Confused: Trump/Biden/Ukraine

[ColinEssex]

I've been hearing on the BBC news about Mr Trump asking The Ukraine to "investigate" Mr Biden ahead of next years presidential elections.

So, why? What has Mr Biden done that needs investigation?
Why get a foreign government to do it? Mr Trump hates foreigners.

What is he trying to achieve? After all, the candidate with the lowest populace vote will win and we all know that will be Mr Trump.

Why can't the CIA or FBI investigate Mr Biden? They know everything about everyone anyway.

Most odd.

Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

In this case, the investigation would be best handled (if performed at all) in the Ukraine because it relates to actions performed by Mr. Biden's son when he was involved in some kind of project that occurred in the Ukraine, i.e. it occurred on Ukrainian soil. The details are a bit fuzzy over here, too, Col, so I can't give you too much more than to say that it made sense to have the foreign government perform an investigation for some that might have occurred within their jurisdiction.

The CIA doesn't know everything and these days, there is a taint of partisanship in the operations of the intelligence community. Taint? On the scale of such things, maybe even a smear or an outright blemish.

After all, the candidate with the lowest populace vote will win

Maybe, but the USA isn't a democracy. It's a representational republic. Our presidential election system (called the Electoral College) was designed to prevent the big cities from always winning at the expense of rural areas that had legit differences in needs. So the heavily populated areas DO get more power for many votes, but there is a balancing factor that adds extra weight to the states with less population.

Thumbnail explanation: The founding fathers of the USA recognized that a pure democracy would be able to always defeat proposals to benefit less populated areas, siphoning all federal money to high-population areas. We have a phrase "the tyranny of democracy" to represent the idea that pure democracies have the power to do really nasty things to demographic minorities regardless of which attribute is considered - race, religion, gender, occupation - you pick it, we can use voting power to oppress it. So our system does not depend on raw numbers.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Actually it starts with Hunter's dealings with China, the Democrat's only see Russia Russia Russia as a threat. The Dems have a very cozy relationship with China, all the major news outlets provide the cover needed to exchange vast amounts of money while saying nothing about their human rights atrocities.

The building of artificial islands in the south china seas seem to be a non issue along with Hong Kong, and other disputes.

They are okay with these incursions because it lines their children's pockets.

 

[ColinEssex]

Actually it starts with Hunter's dealings with China, the Democrat's only see Russia Russia Russia as a threat. The Dems have a very cozy relationship with China, all the major news outlets provide the cover needed to exchange vast amounts of money while saying nothing about their human rights atrocities.

The building of artificial islands in the south china seas seem to be a non issue along with Hong Kong, and other disputes.

They are okay with these incursions because it lines their children's pockets.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what any of that means. What is Hunter?

Building islands? Why?
I'm sorry, but I must be thick or something, or misreading it somehow. It doesn't matter to me so no need to explain, if it gets important, it'll be on the BBC news.

Actually, I'm more worried why one of my fuchsia plants seems unwell. As I live alone now, I am quite happy in my garden not caring a toss about anything else.

Col

 

[AccessBlaster]

…What has Mr Biden done that needs investigation?

You ask a question, I can't help that you don't follow politics beyond the monarchy.

Do try and keep up old boy.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

What is Hunter?

In this case, "WHO" - Hunter Biden is Joe Biden's son, the person who was in the Ukraine and who is the actual focus of the controversy. Except that there is the issue that Joe might have assisted his son or consulted with him during the incident that led to Mr. Trump's comments.

In a move sure to trigger 2016 P.T.S.D., The New York Times has published a nearly 3,000-word tale of intrigue involving the Biden family’s various entanglements in Ukraine. In short, the story is this: in the final year of the Obama presidency, Vice President Joe Biden “threatened to withhold $1 billion in United States loan guarantees if Ukraine’s leaders did not dismiss the country’s top prosecutor”—Viktor Shokin—“who had been accused of turning a blind eye to corruption in his own office and among the political elite.” The pressure campaign also just so happened to benefit Biden’s younger son, Hunter, who was then getting paid as much as $50,000 to sit on the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company that was in Shokin’s sights. The question the Times raises, but does not answer, is: were Joe’s and Hunter’s overlapping interests in Ukraine coincidental, or corrupt?

The Bidens say Joe acted “without any regard” for the impact on his son, and that Hunter never discussed private business with his father. But of course, that seems unlikely to put this story to rest. The current Ukrainian prosecutor general recently decided to reopen the investigation into Burisma, which could unearth new details about Hunter’s work. No surprise, the story is also being heavily promoted by Donald Trump and his allies, including lawyer Rudy Giuliani. According to the Times, Giuliani has met repeatedly with both the ousted Ukrainian prosecutor and the new prosecutor, and has discussed his findings with Trump—who then suggested he would like Attorney General William Barr to look into the matter. (Perhaps that is why Barr was at a loss for words on Wednesday, when Senator Kamala Harris asked whether “the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone.”)

