Barr to jail, Trump to impeachment

[_honorentheos]

Hey EA, remember way back when we were talking about a specific event and the evidence involved but then you went all partisan and lumped everything Trump into one bucket because?

Those were the days.

[_honorentheos]

It's funny how we see one side's defense of their views as motivated by politics while our own is purely out of concern for the rule of law. There's a term for that kind of thinking.

If the later is true, then let the law do it's job. That's the only difference that matters and shows one's perspective isn't just self-deceit.

I believe the term you are looking for is "false equivalence."

It is not the case that people shouting at a rally to lock various Democrats up are as equally concerned with the rule of law as people wanting to see, for example, Trump be held to account for his lawlessness.

If you cannot tell the difference between an authoritarian desire to punish political enemies and a desire to hold genuinely lawless politicians to account in as obvious of a case as this, you're just an easy mark for these disinfo campaigns.

We're not talking about "anyone", or evidence in some general manner. We are talking about a specific event going on right now.

Yeah, that's the one I'm referring to. The one where there is ample evidence in public about Barr violating the law. You're rebuttal to this was to vaguely refer to the fact that Barr's DoJ says he isn't in violation of the law. You didn't get into the content of that denial, which is flat out wrong given what is already known, but just assume there is merit to it that needs to be sorted out. It apparently did not occur to you that they could be lying about the law in their own public defense, which they are.

You're really hung up on this idea that any attempt at due process...

What's under discussion is Barr's preventing due process from occurring. Your position that the DoJ can prevent due process from happening without judgment or consequence from the public until that due process happens is a closed loop of self-defeating logic.

Let's recap where we are.

There's a reported whistleblower complaint filed a month ago claiming Trump made concerning promises to another national leader. Details are pending and the subject of much of the contention at present. Speculation and questions are everywhere.

The complaint surfaced in reporting and, when the House Intelligence Committee wanted to know why the complaint had not been passed on to them, they were told by the NI and JD it was did not meet the criteria that demanded it be given to them. HIC said we'll see about that.

Joseph McGuire, Director of National Intelligence, is scheduled to appear in front of the House Intelligence Committee this Thursday where Pelosi has essentially stated he provides the complaint for House review or the House will be left with little other option than to take matters "into a whole new stage of investigation." Basically implying this is the trigger for impeachment hearings.

On this board, some people want to see AG Barr in jail based on the above because we know how this is going to play out so why waste time on procedural matters or doing things "by the book" when it's perfectly clear to us that the right thing to do is string the idiots up right now. Due process is for pansies who fall into "false equivalence" traps and don't realize the time has come for bringing a bomb to the gun fight Republicans started. Partisanship won't derail the ability of justice to be realize because justice is on our side. That's how sure we are of how right we are. Anyone who promotes relying on the facts coming to light through proper procedures and using those procedures to build a solid case is just as much a part of the problem as Trump and probably wants to see kids locked in cages and immigrants chased out of their homes because there is only black and white in this fight, idiots.

[_EAllusion]

The complaint surfaced in reporting and, when the House Intelligence Committee wanted to know why the complaint had not been passed on to them, they were told by the NI and John Dehlin it was did not meet the criteria that demanded it be given to them. HIC said we'll see about that.

Did they say why it did not meet the criteria? Can you check if that rationale matches what the law says?

Asking for a friend.

[_honorentheos]

Your friend should be commended for recognizing it's good to ask such questions before jumping to conclusions.

[_EAllusion]

Your friend should be commended for recognizing it's good to ask such questions before jumping to conclusions.

I got a call from my friend and it turns out his question is rhetorical because it has already been answered.

[_Dr Exiled]

Here's the thing - the narrative being pushed by conservatives is that Biden was doing wrong in the Ukraine to protect his son or protect his client from prosecution. So even if Trump asked the President of Ukraine to investigate Biden it's allegedly to expose and go after wrong doing on the part of the Obama administration. Then, they attempt to jiu jitsu the whistleblower reporting as a deflection from what they describe as the supposed actual wrongdoing on the part of Democrats.

