Vivek vs Pakman.

Author: Greyparrot
FBI

Posts

Total: 78
#61
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
A quid pro quo is when someone in a position of trust provides something of value that doesn't belong to them in exchange for something of personal value
I reject that definition
Please define quid pro quo.
"This for that" a trade.


Extortion is when your "offer" was owed such as an already promised item or refraining from physical violence.

Since the left-tribe claims Trump didn't have the authority to withhold aid it becomes extortion even with Biden does it, even if he did it with Obama's approval. The reason left-tribe legislators used the term "quid pro quo" is to avoid using the term "extortion" since using that term relates to specific criminal definitions that Trump could have used to defend himself, again invoking the question as to whether POTUS has the authority to veto congress on foreign policy.


Why would their failure to go over Biden's head also mean Obama was in on it?
I already explained that.

Either the Ukrainians believed they were being extorted by Joe Biden for his own personal benefit or they did not.

If they did not, that logically leads to the conclusion that they understood their prosecutor was in fact corrupt, which removes the core of your case.

If they did, then you add to your position the assumption that they would have accepted being personally extorted rather than to have taken the issue up the chain. That's a huge assumption which defies Occam's razor.
So you're claiming the only possible reason they wouldn't have confirmed with Obama is if they agreed Shokin deserved to be fired?

You really going to stick by that? I see some "razor violations" with that notion, namely the fact that if they already agreed Shokin needed to be fired, extortion wouldn't have been required would it?

Also this scenario does not require Obama to be in on it. I have no idea where you are getting that from.


Why does Obama's approval of the extortion imply that he must have approved of the extortion for the exact same reasons Biden was motivated to seek it
Because Obama is working with the same information as Biden.
That looks like an unprovable and highly unlikely assumption to me.


If Obama approved of this he either believed based on the intelligence Shokin was unacceptably corrupt (again refuting the core of your case)
That doesn't refute my case at all. You have been constant in the erroneous claim that if Shokin was corrupt or was believed to be corrupt by any relevant actors then Biden could not have been acting corruptly. This does not follow.

Biden himself could have believed Shokin was corrupt and it would not refute the fact that Biden was financially gaining from burisma in an extremely unlikely way if it was indeed a coincidence. It defies occams razor to assume it was a coincidence when the chance of a coincidence is so low.

Regardless Obama could believe Shokin was corrupt because essentially Biden told him so. Biden could do that directly and/or cause reports to be generated from the intelligence "community" to support his claim, or (what I find most likely) the "intelligence community" - or more precisely the deep state parasite inside it, already wanted Shokin gone because Shokin was too pro Russian.

Corruption was always their cover for removing Shokin, Burisma is just one example of how Shokin was a problem to deep state interests. Burisma was supposed to be a vehicle for the deep state to wage a war for oil with Russia in Ukraine. The Zlochevsky was corrupt but more importantly also aligned with the pre-maidan government, uncooperative, and a potential threat to the deep state control of Burisma. They wanted Shokin to control Zlochevsky without harming Burisma itself. Shokin wouldn't play ball so they replaced him with someone who would.

This in itself is corruption and conspiracy. It is not in the best interests of the American people; but it is wider than one corrupt politician lining his pockets.

Biden sent Hunter to collect bribes as personal scheme for personal enrichment. That was not a deep state plot, that was Biden's plot but there is no reason to expect the two plots had anything to fear from each other. Organized crime often works this way, and it's safer this way because all parties are motivated to stay quiet.

So Obama, if he was involved (which is in no way proven) would have heard exactly what you claim he would have heard: Zlochevsky is a bad guy who ran a bunch of bad dudes. We need to extort his removal in the name of AMERICA *eagle screams*.

Whether or not Obama was deep state or simply deferred to the deep state is not something I know nor does it matter in this case.

Biden's relative stupidity and greed made his personal scheme infinitely more susceptible to detection than the deep state plot would have been otherwise. He apparently wasn't the only one, a bunch of deep staters were sending people to sit on the board of Burisma. Biden was the one who decided to send a close relative and then brag about actions he took in furtherance of both the grand scheme and his personal one.


but not equally suspicious. It would be good for Joe regardless for Obama to say he knew everything Biden was doing and approved.
They don't need to be equally suspicious. The fact that you consider both options of a true dichotomy suspicious at all speaks to a lack of commitment to logical consistency. It's a pointless game of heads I win tails you lose.
There is no law of logic that states both sides of a true dichotomy can't imply similar things in some context, but I did not say that Obama speaking out would be a source of suspicion I said that I would suspect regardless.
#62
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
This for that” is the Latin translation and is what the term means, but when we’re using it in the context of corruption (which is this entire conversation is about) then its meaning becomes very specific; “this” is referring to something that is given from a position of trust, “that” is referring to something given in return for personal benefit. 