Here is a another link you might be able to follow. (The Vanity Fair article is protected by some software to limit use unless you subscribe.)

https://thenationalsentinel.com/201...-while-vp-dad-was-threatening-its-government/

These two articles might put something in perspective for you, Col.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Building islands? Why?

The Democratic Party of the USA is busy not caring about the "land grab" made by the mainland Chinese government (PRC). They built some kind of artificial island in the South China Sea and put an airport on it, but then used the artificial island to extend their national boundaries (i.e. the 24-mile oceanic limit) by however far into the sea those islands were constructed. I would call it a land grab, but in this case it is an ocean grab.

Good luck with the fuchsia plants.

 

[ColinEssex]

You ask a question, I can't help that you don't follow politics beyond the monarchy.

Do try and keep up old boy.

My apologies for not being familiar with the USA politics.

As I said, I care little about whether the USA is building a wall or artificial islands. To be honest I don't even know what party Mr Trump stands for.
Reason? We have a government here in turmoil, everyone is cheesed off with it.

So, as a result, I play my bass guitars and tend my garden. I get more joy watching my plants grow and reward me with beautiful flowers, I am happy not seeing or talking to anyone, as I say I now live alone so it's easy to potter about making lovely plants.

Politics is a joke whether it's USA, U.K., China, Iran or wherever, I couldn't care less these days. I don't need the money, have no debts so I sit in my garden watching the fishes in the pond and working out plans of how to improve my little haven.

Col

 

[AccessBlaster]

My apologies for not being familiar with the USA politics.

As I said, I care little about whether the USA is building a wall or artificial islands.

I doubt that, you are very familiar with all things USA to the point of obsession.

You know more about our music, movies, and our gun culture then most native born Americans.

As we speak you are scanning the headlines for the next American tragedy.

 

[ColinEssex]

I doubt that, you are very familiar with all things USA to the point of obsession.

You know more about our music, movies, and our gun culture then most native born Americans.

As we speak you are scanning the headlines for the next American tragedy.

Ha ha - yes I admit it, I do like a lot of American music, mostly from the 60's. There is no doubt America has a lot going for it.

Films? Yes again, guilty. But again, mostly from 60's/70's not modern CGI rubbish.

Gun culture? Hmmm, I am intrigued by the hundreds of so called serial killings, I just can't understand what drives someone to do that. Yet nothing gets done about it.

But generally, I think America is ok. Just lose the dopey president and you could be even better.

Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Just lose the dopey president and you could be even better.

True, but needs to be put in context. If we had elected the bitchy president, things could have been worse for some of us. Col, our biggest nightmare is that election in which NONE of the candidates have any redeeming features. The Trump/Clinton election came close to that (low) standard. Hillary Clinton was totally unpalatable because of the way she abandoned people in Benghazi and with that private mail server scandal that broke at least three federal laws at once, not to mention side-stepping a couple of more laws. Trump was a known agitator (and you have to admit, he has EVERYONE agitated in some way or another). For me, it became a case of picking the lesser evil (and then holding my nose with one hand while flipping the voting levers with the other).

You think we could be better with a different president. You are not wrong, but you omit the (sad) fact that it could also be worse.

 

[Steve R.]

What has Mr Biden done that needs investigation?

What is most odd is that the Democrats endlessly investigate Trump. Yet when it comes to examining Biden or Clinton (Hillary), investigations are deemed to be unnecessary and a waste of time. This is appalling biased partisanship at its worst. So, if Trump deserves investigation, so do Biden and Clinton (Hillary).

 

[ColinEssex]

There was a woman interviewed on the street about Brexit and the current UK government situation. She said, "oh Christ, I've lost the will to live". I think that sums it up for the nation.
Doc is right though, we (USA and UK) may be fed up to the back teeth with our respective leaders, but it could be worse. . . . . . could it? I'm not sure.

Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

but it could be worse. . . . . . could it? I'm not sure.

Neither am I - and I really don't want to find out. But the chance exists that this coming year, we WILL find out.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The USA newspapers report that Mr. Johnson has his Brexit mandate and that it will become reality in January. I wonder if that woman who claimed to have lost the will to live (back in October, when Col reported it) has anything left to lose?

