Democrats’ double standard on Ukraine
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
We don’t yet know whether President Trump delayed some military aid to Ukraine as leverage to get Ukraine’s president to reopen an investigation into Hunter Biden. But if we are concerned about U.S. officials inappropriately threatening aid to Ukraine, then there are others who have some explaining to do.
It got almost no attention, but in May, CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”
So, it’s okay for Democratic senators to encourage Ukraine to investigate Trump, but it’s not okay for the president to allegedly encourage Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden?
And then there is Joe Biden. In 2016, the then-vice president threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine if the government did not fire the country’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. According to the New York Times , “Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden … who at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been in the sights of the fired prosecutor general.” The Post reports that it is “unclear how seriously Shokin — who was under fire by U.S. and European officials for not taking a more aggressive posture toward corruption overall — was scrutinizing Burisma when he was forced out.” But what is clear is that Biden bragged about getting him fired, declaring last year: “I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a b----. He got fired.”
This weekend, Biden told reporters, “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” That is flatly untrue. Hunter admitted in an interview with the New Yorker that his father expressed concern about the Burisma post at least once: “Dad said, ‘I hope you know what you are doing,’ and I said, ‘I do.’” Moreover, the New Yorker reports that, “In December, 2015, as Joe Biden prepared to return to Ukraine, his aides braced for renewed scrutiny of Hunter’s relationship with Burisma. Amos Hochstein, the Obama Administration’s special envoy for energy policy, raised the matter with Biden.” That same month, the New York Times published an article about how Hunter’s business dealings in Ukraine undermined the vice president’s anti-corruption message, which quoted a Biden spokesman saying it had no impact.
So, Biden was fully aware of his son’s involvement with Burisma when he pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor in 2016. He should have known that his using U.S. aid as leverage to force the prosecutor’s dismissal would create, at a bare minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Federal ethics regulations require “all employees to recuse themselves from participating in an official matter if their impartiality would be questioned.” Biden violated these rules. Imagine if Trump pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who was investigating a company that employed Donald Trump Jr. as a board member. No one would be giving Trump a pass.
On Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced that Congress will initiate a formal impeachment inquiry over the Ukraine episode, a move Joe Biden endorsed in a speech, declaring, “It’s time for the Congress to fully investigate the conduct of this president.” Such an investigation will be far more damaging for Biden than the president. It will keep the story of Biden’s conflict of interest in the news through the 2020 election. Millions of Americans will learn the word “Burisma.” Senate Republicans can demand that Hunter Biden testify, and subpoena Obama White House aides such as Hochstein to explain under oath what the vice president knew and when he knew it.
Put aside the prosecutor’s firing. Hunter took the position with a Ukrainian natural gas company just a few weeks after his father visited Ukraine in 2014 to urge its government to increase its natural gas production. Hunter Biden had no expertise in Ukraine or natural gas. It will not just be Republicans calling this suspicious; nonpartisan experts in ethics law will testify that this a major conflict of interest.
And the focus will not just be on Ukraine but also how, as The Post reported , “for more than two decades, [Hunter’s] professional work often tracked with his father’s life in politics, from Washington to Ukraine to China.” Trump will use an investigation to paint Joe Biden as a creature of the Washington swamp who used his official position to enrich his son. While Senate Republicans will not remove Trump from office, Democratic primary voters might decide that Biden and his troubles are a distraction they do not need. The irony is the Democrats’ investigation might do more to deny Biden the presidency than Trump.
Tags
Who is online
66 visitors
In December, 2015, as Joe Biden prepared to return to Ukraine, his aides braced for renewed scrutiny of Hunter’s relationship with Burisma. Amos Hochstein, the Obama Administration’s special envoy for energy policy, raised the matter with Biden.” That same month, the New York Times published an article about how Hunter’s business dealings in Ukraine undermined the vice president’s anti-corruption message, which quoted a Biden spokesman saying it had no impact.
So, Biden was fully aware of his son’s involvement with Burisma when he pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor in 2016. He should have known that his using U.S. aid as leverage to force the prosecutor’s dismissal would create, at a bare minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Federal ethics regulations require “all employees to recuse themselves from participating in an official matter if their impartiality would be questioned.” Biden violated these rules. Imagine if Trump pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who was investigating a company that employed Donald Trump Jr. as a board member. No one would be giving Trump a pass.
On Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced that Congress will initiate a formal impeachment inquiry over the Ukraine episode, a move Joe Biden endorsed in a speech, declaring, “It’s time for the Congress to fully investigate the conduct of this president.” Such an investigation will be far more damaging for Biden than the president. It will keep the story of Biden’s conflict of interest in the news through the 2020 election. Millions of Americans will learn the word “Burisma.” Senate Republicans can demand that Hunter Biden testify, and subpoena Obama White House aides such as Hochstein to explain under oath what the vice president knew and when he knew it.
Put aside the prosecutor’s firing. Hunter took the position with a Ukrainian natural gas company just a few weeks after his father visited Ukraine in 2014 to urge its government to increase its natural gas production. Hunter Biden had no expertise in Ukraine or natural gas. It will not just be Republicans calling this suspicious; nonpartisan experts in ethics law will testify that this a major conflict of interest.
And the focus will not just be on Ukraine but also how, as The Post reported , “for more than two decades, [Hunter’s] professional work often tracked with his father’s life in politics, from Washington to Ukraine to China.”
If you actually read the transcript of the call, no aid from the US was talked about. There was talk about Ukraine possibly buying more Javelin missile systems, but that was on the part of the Ukrainian President. Any focus on aid was on what Europe kept talking about in regards to Ukraine and FAILING to deliver on, particularly on the part of Angela Merkel and Germany. Trump repeatedly stated that Germany and the rest of Europe needed to step up and follow through on their promises and that the US could not be the only major power giving aid to Ukraine. Heck, the majority of the conversation was about setting up meetings between Ukrainian officials and both Barr and Guiliani in Ukraine and between the President of Ukraine and Trump in Poland and in the future in the US and Ukraine. The rest of the conversation was about getting to the bottom of both the Russian collusion investigation origins, since Ukraine had the server that supposedly started everything, and getting to the bottom of potential corruption within Ukraine regarding Hunter Biden.
Remember, there is actual video of Joe Biden PROUDLY bragging that he threatened Ukraine with the withholding of $1 billion in aid if the prosecutor, involved with investigating the Ukrainian company Hunter Biden was on the board of, was fired and succeeding in getting that prosecutor fired as a result. In other words, we have solid evidence that Joe Biden used his position in the government to extort the Ukrainian government to essentially end a criminal probe into corruption on the part of Hunter Biden.
Take your blinders off and read the memo again.
Dulay, did you read the actual memo or did you read the NYT or WaPo stories regarding the memo? The actual memo shows Trump discussing Crowdstrike and the DNC email hack that started all of this. Heck, I remember an Ars Technica article pointing out that the code used to hack the DNC email was from a Ukrainian University and Trump mentioned in the call that the SERVER where the hack originated from was in the Ukraine. The actual favor was to look into finding that server and getting to the bottom of that DNC hack. The stuff about Hunter Biden came after a discussion of how Germany and the rest of Europe had been making empty promises to aid Ukraine and not following through on those promises. Then, after that discussion came the mention of Hunter Biden and the firing of the prosecutor looking into the actions of the company that Hunter was on the board of. The only other things were a request to have Guiliani contact the Ukrainians by the request of the Ukrainian President and Trump asking the Ukrainian President to coordinate with Barr regarding the investigation into the DNC hack. Nothing that we have not done before, ala the Moroccan bombings by Al Qaida, was discussed and nothing about any other exchange in terms of money or other forms of compensation. The Javelin missile systems were brought up by the Ukrainian President and were about potentially buying more and was the FIRST thing that was mentioned in the call!
I read the Memo, the Complaint and the IG's letter.
The memo shows that Trump babbled about Crowdstrike. He didn't say a fucking thing about emails or the DNC.
Neither Crowdstrike or the DNC emails 'started all of this'. The Russian hacking did.
Gee, how did the US IC miss that?
That was the FIRST favor.
Which is utter bullshit.
The prosecutor that was fired, Shorkin, was NOT looking into Hunter Biden OR the company that he was on the board of. That investigation had ENDED the year before. Sheesh get your fucking facts straight.
BTW, you're glossing over the fact that Trump said Biden was bragging about ending the 'prosecution' and asked Zelensky to 'look into that'.
There was NO prosecution. PERIOD, full stop.
Utter bullshit. Zelensky didn't request that Giuliani contact him or anyone else.
