late wrote:In the real world, VP Biden was part of a mult-national effort to clean out some of the corruption in Ukraine. So, if there was something illegal about what Hunter Biden was doing, that increased the risk he would be prosecuted. IOW, the exact opposite of what the crazies are saying.
Biden was no white knight combatting "corruption" in the Ukraine. That doesn't even make sense to most voters, because what the hell would a US Vice President be doing meddling in the internal affairs of a foreign state? The reality is that the neocon/neolib cabal wanted to pry the Ukraine out of Moscow's orbit. Yanukovych had a difficult dilemma: entering into economic deals with the West meant that he'd have to meet EU and IMF demands to buy gas at market prices--something Ukraine could scarcely afford. Similarly, Russia understandably said that if Ukraine wanted closer economic and political ties with Western Europe, Russia had no obligation to subsidize gas to the Ukraine. Ukraine adopted a pro-Russian stance out of economic necessity as neither the US nor the EU was willing to provide economic aid to Ukraine. So instead, they engineered the overthrew the "democratically elected" government of Ukraine and got Poroshenko installed--something a lot of people lament, because many nationalists in Ukraine are essentially fascists.
Early in the EU, the larger, richer powers could afford to buy off the smaller and poorer powers. However, that's not the case anymore, and smaller powers are beginning to understand the problem of the EU. Ireland, for example, cannot negotiate its border situation with a post-Brexit UK, because it has delegated that authority by treaty to the EU. That seems like a stupid move now, but back in the 1990s when all that money was flowing in to Ireland, it seemed like a genius move.
late wrote:The NYT mentioned it on page one. Their editors don't want to talk about their mistake.
The story checks out and Biden is shown on videotape bragging about getting a prosecutor fired under duress. Who started reporting it is only relevant if the story is manifestly untrue. It's not.
late wrote:With Trump's typical disregard of law, ethics or even common decency, he created a mess that one commentator described as "self impeachment".
What Trump did is neither unlawful nor unethical. As a matter of law and ethics, he has a duty to ensure that the US Vice President isn't using his office and taxpayer dollars to line his son's pockets.
late wrote:And yesterday, the former ambassador to Ukraine testified before Congress, and quietly rained fire and fury on the presidency of one Donald J Trump.
She's despondent that she lost her job. So what? Again, nobody can establish a clear violation of any law. People are routinely speaking in abstractions like "abuse of power," which is not a defined criminal process. If you don't like how someone discharges their office, an election is the remedy. Impeachment is only for treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.
late wrote:This has really turned up the heat on Senate Republicans, it has brought us a step closer to his removal from office.
Getting Mitt Romney or Lisa Murkowski to vote for impeachment isn't a big deal. They are self-serving turncoats. You need at least 20 senators from the Republicans, and there is no chance of that happening. The Republicans would be shooting themselves in the head.