 

[Pat Hartman]

We've learned a lot more about the Bidens since this question was first posted. Let me start by saying that US law does not prevent anyone except a public official's spouse from accepting money from foreign governments so technically, Hunter Biden (Joe's son) is in the clear. He hasn't committed a crime. On the surface, Joe Biden is also in the clear. The fact is that while Joe was the VP of the US in charge of Ukraine oil policy (and the money that went with it) and his son took a "no show" job with the most corrupt oil company in the Ukraine that paid him and his business partner each a million dollars a year simply doesn't pass the smell test. What justified the generous payments to Hunter? He had no knowledge of the oil industry, he didn't speak Ukrainian, and yet he was being paid far more than would be considered normal in the US for board members. While the situation smells, it is quite a reach to prove that Joe was giving the Ukraine special treatment in exchange for the "no show" job for his son. There are certainly obviously favorable decisions but proving quid pro quo is very difficult. At the time (2016), some newspapers investigated the story and John Kerry's (secretary of state) stepson who was also a business partner of Hunter and the third guy complained to federal authorities about the relationship and distanced himself from his two former partners who he felt were cashing in on the Biden name and that the arrangement was corrupt (his own words). Then the matter was dropped. Did someone in the Obama administration tell the press to drop the investigation? We'll never know. What we do know is that the press is completely in the tank for the Democrats and bringing this to the front page would embarrass the Bidens at best and at worst subject them to charges of corruption.

Then the worm turned because Joe, himself, couldn't keep his mouth shut. Sometime last year, Joe was speaking to a group of donors and the speech was recorded and leaked. So, Joe was bragging to the donors about how he threatened the Ukraine president with withholding 1.5 billion dollars of US loan guarantees if he didn't fire the prosecutor who was investigating corruption at Burisma which was the corrupt oil company that his son Hunter had the "no show" job with. THIS is the crime. THIS is the quid pro quo and Joe did it to himself and the Democrats refuse to even consider that this might be a problem that Joe was using his power to influence a foreign government and was directly benefiting his son by the action.

One of Trump's campaign promises was to clean up the "swamp". This is why the Republicans hate him as much as the Democrats. The Republicans are a little more subtle in their corruption but people who get elected to the Senate and the House and manage to stay for a few terms somehow become millionaires (Nancy Pelosi uses her position to funnel contracts to her husband's business). We pay them too well (~$180,000) but given the expense of having to maintain two residences, it is not that outrageous. To ensure their success, congress has passed laws that exempt themselves and their staffs from insider trading laws so given that they know ahead of time which way the wind is blowing, they can take advantage of that knowledge to control their investments. This was reported a few years ago on a 60 minutes segment prompting a change in the law. The change lasted a few months and it was quietly modified again and they are back to their old tricks.

Anyway, back to Trump. In July (?) he had a phone call with the new President of the Ukraine and as part of the conversation asked the president to do "US" a favor. Not "ME", "US" and look into some of the corruption that was being reported. Although recordings are not made of these calls, numerous people are listening in and making notes about what transpired so there is a "transcript" which Trump released as soon as the Ukraine president agreed.. One of the people on the call misinterpreted Trump's request and thought Trump was asking for dirt on Joe Biden so he could use it to defeat Joe in the upcoming election and this was the final nail that motivated the Dems to start to impeach Trump. The groundwork for the impeachment had actually been laid during the Obama administration when the FBI lied to the FISA court and got authorization to spy on the Trump campaign. Trump wasn't delusional when he was talking about phones at Trump Towers being tapped although it wasn't quite as direct as that. This spying ultimately led to the Mueller special prosecutor investigation which led to nothing nor did any of the other investigations conducted by the House. Trump came out essentially clean or at least as clean as someone as flamboyant and hated as Trump could. So, that left the "call" as the Dem's last best hope. Sadly, Trump haters are completely blinded by the defamation campaign that has been going on since he beat Hillary so they don't remember that Democrats actually started calling for Trump's impeachment 19 minutes after he took the oath of office. They hated him with a purple passion and nothing, nothing was ever going to convince them that he didn't cheat and steal the election from Hillary.

Nothing in the impeachment or other investigations has turned up a crime. All we have are a president exercising his prerogatives as President. The opposition witnesses testified basically that they disagreed with Trump's actions but when asked, not a single one of them could cite a crime. This didn't stop the Dems. They edited the depositions and only showed the parts where the witnesses were talking about how bad the President's decisions were and how he was ignoring all their advice and just doing whatever he wanted. Of course, the Constitution specifically gives the President the sole power to conduct foreign policy. We don't conduct foreign policy by committee, The state department staffers are not elected. They don't get to decide policy. It is their job to implement the President's policy and if they don't want to, they need to quit. Instead, they stay and obstruct and leak and do what ever they can to disrupt his plans. The President has 100% complete discretion on who we will be friends with. Who we will make treaties with (the Senate must ratify treaties but they don't make them), etc.

