Swalwell: Depositions provided evidence of an 'extortion scheme'

JacksinPA said:

Swalwell: Depositions provided evidence of an 'extortion scheme' | TheHill

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said depositions in the House's impeachment inquiry have already established an “extortion scheme” by the White House.

“It’s important that the president has due process, and evidence is not a conclusion,” Swalwell said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday. “We have enough evidence from the depositions that we’ve done to warrant bringing this forward, evidence of an extortion scheme using taxpayer dollars to ask a foreign government to investigate the president’s opponents."
=================================================
Extortion is much easier for most people to understand than quid pro quo.

Click to expand...

"There is ample evidence of collusion."

Where have we heard that before?!? :lol:

ttwtt78640 said:

Bribery would be a more appropriate term than extortion.

Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:

No.

Bribery implies that Trump was personally offering his money, or his services for this investigation.

What he did was hold back the US taxpayer money that Congress appropriated for a personal favor.

That’s extortion- because Ukraine should have gotten those funds as a matter of course, but was told they wouldn’t unless Zelensky announced the investigation on CNN.

Click to expand...

It can actually be both.

As Threegoofs said, it was extortion for the reasons mentioned, especially since Ukraine wants/needs those funds and the sale of military equipment as part of their ongoing conflict with Russia. However, it is also bribery when the Trump admin dangled a White House visit. The up-classification of the call could also border on Obstruction of Justice, if the call was up classified simply to prevent law enforcement (or Congress conducting oversight) from discovering the aforementioned (potential) crimes.

Either way, it pretty clearly meets the Constitutional standards for impeachment. It's also important to note Constitutional standards for impeachment and criminal statutes are completely separate concepts. So even if Trump's actions do not rise to the level of criminal conduct, it can still rise to the level of impeachable conduct.

Barnacle said:

"There is ample evidence of collusion."

Where have we heard that before?!? :lol:

Click to expand...

In the Mueller Report, where copious amounts of evidence of collusion is irrefutably presented?

Swalwell is correct

Some people live on a planet where a dozen Trump associates and Russians either catch cases or are running from the FBI, and idiots will still claim there was no collusion.

Meanwhile, we are expected to believe that if Republicans find some magical email somewhere, Hillary will finally be locked up.

Goofballs.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

Carleen said:

Quid pro quo - a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.
Extortion - the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.
So, clearly extortion is the wrong term, but Quid pro quo definitely fits.

Click to expand...

From Trump's chief of staff, and from the WH transcript of the call, the Trump administration was threatening to withhold aide if Zelensky didn't investigate Biden's son.

So it would in fact be extortion by that definition, wouldn't it?

Threegoofs said:

Agreed

But he’s still right. It was extortion.

Click to expand...

I think extortion is a stretch. If the Biden threat to withhold a billion dollars in aid to get a prosecutor fired wasn't, I don't see how Trumps deal was. Both were sketchy, I'll say that much.

mrdeltoid said:

I think extortion is a stretch. If the Biden threat to withhold a billion dollars in aid to get a prosecutor fired wasn't, I don't see how Trumps deal was. Both were sketchy, I'll say that much.

Click to expand...

You’re confusing coordinated US and NATO policy with some orange guys re-election campaign.

mrdeltoid said:

I think extortion is a stretch. If the Biden threat to withhold a billion dollars in aid to get a prosecutor fired wasn't, I don't see how Trumps deal was. Both were sketchy, I'll say that much.

Click to expand...

I don't understand how you can fail to see that one is advancing US national interests and the other is advancing nothing other than Trump's personal ambitions.

Khayembii Communique said:

I don't understand how you can fail to see that one is advancing US national interests and the other is advancing nothing other than Trump's personal ambitions.

Click to expand...

