• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eric Stalwell Nails it at Impeachment Inquiry Hearings

Jonsa said:
I see you have also drunk the koolaid with that spin. More alternative facts from those suffering from Trump Delusion Syndrome. Are you familiar with the concept of a time line and how the ordering of different things effects the final configuration?
Click to expand...

That has nothing to with what I posted.

Here's the facts. Hunter Biden sat on Burisma's board while Shokin was conducting an corruption probe into the Gas company.

A few months before Biden's quid pro quo, Shokin seized Zlochevsky assets under court order on Feb 2, 2016.

Joe Biden flew to Ukraine and threatened to withhold 1 billion dollars in US aid if the Ukrainian President didn't fire Shokin. He gave them 6 hours.

Shokin was fired, and 6 months later the Ukrainian investigation into Burisma was closed and all charges were dropped against Zlochevskey

Here's another fact...

In January of 2019, Shokin provided a sworn statement to a European court stating that he was fired because he refused to wind down the investigation is into Burisma.

On several occasions, President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the criminal case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company,” he continued. “But I refused to close this investigation.”

hokin went on to state he was “forced to leave office, under direct and intense pressure from Joe Biden and the US administration."

Here's a link to his sworn statement which I know you won't bother to read...
Shokin Statement
1-7f3bbee56d.jpg

And current Ukrainian efforts to root out corruption and reopen investigations into Burisma and Zlochevskey have nothing to do with Biden strong arming a Foreign ally into firing one of their prosecutors.
 
Fenton said:
That has nothing to with what I posted.

Here's the facts. Hunter Biden sat on Burisma's board while Shokin was conducting an corruption probe into the Gas company.

A few months before Biden's quid pro quo, Shokin seized Zlochevsky assets under court order on Feb 2, 2016.

Joe Biden flew to Ukraine and threatened to withhold 1 billion dollars in US aid if the Ukrainian President didn't fire Shokin. He gave them 6 hours.

Shokin was fired, and 6 months later the Ukrainian investigation into Burisma was closed and all charges were dropped against Zlochevskey

Here's another fact...

In January of 2019, Shokin provided a sworn statement to a European court stating that he was fired because he refused to wind down the investigation is into Burisma.
Click to expand...






What part of this do you not understand.

In 2012, the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Pshonka began investigating Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, owner of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings, over allegations of money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption during 2010-2012.[33][34] In 2014, then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings.[35] Hunter Biden was paid $50,000 a month for this role according to reporting from The Wall Street Journal.[24] In 2015, Shokin became the prosecutor general, inheriting the investigation. The Obama administration and other governments and non-governmental organizations soon became concerned that Shokin was not adequately pursuing corruption in Ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as "an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts".[24] Among other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma and using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team – to the extent that Obama officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the company for possible money laundering.[33]

While visiting Kiev in December 2015, Joe Biden threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that, if he did not fire Shokin, the US would hold back its $1 billion in loan guarantees. In a later recollection, Biden said, "I looked at them and said, 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' [...] He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."[36][37] Shokin was dismissed by Parliament in late March 2016.

In a sworn affidavit dated 4 September 2019 for a European court, Shokin testified that "On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the criminal case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company, but I refused to close this investigation."[38] Shokin wrote the affidavit in support of Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash.[39] John Herbst, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine during the George W. Bush administration, said that Shokin's support of Firtash, who had been arrested for bribery in 2014, undercuts Shokin's claims to be motivated by transparency.[40][41] "Firtash is arguably the most odious, or one of the most odious oligarchs in Ukraine," according to Herbst.[40]

Shokin claimed in May 2019 that he had been investigating Burisma Holdings.[21][42][43] However, Vitaly Kasko, who had been Shokin's deputy overseeing international cooperation before resigning in February 2016 citing corruption in the office, provided documents to Bloomberg News indicating that under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma had been dormant.[44][45] Also, the investigation into Burisma only pertained to events happening before Hunter Biden joined the company.[46]
Click to expand...
 
I think it's cute the way Swalwell followed Schiff around from camera to camera and looked to him for approval during each of his 5 minutes of screentime.
 
Jonsa said:
No, it isn't much of a question as subsequent events have proven. Zlochevsky is a fugitive from justice. Hunter was hired AFTER he fled the country in 2014, as a corporate response to rehabilitate Burisma's reputation.

There is absolutely no evidence of any wrong doing.

Joe was acting in the national security interests of the United States of America, Trump was acting in his own political self interest.
Click to expand...
If thats true, what harm is there in investigating it? Trump can look till the cows come home and if there is nothing there, Biden is safe.