It's the most basic form of corruption; using the power that was entrusted within you for the benefit of yourself over the benefit of those who trusted you. 

To suggest that anything which can be placed into the English phrase “this for that” qualifies is to render the term completely meaningless. We’re talking about corruption. 

In the case of Biden, the entire dispute is over whether his threat to Ukraine qualifies. In other words, we’re debating whether it was in fact a quid pro quo in the corrupt sense. Since that is the debate in question, it comes off as disingenuous when you use it within the course of our discussions. That’s why I asked you to define it.

So you're claiming the only possible reason...
You can stop there. I notice you have a penchant for doing this; you rephrase everything that I and others say as black and white statements spoken from a position absolute certainty. You know that’s not what we’re saying. 

No one said anything about the “only possible reason”. I am making the case why the explanation I accept is the one with the fewest assumptions and why yours completely defies that concept. These are arguments evaluated based on the strength of the evidence, not a matter of logical validity.
 
I see some "razor violations" with that notion, namely the fact that if they already agreed Shokin needed to be fired, extortion wouldn't have been required would it?
The premise was never that they agreed he needed to be fired, it was about whether they understood he was corrupt. They could have easily understood this and not cared, that’s the nature of a corrupt regime. It’s literally what got Zelensky elected, because the people had enough of the corruption within their government.

That looks like an unprovable and highly unlikely assumption to me.
You really need to explain that statement. Our intelligence agencies exist for the purpose of ensuring the President is well informed of what is going on around the world to aid his decision making. There is nothing Biden would have access to that Obama would not have.
 
That doesn't refute my case at all. 
It does, because if Shokin was corrupt then Biden’s involvement in getting him fired is easily explainable as him acting within the US’s best interests. We no longer need to go down the conspiracy corruption path to explain it, thereby flipping Occam’s razor entirely against your position. 

You know this, that’s why you hand waive away every piece of evidence demonstrating it with no evidence to the contrary. It’s why I could post over a dozen articles all written before this became politicized talking about his corruption and you just dismiss them wholecloth meanwhile citing Shokin himself saying he is innocent as credible.
 
You have been constant in the erroneous claim that if Shokin was corrupt or was believed to be corrupt by any relevant actors then Biden could not have been acting corruptly. This does not follow.
Another example of strawmaning my position as a black or white. 

Corruption is a scale, not an either/or. One crosses the line into corruption when the decisions they make are such that personal benefit becomes the deciding factor. So even if you could demonstrate that Biden would have benefitted from Shokin’s removal (which you have not) that does not clear the bar. You need to show that the decision to remove Shokin would not have happened but for Biden’s personal benefit.

Because of this, the stronger the case for Shokin's corruption, the stronger the case for Biden's personal benefit needs to be to legitimize your case. It's not that both can't be true, it's that the latter must weight out the former.

Regardless Obama could believe Shokin was corrupt because essentially Biden told him so. Biden could do that directly and/or cause reports to be generated from the intelligence "community" to support his claim
Shokin’s actions (or lack there of) were public knowledge. There is no possible way Biden or any “deep state parasite” could have invented them.

This in itself is corruption and conspiracy. It is not in the best interests of the American people; but it is wider than one corrupt politician lining his pockets.

Biden sent Hunter to collect bribes as personal scheme for personal enrichment. That was not a deep state plot, that was Biden's plot
You are more than welcome to provide evidence to support your claims.

#63
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
This for that” is the Latin translation and is what the term means, but when we’re using it in the context of corruption (which is this entire conversation is about) then its meaning becomes very specific; “this” is referring to something that is given from a position of trust, “that” is referring to something given in return for personal benefit. 
Uh huh, what's wrong with "bribery"?


That’s why I asked you to define it.
Well I have, and as I explained I believe it was used to subvert clear thinking when it became a common phrase circa when they started describing Trump's alleged threat to withhold aid by that term. I'll stop using it when speaking with anyone who agrees to stop using it. Otherwise reap what you sow.

Either way the funds were approved by congress, withholding them is a threat which is either legitimately POTUS authority or not. You people claim that you can read Biden's mind and know that personal gain wasn't a motivator. You give him the benefit of the doubt. Trumpers give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Complete symmetry (except for the fact that the bulk of evidence is in right-triber favor).


You know that’s not what we’re saying. 
No I don't, and it's better to rephrase a perception than talk past each other.


it was about whether they understood he was corrupt. They could have easily understood this and not cared
Ah so you understand the concept. Why couldn't Obama have "understood and not cared"?

Why does Obama's approval of the extortion imply that he must have approved of the extortion for the exact same reasons Biden was motivated to seek it
Because Obama is working with the same information as Biden.
That looks like an unprovable and highly unlikely assumption to me.
You really need to explain that statement. Our intelligence agencies exist for the purpose of ensuring the President is well informed of what is going on around the world to aid his decision making. There is nothing Biden would have access to that Obama would not have.

How about Biden's shared bank account with Hunter? Are you claiming Obama reviewed the balance sheet there? Consider how ridiculous your statements are before you make them.


That doesn't refute my case at all. 
It does, because if Shokin was corrupt then Biden’s involvement in getting him fired is easily explainable as him acting within the US’s best interests.
It doesn't matter if it's explainable by motives other than personal or subversive if those motivations do exist and are the most probable cause.

For instance Trump asking for an investigation was most probably motivated by wanting Biden to look bad, BUT it was also in the best interests of the American people.

If you think any 'legitimate' motivation being present discounts corruption, what have you to say about Trump?

Notice I put "legitimate" in quotes there because we don't even agree on what constitutes the best interest of the American people. You seem to think interfering in the official proceedings of a sovereign nation is a legitimate business, ironic sense it seems to be considered sedition when Americans do it to American proceedings.


We no longer need to go down the conspiracy corruption path to explain it
You don't need to, but you should because the totally of the evidence makes that the explanation with the highest combined probability.


It’s why I could post over a dozen articles all written before this became politicized talking about his corruption and you just dismiss them wholecloth
They're copy pastes of government officials. It's the government officials who spun the tail.


citing Shokin himself saying he is innocent as credible.
Hardly worse than citing the guy he was replaced with.


You need to show that the decision to remove Shokin would not have happened but for Biden’s personal benefit.
No I don't, I only need to apply the same standards applied to Trump because my thesis is that there is a double standard which if allowed to continue will eventually bend what's left of the USA into a tyrannical police state so oppressive that there will be no way to vote yourself out. In fact I think there is no way to vote yourself out already since the ignorant masses are being manipulated by these endless deceptions.


Because of this, the stronger the case for Shokin's corruption, the stronger the case for Biden's personal benefit needs to be to legitimize your case.
False, It doesn't matter how corrupt Shokin is or was in any way. All that matters is that Shokin was duly appointed by a democratic government of a sovereign nation and that he was a threat to illegitimate interests both personal and deepstate.

You just invoked the notion that the Ukrainian government in general was corrupt.  That's not wrong either. They're all corrupt. Biden and every random westerner with no clue about energy on the board of Burisma.


Shokin’s actions (or lack there of) were public knowledge. There is no possible way Biden or any “deep state parasite” could have invented them.
They could easily have invented the need they claimed to have and then dropped the statements about Shokin not fulfilling those needs.

It's like when Trump goes around saying "people tell me X, I don't know but that's what they say." and then 50 bloggers and fake journalists reprint X is slightly different phrasing.

Nobody checked if X was true, not even Trump; worse Trump was the one who decided that X even mattered.

You pretend to not understand dynamics like that, but only when it is convenient.

"Oh no Shokin didn't send the UK these documents, what could that mean? People say he's not doing his job, that's what they say." - US officials and lackeys

"Later today US officials and lackeys said Shokin isn't doing his job" - All those articles you hilarious think are any more relevant than the statement of the US officials and lackeys.


This in itself is corruption and conspiracy. It is not in the best interests of the American people; but it is wider than one corrupt politician lining his pockets.

Biden sent Hunter to collect bribes as personal scheme for personal enrichment. That was not a deep state plot, that was Biden's plot
You are more than welcome to provide evidence to support your claims.
The evidence is not secret, but so long as the standard of plausibility for deep state conspiracies is "incontrovertible" in your mind you'll pretend it's not enough.
#64
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You know that’s not what we’re saying.
No I don't.
Then you are not reading the arguments you are responding to. I have repeatedly and consistently framed my points within Occam's razor, explicitly arguing that my position is stronger than the alternative, not that the alternative is somehow not possible or even that it couldn't be some combination of both.

It does, because if Shokin was corrupt then Biden’s involvement in getting him fired is easily explainable as him acting within the US’s best interests.
It doesn't matter if it's explainable by motives other than personal or subversive if those motivations do exist and are the most probable cause.

For instance Trump asking for an investigation was most probably motivated by wanting Biden to look bad, BUT it was also in the best interests of the American people.
Again, if the deciding factor is that of personal interests, then the decision betrays the trust of those who put that person in their position. That's corruption.

If the decision merely aligns with the individuals personal benefit but did not effect the end result, that's nothing more than a conflict of interest.

The former describes Donald Trump which you admit to. The latter is the best you can possibly establish with Biden, and I'd argue you haven't even came close.

Because of this, the stronger the case for Shokin's corruption, the stronger the case for Biden's personal benefit needs to be to legitimize your case.
False, It doesn't matter how corrupt Shokin is or was in any way.
Nonsense.

If Shokin was corrupt, then Biden had every legitimate reason to force his removal.

If Biden had every legitimate reason to force his removal, then the case for his personal benefit needs to be stronger to outweigh the benefits to US interests, otherwise what you have is not corruption but rather a conflict of interests as I described.

It also requires you to address the fact that Shokin's corruption was the reason why many officials throughout the US and internationally wanted his removal, so that strengthens the case that Biden was or would have been pushed into this decision either way. In other words, he was acting on behalf of the US, not as the arbiter of foreign policy.

You claim this doesn't matter because in your opinion, the US didn't have a legitimate right to take such action in the first place, but your opinion on that issue is irrelevant to this. That's the framework in which US policy is being decided and has been the case for decades, which has absolutely nothing to do with Joe Biden.

They could easily have invented the need they claimed to have and then dropped the statements about Shokin not fulfilling those needs.
Another baseless conspiracy theory invoked to justify a conspiracy theory.

It's like when Trump goes around saying "people tell me X, I don't know but that's what they say." and then 50 bloggers and fake journalists reprint X is slightly different phrasing.

Nobody checked if X was true, not even Trump; worse Trump was the one who decided that X even mattered.
Exactly, this is the state of today's political right. 

But setting that aside, even if you could successfully argue that mainstream media works the same way, this is specifically why I keep pointing out the fact that the articles I provided were all written at the time before any of this was politicized.

The reason Trump's ridiculous statements become fact on the right is because people are emotionally vested in believing his bullshit, so others have a vested interest in selling it to them. And when people become vested, facts no longer matter. Politicization corrupts people's ability to apply critical thinking, it's why Trump politicizes everything.

That wasn't the case here. No one outside of Ukraine had anything to gain by making up bullshit about their prosecutor, and no one had any motive to believe the bullshit they were supposedly being fed. Your backwards rationalization here defies basic human nature.

You people claim that you can read Biden's mind and know that personal gain wasn't a motivator. You give him the benefit of the doubt. Trumpers give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Complete symmetry (except for the fact that the bulk of evidence is in right-triber favor).
You believe the bulk of the evidence is in right tribe favor because you do not follow the basic rules of evidence.

Going back to the articles as an example, they establish very clearly that Shokin was corrupt. Yet you assert, that they are nothing more than a product of a few politicians inventing an erroneous record and feeding this narrative to the public which everyone else mindlessly bought as part of some corrupt scheme.

You have no evidence that Shokin's public record was somehow falsified.

You have no evidence that the information every public official and every journalist was relying on was the concoction of some small nefarious group.

You haven't even attempted to show that Shokin was not corrupt, aside from quoting Shokin himself saying he was not corrupt.

So to be clear, your argument here works only if we begin with your conclusion that Biden was doing this all for his own personal benefit, and then reverse engineer a conspiracy theory to fit the narrative devoid of any facts to back it up. In other words, you invented a conspiracy theory as evidence to support your conspiracy theory.

That is not how evidence works. You have presented nothing to inform us of Biden's alleged mindset that doesn't already rely on a presumption of Biden's alleged mindset.

In Trump's case, we presume to know Trump's mindset for many very basic reasons. For one, the quid pro quo was literally in writing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what "I need you to do us a favor THOUGH" means. Then there's also the fact that Trump's own hand picked ambassador to the EU testified under oath that this was an attempted quid pro quo.

Do you not see the difference between the standards of evidence you are applying here?
#65
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Not dropping the rest, busy; but this stands out because you keep getting this wrong and I want to isolate it:

It's like when Trump goes around saying "people tell me X, I don't know but that's what they say." and then 50 bloggers and fake journalists reprint X is slightly different phrasing.

Nobody checked if X was true, not even Trump; worse Trump was the one who decided that X even mattered.
Exactly, this is the state of today's political right. 

But setting that aside, even if you could successfully argue that mainstream media works the same way, this is specifically why I keep pointing out the fact that the articles I provided were all written at the time before any of this was politicized.
No political bias or ferver is required to repeat the statements of government officials. None what so ever.

That's the point, just the fact that Trump says something is enough to have it appear all over the place even when that thing he said had no political significance beforehand. This is true to a lesser degree of all official statements. If you read "news" you will see there is very little of "CNN asserts X" it's "CNN is telling you that Y asserted X".

Those are the articles you found. A US ambassador dropped a rant in consort with one faction of Ukrainian politicians, a few British cops, and a few unelected EU bureaucrats and all you found were a few outlets relaying or parroting the claim.

There are no facts here. Repeating a claim doesn't make it more true.
#66
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If you read "news" you will see there is very little of "CNN asserts X" it's "CNN is telling you that Y asserted X".
That's why we have journalists. This is why news networks tell you all the time "we have not been able to independently verify this story". If it turns out the story is false, it becomes a much bigger story and the networks have every incentive to find that out.

That is not to say their is no truth to what you are saying. You are correct that outlets report what officials say all the time and that public officials do lie. But that doesn't justify asserting that a public official making a statement itself disqualifies that statement as credible. Again, we're talking about evidence in terms of strength vs weakness, not absolutes. Most public officials do not have a cult following, they actually have to be careful with what they say and not getting caught lying or being on the wrong end of an issue.

Those are the articles you found. A US ambassador dropped a rant in consort with one faction of Ukrainian politicians, a few British cops, and a few unelected EU bureaucrats and all you found were a few outlets relaying or parroting the claim.
This is like me asking 10 people whether they like Trump and 8 of them say yes, then I continue to claim Trump is deeply unpopular because 8 random people saying they like him doesn't mean anything.

Let's try this; let's approach this with the scientific method. The question here is; Was Shokin corrupt?

Hypothesis; if I want to know whether Shokin was corrupt I will [insert experiment here] and I will find that [insert results here].

Please fill in the blanks.
#67
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
But that doesn't justify asserting that a public official making a statement itself disqualifies that statement as credible.
I never said that, I said that just as you feel comfortable dismissing Shokin's statements because you believe they are self-serving so I too can infer that from the timing even technically true statements may have served as fertilization for actions aimed at ulterior motives.

If everybody is J-walking and one out of a thousand people have the mayor lambasting them for it (followed by all the papers reporting that the mayor is lambasting this person) that is suspicious. If you find out later that this one J-walker was in someway presenting a problem to the mayor's agenda ulterior motives are a probable conclusion.


Those are the articles you found. A US ambassador dropped a rant in consort with one faction of Ukrainian politicians, a few British cops, and a few unelected EU bureaucrats and all you found were a few outlets relaying or parroting the claim.
This is like me asking 10 people whether they like Trump and 8 of them say yes, then I continue to claim Trump is deeply unpopular because 8 random people saying they like him doesn't mean anything.
I am explaining why a poll is irrelevant to me, even a poll of news outlets.

I never said that the majority of contemporary outlets denied Shokin was corrupt. I'm saying I read them, and they all said the same thing because they were all reporting on the same original source of information namely a manufactured scandal which did not (as far as any evidence shows) predate by any significant margin the US ambassador's complaint and the UK police types throwing up their hands.

In terms of relevant claims there were only ever two: He didn't send paperwork to the UK so they could continue freezing Zlochevsky's assets and that he charged the wrong people in some other corruption case (there were diamonds).

None of them had independent sources or any new claims. It was parroting for local audiences, not investigative journalism.


Let's try this; let's approach this with the scientific method. The question here is; Was Shokin corrupt?
That's your question, not mine. These are my questions:

Was Shokin an impediment to the plans of the deep state?
Was Shokin an impediment to Biden's (or any other DC swamp monster) personal gain?
What gives the US the right to demand Ukraine change its government?
#68
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I never said that, I said that just as you feel comfortable dismissing Shokin's statements because you believe they are self-serving so I too can infer that from the timing even technically true statements may have served as fertilization for actions aimed at ulterior motives.

If everybody is J-walking and one out of a thousand people have the mayor lambasting them for it (followed by all the papers reporting that the mayor is lambasting this person) that is suspicious. If you find out later that this one J-walker was in someway presenting a problem to the mayor's agenda ulterior motives are a probable conclusion.
Your analogy starts off with “if everyone is J-walking…”. so you begin with ‘everyone is corrupt but only Shokin takes the heat’. You then assert the timing, a reference to the allegation that Shokin was “in the way” of another conspiracy. And these two things justify why as you allege, Shokin’s removal for corruption wasn’t actually a removal for corruption.

Essentially, you began with the conspiracy and worked your way backwards. Can you provide evidence for any of the premises you are starting off with here?

I never said that the majority of contemporary outlets denied Shokin was corrupt. I'm saying I read them, and they all said the same thing because they were all reporting on the same original source of information namely a manufactured scandal which did not (as far as any evidence shows) predate by any significant margin the US ambassador's complaint and the UK police types throwing up their hands.
Provide evidence that the scandal was manufactured

That's your question, not mine. These are my questions:

Was Shokin an impediment to the plans of the deep state?
Please provide evidence that there was a “deep state” and what their plans were.

Was Shokin an impediment to Biden's (or any other DC swamp monster) personal gain?

Please provide evidence that Biden had anything personal to gain from Shokin’s removal. And no, you don’t get to beg the question by asserting Joe Biden’s involvement with Hunter as evidence that Joe Biden was involved with Hunter.

What gives the US the right to demand Ukraine change its government?
We’re taking about whether Joe Biden was corruptly involving himself in Hunter’s behalf. Your opinion on whether the US has a moral right to involve itself in Ukraine’s governmental affairs is completely irrelevant to that. Once again, whatever your opinion of it is, the US has been involving itself in international affairs for about a century now. That has nothing to do with Joseph Robinette Biden.

Topic's author
#69
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Was Shokin an impediment to the plans of the deep state?
Likely, and provides motive for the singling out.

Was Shokin an impediment to Biden's (or any other DC swamp monster) personal gain?
I would say yes, as a Ukrainian government seizure of Burisma assets would have very likely affected Biden's son.

What gives the US the right to demand Ukraine change its government?
Manifest Destiny. The bedrock of all American Morality.
#70
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
I never said that, I said that just as you feel comfortable dismissing Shokin's statements because you believe they are self-serving so I too can infer that from the timing even technically true statements may have served as fertilization for actions aimed at ulterior motives.

If everybody is J-walking and one out of a thousand people have the mayor lambasting them for it (followed by all the papers reporting that the mayor is lambasting this person) that is suspicious. If you find out later that this one J-walker was in someway presenting a problem to the mayor's agenda ulterior motives are a probable conclusion.
Your analogy starts off with “if everyone is J-walking…”. so you begin with ‘everyone is corrupt but only Shokin takes the heat’. You then assert the timing, a reference to the allegation that Shokin was “in the way” of another conspiracy. And these two things justify why as you allege, Shokin’s removal for corruption wasn’t actually a removal for corruption.

Essentially, you began with the conspiracy and worked your way backwards. Can you provide evidence for any of the premises you are starting off with here?
You admit Shokin is corrupt. You admit Ukraine is corrupt. You admit Zlochevsky is corrupt. The only people you don't admit are corrupt are the most unequivocally corrupt: the non-Ukrainians with zero engineering experience, providing no capital, offering no service except corrupt services from western governments on the board of Burisma.

Everybody is J-walking, one guy gets arrested; turns out that one guy refused a shakedown and the cop is dirty (i.e. his family is getting money from the shakedown operation).

There are no missing premises, the unusual attack is a mystery in search of a motivation, when the motivation is found conspiracy becomes the explanation with the least assumptions.


