The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (8 Viewers)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[cuddlemonkey]

The Financial Times provided some excellent material with regard to the extent of Hunter Biden's influence peddling.

Hunter Biden’s web of interests

His ties span the globe and raise questions about the overlap of business and politics

www.ft.com

I don't doubt that Hunter Biden is trying to use his name to enrich himself. What I was speaking about was the claim that Joe Biden was paid $900,000 by a Ukrainian entity.

 

[Archies Ghost]

I don't doubt that Hunter Biden is trying to use his name to enrich himself. What I was speaking about was the claim that Joe Biden was paid $900,000 by a Ukrainian entity.

Do you require a certified check in the precise amount?

The Intercept has an interesting article on the subject of influence peddling by the Bidens.

Democrats Must Admit Joe Biden’s Family Profits Off Him

Democrats have sidestepped the question of Hunter Biden’s ethics, and how much responsibility Joe Biden deserves. Republicans, though, have no such qualms.

theintercept.com

The problem for Democrats is that a review of Hunter Biden’s career shows clearly that he, along with Joe Biden’s brother James, has been trading on their family name for decades, cashing in on the implication — and sometimes the explicit argument — that giving money to a member of Joe Biden’s family wins the favor of Joe Biden.

In defending the Biden’s nepotistic relationship, Democrats would be forced to argue that, to be fair, such soft corruption is common among the families of senior-level politicians. But that’s a risky general-election argument in a political moment when voters are no longer willing to accept business-as-usual. For now, Biden’s opponents in the presidential campaign appear to all hope that somebody else will make the argument, while congressional Democrats don’t want to do anything to undermine their impeachment probe. And so Biden skates.

We know Burisma paid Rosemount Seneca Bohai $3.4 million and sources indicated that twice monthly payments of $83,333 for 18 months were intended for Archer and Biden.

Is there a paper trail tying a specific amount to Joe Biden? Apparently not. It is overwhelmingly clear that the money was intended to buy influence with Vice President Joe Biden.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Do you require a certified check in the precise amount?

No, I require evidence. Even John Solomon, who is one of the driving forces behind the Biden/Ukraine story, said that there is no truth to the claim that Joe Biden was paid $900,000 from anyone in Ukraine.

The Intercept has an interesting article on the subject of influence peddling by the Bidens.

Democrats Must Admit Joe Biden’s Family Profits Off Him

Democrats have sidestepped the question of Hunter Biden’s ethics, and how much responsibility Joe Biden deserves. Republicans, though, have no such qualms.

theintercept.com

We know Burisma paid Rosemount Seneca Bohai $3.4 million and sources indicated that twice monthly payments of $83,333 for 18 months were intended for Archer and Biden.

Is there a paper trail tying a specific amount to Joe Biden? Apparently not. It is overwhelmingly clear that the money was intended to buy influence with Vice President Joe Biden.

Could you explain how this is overwhelmingly clear? Specifically, I am asking if you have any examples of Biden influencing anything in favor of people who gave to those trading on the family name.

 

[Ayo]

Is all of the Biden-centric content here to legitimate Trump and Guiliani et al asking for a public declaration of an investigation of a political opponent's son, while withholding 400 million dollars in military aid and a White House audience? Is the argument that all of this makes the 'quid pro quo' justifiable? It hasn't been established explicitly, but perhaps at this point it should?

 

[Archies Ghost]

No, I require evidence. Even John Solomon, who is one of the driving forces behind the Biden/Ukraine story, said that there is no truth to the claim that Joe Biden was paid $900,000 from anyone in Ukraine.


Could you explain how this is overwhelmingly clear? Specifically, I am asking if you have any examples of Biden influencing anything in favor of people who gave to those trading on the family name.

[Mod Edit - rude and unnecessary opening deleted!] Do you really believe that the "consultancies" and "foundations" run by their children that DC politicians use to shield themselves from directly accepting bribes are anything more than influence peddling?

Biden is not alone in this behavior nor is the Democrat party. This behavior is widespread in DC and they are all guilty as hell of what is commonly termed "soft corruption". There is nothing soft about it.

If it makes you feel better to ignore the obvious, go right ahead. I do not suffer from that particular [Mod Edit - the use of the word "delusion" in the context in which it was conveyed is both insulting as well as inflammatory]

 

[Archies Ghost]

Is all of the Biden-centric content here to legitimate Trump and Guiliani et al asking for a public declaration of an investigation of a political opponent's son, while withholding 400 million dollars in military aid and a White House audience? Is the argument that all of this makes the 'quid pro quo' justifiable? It hasn't been established explicitly, but perhaps at this point it should?

Foreign affairs are entirely based upon 'quid pro quo'. The only question is whether this particular exchange was solely for the personal benefit of DJT. If there was any part of it in the national interest, the perceived political advantage is incidental.

It is pretty clear that it was a routine exchange and that there is some value to the United States in the investigation requested.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

[Mod Edit - rude and unnecessary opening deleted!] Do you really believe that the "consultancies" and "foundations" run by their children that DC politicians use to shield themselves from directly accepting bribes are anything more than influence peddling?

Biden is not alone in this behavior nor is the Democrat party. This behavior is widespread in DC and they are all guilty as hell of what is commonly termed "soft corruption". There is nothing soft about it.

If it makes you feel better to ignore the obvious, go right ahead. I do not suffer from that particular [Mod Edit - the use of the word "delusion" in the context in which it was conveyed is both insulting as well as inflammatory]

I am, because I require evidence before I make specific allegations. Do you have evidence?

 

[samiam5211]

Is all of the Biden-centric content here to legitimate Trump and Guiliani et al asking for a public declaration of an investigation of a political opponent's son, while withholding 400 million dollars in military aid and a White House audience? Is the argument that all of this makes the 'quid pro quo' justifiable? It hasn't been established explicitly, but perhaps at this point it should?

and when Trumps says he’s giving better aid to Ukraine (he mocks Obama for giving “blankets”), what he really means is that the democratic (Pelosi) Congress is giving better aid than the Republican (Bohenor/Ryan) congress did.

 

[Ayo]

Foreign affairs are entirely based upon 'quid pro quo'. The only question is whether this particular exchange was solely for the personal benefit of DJT. If there was any part of it in the national interest, the perceived political advantage is incidental.

It is pretty clear that it was a routine exchange and that there is some value to the United States in the investigation requested.

I’m not seeing what’s “pretty clear” when it comes to national interests. Ostensibly, the rationale was to root out corruption. What corruption and where does the national interest come in?

I also don’t totally buy the qualifier that personal political benefit is necessarily merely “incidental.” You continue to make these sweeping comparisons and generalizations and proclamations but I’m not seeing as much in the way of specifics and justification.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Ayo]

Odds on Manafort 2.0?

 

[Ayo]

How Lev Parnas Became Part of the Trump Campaign’s “One Big Family”

Two days after the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, announced that the House would initiate a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump, potentially charging him with seeking to enlist the help of the Ukrainian government to damage Biden’s campaign, Parnas sat down with me at a table for two at Bouchon Bakery, near his hotel, and reminisced about his work as Giuliani’s fixer in Ukraine and elsewhere, where he collected dirt on the Bidens and the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine at the time, Marie Yovanovitch.

Parnas had sat in on many of Giuliani’s phone calls and meetings involving Ukraine, he said, including one between Giuliani and an envoy of Volodymyr Zelensky, the new Ukrainian President, which took place in Madrid. Giuliani told me that, at this meeting, he received assurances that Zelensky’s administration would pursue several investigations sought by Trump, including one into the Bidens. Parnas was clearly proud of his work for Giuliani and seemed unfazed by his proximity to the impeachment inquiry. “I’m a businessman who obviously is close to the mayor, is close to the President,” he said. “I love the President. I love the Administration. I fully support him and honestly think he is going to go down as probably one of the greatest, if not the greatest, Presidents ever. What he’s doing is outstanding.”

On Election Night, Parnas, along with other donors, including the Blackwater founder Erik Prince, were invited to attend a gathering with Trump and his family. “We were all there,” he recalled. “I will never forget that.”

Parnas said that he grew closer to Giuliani after the election. “We were good friends, he’s also my counsel,” he said. “We were looking to do business together.” When Giuliani wanted to gather information in Ukraine to counter the findings of the special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, Parnas volunteered to help. “Because of my Ukrainian background and my contacts there, I became like Rudy’s assistant, his investigator,” he said.

word is that he feels jilted by Trump's claim that he doesn't know him, but I have a hard time believing that would be enough to get this dude to "flip" - assuming "flip" is relevant

 

[superchuck500]

Foreign affairs are entirely based upon 'quid pro quo'. The only question is whether this particular exchange was solely for the personal benefit of DJT. If there was any part of it in the national interest, the perceived political advantage is incidental.

It is pretty clear that it was a routine exchange and that there is some value to the United States in the investigation requested.

There’s no rule that says the benefit has to be an exclusively personal interest.

But to entertain this line of argument, if this was simply the Trump Administration wanting to get tough on corruption, name one person that isn’t a Democrat presidential contender that Trump has asked another head of state to evaluate?

And if this was in the national interest, why did national security officials at the NSC and the Pentagon expressly advise the White House that conditioning Ukraine aid on Zelensky’s announcement of an investigation risked the U.S.’s position in Ukraine because in internal Ukrainian politics, being seen as under Washington’s manipulation is just as bad as being seen as under Moscow’s control. Zelensky himself said he was concerned about being used as a tool in internal US politics.

Obtaining a foreign nation’s cooperation in a criminal investigation is a routine diplomatic matter and doesn’t require heads of state exchanging conditions (threats). The highly unusual and counterproductive nature (at least to established US policy interests) of Trump’s insistence that the Congress-approved $400 million aid and arms package to Ukraine take the new condition that Ukraine’s president make a public announcement of the investigation of a leading Democratic presidential contender and the DNC certainly strongly suggests that the principal motivation was Trump’s political interest.

And using his own “personal lawyer”, a private civilian with no security clearance and not enough sense to not go on national TV and talk about how good his work in Ukraine is for “his client” was really dumb - and adds even more doubt about the supposedly legitimate purpose at play here.

 

[wardorican]

There’s no rule that says the benefit has to be an exclusively personal interest.

But to entertain this line of argument, if this was simply the Trump Administration wanting to get tough on corruption, name one person that isn’t a Democrat presidential contender that Trump has asked another head of state to evaluate?

And if this was in the national interest, why did national security officials at the NSC and the Pentagon expressly advise the White House that conditioning Ukraine aid on Zelensky’s announcement of an investigation risked the U.S.’s position in Ukraine because in internal Ukrainian politics, being seen as under Washington’s manipulation is just as bad as being seen as under Moscow’s control. Zelensky himself said he was concerned about being used as a tool in internal US politics.

Obtaining a foreign nation’s cooperation in a criminal investigation is a routine diplomatic matter and doesn’t require heads of state exchanging conditions (threats). The highly unusual and counterproductive nature (at least to established US policy interests) of Trump’s insistence that the Congress-approved $400 million aid and arms package to Ukraine take the new condition that Ukraine’s president make a public announcement of the investigation of a leading Democratic presidential contender and the DNC certainly strongly suggests that the principal motivation was Trump’s political interest.

And using his own “personal lawyer”, a private civilian with no security clearance and not enough sense to not go on national TV and talk about how good his work in Ukraine is for “his client” was really dumb - and adds even more doubt about the supposedly legitimate purpose at play here.

To make it even more simple. Why didn't Trump just say "I want to make sure you are investigating corruption in your country, and we are here to help?"

 

[Burtifus]

It appears the question of whether there was a quid pro quo or not is now settled. Now what's left to determine is if the request was made to personally benefit only the president and if so ... is that is an impeachable offense.

Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo (Published 2019)

Gordon D. Sondland recounted how he told Ukrainian officials that military aid was tied to their commitment to investigations President Trump wanted.

www.nytimes.com

A critical witness in the impeachment inquiry offered Congress substantial new testimony this week, revealing that he told a top Ukrainian official that the country likely would not receive American military aid unless it publicly committed to investigations President Trump wanted.

The disclosure from Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, in four new pages of sworn testimony released on Tuesday, confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had previously not acknowledged.

The testimony offered several major new details beyond the account he gave the inquiry in a 10-hour interview last month. Mr. Sondland provided a more robust description of his own role in alerting the Ukrainians that they needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

It appears the question of whether there was a quid pro quo or not is now settled. Now what's left to determine is if the request was made to personally benefit only the president and if so ... is that is an impeachable offense.

Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo (Published 2019)

Gordon D. Sondland recounted how he told Ukrainian officials that military aid was tied to their commitment to investigations President Trump wanted.

www.nytimes.com

A critical witness in the impeachment inquiry offered Congress substantial new testimony this week, revealing that he told a top Ukrainian official that the country likely would not receive American military aid unless it publicly committed to investigations President Trump wanted.

The disclosure from Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, in four new pages of sworn testimony released on Tuesday, confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had previously not acknowledged.

The testimony offered several major new details beyond the account he gave the inquiry in a 10-hour interview last month. Mr. Sondland provided a more robust description of his own role in alerting the Ukrainians that they needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Looks like someone did not want to go to jail.

 

[crosswatt]

Looks like someone did not want to go to jail.

I like how he suddenly remembered some "other information" once transcripts started getting released.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I like how he suddenly remembered some "other information" once transcripts started getting released.

Yeah, everyone else's testimony contradicted his testimony and that suddenly "refreshed" his memory. Crazy.