You're glossing over the fact that Trump said he wanted Barr involved in the Biden thing too. Why skip that part?
Really? Link?
WTF are you babbling about?
Right, only Javelins.
Nope, the FIRST thing was about the election, the SECOND thing was about Trump's FIRST call to Zelensky. Much genuflecting from Zelensky ensued.
After Zelensky said they were almost ready to buy more Javelins, Trump said:
Though:
ADVERB
however (indicating that a factor qualifies or imposes restrictions on what was said previously).
But doncha know, now of that is wrong...it's okay because trumptard did it.
I see you suffer from a lack of reading comprehension. Did you not read where I said that the code used to hack the DNC email was Ukrainian in origin? That means the hack started all of this and it involved the Ukraine. Please take off your blinders and read twice before commenting, since you seem to have missed that part.
Now, I refer you to my reply to lib50 further down at 4.1.16.
I see you suffer from a need to make personal comment rather than addressing the fucking topic.
Why yes, YES I did. You've made that claim ad nauseam yet you've yet to provide one iota of proof. Prove it.
What your claim means is that you believe conspiracy theories that you have no evidence for.
I read your bullshit tom. Again, prove it.
So, in reality, you didn't READ the Treaty since your statement is FALSE.
I refer you to the summary of Article 4 which:
You can go to you own link and READ the exact wording of the Treaty itself. Not that it matters to you now since it no longer bolsters your agenda.
Miraculously the family of Biden made millions via Joe's position in government. How did the American media miss that story?
Because they are the MBFC and IFCN approved lamestream media and that’s what they do.
So? Lots of politicians do. McConnell made 24 million in 10 years on a $184k a year salary. But I guess that's, "different", right?
Bidens son isn't a politician. Hunter just got "Father Favors" when he was in office, to get his wealth.
Like Bill Maher said ….. Get your own Fucking job Hunter !
Bill Maher on Hunter Biden: If It Was Don Jr., ‘It Would Be All Rachel Maddow Was Talking About’
Don Jr... Is he back from China where he was selling green cards for 500k a pop?
At the end of the day, there is zero evidence that Biden or his son did anything illegal. NADA. But that's trump for ya, not very bright. He used corruption to try and prove his political opponent was corrupt without bothering to see if he was actually corrupt. Piss poor move trumpy, and some would say down right stupid.
The sad thing is that his supporters STILL buy his BS. Anyway, stay away from those cancer causing windmills.
So says .…. whom ?
LIE.
NOTHING in the letter 'encourages Ukraine to investigate Trump. In fact, it cites Paul Manafort.
Secondly, this letter was posted in the OPEN SOURCE Senate.gov website, NOT sequestered into an NSC top secret server.
Thirdly, NO. It is NOT okay for Trump to 'encourage Ukraine to investigate' an American citizen no matter what anyone else on the fucking planet has done.
The Washington Post article is right on. The democrat senators threatened the prior Ukraine government and Biden threatened the one before that if they didn’t fire the prosecutor investigating his son. Trump had no quid pro quo, didn’t threaten or pressure anyone as the President of Ukraine clearly stated yesterday.
Nope.
That is a LIE.
That is a LIE too.
Right. Zelensky is going to admit that he was pressured by Trump. He SO wants to be seen as a PUSSY after just 4 months in office.
Oh, BTFW, Zelensky said that he thought that Trump was only going to release the US side of the conversation. Zelensky is going to pay a big price in Ukraine because of Trump.
But if we are concerned about U.S. officials inappropriately threatening aid to Ukraine, then there are others who have some explaining to do.
It got almost no attention, but in May, CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,” the Democratic senators declared, “We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,” before demanding Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”
So, it’s okay for Democratic senators to encourage Ukraine to investigate Trump, but it’s not okay for the president to allegedly encourage Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden?
And then there is Joe Biden. In 2016, the then-vice president threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine if the government did not fire the country’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. According to the New York Times , “Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden … who at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been in the sights of the fired prosecutor general.” The Post reports that it is “unclear how seriously Shokin — who was under fire by U.S. and European officials for not taking a more aggressive posture toward corruption overall — was scrutinizing Burisma when he was forced out.” But what is clear is that Biden bragged about getting him fired, declaring last year: “I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a b----. He got fired.”
Nice of daddy to use his VP influence to get Hunter his lucrative position in Ukraine.
[deleted]
You mean this isn't Biden talking?