For that matter how does it even benefit Trump personally if there is no evidence of any wrong foing as you're claiming?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Re: romf Eric Stalwell Nails it at Impeachment Inquiry Hearings

Fenton said:
If the GSEs ignored their quota's and continued to purchase only prime loans, there wouldn't have been a subprime crisis.
Click to expand...

That's simply not true. I've already supplied all the evidence necessary to reach the conclusion that all but the most dedicated financial industry apologists have reached.
But it's a very convenient myth to hold, because it plays into the conservative idealization of free markets and their contempt for government in general.

And this is the principle difference between conservatives and liberals. Liberals go where the facts lead them, changing their beliefs to fit those facts. In contrast, conservatives change the facts to fit their beliefs.
Like, global warming's a myth. Right?
Like, tax cuts for the rich don't cost us a dime. Right?
Like, voter fraud is a huge problem that can only be fixed by denying millions access to the polls. Right?
And Comrade Trump didn't try to bribe Ukraine, even though his own WH call notes and his own chief of staff both said he did. Right?
 
Re: romf Eric Stalwell Nails it at Impeachment Inquiry Hearings

jpn said:
That's simply not true. I've already supplied all the evidence necessary to reach the conclusion that all but the most dedicated financial industry apologists have reached.
It's a very convenient myth to hold, because it plays into the conservative idealization of free markets and their contempt for government in general.

And this is the principle difference between conservatives and liberals. Liberals go where the facts lead them, changing their beliefs to fit those facts. In contrast, conservatives change the facts to fit their beliefs.
Like, global warming's a myth. Right?
Like, tax cuts for the rich don't cost us a dime. Right?
Like, voter fraud is a huge problem that can only be fixed by denying millions access to the polls. Right?
And Comrade Trump didn't try to bribe Ukraine, even though his own WH call notes and his own chief of staff both said he did. Right?
Click to expand...

You've supplied no evidence whatsoever, and clearly you don't have a clue about how mortgages are capitalized and financed in this Country.

The GSEs have been purchasing mortgages from lenders and turning them into MBSs for decades. It's why FNMA was created.

They provide the capital Banks need so they can continue to fiinance home loans and they also take on the risk of homeowners defaulting on their loans.

Without them the Housing market would crash, and loans would dry up.

In 1995 they were given quotas and told to substantially increase their holdings of subprime loans. Prior to 1995 the vast majority of the loans their purchased ( over 95% ) were prime loans, or loans from borrowers who had good credit, a large down payment and who could verify their income

In 2000, their standards for loans they could purchase were lowered again. This allowed them to purchase no-doc loans

Prior to 1995, GSE MBSs were as safe as US Treasuries. It's why Agency debt had a AAA rating.
Their debt continued to hold a AAA rating after they were given their affordable lending goals

They bundled subprime loans with prime loans into MBSs and sold them off with a AAA rating. Trillions of dollars worth of these MBSs made it out into the financial sector and onto the books of banks.

The 2008 financial crisis was the result of massive amounts of toxic agency debt winding up on the books of major banks.

In an instant Bank assets in the form of GSE MBSs turned into debt, and that debt exceeded all other assets.

Banks were technically insolvent. This threatened to collapse the US financial sector, and that would have led to collapse of the Global financial sector

That was why we had TARP and why the FED purchased nearly 2 trillion dollars worth of GSE MBSs off the books of the banks

Try to inform yourself on this issue before responding to my post
 
Re: romf Eric Stalwell Nails it at Impeachment Inquiry Hearings

Fenton said:
Try to inform yourself on this issue before responding to my post
Click to expand...

You regurgitate info that does not show that the GSEs were responsible for the crisis. For example, you write that: "They [the GSEs] bundled subprime loans with prime loans into MBSs and sold them off with a AAA rating. Trillions of dollars worth of these MBSs made it out into the financial sector and onto the books of banks."

Yeah, great. So did everyone else. Are you suggesting that only Fannie and Freddie were doing this? It sounds like it. In fact, Fannie and Freddie were looking around and seeing that their relative market share was declining, and lots of profits were escaping them. So around 2005 they plunged into the subprime market with gusto, but again, they were relative late-comers.

Show me how the GSEs were a more important player in this chaos than the institutions of Wall Street like Goldman Sacks, AIG, and so on.

And don't forget to show us all how global warming is a myth.
 
