4 ms·

That's a really low bar, and does not even rise to the level of preponderance of evidence. It might be something that a grand jury might look at, but that's ab

That's a really low bar, and does not even rise to the level of preponderance of evidence. It might be something that a grand jury might look at, but that's about it. We have an anonymous whistle blower making hearsay claims, coincident with the allowing of hearsay claims as whistle blower claims. We have the Speaker of the House instigating impeachment proceedings without following established process of calling a roll call vote. Instead, calling it based on her own authority. This unjustifiable departure from precedent and good governance is really revealing her motivations. We have Senators Leahy, Menendez, and Durbin leaning on the prosecutor in Ukraine. Are they going to be impeached? https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/5-4-18%20Menendez%20joint%20letter%20to%20General%20Prosecutor%20of%20Ukraine%20on%20Mueller%20investigation.pdf https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/5-4-18%20Menend... We have President Obama doing the exact same thing, leaning on Ukraine. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/double-standards-on-ukraine/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/double-standards-on-u... And then there is the behavior of the Bidens, enriching themselves by selling foreign influence. Obviously, the Speaker can exercise her power and could impeach a president for waking up on the wrong side of the bed as long as she could get enough votes, but that doesn't mean that this is anywhere close to being a wise idea.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
> That's a really low bar, and does not even rise to the level of preponderance of evidence. Really low bar for what? You’re saying “preponderance of evidence” to allude to a burden of proof required for a courtroom verdict. But a whistleblower complaint is basically an allegation; can you name a single legal process where one is required to meet a burden of proof in order to allege wrongdoing? > We have Senators Leahy, Menendez, and Durbin leaning on the prosecutor in Ukraine. They were asking the prosecutor to cooperate with an already ongoing FBI investigation. Whereas Trump is asking the Ukranain President to work with the State Department and his personal attorney to investigate a political rival. > We have President Obama doing the exact same thing, leaning on Ukraine. This has been misrepresented: the prosecutor the Obama administration (including Biden) pressured Ukraine to oust wasn’t actually investigating his Burisma, the company with which Hunter Biden was involved. In addition, other Western countries wanted that prosecutor removed. [1] > And then there is the behavior of the Bidens, enriching themselves by selling foreign influence. Sure, let’s hold Biden accountable for this. But you really want to step into this ring? Trump has repeatedly and flagrantly used the presidency to enrich himself since day 1. Edit, responded to other unrelated points. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/us/politics/biden-ukraine-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/us/politics/biden-ukraine...
- tomohawk 7y ago
  Honest, officer, I heard at the supermarket that my neighbor was engaged in activity that other people have publicly engaged in but I happen to think is illegal. To prove my seriousness, here is a brief prepared by lawyers about my hearsay allegations! Did you see it? No, but I heard at the supermarket...
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    If I inform an officer that someone at the supermarket told me they witnessed a murder, I really hope the officer would investigate further even though I didn’t witness it myself.
    - andy_ppp 7y ago
      No, if you have names of people and evidence as to who said what, fine. You can’t expect the police to investigate every overheard conversation, the “murder” for all you know is probably in Grand Theft Auto.
      - jakelazaroff 7y ago
        > No, if you have names of people and evidence as to who said what, fine. The whistleblower went so far as to name the alleged perpetrators. Surely that warrants additional investigation.
        andy_ppp 7y ago
        We were talking about a hypothetical murder, overheard in a super market not the case in question which obviously must be investigated.
        jakelazaroff 7y ago
        Sure. So in our hypothetical scenario — as in the whistleblower complaint — let's assume that our secondhand informant is able to name the alleged perpetrators and details of the crime, conveying information given to them by six firsthand witnesses. What police officer wouldn't follow up on that?
pstuart 7y ago
Edit: leaving original below to own my words. Political dialog has become more difficult than ever before, and I don't think it's accidental. That difficulty serves those to whom truth is at best an inconvenience. It should be focused on facts. Facts should be verifiable. Being that it's difficult for a human to process multiple things at once, it is important to discuss a single fact at a time. Since facts are effectively a collection of words, one must then discern what those words mean. Most of the time we can agree on the general meaning, but the language gives room to nuance, and nuance is guided by intention. Intentions matter (note the degrees of homicide). So when evaluating facts we should acknowledge the possible nuances and then look at the probability weighting of each one being appropriate considering environmental inputs. If one is interested in the truth, then one runs the numbers and accepts the results (or acceptably refines the weighting). It should be about "winning", it should be about what is right. If it changes the currently held understanding, then it's done its job. I welcome criticism of this. I welcome the opportunity to discuss opposed-viewpoints on facts, if in a good faith effort to find agreement on the actual meaning of the facts. I will admit failure of any policy action from a pol on "my side". I just want truth. ----------------------- original below ---------------------- I love HN for the intelligent dialog, and it always surprises me that intelligent people can fall for stupid things too (hey, myself included). @tomohawk, your whataboutisms are not accurate, and I would be happy do a address a single element of your claims (to avoid the fact distraction technique). Warning: we are in politics land on HN.
andy_ppp 7y ago
This is a well written comment and should not be downvoted. The downvoting button is not for disagree (which I do). If you have a problem with what tomohawk wrote I’d suggest writing a comment so we can benefit from your analysis.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  I think the problem people have is that below the second paragraph, it’s entirely whataboutism that distracts from the discussion rather than adds to it.
  - tomohawk 7y ago
    Whataboutism would be bringing up something like President Obama directing hundreds of billions of dollars to the Iranian government and saying this really doesn't compare. The provided examples are related to previous activities by high government officials in regards to Ukraine, indicating a pattern of activity between the officials of both states. Does the current presidents behavior fall outside of this? And the Biden's behavior is part of the whole issue. Is a president wrong to, as part of the treaty signed by both parties, bring up something that looks pretty rotten? All of these things need to be considered together.
- tptacek 7y ago
  In fact, on HN, downvoting disagreement is perfectly cromulent. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=author%3Adang%20downvote%20disagreement&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... Ironically, what isn't OK on HN is complaining about downvotes; that's in the guidelines.