When it was investigated, they found nothing. Why do you think Trump has to go risk blackmail and ask a foreign government to make something happen for him? He has Barr to do whatever he wants, and he turns to Ukraine. I don't know why you and others defend that. I don't know how any of this is acceptable. Lying about a bj was impeachable and not fit for office. Now we have a corrupt amoral racist buffoon who lies daily and has taken this country into the shitter. And same people defend and or deny what is front of everybody.
Most of the Democrats thinking that Trump was the one extorting the Ukrainians, probably believe the video is a voice over by Darci Lynne Farmer...
I see you didn't read the published transcript of the call.
Here it is:
When taken out of situational context, of course he sounds like a blustering buffoon. However, you are way too intelligent not know what he is talking about.
Several member nations of the International Monetary Fund were concerned about the widespread corruption in Ukraine. Former Ukraine Prosecutor Viktor Shokin was given an opportunity to do something about it, and he chose not to do so. The United States was, and still is, the strongest member nation, and Vice President Biden, along with several other member nation leaders, took the initiative to say, dump Shokin and put someone in the position who is capable and willing to make a difference, or deal with your problems alone. When Shokin was finally ousted, it was a good and positive thing for the Ukraine and the IMF. Things are better, but they still struggle.
There has been no finding of impropriety regarding Hunter Biden's time on the Burisma Group Board of Directors. For Trump to suggest such a thing, and toss his father in for good measure, is ridiculous. The fact that Trump has done this should piss you off. For crying out loud, he stated publicly that "...a Republican would get the electric chair for doing the same thing." that he has accused the Biden's of doing. Nothing could ever excuse these sleazy campaign tactics, not in 2016 and not in 2020.
Lol, and? The actual investigations into Hunter Biden found zip. Nada. Nichts. It is interesting you take his words (out of context of what was going on at the time with that)as a confession of sorts, and yet every single thing Trump says gets a different standard. Sorry you don't want to accept that Biden was cleared from anything nefarious, but that is the outcome. Trump's turn on the hot seat. Enjoy, I know the world will.
Why yes, YES it is. What's your fucking point?
Before you answer, I suggest you watch the WHOLE comment, NOT just the truncated clip.
Then come back and tell me all about the 'corrupt' act you allege Biden committed. Please be specific. Since it looks like you're claiming that Biden admits said corruption, a quote would be preferred.
There you go posting more of those fact thingies.
They be like
By the way, do you realize that since Oct 18, 2000; the US by treaty is required to assist Ukraine with investigations and vice versa?
The above link goes to the Congressional page regarding the ratification of the treaty. The actual text is here:
So, in reality, Trump asking for assistance and offering assistance is completely legal by the Treaty.
JMO, some may not understand that or may miss-interpret it.
Things have been improving as far as addressing the extensive greater political and local civic corruption in Ukraine.
As odd as this may sound, while things may be improving politically and administratively, life for the average citizen has become worse in many ways since "we" and the EU decided to add Ukraine as a pawn in the west's fairly long term encroachment on Russia's borders.
For example, gas, the natural kind, has gone up substantially in price and reduced in available volume.
Of course there are many geopolitical reasons why, and putin's Russia being a major source of the problem, yet at the end of the day, less gas is available for heating and and it is much more expensive.
In real life, this means heating gas is no longer available on November 1. Rather it becomes available December 1.
November 1 average hi temps in Kiev are 46F average lows 35F.
November 30 average hi temp are 35F and average lows 28F.
No gas for heat these days.
That is just 1 example.
So, an analogy that comes to my mind is our "recovery" from the GFC.
Maybe Wall Street recovered many years ago. Main Street is still SOL.
Hope this clarifies a little bit.
P.S. I bought the girls heat pumps for their places.
Maybe you should go back there, if you want to I mean.
I've read about Russia's encroachment on Georgian and Ukrainian borders and the annexation of Crimea but I must have missed 'our' encroachment on Russia's boarders. Do you have a source for that?
Actually there are reams of sources about this.
First, I need to ask, when did you begin paying attention to current world events? Maybe by now it is considered has having begun in recent world history?
Your answer may help explain why you need to ask this question.
Yet instead of kindly providing one, you answer me with superciliousness.
Thanks for the 'discussion'.
Now there's a word people don't use enough anymore.
It is like this; I am not going to waste time again with you on a topic that should be as obvious as the back of your hand.
