Govt watchdog says White House violated law by withholding Ukraine aid

Opinions are like assh-les. Everyone has one, including the GAO.

 

I understand what impeachment is but you have a whole bunch of ELECTED officials who claim to be lawyers and such who are preaching the offenses are HIGH CRIMES and TRESONOUS. Throw in the media and social networks you now have half the country believing this.

 

What's "corrupt" about a corporation overpaying board members?

 

Typing "words" instead of "pages" isn't a typo, It's a completely different word.

BTW, have you looked up the correct volume yet?

 

The majority of the people who signed the Constitution were lawyers. Many people in Congress today were/are lawyers. I don't think anyone is accusing the President of treason. The phrase is "high crimes and misdemeanors." Treason and bribery are other constitutional charges that could be used. Bribery might be questionable (the quid pro quo). Treason...no. We'd have to be at war with someone for treason to apply.

 

Lets assume that they're right. Should Obama be arrested and indicted for breaking immigration law and helping illegals get green cards through DACA? You do know that current immigration law forbids helping illegals right?

 

Perhaps you could explain what he did that was "corrupt".

 

His decision on DACA is still working its way through the Courts. However, even if the decision is against Obama's earlier action, it's doubtful he'll be arrested and indicted, although his decision would be declared null and void. Similarly, there is no "punishment" for President Trump breaking the ICA, other than forcing the release of funding, which has already been done. But, both President's actions could be viewed as "abuses of power" and therefore a "high crime or misdemeanor" and as such be impeachable offenses. Since the maximum penalty is removal from office and, upon a second vote, prohibition from holding future public offices, it is unlikely Obama or Trump would be indicted and prosecuted on either the DACA or ICA infractions.

 

He "bragged" about successfully carrying out official US policy toward Ukraine. This was not only American policy, but the policy of the entire civilized world.

You're trying to equate a legal act, whoch was formal US policy to an act which ran counter to US foreign policy, and was illegal. Why?Don't you understand the vast distinctions?

 

Add to that the fact that while he threatened to withhold aid, he never did. Trump had his personal attorney threaten and Trump did withhold aid, illegally. Biden would have crossed the line had the Obama administration withheld aid without notifying Congress of their intent, per the ICA process.

 

There is zero probable cause, let alone blaring, in any of your three articles.

The first simply details concerns about the appearance of conflict of interest - that is, Biden campaigning against corruption at the same time that his son worked for a company whose owner had been corrupt. (Note that the owner's corruption relates to his time as Minister of Ecology from 2010-2012.) This concern is limited to poor optics - with absolutely NO suggestion of wrongdoing, by either of them, other than a lack of prudent concern for appearances.

The second simply explains how Ukraine is concerned about “how major players in the United States would turn any statement” on Zlochevsky/Burisma.

“... given how radioactive the Burisma case has become in Washington, the government is not eager to pursue it in the midst of the U.S. presidential race. “We can do it after the elections”.​

And again, no suspicion or suggestion of wrongdoing by either Biden:

“Ukraine’s government insists that it has no evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden or his father.”​

The third is a Solomon something-out-of-nothing fiction - innocuous emails dressed up by a lively imagination into “proof” of nefarious dealings but ultimately not proof of anything other than Solomon’s lively imagination.

And thus, again, not probable cause, at all.

 

No, the word "impeachment" has forever lost its value, just like "racism." Thanks dems.

 

There is indisputable probable cause in that he was being paid an enormous amount of money for nothing but his connections through his father. Even the Obama administration was worried and some even warned of the probable corruption involved as I have already cited. They were ignored.

Diplomat tells investigators he raised alarms in 2015 about Hunter Biden’s Ukraine work but was rebuffed

A career State Department official overseeing Ukraine policy told congressional investigators this week that he had raised concerns in early 2015 about then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son serving on the board of a Ukrainian energy company but was turned away by a Biden staffer, according to three people familiar with the testimony.

George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state, testified Tuesday that he worried that Hunter Biden’s position at the firm Burisma Holdings would complicate efforts by U.S. diplomats to convey to Ukrainian officials the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality rules surrounding the deposition.

Kent said he had concerns that Ukrainian officials would view Hunter Biden as a conduit for currying influence with his father, said the people....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e35be9-4f5a-4048-8520-0baabb18ab63_story.html


Ukraine Wants to Probe the Company That Paid Hunter Biden. But It's 'Too Sensitive'
One of the troubling questions at the center of the impeachment inquiry, at least for Republicans, has been the work that Hunter Biden did for Burisma, one of Ukraine’s largest gas companies, while his father was serving as Vice President. But the intensity of interest in Washington is only making it more difficult to resolve the mystery.