Trump is his own worst enemy. He's a ham. He makes jokes that are always misinterpreted. The one about asking Russia to get Hillary's emails is a prime example. Do people really think that he is stupid enough to ask the Russians for help on national television? I know Obama did but Obama didn't know the mic was live. Trump spent too many years as a man about town in Manhattan and later on the reality show the Apprentice. He offends people and he often does it deliberately because he loves to watch their heads spin. Smoke comes out of their ears and they call him insane because they simply cannot comprehend what he is all about. At his heart, Trump is a successful businessman (probably not as successful as he'd like us to believe. He's bigger than life. He exaggerates.). He's used to telling people what to do and having them do it. If a plan doesn't produce the desired results, he changes the plan and tries something else. For this they call him erratic. Apparently, once the lemmings are headed for the cliff, there is no getting out of line even if you happen to be tall enough to see the precipice. You just have to keep going. Maybe nothing bad will happen. He went to military school as a boy. He studied Machiavelli and Sun Tzu. He took to heart the concept of keeping your friends close but your enemies closer. To me, as I watch him suck up to some dictator, I wonder why the dictator buys it, not why Trump does it. He does it because it works. It gets them to talk to us and come to the bargaining tables. If it weren't for the damn press undermining him at every opportunity, North Korea would have disarmed by now and would be welcoming US businesses into the newest far east cheap labor market.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Thank you, Pat. Clearly and neatly said.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I do not know what to say. I am sitting here slacked jawed waiting for the other shoe to drop! Thank you.

 

[Pat Hartman]

You're welcome. I have to say I'm surprised by the remarks but probably shouldn't be. I've been watching CNN's view of the Impeachment hearing today (which I also watched) and can't believe we saw the same video.

There are a lot of laws regarding Congress and their behavior that need to change but why would Congress cut themselves off from the gravy train?

I've joined a group called the Convention of States. They are working on proposing amendments to the Constitution.

Article 5 of the Constitution details two methods for making amendments. The method used for all existing amendments is that the Congress proposes the amendment and then usually defines a timeline and sends it out for the states to ratify. 3/4 of the states need to ratify an amendment before it becomes law. The other method is for the states themselves to call a convention. For that to happen 2/3 of the states need to pass laws in their legislature to call the convention. The convention meets and comes up with proposed amendments. Each state gets to dictate certain actions for its delegations. For example, one state has said, its delegation cannot support any term limit amendments (but only one). Once the amendments are defined, they go back to the states for ratification and it takes the same 3/4 of all states ratify an amendment.

I'm not going to post a link. You should be able to find the group (COS) but send me a PM if you can't.

The group is largely non-partisan since both Democrats and Republicans think that Congress is out of control and verging on corrupt. The three areas where the group is concentrating are:
1. term limits. Not only for Congress but also for the Supreme Court and high government officials.
2. Fiscal responsibility. Specifically a balanced budget.
3. Congressional Overreach. Much of what congress does to usurp more power is to expand the meaning of the interstate commerce clause. This alone has caused numerous Federal agencies to be formed.

Our Constitution, including the 27 amendments fits on a pocket sized folder of 34 pages!!!! And congress can't seem to write a bill less than 2,000 pages long. However due to Supreme Court rulings over the years that have been allowed to alter the Constitution despite the fact that the only way the Constitution says it can be modified is via amendment, the official Constitution should you care to order one from the Federal government printing office is over 3,000 pages.

When you open your eyes and look at the mess, it seems that it will take another revolution to get rid of the crap and go back to the intentions of the founders which are much more akin to Libertarian than Democrat or Republican.

 

[Steve R.]

Our Constitution, including the 27 amendments fits on a pocket sized folder of 34 pages!!!! And congress can't seem to write a bill less than 2,000 pages long. However due to Supreme Court rulings over the years that have been allowed to alter the Constitution despite the fact that the only way the Constitution says it can be modified is via amendment, the official Constitution should you care to order one from the Federal government printing office is over 3,000 pages.

Quite true.

When you open your eyes and look at the mess, it seems that it will take another revolution to get rid of the crap and go back to the intentions of the founders which are much more akin to Libertarian than Democrat or Republican.

We are now in an ersatz cold "civil war" (revolution). Unfortunately, the direction of this "revolution" is not going towards restoring the intentions of the founders.

Currently the thrust of this "revolution" is towards refusing to enforce Federal laws and even preventing local law enforcement from protecting public safety. Even the court system, to a degree, has taken an activist approach to assisting this "revolution". Some the Democratic candidates for President have proposed policies that would make "citizenship" (as one example) obsolete (non-citizens would be allowed free entry into the US and would be entitled to a variety of government programs.)

The Democrats have brought back McCarthyism. That was on open display with the Kavenaugh nomination hearings and now with the Democratic House pushing impeachment. Never thought that McCarthyism would happen again.