Here, from Stratfor. I have worked with them.
NATO up to 1990:
NATO as of 2009:
I don't mind discussions, but not time wasting bullshit discussions.
If you need any more explanation than those two graphics, then that is on you.
If you want to have a real discussion on topics, I am open, but I have no more time for assholistic, time wasting bullshit discussions.
P,S. Stratfor.com's MBFC rating:
LEAST BIASED
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased sources.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Notes: Stratfor is an American publisher and global intelligence company founded in 1996 in Austin, Texas, by George Friedman, who was the company’s chairman. Stratfor is a well respected source for military intelligence. (D. Van Zandt 11/6/2016)
Liberals hate it and flag our posts if we quote MBFC against them. That tool is only to be used to content control what Christians and conservatives can say or source from.
You brought up the topic of 'encroachment of the Russian border'.
Your very informative link, is about NATO and the Warsaw pact.
The territory of what was Russia before the Soviet Union is still the territory of Russia today as far as I can tell. I don't see anything in your link or on the back of my hand to refute that statement. Nor can I find any articles, from reliable sources, about threats by anyone to the Russian border, long term or otherwise.
I can tell.
Hey, it's your topic.
Nup.
This deviation to a limited semantic understanding of the word encroachment is your topic.
Have fun with it.
As I said, the rest is on you.
Judging from comments, 'encroachment on Russia's border' means 'intrusion on territory'.
Semantics don't save your failed posit.
Your link doesn't evidence any such intrusion and that's on you.
encroach
verbDefinition of encroach
intransitive verb
I try to quote from central to left leaning news sources at time, depending on the discussion, in an attempt to remove that aspect of distraction.
I can tell you from fist hand experience, the folks at Stratfor are straight arrows. In a way, kind of like PEW, though I have developed a little concern about how they have buried some of their studies depending on recent "popular opinion".
I have no problem with the occasional use of center or left sources from time to time. I’ve done it myself. Sometimes it is useful to use an objective source like Stratfor to make a point or a left source that can be used against them or their argument.
Didn't you say that you had 'no more time for assholistic, time wasting bullshit discussions'?
Words MATTER, especially since they our exclusive way of communicating on this forum.
encroach ment
noun
mass noun
1 Intrusion on a person's territory , rights, etc.
‘minor encroachments on our individual liberties’
1.1A gradual advance beyond usual or acceptable limits
‘urban encroachment of habitat’
Instead of using deplomacy, Russia chose to annex former allies or invade them by force, creating ENEMIES of those who could have and should have been allies.
Seriously? The distance of ICBM's is relevant?
The fact is, the countries along the boarder with Russia and worried about the threat of ground troops. About how fast Russia can storm across their country before any NATO member could come to their rescue.
From YOUR very informative link:
There is not a double standard on Ukraine, CH4P.
Putin's Russia is the standard and Trump's apologetic actions at Helsinki is the proof.
Once again the Trump is Putin's puppet BS.
Tell us, are the original sanctions still in place; and more added since Trump took office? Are we still, against all fucking credibility, still in Syria? Trump even sent in ground troops to protect and keep supply lines open to the "moderate Sunni rebels". Are we still sending billions yearly to prop up a pro Western Ukrainian government?
For a puppet Trump is sure a lame one; or does that make Putin a piss poor puppeteer? Tell us; what is one damn thing Trump has done for Russia besides talk to them?
Oh, and in case the left has forgotten, Putin's bot companies organized the after Trump was elected. The man must be nuts to put his patsy in place and then try to suck all of the power away from him.
Putin wanted to divide the US; and he accomplished that task better than he ever dreamed. Considering the little money the Russians spent they received a massive return on their investment.
But keep pushing the false narrative. I am sure the Republicans will gladly pay back the next Democratic president in kind.
Biden is a corrupt buffoon who is losing his mind.
Trump is asking for help from an enemy ( for the lemmings, that means Ally of the U.S.A.
) of Russia . The "Left" is SUPER DUPER pissed. 
Clearly you have never even heard of trump.
Was that your "BEST" ?
Well said.
So it would seem.
Who is CH4P?
Moscow Mitch sure changed his tune.....
Those comments were right on.
Well, Heartland American, that was Nadler in the audio.
Now this is Al Green. I mean, just tell it like it is. The Democrats carry the pure driven snow around and expect it to stay frozen with all their hot air.