Re: romf Eric Stalwell Nails it at Impeachment Inquiry Hearings

jpn said:
You regurgitate info that does not show that the GSEs were responsible for the crisis. For example, you write that: "They [the GSEs] bundled subprime loans with prime loans into MBSs and sold them off with a AAA rating. Trillions of dollars worth of these MBSs made it out into the financial sector and onto the books of banks."

Yeah, great. So did everyone else. Are you suggesting that only Fannie and Freddie were doing this? It sounds like it. In fact, Fannie and Freddie were looking around and seeing that their relative market share was declining, and lots of profits were escaping them. So around 2005 they plunged into the subprime market with gusto, but again, they were relative late-comers.

Show me how the GSEs were a more important player in this chaos than the institutions of Wall Street like Goldman Sacks, AIG, and so on.

And don't forget to show us all how global warming is a myth.
Click to expand...


jpn said:
You regurgitate info that does not show that the GSEs were responsible for the crisis. For example, you write that: "They [the GSEs] bundled subprime loans with prime loans into MBSs and sold them off with a AAA rating. Trillions of dollars worth of these MBSs made it out into the financial sector and onto the books of banks."

Yeah, great. So did everyone else. Are you suggesting that only Fannie and Freddie were doing this? It sounds like it. In fact, Fannie and Freddie were looking around and seeing that their relative market share was declining, and lots of profits were escaping them. So around 2005 they plunged into the subprime market with gusto, but again, they were relative late-comers.

Show me how the GSEs were a more important player in this chaos than the institutions of Wall Street like Goldman Sacks, AIG, and so on.

And don't forget to show us all how global warming is a myth.
Click to expand...

First, I never said the GSEs were solely responsible for the subprime crisis. Investment banks and unscrupulous lenders like CountryWide financial were also complicit.

And yes, non-agency debt or securities definitely wound up on the books of banks. These securities were referred to as subprime private label mortgage backed securities, and they didn't have the GSEs AAA rating and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of these securities were bought and sold.

The single largest single investor in subprime private label mortgage-backed securities was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. During the height of the subprime bubble the GSEs held 40% of all subprime private label securities.

The GSEs had hundreds of billions of dollars worth of these MBSs on their books when they were declared insolvent.

The GSEs were the main driver of the subprime bubble.
Their debt had an inherent Govt guarantee and their purchase of trillions of dollars worth of subprime loans created demand for toxic asset backed securities and toxic agency MBSs.

They were run by corrupt Political appointees and they were defended by Democrats who fought off attempts to increase oversight


The Democrats even rejected the Bush administration's proposal for the creation of a third party regulator to oversee the mortgage giants

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae[\B]

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - The New York Times

Barney Frank:
" These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''


Melvin Watt :
''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'
 
Mycroft said:
I dismiss your question because we aren't talking about "bribery, extortion, fraud, etc". We are talking about doing normal things that Presidents do "for political/personal purposes".
Click to expand...

Well...some people have accused the President of having committed bribery, extortion, or fraud (or etc). Right--I mean, surely you don't dispute the claim that some people have accused the President of wrongdoing. The important question is just whether they are right, or not. And how do we answer that question? Seems obvious enough: just determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the accusation being made. If there is, then we should believe the President is guilty, and if there is not, we should not believe the President is guilty.

So far, all of that seems quite simple. It gets complicated in the very next step, however, when we have to figure out whether there is sufficient evidence, or not. Clearly, some people think there is, and some people think there is not. To figure out who is right, we need a method that can be applied to the purported evidence, and it seems correct to look to other instances where a person is accused of doing what Trump is accused of doing, and apply whatever methodology seems fair in determining those other cases. That is, we should find some general method to apply to cases where some individual is accused of whatever the President is accused of doing (in this case, I think bribery and extortion). I broached part of that general method in my previous post: people who actually do the things the President is accused of doing don't usually make the kinds of direct statements you've claimed you would accept as evidence--even in private, and even when they have every reason to be as free with their tongue as anyone ever is. So if we require that kind of direct statement to prove bribery and/or extortion, it seems we might as well just not bother to ever prosecute such crimes, even in cases where we know that someone really did commit those crimes. I contend that such a result is unacceptable--we cannot just let bribery and extortion pass. Justice has no place in societies that allow bribery and extortion.

Therefore, we shouldn't make requiring the afforementioned kind of direct statement part of our general method. So we have to accept other evidence. And now the question is: what other evidence should that be?
 
ashurbanipal said:
Well...some people have accused the President of having committed bribery, extortion, or fraud (or etc). Right--I mean, surely you don't dispute the claim that some people have accused the President of wrongdoing. The important question is just whether they are right, or not. And how do we answer that question? Seems obvious enough: just determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the accusation being made. If there is, then we should believe the President is guilty, and if there is not, we should not believe the President is guilty.