I never said that the majority of contemporary outlets denied Shokin was corrupt. I'm saying I read them, and they all said the same thing because they were all reporting on the same original source of information namely a manufactured scandal which did not (as far as any evidence shows) predate by any significant margin the US ambassador's complaint and the UK police types throwing up their hands.
Provide evidence that the scandal was manufactured
I don't need to, it is sufficient that it is possible.

If this propaganda/psyop was the only reason to believe in the conspiracy then direct evidence would be required. The first, best, and still unconquered reason to believe in a conspiracy is the enormous unlikelihood of Hunter Biden collecting money in the one country and from the one company that was tangled in government machinations his father was manipulating.


That's your question, not mine. These are my questions:

Was Shokin an impediment to the plans of the deep state?
Please provide evidence that there was a “deep state” and what their plans were.
That's the work of weeks to be complete. I have laid out their likely plans in regards to burisma and Shokin in this thread. I'll not break my back for someone who shows no willingness to apply a fair objective eye to the matter.



Was Shokin an impediment to Biden's (or any other DC swamp monster) personal gain?
Please provide evidence that Biden had anything personal to gain from Shokin’s removal. And no, you don’t get to beg the question by asserting Joe Biden’s involvement with Hunter as evidence that Joe Biden was involved with Hunter.
So... are you saying Joe Biden wasn't financially involved with Hunter? That Hunter wasn't being paid by burisma? Oh right you claim "well cause there was no investigation no reason to fire Shokin, just weird coincidence that within a single year this happened"

See that's why it's not worth going through diffuse and circumstantial evidence with you. Circumstantial evidence requires the ability to evaluate the probability of coincidence and relate it to all other probabilities, such as the possibility Shokin lied about investigating Burisma to save his legacy.


What gives the US the right to demand Ukraine change its government?
We’re taking about whether Joe Biden was corruptly involving himself in Hunter’s behalf.
Which by the standard of Trump's impeachment is already beyond doubt. For Trump it was enough that there was personal gain that could be had.


Once again, whatever your opinion of it is, the US has been involving itself in international affairs for about a century now. That has nothing to do with Joseph Robinette Biden.
How can you say that with a straight face? A national prosecutor is not an international office and Since Joe R Biden bragged about such interference it does have something to do with him now doesn't it?


#71
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
What gives the US the right to demand Ukraine change its government?
Manifest Destiny. The bedrock of all American Morality.
That I believe is correct, and different from the normal right-tribe narrative. Simple 'greed' doesn't explain all. Not for Alexander, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, or this.

They think they're the good guys. If they get to retire on a million bucks well that's well deserved for all of that "stability" and "democracy" they bring. If they had to provoke Russia into a war by breaking their word, surround it with bases, puppetting Ukraine through insurrection well sometimes you have to do ugly things to make the world better. We need them on that wall. We can't handle the truth.

Everybody has got to sleep somehow you know?
#72
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You admit Shokin is corrupt. You admit Ukraine is corrupt. You admit Zlochevsky is corrupt. The only people you don't admit are corrupt are the most unequivocally corrupt: the non-Ukrainians with zero engineering experience, providing no capital, offering no service except corrupt services from western governments on the board of Burisma.
Benefiting from a corrupt system and facilitating it are not the same thing.

You are trying to hold private citizens cashing in on their family connections accountable on the same level as public officials entrusted by the people to act on their behalf. That makes no sense and have you provided no reason why anyone in the US should care about what a Ukrainian oil company pays its board members for.

You are also begging the question by asserting that these board members were offering actual services from western governments. That’s the very allegation you’re trying to prove here.

The US has a vested interest in ensuring the aid we send to Ukraine is going to the right places, it’s the public officials we rightfully hold accountable to that, not its private citizens.

Everybody is J-walking, one guy gets arrested; turns out that one guy refused a shakedown and the cop is dirty (i.e. his family is getting money from the shakedown operation).
Shokin was not “one guy”. He in your analogy is the guy whose job it was to make sure anyone who j-walks is held accountable. And he wasn’t arrested for j-walking, he was removed from his position since as you put it… everyone was still j-walking.

If this propaganda/psyop was the only reason to believe in the conspiracy then direct evidence would be required. The first, best, and still unconquered reason to believe in a conspiracy is the enormous unlikelihood of Hunter Biden collecting money in the one country and from the one company that was tangled in government machinations his father was manipulating.
It wasn’t a coincidence. The very thing that drew Hunter to Ukraine as a private citizen looking to cash in wherever he could, is the very same thing that drew the US’s attention towards it.

