Conservative lawyers call for quick impeachment

Allandavid · Oct 12, 2019

A relevant observation by Lukovich, I think...

NotreDame · Oct 12, 2019

SimplyMe said:
If you've researched this, the claim by Biden is that he was sent as an envoy to do this -- that the decision was made here in the US by the Obama administration. We've had various members of the administration -- such as those at, or just below, the cabinet level who stated they signed off on firing the prosecutor, Shokin. Shokin was widely "known" to be corrupt by those in the DoD, CIA, and State (and each department signed off before Biden left, if these statements are true). Additionally, it was "known" by our European allies and they also wanted Shokin removed. Last, a letter from the time has been in the media recently, signed by three Republicans, that all agreed that Shokin needed to be removed -- and a couple of them have even made statements saying they were fully in support of the plan to remove Shokin.

This is why I'm saying that the investigation would clearly start in the US -- when was the decision made, who was driving the push for Shokin to be fired, etc. If the claims in the above paragraph is true, Biden was merely an envoy delivering the US message to the Ukraine -- that if you want the loan you need to fire Shokin, as well as implement other anti-corruption efforts.

Further, since Biden admitted to pressuring the Ukraine, there is little that a Ukrainian investigation will tell us -- we already know that Biden threatened to withhold the loan unless he fired Shokin -- that fact is stipulated by all parties. The question is why he withheld it -- was it US policy or was he protecting his son? And, again, that answer will be found in the US, not in Ukraine.

One other issue, the investigation into Burisma was for offenses that occurred in 2010-2012; things that occurred two years before Hunter Biden joined the company. As such, Hunter Biden shouldn't have been under investigation -- any interviews would be about what he'd seen at Burisma, did he have knowledge or seen documents from that time, or had he seen any attempts by Burisma to cover up.

The sole thing that maybe would need to be investigated in Ukraine is why they chose Hunter Biden for their board. Burisma has stated they hired Hunter Biden to oversee their legal department (not on a day to day basis, but as a board member would) and work on international relations business opportunities. Despite the claims he had no oil and gas experience; he had a law degree from Yale, had worked in a major law firm, and had experience and contacts, through his venture capital business, in international business.

Further, the story is that he got the job because Devon Archer, one of his co-founders at the venture capital firm, was first invited to Burisma's board and was the one responsible for Hunter's being invited to join. So, yes, while parts of that would need to be investigated in Ukraine, much of it likely still occurs in the US.

Last, since when do we "outsource" criminal investigations of US crimes? Particularly when investigating in a country known for corruption? I can't buy the argument that the investigation does not start in the DoJ, that any investigations in Ukraine are not done with someone from the US DoJ (either DoJ attorney or FBI), when the investigations are for violations under US law. Additionally, the President does not need to ask -- we have a treaty with Ukraine that covers joint investigations.

The argument that a US Citizen is investigated in a foreign country by their law enforcement to see if he violated US law, with no US investigation open, just doesn't work for me, and I suspect it wouldn't work for a number of judges in the US, either.

Yeah I’m familiar with the facts.

This is why I'm saying that the investigation would clearly start in the US

You aren’t going to make an impeachable argument on the basis of where it would have been best to start the investigation, since there are enough contacts to Ukraine to justify asking Ukraine to investigate.

The prosecutor was Ukrainian and lived in Ukraine. The company allegedly under investigation was in Ukraine. The same company under investigation in Ukraine had Hunter Biden as a board member. The conversation Biden had with Ukrainian authorities to terminate the prosecutor occurred in Ukraine. Biden telling the Ukrainians they aren’t getting a penny unless they terminated the prosecutor occurred in Ukraine. Termination of the prosecutor occurred in Ukraine.

The above makes it sensible for Trump, who may have perceived those facts as suggesting impropriety, to ask Ukraine to investigate. But that doesn’t mean Trump’s request itself was proper, my remarks only show the notion Trump should have asked the U.S. to investigate first, not Ukraine, is an untenable factor to rely upon for showing impropriety and impeachment.

But as I said, that doesn’t make his request proper. Depending on the specifics of what Trump knew, reasonably believed to know, what was true, false, or should have known what was true, false, about this entire incident, and whether he had a reasonable basis to believe some corrupt conduct occurred in Ukraine, is revelant in determining whether Trump’s request constituted as an abuse of power.

As I said previously, if enough evidence surfaces to show this was not a legitimate request to investigate corruption but corruption was a ruse to investigate a political rival, then he abused his power and should have been impeached.

The question is why he withheld it -- was it US policy or was he protecting his son? And, again, that answer will be found in the US, not in Ukraine.

Really? So, of all the people Biden interacted with in Ukraine, there’s not one person in Ukraine Biden could have told that he wants the investigation into Bursima to cease and the prosecutor terminated, or no cheddar for the Ukrainian government? Every person Biden spoke to in Ukraine is someone Biden could have said something improper to and as a result, whether he did or didn’t say or do something improper while in Ukraine is in Ukraine, where those people are located, and perhaps where some documents memorializing the conversation with Biden, if they exist, are located.

The argument that a US Citizen is investigated in a foreign country by their law enforcement to see if he violated US law, with no US investigation open, just doesn't work for me, and I suspect it wouldn't work for a number of judges in the US, either.

Trump didn’t necessarily ask for the Ukraine investigation to determine if a U.S. law was violated.

Do you know enough of X number of judges to such an extent to “suspect it wouldn’t work” for those judges? Or are you making a poor argument of bolstering by guessing what they’d find unpalatable?

Search

Search

Conservative lawyers call for quick impeachment

Allandavid

Well-Known Member

More options

NotreDame

Domer

More options

Need help?

Similar threads