So far, all of that seems quite simple. It gets complicated in the very next step, however, when we have to figure out whether there is sufficient evidence, or not. Clearly, some people think there is, and some people think there is not. To figure out who is right, we need a method that can be applied to the purported evidence, and it seems correct to look to other instances where a person is accused of doing what Trump is accused of doing, and apply whatever methodology seems fair in determining those other cases. That is, we should find some general method to apply to cases where some individual is accused of whatever the President is accused of doing (in this case, I think bribery and extortion). I broached part of that general method in my previous post: people who actually do the things the President is accused of doing don't usually make the kinds of direct statements you've claimed you would accept as evidence--even in private, and even when they have every reason to be as free with their tongue as anyone ever is. So if we require that kind of direct statement to prove bribery and/or extortion, it seems we might as well just not bother to ever prosecute such crimes, even in cases where we know that someone really did commit those crimes. I contend that such a result is unacceptable--we cannot just let bribery and extortion pass. Justice has no place in societies that allow bribery and extortion.

Therefore, we shouldn't make requiring the afforementioned kind of direct statement part of our general method. So we have to accept other evidence. And now the question is: what other evidence should that be?
Click to expand...

Sorry, not interested in your flights of psychobabble. Tell you what...find someone else to discuss it with.

I'm moving on...
 
Mycroft said:
Sorry, not interested in your flights of psychobabble. Tell you what...find someone else to discuss it with.

I'm moving on...
Click to expand...

Your responses tell me more or less what I wanted to know: while I do not know whether Trump is really guilty of what the democrats have accused him of doing, at least some of his defenders simply aren't reasonable--that is, they aren't going to look at the evidence and form their beliefs based on that evidence.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Your responses tell me more or less what I wanted to know: while I do not know whether Trump is really guilty of what the democrats have accused him of doing, at least some of his defenders simply aren't reasonable--that is, they aren't going to look at the evidence and form their beliefs based on that evidence.
Click to expand...

The problem is, is that what is being offered up as "evidence" is conjecture and opinion. While I agree with your premise that someone who commits extortion or bribery generally won't come out and say it straight out, there are still obvious patterns to that behavior that are missing here.

The biggest thing is this, when it comes to Trump, he does one thing, that let's say can have 3 reasons behind it, Democrats will take the worst-case scenario, Republicans will take the best-case scenario, and the 3rd one is generally much more in the middle. The problem comes in when you are trying to impeach a President, you want it to be rock solid, and in this case, it's simply not. If you watched those "debates" Democrats kept harping the fact that Trump NEVER mentioned corruption in the two phone calls, so, therefore, he couldn't POSSIBLY have been interested in corruption, while at the same time, they want you to believe he's guilty of bribery, while not having mentioned bribery, or extortion and never mentioned extortion.

It's completely plausible that Trump was interested in corruption in general, but was VERY interested in Burisma/Biden corruption, which seems to be the case because the Democrats own witnesses have confirmed that Trump had a long-standing belief that Ukraine was corrupt.

It's completely plausible that Trump held the aid money to make sure Zelensky was on the up and up and wasn't interested in hearing from his State department whom he didn't trust.

It's also completely plausible that Trump held the aid money to prove to Zelensky that he could and that Burisma needed to be looked into. The problem is when it comes down to proof, it's not there, it's thoughts, conjectures and we think this might be the reason....that's simply not good enough to impeach a President.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Your responses tell me more or less what I wanted to know: while I do not know whether Trump is really guilty of what the democrats have accused him of doing, at least some of his defenders simply aren't reasonable--that is, they aren't going to look at the evidence and form their beliefs based on that evidence.
Click to expand...

Cool.

Now we can circle back to what I keep asking: What is the factual evidence that shows that Trump has done anything for political/personal purposes?
 
Jonsa said:
yes and some of those very same people are the ones that Rudi is over there playing kissie on tv to "get them corrupt goods on Biden" from the corrupt dudes that wouldn't investigate in the first place.

Its a reality tv sleazefest with all the players trying to push their own domestic agendas thru foreign influence.
Click to expand...
As with the Steele Dossier.
 
Jonsa said:
Huh? I'm talking about Fruman and Parnas. As for Shokin:

Viktor_Shokin
Click to expand...

And, for example, Poroshenko was defeated by Zelensky in the latest presidential election in Ukraine because, to the effect, this was one of Zelensky's campaign goals: to fight against corruption in the Ukraine...corruption of Poroshenko's administration.
 
