At The Hill Democratic stalwart Lanny Davis leaps to Joe Biden’s defense:
“When Biden first entered the presidential race, it triggered a burst of attention on Hunter Biden’s foreign business ties.â€
Is “foreign business ties†a fact that, used in this context, implies even slightly possible wrongdoing? Of course not. Indeed, I couldn’t find a single fact in the Post story about anything improper by Hunter Biden due to his service on the Burisma board, much less anything criminal. Not even an “allegation†of such. Did he use his influence or perceived influence, as the son of a U.S. vice president, to obtain contracts for Burisma? Did he break any Ukrainian laws? Any U.S. laws? No facts even suggesting such.
That’s the risk for Democrats in the claim I’ve heard today—that the letter of the law is irrevelant. If it’s irrelevant for Trump, it’s irrelevant for Biden, too.
He closes by calling for the facts:
All I want to know are the facts and whether they show any possible wrongdoing. I strongly suspect that when the facts are reported, there will be nothing there.
That could be true for Trump, too. Are “the facts” even important?
The situation is so farcical one doesn’t even know where to start.
I only observe this. Rudy Giuliani is all in on Joe and Hunter Biden. All in. Giuliani knows corruption, knows the requirements to demonstrate it, and knows the evidence required. He’s talking documents, tapes, money laundering paper trails etc. If he can’t deliver on what he has charged he has be-clowned himself. Last night he certainly didn’t seem like a guy unsure of his position.
As I have noted, I know the complexity of an international private equity deal, and what corporations pay for board or other consulting services. Hunter Biden???? It is simply ludicrous on its face. Not worth the breath to debate. Snark: what an amazing coincidence that Ukraine and China each managed to find such an amazing available talent as Hunter Biden simply by using ZipRecruiter.
As Dan Rostenkowski put it, don’t take a bribe just hand them your business card. One way or another it’s still corrupt. Handing them your son’s business card doesn’t make it less corrupt.
@Drew
Mr. Smarty-Pants, if this is so difficult, how was Hillary Clinton able to double her money the first time investing in cattle futures?
Facts are becoming less and less important having anything to do with the possibility of a Trump indictment and/or impeachment
Guarneri,
Whatever the facts are of Hunter or Joe Biden’s alleged illegal activities or corruption, the result doesn’t matter or have any bearing on the legitimacy of the President’s and Guliani’s actions in coercing the Ukrainians.
To even suggest that Giuliani would be a neutral, fair minded investigator is bizarre. He is Trump’s defense attorney and works(ed) on his campaign. That aside I have have no problem with investigating, Joe Biden, his son or anyone else if there is a suggestion of corruption. However, if it turns out Biden was guilty of something I am not sure why that would necessarily make Trump innocent. Lets see the whistleblower complaint and the IG response.
Query- If we looked, how many relatives and friends of sitting cabinet members, senators, judges and congressmen do you think we would find sitting on boards somewhere? I am betting that we find a lot.
Steve
Oh, c’mon, Tasty. She’s the smartest woman in the world. That and, uh, er, managed trading accounts.
“Whatever the facts are of Hunter or Joe Biden’s alleged illegal activities or corruption, the result doesn’t matter or have any bearing on the legitimacy of the President’s and Guliani’s actions in coercing the Ukrainians.â€
That’s correct. I don’t recall tying the two so I’m not sure what your point is. I also fail to see coercing.
” I also fail to see coercing.”
You also fail to see why someone’s defense attorney hardly counts as a good character reference, so count me not surprised.
Steve
Andy, please explain where you see “coercing†in either the Trump or Giuliani interactions with Ukraine.
Steve, why is it when something untoward or shady involves a Democrat, you point to how many other people do the same thing, making it “nothing to get excited about,†I guess. However, when Trump seems to draw outside the lines of presidential propriety or protocol it presents a constitutional crisis, of sorts?
There doesn’t have to be coercion for there to be wrongdoing. Abuse of power is possible without coercion and even without a quid pro quo.
However, for abuse of power to be proved you need to be able to prove corrupt intent. IMO that will be difficult. It doesn’t speak for itself. Pursuit of corruption is not an illegitimate topic of discussion even if it’s Joe Biden’s kid.
That’s why I’ve taken the deeply cynical tone I have along with CuriousOnlooker’s observation from the comments thread of my related post today that “it sticks to both sides”. If House Democrats focus single-mindedly on sinking Trump without being willing to sink Biden simultaneously, it will be seen as a purely political move, particularly if it is not bipartisan.
“Abuse of power†reminds me of the meme “beauty being in the eye of the beholder.†Both are so subjective, and, in the case of this latest adventure to impeach Trump, it’s an exercise to twist a phone conversation into an abysmal act warranting impeachment hearings. However, as many people have been saying, impeachment is a political event, and even more telling, a handful of democrats are on record saying if they don’t impeach Trump he will be re-elected. Ergo…impeachment is being deployed to dispose of the Trump presidency before a risky election is upon us.
Well, I read the transcript. I’m not a lawyer, but this is a democracy and I still support Trump. It’ll come down to the polls as time passes, and if you impeach a President with 50% approval ratings, you lose. Nancy Pelosi knows this is a gamble, that’s why she only opened an inquiry. An inquiry could last 10 or 11 months. Time enough to grind down Trump’s approval rating, or Biden’s.
BTW, the way I read the transcript, Trump was trying to get the Ukrainians to clear Biden’s name.
This situation involves a pay-for-play allegation against the Bidens which is undoubtedly commonplace though unethical. If true (and contra Lanny Davis the facts as already known seem pretty damning), what is increasingly hard to stomach in my opinion is the broad scope of the policies affected by the business deals of our politicians and their families. US relations with Ukraine (and Russia) being determined by which set of crooked oligarchs are paying off our politicians is, well, to quote Mr. Biden himself, a BFD. Connecting dots, there was an awful lot going on during the Obama administration regarding Kiev and I can’t look back at that without seeing policies being aligned with self dealing.
And this is a problem relating to the globalization of economy. I think Dave often makes the very good point that corruption is omnipresent and the only way to keep it in check is to limit the power of the government. For domestic issues, I’m in complete agreement, but when it comes to foreign policy that remedy isn’t usually available. I think the best we can do is try for maximum disclosure, demand the standard of “not even the appearance of improprietyâ€, and stop defending the practices of graft and sinecure as business as usual.
“not even the appearance of improprietyâ€
Would you then consider it improper for a sitting POTUS to seek to expose actual impropriety?
Normally that wouldn’t apply because of Executive privilege anyway Gray. I think it’s a mixed bag. Pressuring for the investigation, if that’s what he was doing, could serve a good purpose (exposure of corruption) as well as a less noble purpose (oppo research.)
“Steve, why is it when something untoward or shady involves a Democrat, you point to how many other people do the same thing”
Because if you say something like “I hate Democrats because they lie” I think it is pretty easy to show that Republicans also lie. That almost every negative thing you claim about Democrats is also true of Republicans. And, I also suspect I sometimes engage in a bit of whataboutism. It is pretty easy to fall into that.
However, in this case I think I have been pretty consistent. If Biden did something wrong then investigate. Same for Trump. I am asking for consistency while you are asking for special treatment because Trump is on your team.
“Would you then consider it improper for a sitting POTUS to seek to expose actual impropriety?”
He is asking to look at impropriety for just one person, his political opponent.
Lets remember what he said.
“ZELENSKY: Yes indeed. I especially want to thank you for your support in the area of defense. We are ready to buy more weapons from you.
TRUMP: I would like you to do us a favor though. Please look into the DNC server hack. Our attorney general will be calling you about that.
ZELENSKY: Sure, sure, anything for you. I’m appointing a new ambassador so we can continue our strategic partnership.
TRUMP: That’s great. I’d also like you to investigate Joe Biden’s son. Rudy Giuliani and our attorney general will be calling you about that.”
Trump specifically asked for a favor in return for weapon sales, and he identifies that favor as looking at the DNC hack AND investigate Biden’s son.
Steve
Steve, I think investigations should be done when it is warranted (D or R), not for political gain.
