And the difference is? Tiny

[HedonistForever]

Tough times around here and rather risk being reported (OH, wait VM is gone ) and getting points for hijacking a thread, I'll make this a thread of it's own directed at Tiny but as usual, anybody can chime it, it's a shame I won't see most of them he said sarcastically.


Tiny, this has been bugging me since you brought it up and maybe you can help me understand the difference between the Trump phone call to Zelensky and the Biden ultimatum to Zelensky.


This is my re-collection of how the relevant part the phone call went down and it' relationship to the impeachment of Trump. I'm not going to do my usual looking for quotes, just correct me if you think I'm wrong.


Trump is holding up aide to Ukraine because he is pissed and for sake of argument, I'll concede that Rudy has cooked up some scheme and Trump says to Zelensky (paraphrasing ) " I would like you to continue the investigation into Hunter and Joe Biden ( don't think he ever said Joe but we all know that is what he meant ) and "WE" meaning the American people ( if one was defending Trump and his meaning ), WE would like you to do that for us, continue to investigate which quickly became a "you can't do that because Biden might run for President". I would normally point out the similarity to what is happening with the Mir-a-Lago issue, a sitting President sicking the FBI on a probable political opponent which is a no-no?



Anyway, No overt quid pro quo offered but of course the Democrats will say "Yeah but we all know what he meant" and Adam Schiff went as far as to make up what he later described as a Parody of what Trump had said and it went like this, "Trump here, I want you to find dirt on the Biden family and I don't care what you have to do to get it and Hell, make it up if you have to". That is how Adam Schiff heard that phone call, when in actuality, those words were never spoken. Can't prove they weren't implied but then I don't have to. All I have to do is show who lied about what was said.


So, what we ended up with is an article of impeachment because Trump held up aide money, which he also never mentioned to Zelensky keeping it from being a classical quid pro quo where you have to have all the parts, until he could be satisfied that all the talk that Rudy said was happening, gave Trump reason to believe that there was more to the Hunter and Joe story in Ukraine and now we see the truth of that matter. Well, some of us.


Then we have VP Biden in Ukraine where he has been authorized by Congress and approved by President Obama, to give them 1 billion ( or what ever the amount was ) but Biden says without fear or without understanding, "you will not get this money" and looking at his watch as if he were in a movie says "you have 6 hours to decide before I get on a plane and you get no money". An obvious, classic quid pro quo, which in many cases, is illegal.


But you make the case that because Biden was "just doing his job" ( kinda like he says he is doing at our Southern border ) and with the approval of President Obama, he can do this, no problem even though it is the same act with different people IMHO.


If Obama being President can tell Joe Biden to put this quid pro quo to Zelensky, a stated quid pro quo unlike the Trump "unstated" QPQ, then why can't a President Trump do the same thing? Remembering that both Presidents are holding up aide or threatened to hold up aide, another reminder that Trump never said those words to Zelensky and in every interview he ever gave said he heard no quid pro quo, what is the difference? What makes one impeachable and not the other.


I can't see it, maybe you can explain it to me.

[1blackman1]

Lol. That’s some almost kinda funny shit. Firstly you leave out A LOT to crest the equivalence. Then you . . . I can’t even say it. Dude, you are getting back to being entertaining, though unintentionally.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Tough times around here and rather risk being reported (OH, wait VM is gone ) and getting points for hijacking a thread, I'll make this a thread of it's own directed at Tiny but as usual, anybody can chime it, it's a shame I won't see most of them he said sarcastically.


Tiny, this has been bugging me since you brought it up and maybe you can help me understand the difference between the Trump phone call to Zelensky and the Biden ultimatum to Zelensky.


This is my re-collection of how the relevant part the phone call went down and it' relationship to the impeachment of Trump. I'm not going to do my usual looking for quotes, just correct me if you think I'm wrong.


Trump is holding up aide to Ukraine because he is pissed and for sake of argument, I'll concede that Rudy has cooked up some scheme and Trump says to Zelensky (paraphrasing ) " I would like you to continue the investigation into Hunter and Joe Biden ( don't think he ever said Joe but we all know that is what he meant ) and "WE" meaning the American people ( if one was defending Trump and his meaning ), WE would like you to do that for us, continue to investigate which quickly became a "you can't do that because Biden might run for President". I would normally point out the similarity to what is happening with the Mir-a-Lago issue, a sitting President sicking the FBI on a probable political opponent which is a no-no?



Anyway, No overt quid pro quo offered but of course the Democrats will say "Yeah but we all know what he meant" and Adam Schiff went as far as to make up what he later described as a Parody of what Trump had said and it went like this, "Trump here, I want you to find dirt on the Biden family and I don't care what you have to do to get it and Hell, make it up if you have to". That is how Adam Schiff heard that phone call, when in actuality, those words were never spoken. Can't prove they weren't implied but then I don't have to. All I have to do is show who lied about what was said.


So, what we ended up with is an article of impeachment because Trump held up aide money, which he also never mentioned to Zelensky keeping it from being a classical quid pro quo where you have to have all the parts, until he could be satisfied that all the talk that Rudy said was happening, gave Trump reason to believe that there was more to the Hunter and Joe story in Ukraine and now we see the truth of that matter. Well, some of us.


Then we have VP Biden in Ukraine where he has been authorized by Congress and approved by President Obama, to give them 1 billion ( or what ever the amount was ) but Biden says without fear or without understanding, "you will not get this money" and looking at his watch as if he were in a movie says "you have 6 hours to decide before I get on a plane and you get no money". An obvious, classic quid pro quo, which in many cases, is illegal.