MauiMan said:
Any investigation that Trump chose to do. He had full power to do it—so why didn’t he?
Click to expand...

He didn't start the investigation until he knew about it.:roll:
 
sjmay said:
The problem is, is that what is being offered up as "evidence" is conjecture and opinion. While I agree with your premise that someone who commits extortion or bribery generally won't come out and say it straight out, there are still obvious patterns to that behavior that are missing here.
Click to expand...

This is waaaayyyy too fast. We aren't anywhere near being able to evaluate any specific evidence at this point in the analysis. We still need to decide on basic principles so as to ensure we are evaluating all cases, and the evidence they present, fairly.

You mention obvious patterns to "that behavior." What obvious patterns are those? It would be a start to list those out, and then investigate how common they are in known cases of bribery and extortion.

Until we do something like that, the two sides are just talking past each other, and no one is doing any actual thinking about the case.
 
Mycroft said:
Cool.

Now we can circle back to what I keep asking: What is the factual evidence that shows that Trump has done anything for political/personal purposes?
Click to expand...

I still have no idea what you mean by "factual evidence," and I'm pretty sure you're using that phrase to mean something other than what I might mean, and what others might mean, by it. What are some examples of what would be "factual evidence" in a case like this?
 
ashurbanipal said:
I still have no idea what you mean by "factual evidence," and I'm pretty sure you're using that phrase to mean something other than what I might mean, and what others might mean, by it. What are some examples of what would be "factual evidence" in a case like this?
Click to expand...

yawn...

Been there...done that...read the thread.
 
Mycroft said:
yawn...

Been there...done that...read the thread.
Click to expand...

I've read the thread. I don't see where the questions I've raised were discussed at all, by you or by anyone (well, except for me). I'm happy to entertain either side of the debate--that is, I'm prepared to accept that Republicans are partially or totally correct, but their case needs to be examined from top to bottom, the same way the Democrats' case needs to be examined. It really seems like very few, on these boards, in the U.S. Congress, or among the American public at large, are interested in reasoning about the case.

I take it as a sign of serious national decline when this kind of partisanship takes over the public conversation. That kind of partisanship heralded the decline and ultimate collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Frankish Empire, the Ummayad Caliphate, the British Empire, and so on. The kind of conversation we are having now on the national level has pragmatic and prudential consequences, and it will lead to a serious decline in our power. Before we know it, we'll all be learning to speak Chinese and getting thrown into concentration camps for going to church.

Folks on both sides better start taking a step back, start reasoning carefully about present events, and have a respectful discussion--or face the consequences in a generation or two.
 
Last edited:
Re: romf Eric Stalwell Nails it at Impeachment Inquiry Hearings

Fenton said:
The GSEs were the main driver of the subprime bubble.
Click to expand...

No, they weren't. They added to the bubble caused by greedy and incompetent financiers, that's all.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I've read the thread. I don't see where the questions I've raised were discussed at all, by you or by anyone (well, except for me). I'm happy to entertain either side of the debate--that is, I'm prepared to accept that Republicans are partially or totally correct, but their case needs to be examined from top to bottom, the same way the Democrats' case needs to be examined. It really seems like very few, on these boards, in the U.S. Congress, or among the American public at large, are interested in reasoning about the case.

I take it as a sign of serious national decline when this kind of partisanship takes over the public conversation. That kind of partisanship heralded the decline and ultimate collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Frankish Empire, the Ummayad Caliphate, the British Empire, and so on. The kind of conversation we are having now on the national level has pragmatic and prudential consequences, and it will lead to a serious decline in our power. Before we know it, we'll all be learning to speak Chinese and getting thrown into concentration camps for going to church.

Folks on both sides better start taking a step back, start reasoning carefully about present events, and have a respectful discussion--or face the consequences in a generation or two.
Click to expand...
Most Americans, or many, feel there is no 'case' and never has been, The Democrats are certainly trying to make one but their efforts are only exposing further their sense of desperation. If there was a clear crime rather than just speculation about 'abuse of power' they may have had support of the independents, but that is disappearing.
 
Last edited:
ashurbanipal said:
I still have no idea what you mean by "factual evidence," and I'm pretty sure you're using that phrase to mean something other than what I might mean, and what others might mean, by it. What are some examples of what would be "factual evidence" in a case like this?
Click to expand...

How about a White House-provided report of a call between Trump and Ukraine asking to dig up dirt on a political rival in return for defense aid? Which the White House acting chief of staff confirmed later at a press conference. Not that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom