even if it was flawed. If you think running surveillance on a US citizen, using a flawed process, partially justified through the use an unverified dossier likely comprised at least partially of Russian disinformation is bad, then apply that same logic here.

According to expert testimony (Fiona Hill in particular) the Ukraine narrative that Rudy is pushing is grounded in a Russian disinformation effort to muddy the waters of their actions in 2016, trying to shift blame to Ukraine. So here you have POTUS relying on Russian disinformation to justify his efforts to push a foreign government into investigating a political rival, and leveraging the unique powers of his office to further that effort. Yet he relies on no internal process to review the veracity of the information he's relying on. He doesn't lean on his experts to vet what Rudy's telling him. He simply moves directly to push a foreign leader for the investigations. If you think FBI processes were weak and flawed, POTUS relied on no process whatsoever. On any reasonable comparative basis, following a flawed process that can be vetted, reviewed, and improved is light years better than free-wheeling with no process whatsoever.

If the White House has contemporaneous documentation that shows POTUS engaging his experts in a deliberative process to vet this information, and coming to an informed decision on it's national security imperative, then by all means show that information.

 

[Boosted87]

If the White House has contemporaneous documentation that shows POTUS engaging his experts in a deliberative process to vet this information, and coming to an informed decision on it's national security imperative, then by all means show that information.

For more context, imagine a simple example. A sitting US Attorney has publicly announced their run for Senate. Their campaign has engaged an opposition researcher, who returns a dossier with salacious and possibly criminal actions.

• If the US Attorney fails to vet any of this information, and immediately announces an investigation publicly, applying different standards than they would to other cases, then they are abusing the power of their office.
• If the US Attorney fails to vet any of this information, hands the dossier to an underling, encouraging them to make it a priority, hinting at a future prominent staff role as senator, and pushing them to announce the investigation publicly, they are abusing their power.
• If the US Attorney passes the potential criminal information on to his deputy, recuses himself, establishes a solid paper trail showing he took no part in any investigative steps, never raises the issue again, refrains from public comment, etc - then he's probably OK - but it's still going to be controversial.

Having the legal authority to do something in a position of public trust, but making choices that elevate your own self interests above the public's interest, is what creates an abuse of power.

 

[Crazyhole]

It would be interesting to see if his documents are legit.

 

[fried-chicken]

There's a reason that a political hack did this investigation and not a real journalist.

Do you think all journalists hate money? Do you realize that they would be paid a shit ton of money for a legitimate story about Biden Ukraine corruption? They have this little problem of journalistic integrity that doesn't burden Guliani so he's the only one that can investigate and report this mess.

 

[fried-chicken]

"The Media" is not a monolithic institution. Its made up of hundreds of thousands of journalists all acting independent of each other. If there was something there you would expect at least one journalist to take a massive story like this. Instead the presidents lawyer is doing it and his bias is pretty obvious.

 

[ucfversusbcs]

I thought this was about Rudy T (Tomjanovich)

 

[Boosted87]

View embedded media

It would be interesting to see if his documents are legit.

Bring it on! I'm totally OK with Rudy actually proving some big conspiracy against Joe Biden. I do not believe Rudy's judgement is credible, but even a broken clock can be right. So I hope he puts the documents out there for public scrutiny. Really good investigative journalists are going to dig into these claims like his previous ones, and we'll see what the full picture is.

But again, contrast what Rudy is doing compared to the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign. Let's conflate them and say they are both cases of investigating charges of corrupt actions relating directly to a significant political figure.

The FBI treated it as highly sensitive and details of the investigation were largely kept out of the press until after the election. On the other hand, Rudy is expressly and admittedly on a PR campaign. The mere fact that he's the source creates the impression that the accusations are driven politically. By being so public - interviews and documentaries - it further establishes the political nature of the intentions.

We're all better off if Rudy kept his mouth shut and handed his evidence over to the FBI. Let them review and make investigative decisions that we can then run an IG investigation on after the fact to evaluate. This would once again put the FBI in an unwinnable position where any decision they make will ultimately be viewed as politically biased by the other side.

Question: If Schiff hired a personal attorney to go Russia with the express intent of digging up dirt on Trump for public consumption, would that be considered OK? Because it seems as though Trump is establishing a standard here that this is now business as usual.

 

[Boosted87]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...push-flip-script-trump-s-impeachment-n1106321

Here's a quick rundown on some Rudy's more recent claims.