But you make the case that because Biden was "just doing his job" ( kinda like he says he is doing at our Southern border ) and with the approval of President Obama, he can do this, no problem even though it is the same act with different people IMHO.


If Obama being President can tell Joe Biden to put this quid pro quo to Zelensky, a stated quid pro quo unlike the Trump "unstated" QPQ, then why can't a President Trump do the same thing? Remembering that both Presidents are holding up aide or threatened to hold up aide, another reminder that Trump never said those words to Zelensky and in every interview he ever gave said he heard no quid pro quo, what is the difference? What makes one impeachable and not the other.


I can't see it, maybe you can explain it to me.

Hedonist, first, I believe Biden, who was only marginally less doddery in 2016 than he is today, was following orders from the State Department and White House and had "0" input into the decision to try to get Shokin axed. In fact, I think getting Shokin fired worked against the best interests of Burisma's owner and Hunter Biden. See links below.

Trump was withholding money allocated to Ukraine for months. Was this a bad thing? Well, from my standpoint, not necessarily. This whole mess that's occurring right now might not have happened if the USA hadn't been arming Ukraine. People have died, economies have suffered, and we've wasted a lot of taxpayer money as a result.

But if Trump held up the money for political advantage, and I believe he did, that's a no no. You brought up mens rea about Mar a Lago. Well, you could apply that here too. And I'm as big a believer in that concept as anyone here. But where do you draw the line, when a person has no moral compass or doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong? In Trump's defense, you could say that he's a sucker for groundless conspiracy theories, like Crowd Strike. That's probably a defense for criminal liablity, but it's also a strong reason to question whether he should be the leader of the free world. And I say that even though I largely agreed with his foreign policy, certainly much more than I agreed with hawks like Lindsey Graham and Hillary Clinton.

I became somewhat obsessed with the whole Burisma episode. Here are some posts that would provide some insight into why I believe like I do, that may be worth a look if you become incredibly bored,

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php...post1062506498
https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php...post1061933356
https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php...post1061921438
https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php...post1061809919

The first link is the most relevant to what we're talking about.

[WTF]

If you can't tell the difference between what Trump did concerning Ukraine and what Biden did...you might be a Trump apologist or Dumbass. Take your pick.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

If you can't tell the difference between what Trump did concerning Ukraine and what Biden did...you might be a Trump apologist or Dumbass. Take your pick.

Yeah, depending on your partisan bias, one of them is completely forgivable and the other is the Crime of the Century... take your pick.

[Precious_b]

Damn. My memory don't remember specifics.
With Biden, at the time, Ukraine did and does have corruption. Just like us (see current and past politicing (sp). Guy Bided was dealing with was known for such and other european nations had same pov. So, he was gate keeper for USA dollars and tax payers.

Trump. Was for self-serving means. I.e. election. Clearly stated on multiple media and recording device.

So, say it was flying cover for Hunter or whatever. Let a firmly documented source dictate.

[WTF]

Exactly right...one was done at the behest of all our European allies, one was d
One purely for personal political gain.

If you can't see that....you might be a political hack

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

Damn. My memory don't remember specifics.
With Biden, at the time, Ukraine did and does have corruption. Just like us (see current and past politicing (sp). Guy Bided was dealing with was known for such and other european nations had same pov. So, he was gate keeper for USA dollars and tax payers.

Trump. Was for self-serving means. I.e. election. Clearly stated on multiple media and recording device.

So, say it was flying cover for Hunter or whatever. Let a firmly documented source dictate.

I think Trump got suckered into this by Giuliani, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, which is one of the reasons I told Hedonist in another thread I wouldn't have voted to impeach Trump for this if I were a Congressman. They were looking for help from the U.S. government to make a buck, so they invented the Burisma scandal. They figured they could swap it to Trump for help with their deals.

They probably figured wrong. I figure Trump would have welcomed any help in digging up dirt on Joe Biden. But when it came time for payback the three wouldn't have gotten anything in return.

My memory is hazy too, but from past posts, this is the main thing Parnas, Frumand and Giuliani were up to:

Parnas and Fruman were trying to get the CEO of the Ukrainian national gas company replaced with their guy, so they could broker LNG sales (liquified natural gas sales) from U.S. companies to the Ukrainians. Being supporters of President Trump, and anxious to curry favors like the removal of the U.S. ambassador to the Ukraine who was meddling with their master plan to dominate the Ukrainian gas industry, they started trying to dig up dirt on Biden. Victor Shokin (the prosecutor who never went after Burisma) was only too happy to help. His name was mud and rewriting history, so that Biden was helping Zlochevski [Owner of Burisma] get off instead of him, seemed like a good idea.

Also, and this verges on a conspiracy theory, Parnas had met with Dmytro Firtash, a Ukrainian oligarch who's holed up in Austria to avoid a U.S. warrant for his arrest. Firtash also engaged a couple of attorneys close to Trump, Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing, to fight extradition. There's speculation that when Parnas and Fruman were arrested, they were on the way to Vienna to meet with Firtash, to arrange some kind of a deal.

[WTF]

You seem to be arguing that Trump should not have been impeached because he is a gullible dumbass who was willing to break the law.

I'd argue being a dumbass along with crooked enhances one's chances of getting impeached!