There seems to be unanswered questions.
1. Kent raised concerns about Hunter Biden in 2015 and was ignored.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ukraine.html&usg=AOvVaw0x5uaEZT3_z6K1hWVQxcXt
2. then there's this::". But the allegation that has been routinely hinted at is the possibility that Zlochevsky hired Hunter Biden after the allegations surfaced in order to evade charges in the hopes that Hunter might use his influence to persuade his dad to push for the firing of the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin."
3. and this:"Still, there’s another possibility, one that doesn’t involve persuasion from Hunter but more a tacit understanding with Joe Biden. Hunter Biden was collecting upwards of $50,000 per month for his role at Burisma with zero prior experience in the energy sector. It’s not out of the realm to wonder whether (1) Joe Biden knew the details of his son’s latest gig and salary and (2) whether Joe regarded the last name “Biden” as an important part of his son securing that role."
4. and this:"Thus, as journalists begin parroting the timeline as “proof” that Joe Biden’s role in pressuring Ukrain to fire Shokin was entirely divorced from Hunter’s role at Burisma, consider the possibility that Hunter’s role could have been more about shielding Burisma as a whole from allegations."
Burisma Timeline Just Leads To More Questions About Hunter Biden
If you look at all this in context of all the leaks in the WH, and the recent interview where Nikki Haley alleged Tillerson and Kelley approached her to undermine the presidents policy, Trumps back channel investigation using Giuliani doesn't seem all that paranoid. There was obviously something underhanded going on with the Bidens and Burisma. While Schiff is conducting an autopsy of all things Trump, this Biden thing should at least be looked into. JMHO

ttwtt78640 said:

Bribery would be a more appropriate term than extortion.

Click to expand...

In theory, once Congress authorized the aid, it was Ukraine's to lose.

Bribery would be offering some new thing in exchange for a favor.
This case is about withholding something which Congress had already given to Ukraine unless a there was a favor.

mrdeltoid said:

1. Kent raised concerns about Hunter Biden in 2015 and was ignored.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ukraine.html&usg=AOvVaw0x5uaEZT3_z6K1hWVQxcXt

Click to expand...

He was ignored because it was irrelevant to the impeachment investigations.

You're acting as if Hunter's appointment to the Burisma board was some kind of secret. It wasn't. In fact it was openly discussed in the media at the time and the concerns that Kent brought up in his testimony were debated in the press. See for example this article from December 2015 by NYT. In fact, this article raises the exact point:

WASHINGTON — When Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. traveled to Kiev , Ukraine, on Sunday for a series of meetings with the country’s leaders, one of the issues on his agenda was to encourage a more aggressive fight against Ukraine’s rampant corruption and stronger efforts to rein in the power of its oligarchs.

But the credibility of the vice president’s anticorruption message may have been undermined by the association of his son, Hunter Biden, with one of Ukraine’s largest natural gas companies, Burisma Holdings, and with its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, who was Ukraine’s ecology minister under former President Viktor F. Yanukovych before he was forced into exile.

Click to expand...

Hilariously, this quandry serves to demolish the Republican claim that Joe Biden was attempting to protect his son; indeed, he was doing the opposite, as laid out in contemporary news sources such as this one.

2. then there's this::". But the allegation that has been routinely hinted at is the possibility that Zlochevsky hired Hunter Biden after the allegations surfaced in order to evade charges in the hopes that Hunter might use his influence to persuade his dad to push for the firing of the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin."

Click to expand...

This is an unsubstantiated claim by a Federalist article so it's not worth addressing.

3. and this:"Still, there’s another possibility, one that doesn’t involve persuasion from Hunter but more a tacit understanding with Joe Biden. Hunter Biden was collecting upwards of $50,000 per month for his role at Burisma with zero prior experience in the energy sector. It’s not out of the realm to wonder whether (1) Joe Biden knew the details of his son’s latest gig and salary and (2) whether Joe regarded the last name “Biden” as an important part of his son securing that role."

Click to expand...

I don't know why Republicans of all people fail to understand how capitalism works. Hunter doesn't need any experience in natural gas to be on the Board of Directors of Burisma. Have you looked at a single corporate board in your life? Disney has the head of a biotech company. Can you tell me what that has to do with what Disney does? They also have an executive of an auto company. You could level the same charge against them. And yet you don't, because Board Directors very regularly don't have exact experience in the industry on whose board they sit.

And $50,000 a month is a fairly standard Board salary so attempting to claim that that's some kind of illicit payment just makes the Federalist look like a bunch of morons.

Finally, it doesn't matter if Hunter's name helped secure the role. In fact, again, that's how capitalism works. Board Directors aren't hired for their industry expertise. They're hired for their business connections and high level business experience. In Hunter's case, it's obvious that he has plenty of connections that would be useful; additionally, he has ample experience in cross-border legal work. It makes perfect sense why he'd be a Board Director.

4. and this:"Thus, as journalists begin parroting the timeline as “proof” that Joe Biden’s role in pressuring Ukrain to fire Shokin was entirely divorced from Hunter’s role at Burisma, consider the possibility that Hunter’s role could have been more about shielding Burisma as a whole from allegations."

Click to expand...

Indeed, it's quite the opposite, as the article from 2015 above blatantly shows. Your article and conspiracy theory are a complete joke.

Khayembii Communique said:

He was ignored because it was irrelevant to the impeachment investigations.

You're acting as if Hunter's appointment to the Burisma board was some kind of secret. It wasn't. In fact it was openly discussed in the media at the time and the concerns that Kent brought up in his testimony were debated in the press. See for example this article from December 2015 by NYT. In fact, this article raises the exact point:



Hilariously, this quandry serves to demolish the Republican claim that Joe Biden was attempting to protect his son; indeed, he was doing the opposite, as laid out in contemporary news sources such as this one.



This is an unsubstantiated claim by a Federalist article so it's not worth addressing.



I don't know why Republicans of all people fail to understand how capitalism works. Hunter doesn't need any experience in natural gas to be on the Board of Directors of Burisma. Have you looked at a single corporate board in your life? Disney has the head of a biotech company. Can you tell me what that has to do with what Disney does? They also have an executive of an auto company. You could level the same charge against them. And yet you don't, because Board Directors very regularly don't have exact experience in the industry on whose board they sit.

And $50,000 a month is a fairly standard Board salary so attempting to claim that that's some kind of illicit payment just makes the Federalist look like a bunch of morons.

Finally, it doesn't matter if Hunter's name helped secure the role. In fact, again, that's how capitalism works. Board Directors aren't hired for their industry expertise. They're hired for their business connections and high level business experience. In Hunter's case, it's obvious that he has plenty of connections that would be useful; additionally, he has ample experience in cross-border legal work. It makes perfect sense why he'd be a Board Director.



Indeed, it's quite the opposite, as the article from 2015 above blatantly shows. Your article and conspiracy theory are a complete joke.

Click to expand...

Actually, as was brought out in Yavonavitch's "testimony" today, she said that the Obama team was so concerned about it, they coached her what to say if the "Biden situation" came up in her confirmation hearing. She was told to say " any questions about Hunter Bidens role at Burisma should be referred to the office of the vice president". So, apparently Obama's legal team didn't think it was a "complete joke". I will say, this sham Schiff is running is a pretty big joke. I'd be laughing if it wasn't so pathetic. :roll:

mrdeltoid said:

[/B]

Actually, as was brought out in Yavonavitch's "testimony" today, she said that the Obama team was so concerned about it, they coached her what to say if the "Biden situation" came up in her confirmation hearing. She was told to say " any questions about Hunter Bidens role at Burisma should be referred to the office of the vice president". So, apparently Obama's legal team didn't think it was a "complete joke". I will say, this sham Schiff is running is a pretty big joke. I'd be laughing if it wasn't so pathetic. :roll:

Click to expand...

It's sad that you couldn't address a single point in my post and instead respond with this irrelevant and frankly meaningless nonsense.

Khayembii Communique said:

It's sad that you couldn't address a single point in my post and instead respond with this irrelevant and frankly meaningless nonsense.

Click to expand...

After a period of time, we must realize that we are in a circular argument. I'll go back and forth a few times on a subject. When it gets to the point we are just googling articles, and responding in kind to political talking points, it becomes futile. I may be wrong though, have you changed your mind on this?

mrdeltoid said:

After a period of time, we must realize that we are in a circular argument. I'll go back and forth a few times on a subject. When it gets to the point we are just googling articles, and responding in kind to political talking points, it becomes futile. I may be wrong though, have you changed your mind on this?

Click to expand...

That's on you, not me. Take your whining about the Board position, for example. It's an indisputable fact that Board Directors are commonly from different backgrounds than the industry in which their company operates. It's also an indisputable fact that $50k/yr isn't an uncommon Board Director salary. Yet you keep repeating your political talking points despite these indisputable facts - despite reality.

Carleen said:

Quid pro quo - a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.
Extortion - the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.
So, clearly extortion is the wrong term, but Quid pro quo definitely fits.

Click to expand...

But q-p-q is gibberish to most Americans - the ones who never were forced to take Latin as a language in school. Bribery they understand. Notice that the Dems are using that term more that q-p-q now.

JacksinPA said:

Swalwell: Depositions provided evidence of an 'extortion scheme' | TheHill

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said depositions in the House's impeachment inquiry have already established an “extortion scheme” by the White House.

“It’s important that the president has due process, and evidence is not a conclusion,” Swalwell said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday. “We have enough evidence from the depositions that we’ve done to warrant bringing this forward, evidence of an extortion scheme using taxpayer dollars to ask a foreign government to investigate the president’s opponents."
=================================================
Extortion is much easier for most people to understand than quid pro quo.

Click to expand...

" Extortion " and " Bribery are the new quid pro quo.

Democrats changed it because they think that by upping the rhetoric with buzz words like bribery, they can sway public support in their direction.

Eric Swalwell among others apparently believes Americans are a bunch of simpletons that get excited when they hear word's like " extortion "

People don't respond favorably to being patronized. It's actually really good way to piss people off, which may be why no one's watching the hearings.

Khayembii Communique said:

That's on you, not me. Take your whining about the Board position, for example. It's an indisputable fact that Board Directors are commonly from different backgrounds than the industry in which their company operates. It's also an indisputable fact that $50k/yr isn't an uncommon Board Director salary. Yet you keep repeating your political talking points despite these indisputable facts - despite reality.

Click to expand...

Then why was the Obama team so worried about it when they were coaching Yovanovitch how to respond during her confirmation hearing? And it wasn't 50K/yr. It was 50K/month.
By the way, your "That's on you, not me" comment, along with " Take your whining about the Board position, for example. ", neither helps support your position. You keep saying YOU'RE positions are "indisputable facts, yet I disputed it with facts. You can certainly dispute it, but you were wrong. Your undisputable fact of 50K/year was not only disputable but wrong. So in the future, if you want to say people are "whining", or one of your "facts is undisputable", at least make sure it is a fact in the first place.:roll:

mrdeltoid said:

Then why was the Obama team so worried about it when they were coaching Yovanovitch how to respond during her confirmation hearing? And it wasn't 50K/yr. It was 50K/month.
By the way, your "That's on you, not me" comment, along with " Take your whining about the Board position, for example. ", neither helps support your position. You keep saying YOU'RE positions are "indisputable facts, yet I disputed it with facts. You can certainly dispute it, but you were wrong. Your undisputable fact of 50K/year was not only disputable but wrong. So in the future, if you want to say people are "whining", or one of your "facts is undisputable", at least make sure it is a fact in the first place.:roll:

Click to expand...

$50k/mo. is what I meant. It's not an uncommon board salary by any means.

You haven't disputed anything with facts. You haven't presented any facts. Here are two facts that you can't dispute:

1. Board Directors very commonly don't have a background in the industry their company is in
2. $50k/mo isn't an uncommon board salary

Khayembii Communique said:

$50k/mo. is what I meant. It's not an uncommon board salary by any means.

You haven't disputed anything with facts. You haven't presented any facts. Here are two facts that you can't dispute:

1. Board Directors very commonly don't have a background in the industry their company is in
2. $50k/mo isn't an uncommon board salary

Click to expand...

Burisma is not quite 1/4 the size of the smallest company on this list. The group of smallest companies pays between $285-$330,000 per year for a non-employee director. Hunter Biden was paid $600,000 (at least) for being a board member of a company whose language he did not speak, whose home country he’d never lived in, and which was in an industry about which Hunter Biden was pig-ignorant.
ADDENDUM.
An alert Twitter follower notes that in most other cases, non-employee directors were paid in a combination of cash and stock, often as much as 60% stock. Biden was paid in 100% cash.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...tors-salary/&usg=AOvVaw3COvJ6Z9dBoM6oPtk7ckdW