46 ms·

Congress already had the judicial branch confirm they have the power to hold people in contempt, but they didn't use that power in this case. https://en.m.wiki

Congress already had the judicial branch confirm they have the power to hold people in contempt, but they didn't use that power in this case. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurney_v._MacCracken https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurney_v._MacCracken

surge 7y ago
So do it again. Honestly though, I think the impeachment just pointed out the Ukraine stuff about as much as it pointed out Trump's phone call shenanigans, it wasn't good for them politically to keep at it, his approval rating was going up and he was raising tons of money during it. It was backfiring politically for them, the majority of the public wasn't interested (especially after the Russia thing coming up empty, you can only cry wolf so many times) and it brought their own misdealing to light so they didn't push it as they would if they really cared.
- dboreham 7y ago
  >Ukraine stuff ?
  - surge 7y ago
    The whole affair with Biden's son in a board position and Biden interfering in the investigation of the company according to testimony in a Ukrainian court. It's what Trump was discussing on the phone call he was impeached over. People try and call it a conspiracy now, but unless you want to say the NYT deals in conspiracies (they do actually, but in this case): https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/world/europe/corruption-ukraine-joe-biden-son-hunter-biden-ties.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/world/europe/corruption-u... Even if Biden didn't do anything wrong, in the public's eyes they see his son with no experience in that industry in a cushy, do nothing board position that pays in a month what the average American makes in a year. It smells like day old seafood.
    - lonelappde 7y ago
      You're not wrong, but it's amazing that on the one side you have one VP son's enjoying some sweet nepotism and on the other you have an entire family, but somehow Biden is worse because everyone just expects and excepts that the Trumps are corrupt so it doesn't matter. And of course the electorate can't find a third alternative.
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      Biden did not interfere with any investigation. - His son was never accused nor suspected of any crimes - The prosecutor he asked to be removed had been in his position for 18 months and had made no progress pursuing burisma nor would he like his predecessor he was in bed with monied interests in the Ukraine. He as corrupt and everyone knew it. If his son was guilty of anything beyond trading on his father's rep shaking up the status qou would be to his sons disadvantage. - The president asked for a public announcement of an investigation on TV purely and only to solicit help to smear a political rival. There is no other narrative that makes any sense whatsoever.
      - roenxi 7y ago
        1) So what, America has a responsibility for interfering in the Ukrainian justice system because it is known to be corrupt? American politics is known to be quite corrupt, do foreign powers have a moral justification for interfering? Biden being involved in moving Ukrainian prosecutors around is evidence on the face of it of corruption at the highest levels. 2) > There is no other narrative that makes any sense whatsoever. There is a very sensible narrative - maybe the Biden family was getting borderline-legal kickbacks. Even if not true it is fundamentally plausible. It is definitely worth asking about for people who aren't Democrat aligned.
        michaelmrose 7y ago
        There was a broad multinational support for removing the corrupt prosecutor and no reason not to. There exists no evidence of any kick backs nor any reason to suppose that burisma gained anything other than hunter Bidens services for their money despite this already being investigated and America having the most formidable intelligence service on earth. It was asked and answered. You are holding on to a conspiracy theory.
  - scythe 7y ago
    I have heard reports that US officials, including Senator McCain and Asst. SoS Victoria Nuland, supported the 2014 protests and transition of power in Ukraine, which culminated in Russia's annexation of Crimea and the Donbas war. While there is another conspiracy theory out there floating around about some contracts with a small Ukrainian gas company, a reasonable person might feel more negatively about Obama's foreign policy after learning of this risky bet that went bust. This is relevant to the current election since Joe Biden, Trump's likely opponent, was VP and was involved in policymaking in Ukraine. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/americas-ukraine-hypocrisy https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/americas-ukrain... >Despite his leadership defects and character flaws, Yanukovych had been duly elected in balloting that international observers considered reasonably free and fair—about the best standard one can hope for outside the mature Western democracies. A decent respect for democratic institutions and procedures meant that he ought to be able to serve out his lawful term as president, which would end in 2016. >Neither the domestic opposition nor Washington and its European Union allies behaved in that fashion. Instead, Western leaders made it clear that they supported the efforts of demonstrators to force Yanukovych to reverse course and approve the EU agreement or, if he would not do so, to remove the president before his term expired. Sen. John McCain (R‑AZ), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, went to Kiev to show solidarity with the Euromaidan activists. McCain dined with opposition leaders, including members of the ultra right‐ wing Svoboda Party, and later appeared on stage in Maidan Square during a mass rally. He stood shoulder to shoulder with Svoboda leader Oleg Tyagnibok. It seems like the Republican strategy both with Ukraine and Libya has been to talk about some obscure and distorted side-issue (Burisma and Benghazi respectively) which deprives the Democrats of a chance to respond substantively to the real issue, which was the foreign policy decisionmaking at the top that led to the greater situation becoming so dire in the first place. In a way, it's a form of propaganda that uses disinformation to target well-informed people. It's kind of fun to think about when it's not pointed at you. (Republicans are hypocrites here -- nearly all of them supported Ukraine intervention at the time. But that didn't stop Democrats from running against the Iraq War in 2004 :p)
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  The Ukraine "stuff" was a conspiracy theory. The Russian "thing" was an actual collaboration between our enemies and our presidents flunkys that nobody seriously denied happened.
  - wernercd 7y ago
    "nobody seriously denied happened" Nobody seriously found any evidence of collaboration between Trump and his "flunkys". That's the result of the Mueller Report. Meanwhile... it's public knowledge that Democrats and the DNC paid foreigners for information from a discredited source to get an unproven Dossier to affect an American Election. They are both conspiracy theories spread by the side that has proven evidence of worse crimes (IE: Email Servers, Joe's quid quo pro, children of elected officials getting kick backs from Burisma, etc)
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    I don't think so. The American meddling in Ukraine before Trump even was in office is highly suspicious. You could argue that it was a justified reaction to the Crimean invasion, but saying there wasn't any stuff is completely dishonest. Biden pressured Ukraine to fire a public defender. He was even praised for doing so. This hypocrisy seriously damages any credibility of those accusing Trump of meddling in Ukraine. Of course you should ask yourself what Russia and America are even doing in Ukraine in the first place, but that is probably a lot more comprehensive. Some news papers argue Biden didn't pressure the public defender out of office, but that would be clearly fake news. As I said, there are people on record praising him for doing so.
    - mcherm 7y ago
      In your post you said several things about "Biden". Could you clarify just who that is? I believe there is an intentional rhetorical trick being used to conflate to people with that surname. I can't say whether your use of it was intentional, but it would help if you clarified who you were talking about.
  - LessDmesg 7y ago
    Both of those things were hoaxes by the Democrats. Pathetic power struggles to distract the public's eye from the real problems that ordinary people face. Who cares if some Russian hackers got some access to the DNC servers? That didn't affect the actual election results, not one whit.

surge 7y ago

So do it again. Honestly though, I think the impeachment just pointed out the Ukraine stuff about as much as it pointed out Trump's phone call shenanigans, it wasn't good for them politically to keep at it, his approval rating was going up and he was raising tons of money during it. It was backfiring politically for them, the majority of the public wasn't interested (especially after the Russia thing coming up empty, you can only cry wolf so many times) and it brought their own misdealing to light so they didn't push it as they would if they really cared.

dboreham 7y ago
>Ukraine stuff ?
- surge 7y ago
  The whole affair with Biden's son in a board position and Biden interfering in the investigation of the company according to testimony in a Ukrainian court. It's what Trump was discussing on the phone call he was impeached over. People try and call it a conspiracy now, but unless you want to say the NYT deals in conspiracies (they do actually, but in this case): https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/world/europe/corruption-ukraine-joe-biden-son-hunter-biden-ties.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/world/europe/corruption-u... Even if Biden didn't do anything wrong, in the public's eyes they see his son with no experience in that industry in a cushy, do nothing board position that pays in a month what the average American makes in a year. It smells like day old seafood.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    You're not wrong, but it's amazing that on the one side you have one VP son's enjoying some sweet nepotism and on the other you have an entire family, but somehow Biden is worse because everyone just expects and excepts that the Trumps are corrupt so it doesn't matter. And of course the electorate can't find a third alternative.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    Biden did not interfere with any investigation. - His son was never accused nor suspected of any crimes - The prosecutor he asked to be removed had been in his position for 18 months and had made no progress pursuing burisma nor would he like his predecessor he was in bed with monied interests in the Ukraine. He as corrupt and everyone knew it. If his son was guilty of anything beyond trading on his father's rep shaking up the status qou would be to his sons disadvantage. - The president asked for a public announcement of an investigation on TV purely and only to solicit help to smear a political rival. There is no other narrative that makes any sense whatsoever.
    - roenxi 7y ago
      1) So what, America has a responsibility for interfering in the Ukrainian justice system because it is known to be corrupt? American politics is known to be quite corrupt, do foreign powers have a moral justification for interfering? Biden being involved in moving Ukrainian prosecutors around is evidence on the face of it of corruption at the highest levels. 2) > There is no other narrative that makes any sense whatsoever. There is a very sensible narrative - maybe the Biden family was getting borderline-legal kickbacks. Even if not true it is fundamentally plausible. It is definitely worth asking about for people who aren't Democrat aligned.
      - michaelmrose 7y ago
        There was a broad multinational support for removing the corrupt prosecutor and no reason not to. There exists no evidence of any kick backs nor any reason to suppose that burisma gained anything other than hunter Bidens services for their money despite this already being investigated and America having the most formidable intelligence service on earth. It was asked and answered. You are holding on to a conspiracy theory.
- scythe 7y ago
  I have heard reports that US officials, including Senator McCain and Asst. SoS Victoria Nuland, supported the 2014 protests and transition of power in Ukraine, which culminated in Russia's annexation of Crimea and the Donbas war. While there is another conspiracy theory out there floating around about some contracts with a small Ukrainian gas company, a reasonable person might feel more negatively about Obama's foreign policy after learning of this risky bet that went bust. This is relevant to the current election since Joe Biden, Trump's likely opponent, was VP and was involved in policymaking in Ukraine. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/americas-ukraine-hypocrisy https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/americas-ukrain... >Despite his leadership defects and character flaws, Yanukovych had been duly elected in balloting that international observers considered reasonably free and fair—about the best standard one can hope for outside the mature Western democracies. A decent respect for democratic institutions and procedures meant that he ought to be able to serve out his lawful term as president, which would end in 2016. >Neither the domestic opposition nor Washington and its European Union allies behaved in that fashion. Instead, Western leaders made it clear that they supported the efforts of demonstrators to force Yanukovych to reverse course and approve the EU agreement or, if he would not do so, to remove the president before his term expired. Sen. John McCain (R‑AZ), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, went to Kiev to show solidarity with the Euromaidan activists. McCain dined with opposition leaders, including members of the ultra right‐ wing Svoboda Party, and later appeared on stage in Maidan Square during a mass rally. He stood shoulder to shoulder with Svoboda leader Oleg Tyagnibok. It seems like the Republican strategy both with Ukraine and Libya has been to talk about some obscure and distorted side-issue (Burisma and Benghazi respectively) which deprives the Democrats of a chance to respond substantively to the real issue, which was the foreign policy decisionmaking at the top that led to the greater situation becoming so dire in the first place. In a way, it's a form of propaganda that uses disinformation to target well-informed people. It's kind of fun to think about when it's not pointed at you. (Republicans are hypocrites here -- nearly all of them supported Ukraine intervention at the time. But that didn't stop Democrats from running against the Iraq War in 2004 :p)
michaelmrose 7y ago
The Ukraine "stuff" was a conspiracy theory. The Russian "thing" was an actual collaboration between our enemies and our presidents flunkys that nobody seriously denied happened.
- wernercd 7y ago
  "nobody seriously denied happened" Nobody seriously found any evidence of collaboration between Trump and his "flunkys". That's the result of the Mueller Report. Meanwhile... it's public knowledge that Democrats and the DNC paid foreigners for information from a discredited source to get an unproven Dossier to affect an American Election. They are both conspiracy theories spread by the side that has proven evidence of worse crimes (IE: Email Servers, Joe's quid quo pro, children of elected officials getting kick backs from Burisma, etc)
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  I don't think so. The American meddling in Ukraine before Trump even was in office is highly suspicious. You could argue that it was a justified reaction to the Crimean invasion, but saying there wasn't any stuff is completely dishonest. Biden pressured Ukraine to fire a public defender. He was even praised for doing so. This hypocrisy seriously damages any credibility of those accusing Trump of meddling in Ukraine. Of course you should ask yourself what Russia and America are even doing in Ukraine in the first place, but that is probably a lot more comprehensive. Some news papers argue Biden didn't pressure the public defender out of office, but that would be clearly fake news. As I said, there are people on record praising him for doing so.
  - mcherm 7y ago
    In your post you said several things about "Biden". Could you clarify just who that is? I believe there is an intentional rhetorical trick being used to conflate to people with that surname. I can't say whether your use of it was intentional, but it would help if you clarified who you were talking about.
- LessDmesg 7y ago
  Both of those things were hoaxes by the Democrats. Pathetic power struggles to distract the public's eye from the real problems that ordinary people face. Who cares if some Russian hackers got some access to the DNC servers? That didn't affect the actual election results, not one whit.