The facts about what happened are clear, though. It is both true and out in the open that Victor Shokin was removed and Biden delivered the message from the president calling for this or threatening to withhold aid. Shokin, as prosecutor general, was responsible for investigating and prosecuting Hunter Biden's client, Burisma Holdings. But he was dragging his feet doing so just as he was with pursuing other corruption cases. Shokin's needing to be removed was the position of the US government, our NATO allies and the intelligence/state department as it was clear Viktor Shokin was obstructing justice reform and dragging his feet in prosecuting corruption cases from the Viktor Yanukovych regime. This included dragging his feet investigating the company that hired Hunter Biden. If Joe Biden was trying to protect Hunter Bidens client, the best move would have been to keep Shokin in as PG. Trying to turn that into a conspiracy to protect a corrupt corporation is the sort of story that only gains traction because people are focused on other things and get distracted. The facts are clear, the timeline clear, the motivations clear. Reducing this to partisan attacks and not being careful with the details plays into distorting the truth and reducing American politics to mafia rules. If you are a subbie or Ajax drinking the conservative Kool Aid then it looks like all the calls to jail Barr are how politics gets done in the US. Someone took a knife to one of ours, someone else uses a gun to even the score. Next time, there will be bombs.

That's ____. Fight the falsehoods and focus on the facts. That is how politics needs to be done in the Trump era.

What's your source for the fact that Shokin was dragging his feet investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden at the time Joe Biden made his aid threats?

This article says the investigation by Shokin on Hunter Biden was just about to get going when Shokin was fired.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived

[_honorentheos]

Your friend should be commended for recognizing it's good to ask such questions before jumping to conclusions.

I got a call from my friend and it turns out his question is rhetorical because it has already been answered.

Sounds like your friend has schizophrenia.

[_honorentheos]

What's your source for the fact that Shokin was dragging his feet investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden at the time Joe Biden made his aid threats?

This article says the investigation by Shokin on Hunter Biden was just about to get going when Shokin was fired.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived

Mr. Shokin claims he was about to get underway with an investigation into the owner of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, which he was charged with doing essentially from day one after being appointed in February of 2015, but was "just about to get rolling" on that when he was removed a year later in February 2016?

Sounds plausible.

A couple of articles:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... fell-apart

If you ever actually read Moneyland, that one will be familiar to you.

Also -

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... iden-claim

There’s little question that the Bidens’ paths in Ukraine held the potential for conflict, and in a tweet last week, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani said the U.S. should investigate the matter. But what has received less attention is that at the time Biden made his ultimatum, the probe into the company -- Burisma Holdings, owned by Mykola Zlochevsky -- had been long dormant, according to the former official, Vitaliy Kasko.

“There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky,” Kasko said in an interview last week. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015.”

Kasko’s assessment adds a wrinkle to one of the first political intrigues of the 2020 election season. It undercuts the idea that Biden, now a top Democratic presidential candidate, was seeking to sideline a prosecutor who was actively threatening a company tied to his son. Instead, it appears more consistent with Biden’s previous statements that he was pressing for the removal of a prosecutor who was failing to tackle rampant corruption: According to public reports and internal documents from the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office, U.S. officials had expressed concern for more than a year about Ukrainian prosecutors’ failure to assist an international investigation of Zlochevsky.

You'll recognize the name Vitaliy Kasko as one of the two men who were anti-corruption busters attempting to aid in investigations of corruption but being hamstrung by their superiors and eventually ousted from Ukraine as described in the Guardian article.

[_Res Ipsa]

The complaint surfaced in reporting and, when the House Intelligence Committee wanted to know why the complaint had not been passed on to them, they were told by the NI and John Dehlin it was did not meet the criteria that demanded it be given to them. HIC said we'll see about that.

Did they say why it did not meet the criteria? Can you check if that rationale matches what the law says?

Asking for a friend.

Man, that John Dehlin sure gets around.

[_moksha]

Is it even possible to successfully penalize Barr for contempt of Congress, obstruction of justice, or any other kind of lawbreaking, even if he is clearly guilty, without his acquiescence, as long as he is AG, and Trump still supports him?

Once again, Trump has said he will pardon anyone who aids and abets him in withholding information.



Trump renews call to investigate Joe Biden.