Inappropriate contacts and undue pressure on Ukraine were far more egregious from the DNC in 2016, 3 Democrat senators in 2018, and Joe & Hunter Biden during Obama’s second term. Little has been pursued on all 3 occasions. In fact Biden publicly gloated about threatening to pull aid to Ukraine in order to get rid of a pesky prosecutor.
Currently, the democrats are highlighting a rather sanguine 30 minute conversation, where there has been collaboration that funds were being held to spur European nations to help their neighbor, rather than leave it all up to the US. This in fact has been a Trump pattern, to keep asking and prodding NATO members and others to fairly contribute to defense expenditures in that region. Furthermore, There was no threat to withhold funds, only a week’s delay until they were released. This was all brought to the forefront by an anonymous whistleblower, who has been tied into a variety of Democrat operatives and politicians, submitting third party, unverified allegations. It sounds like a replay of the Russia gambit, followed by impeachment hysterics before any information had been released and read.
IOW, the current democrat investigation is purely politically driven and seemingly unwarranted.
The difference between the D and R Ukraine controversies is the former has variables of laundered money, verbal boosting and written correspondence in evidence, while the later has projections of wrongdoing with no tangible evidence and Zelensky, saying multiple times, he was not pressured but voluntarily wanted to participate in exploring past corruption transgressions.
jan- What a bunch of BS. Again, if Biden did something wrong investigate and jail him. I am fine with that. The question her tis Trump’s behavior. When I go to the store and tell the baker I want to buy some cookies they dont say “sure, but I need a favor first”. They say what kind or how many. If he wants a favor then he is wanting something besides money. What Trump wanted in return was an investigation of Biden’s son.
“This in fact has been a Trump pattern, to keep asking and prodding NATO members and others to fairly contribute to defense expenditures in that region.”
Ukraine is part of NATO? Really reaching here jan.
” he was not pressured but voluntarily wanted to participate in exploring past corruption transgressions”
Who else besides Biden’s son did he ask to investigate? No pressure? What else do you expect the guy to say? Trump is still president and he still wants stuff from us.
Steve
Here is what’s going to happen tomorrow.
John Solomon has 450 pages of documents gathered from Hunter Biden’s legal team, State and Ukraine’s prosecutors office showing that HBs legal team contacted the replacement prosecutor the day after Shokins firing. The smoking gun statement from HBs legal team is that they told the new prosecutor the claim that Shokin was fired for being corrupt is a scam. In fact Shokin had an open case and this was a necessary story to cover up the fact that Shokin was on the trail of HB and JBiden needed to get him fired.
It’s a matter for debate as to whether this is illegal. It certainly is an abuse of power by JB. It’s Liz Warrens dream scenario.
Yea, a Warren-Harris ticket. Two hectoring, pontificating, hypocritical power-hungry politicians seeking to become the first dual dictators of the United States. What’s there not to like? It’s one thing to bitch about a stolen election; right now the Democrats seem intent on handing Trump a landslide. Kinda hard to shriek ‘collusion’ and ‘we wuz robbed’ if you lose by two hundred in the Electoral College and ten million in the popular vote.
So the latest thought in my mind is the identity of the whistleblower.
That will be revealed soon enough. My assumption is he/she wasn’t someone supporting Biden – the collateral damage Biden has received was too foreseeable. On the other hand – if it was a Warren supporter; well hell will break loose.
Sit back and eat the popcorn.
So Steve, it’s that swatch of a sentence from Trump saying he wanted a favor that is making this conversation with Zelensky an impeachable offense? Wow, I’ve got to remember that one, in my conversations with people so I don’t make the same mistake. I guess you’re on the same page as Schiff who looks at the utterance of “asking a favor,” as being mob-like behavior.
BTW, speaking of mobsters, did I mention that Whitey Bulger’s nephew had a piece of the China deal with Hunter Biden, along with Kerry’s stepson. It’s called “all in the family” politics which rake in millions of dollars of “who you know” benefits.
“So the latest thought in my mind is the identity of the whistleblower.”