jakelazaroff 7y ago

> That's a really low bar, and does not even rise to the level of preponderance of evidence. Really low bar for what? You’re saying “preponderance of evidence” to allude to a burden of proof required for a courtroom verdict. But a whistleblower complaint is basically an allegation; can you name a single legal process where one is required to meet a burden of proof in order to allege wrongdoing? > We have Senators Leahy, Menendez, and Durbin leaning on the prosecutor in Ukraine. They were asking the prosecutor to cooperate with an already ongoing FBI investigation. Whereas Trump is asking the Ukranain President to work with the State Department and his personal attorney to investigate a political rival. > We have President Obama doing the exact same thing, leaning on Ukraine. This has been misrepresented: the prosecutor the Obama administration (including Biden) pressured Ukraine to oust wasn’t actually investigating his Burisma, the company with which Hunter Biden was involved. In addition, other Western countries wanted that prosecutor removed. [1] > And then there is the behavior of the Bidens, enriching themselves by selling foreign influence. Sure, let’s hold Biden accountable for this. But you really want to step into this ring? Trump has repeatedly and flagrantly used the presidency to enrich himself since day 1. Edit, responded to other unrelated points. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/us/politics/biden-ukraine-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/us/politics/biden-ukraine...

tomohawk 7y ago
Honest, officer, I heard at the supermarket that my neighbor was engaged in activity that other people have publicly engaged in but I happen to think is illegal. To prove my seriousness, here is a brief prepared by lawyers about my hearsay allegations! Did you see it? No, but I heard at the supermarket...
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  If I inform an officer that someone at the supermarket told me they witnessed a murder, I really hope the officer would investigate further even though I didn’t witness it myself.
  - andy_ppp 7y ago
    No, if you have names of people and evidence as to who said what, fine. You can’t expect the police to investigate every overheard conversation, the “murder” for all you know is probably in Grand Theft Auto.
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
      > No, if you have names of people and evidence as to who said what, fine. The whistleblower went so far as to name the alleged perpetrators. Surely that warrants additional investigation.
      - andy_ppp 7y ago
        We were talking about a hypothetical murder, overheard in a super market not the case in question which obviously must be investigated.
        jakelazaroff 7y ago
        Sure. So in our hypothetical scenario — as in the whistleblower complaint — let's assume that our secondhand informant is able to name the alleged perpetrators and details of the crime, conveying information given to them by six firsthand witnesses. What police officer wouldn't follow up on that?

pstuart 7y ago

Edit: leaving original below to own my words. Political dialog has become more difficult than ever before, and I don't think it's accidental. That difficulty serves those to whom truth is at best an inconvenience. It should be focused on facts. Facts should be verifiable. Being that it's difficult for a human to process multiple things at once, it is important to discuss a single fact at a time. Since facts are effectively a collection of words, one must then discern what those words mean. Most of the time we can agree on the general meaning, but the language gives room to nuance, and nuance is guided by intention. Intentions matter (note the degrees of homicide). So when evaluating facts we should acknowledge the possible nuances and then look at the probability weighting of each one being appropriate considering environmental inputs. If one is interested in the truth, then one runs the numbers and accepts the results (or acceptably refines the weighting). It should be about "winning", it should be about what is right. If it changes the currently held understanding, then it's done its job. I welcome criticism of this. I welcome the opportunity to discuss opposed-viewpoints on facts, if in a good faith effort to find agreement on the actual meaning of the facts. I will admit failure of any policy action from a pol on "my side". I just want truth. ----------------------- original below ---------------------- I love HN for the intelligent dialog, and it always surprises me that intelligent people can fall for stupid things too (hey, myself included). @tomohawk, your whataboutisms are not accurate, and I would be happy do a address a single element of your claims (to avoid the fact distraction technique). Warning: we are in politics land on HN.

andy_ppp 7y ago

This is a well written comment and should not be downvoted. The downvoting button is not for disagree (which I do). If you have a problem with what tomohawk wrote I’d suggest writing a comment so we can benefit from your analysis.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
I think the problem people have is that below the second paragraph, it’s entirely whataboutism that distracts from the discussion rather than adds to it.
- tomohawk 7y ago
  Whataboutism would be bringing up something like President Obama directing hundreds of billions of dollars to the Iranian government and saying this really doesn't compare. The provided examples are related to previous activities by high government officials in regards to Ukraine, indicating a pattern of activity between the officials of both states. Does the current presidents behavior fall outside of this? And the Biden's behavior is part of the whole issue. Is a president wrong to, as part of the treaty signed by both parties, bring up something that looks pretty rotten? All of these things need to be considered together.
tptacek 7y ago
In fact, on HN, downvoting disagreement is perfectly cromulent. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=author%3Adang%20downvote%20disagreement&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... Ironically, what isn't OK on HN is complaining about downvotes; that's in the guidelines.