To this day, Burisma’s connection to Hunter Biden has made it much harder for Ukrainian authorities to investigate the company for corruption, current and former officials in Ukraine tell TIME. In that sense, Burisma is still getting its money’s worth for the reported $50,000 per month it paid the younger Biden to sit on its board from 2014 until earlier this year.
https://time.com/5733799/ukraine-fears-burisma-probe-trump-hunter-biden-fallout/

Emails Reveal Burisma Consulting Firm Leveraged Hunter Biden To Get State Dept. Meetings

The letter to Pompeo was prompted by a series of State Department emails released via FOIA and published by reporter John Solomon, revealing that Burisma’s consulting firm had in fact mentioned Hunter Biden when seeking a meeting with the State Department to discuss corruption allegations against the company. A State Department email from February 2016 specifically cited Hunter Biden’s involvement with Burisma when discussing the possibility of setting up a meeting with Burisma’s consulting firm. According to the email, the consulting firm made the State Department aware that Hunter was one of their client’s employees.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/0...aged-hunter-biden-to-get-state-dept-meetings/

 

He bragged about threatening to withhold money that had been appropriated by the Congress, exactly what Trump was impeached for. Doesn't matter the policy, this was American policy under President Trump. And the citing "the policy of the entire civilized world" is laughable. Show me where the impoundment act says a President must comply unless "the policy of the entire civilized world" says otherwise.

 

I've cut out the articles because you already posted them - they are the articles I commented on already.

Having a well-known father and a cushy job with an "enormous" salary is not "indisputable probable cause".

Furthermore, you misread your own article. George Kent etc. were NOT concerned about "probable corruption". They were worried that the optics weren't good, given Biden's strident anti-corruption stance. BUT poor optics - the potential for people (yourself included) to question his position - is not probable cause to suspect any actual wrong doing. It's just not a good look, that's all.

Indeed the Ukrainian Govt, the Prosecutor General and NABU (Anti-Corruption Bureau) have ALL explicitly stated that Biden Jr. has never been suspected of any wrong doing.

You should also be aware of the context. In 2014 post-revolution Ukraine, big companies were falling over themselves to populate their boards with familiar western names, in a new move to appeal more to Western rather than Russia investors, and paid very well for the privilege - not just to Hunter Biden but many like him.

In other words, what seems strange and questionable to you was in fact par for the course.

 

I'll pass. Thanks. I never understood why social "sciences" got any interest from the educational world. I took one course in economics and never went back for more. I is nothing but a battle of opinions.

 

I don't entirely disagree with that...the social "sciences" describe more of a methodological approach and goals than the predictability of the "hard sciences." Occasionally, they overshoot...such as the modeling that led us, in part, into the last recession. But...I think the definition of "politics" is, in fact, derived from the Greek word "polis."

 

Could be. Perhaps it was meant originally to signify "city management'" or the study of community. Today it is the means and methods to acquire and maintain political power, something I see of no value to society. The Polis would be better off without political power.

 

I think it's from the Greek word "polis," which literally translates to "city." I think it MAY be used to describe the acquisition and retention of "political power," but not necessarily. A society built on "anarchy" would still be a political society. In our case, our "politics" is usually described as evolving from the British system, which in turn developed along the ideas of a "social contract," the simple idea that people form societies for protection and compromise some of their individual liberties and freedom to achieve that protection by agreeing to live under the rule of law. The type of political system we live by is determined largely by who makes that law. In our case, we do it via representative government and a defined electorate.

 

And seem to have been ignored and still apply. Probable cause is clearly demonstrated in this matter.

It is when that employer has business before the government or is a foreign entity trying to get contacts and special treatment. Even the Obama State Department was concerned.

The optics of probable corruption. When it looks like it and quacks like it that is probable cause. And BTW government officials are supposed to avoid like the plague ANY appearances of corruption just because they can become a probable cause of an investigation. Biden knew this and should have recused himself from these matters but he choose to ignore that, why was he protecting Hunter?

It's not their government that was being corrupted.

Which one of those names had a father who was Vice-President of the United States who had been assigned point position on all foreign policy with the foreign country in which that big company operated, a son who had no experience, no knowledge of the business or the market of that business or the country in which it operated?

And a championship course at that not a weak par three as was your rebuttal........................touche.

 

You folks are going to need an arsenal to hold all these smoking guns. Sadly when it comes to liberal smoking guns no background check is required, this will likely just turn out to be more fakery or just plain wrong. Oh wait, we already know this is fake news, since the Ukraine got the money, it wasn't withheld at all...

 

Actually they didn't get it all.
Congress had to reauthorize 35 million.

 

Then you have a problem.

And no, a secret vote is not unconstitutional.

 

Those people are Americans and they vote legally.

 

That is because the lawyers are correct.