That is the burning question of the moment. Somehow, I question whether there will ever be a reveal as to their identity. So many of the Trump accusations, letters citing discord in the west wing originate from anonymous, faceless finger-pointers. I think it dilutes their credibility. However, the democrats don’t seem to mind, as fact-checking allegations leveled at Trump is not one of their priorities. Impeaching him has been their only goal, from the moment he won the nomination to now.
It will be revealed.
It is my firm belief a huge cast of people in the administration; in the Congress; in the media already know the name. They just cannot say it publicly due to rules.
Honestly; this has similarities to the Kavanaugh hearings – where a lot of the key figures in Congress, reporters already knew Ms Ford’s name, allegation and the problems corroborating the case for weeks before the initial allegation came out.
It takes a mental contortionist of the first order to turn Trumps conversation into an impeachable offense. I don’t see it, and I haven’t seen any serious legal mind (who reports it factually or with any context – the we need a favor, investigate Joe crowd need not apply) who believes it is. Just the rank partisans willing to prostitute themselves.
The impeachers are talking to each other, and underestimate the common sense nature of the electorate.
Worse, most people are more interested in what’s in it for them than in DC navel-gazing. When they listen to the Democratic presidential candidates they are likely to hear: they want to raise my taxes, take away my job, take away my health care insurance, and bring in more Mexicans/Guatemalans. They may also notice that they want everybody else to stop eating meat, driving cars, and flying while they continue to eat meat, drive cars, and fly.
“So Steve, it’s that swatch of a sentence from Trump saying he wanted a favor that is making this conversation with Zelensky an impeachable offense? ”
What was the favor for which he asked? Did he ask that Ukraine support us in a critical UN vote? Nope. Did he ask that they increase trade with us? Nope. Did he say that I am worried about corruption in your country and I would like you to crack down on corruption? Nope. If he asked for anything like those that would be fine. He asked for a favor that would help him in the next election.
So please explain why you are OK with a president using his power to get leaders from other countries to help win an election?
Steve
The most interesting part of your comment Dave, at least to me, is that the spectacle the hate Trump crowd is engaging in is most likely to put a knife in Joe Biden. Now Joe Biden wouldn’t be my vote, but the obvious alternative is Warren who espouses the list of policies you cited. It seems self defeating and bizarre.
The only possible explanation I have been able to conjure up, and it’s out there, is that this allows Hillary to come riding in on her white horse. However, as the just revealed DNC/Melendez/Leakey/Durban Ukraine gambit shows, she’s going to get very bloody hands soon. And Durham is looking into it.
“The only possible explanation I have been able to conjure up, and it’s out there, is that this allows Hillary to come riding in on her white horse. However, as the just revealed DNC/Melendez/Leakey/Durban Ukraine gambit shows, she’s going to get very bloody hands soon. And Durham is looking into it.â€
I see HRC’s fingerprints but I think she knows she’s unelectable and has instead made a deal with Warren. I suspect she’ll campaign for her and be part of her administration in order to keep herself relevant so that the funds don’t dry up.
Yes, I tend to agree with that, CS. Upon further reflection I suspect when all the dust settles this may actually be nothing more than a diversionary tactic.
– The Biden problem has been out there for a long time, and it was bound to raise its head during the campaign. So Joe could be sacrificed. Maybe had to be sacrificed.
– Joe’s silly bravado implicates Obama in coercion. “You don’t believe me, go call Obama.” Can’t have St Barack caught up in that you see………………….and
– The DNC, Leahy/Durbin/Menendez gambit is now out there. No doubt HRC was in on the dirt finding op. Time for a distraction.
If that’s not it I have to go back to plain vanilla desperation that they can’t beat Trump without dirtying him up with phony scandals. After all, its been going on for 3 years. And poor old Joe is just collateral damage. You know what they say, the best explanation is often the simplest one.
Steve, trump’s “favor†was for the Zelensky prosecutors to look into Crowd strike’s involvement, which teed-up what became the Muller Investigation. Considering how long this investigation weighed down his presidency, with a big zero result, it’s understandable Trump’s curiosity, if not concerns, in how so much misinformation and lies got started.