Moreover, the fact that his dad was heavily involved in the country is the very thing that gave his last name such value.

You are acting as if Hunter threw a dart at a map and it just so happened to land on his dad’s “territory”. That’s not at all what happened.

You are also factually wrong to assert Burisma as “the one company that was tangled in government machinations”. There is no evidence for that. At all. Burisma was just one of many companies Shokin was not investigating. Biden’s involvement hurt the company, not helped it. This is just a lie.

That's the work of weeks to be complete. I have laid out their likely plans in regards to burisma and Shokin in this thread. I'll not break my back for someone who shows no willingness to apply a fair objective eye to the matter.
Says the guy who doesn’t need evidence to support his claims.

You didn’t lay out their likely plans, you laid out your suspicions of what they might have been up to, supported by nothing more than your deep state conspiracy theories.

So... are you saying Joe Biden wasn't financially involved with Hunter?
I’m saying there is no evidence of this.

Which by the standard of Trump's impeachment is already beyond doubt. For Trump it was enough that there was personal gain that could be had.
No, for Trump it was the exact same standard. You have to evaluate the evidence to see what likely happened and consider whether the benefit to himself personally was the deciding factor.

Among many pieces of evidence which makes this blatantly obvious, we have the call notes and testimony from state department officials which made unmistakably clear that Trump tried to withhold aid in exchange for the investigation.

When it comes to the motivation for this move, again among many other points, we have the following
  • This scheme was carried out by his personal attorney in secret. If it were a legitimate operation he would have used the many resources he had at the state department and elsewhere
  • Once the hold became public he immediately released the aid without the investigation and denied the allegations
  • His own officials testified that the goal was not an actual investigation, but rather an announcement of one.
There is no way you can seriously argue that these are the actions of a president using his power on behalf of the people he was elected to serve.

How can you say that with a straight face? A national prosecutor is not an international office and Since Joe R Biden bragged about such interference it does have something to do with him now doesn't it?
I’m talking about US policy as it has been carried out for about a century now. No, that has Nothing to do with Joe Biden. Please respond to my actual points.

Again, your opinion of what the US should or shouldn’t involve itself in has nothing to do with whether Joe Biden was acting corruptly here. His actions were in line with US foreign policy as every administration since WW2 has exercised it. This is an irrelevant point.

Circumstantial evidence requires the ability to evaluate the probability of coincidence and relate it to all other probabilities
Let’s just recap.

So your argument is essentially that Joe Biden was clearly acting corruptly because Shokin was just one guy in a sea of corrupt people whom Joe went after who just so happened to be in the one country where his son was and just so happened to be going after the one company his sleazy son was getting paid millions to be a part of with no experience.

But as I have explained:
  • Shokin was not just one guy, he was the guy responsible for stopping the corruption you fully acknowledge was rampant
  • It wasn’t a coincidence his sleazy son ended up in this corrupt country
  • Burisma was not being targeted in any special way by Shokin
  • Joe’s involvement in Ukraine is the very reason Hunter’s last name was valuable to them
  • We have a perfectly reasonable explanation for Joe’s involvement without all these conspiracy allegations

7 days later

#73
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Benefiting from a corrupt system and facilitating it are not the same thing.
In this subcategory it is because there was nothing to sell but what was illegal to sell.


You are trying to hold private citizens cashing in on their family connections accountable on the same level as public officials entrusted by the people to act on their behalf.
Lol, not that's been a consistent strawman of the left-tribe from day one. "oh you're so obsessed with Hunter", "Fathers aren't responsible for the crimes of their children", "the poor kid is struggling with addiction!!!"

I do not care one tiny little smidgen if Hunter Biden is ever punished in any way. In fact I feel sorry for him. I think it's another chip in clown world piggy bank that the only thing he is being charged with are victimless crimes that would not even be crimes if the 2nd amendment was taken seriously and liberty was being protected.

No, I am trying to hold public officials entrusted by the people to act on their behalf (and whom have sworn to do so) accountable. The people on that board with connections to foreign political entities as their only possible contribution are facilitating corruption FOR those public officials.


You are also begging the question by asserting that these board members were offering actual services from western governments. That’s the very allegation you’re trying to prove here.
No it's not, I consider that proven already. The notion that they were hired, paid huge amounts for significant periods of time, and delivered nothing but hot air is absurd enough to be beyond the scope of something I could prove online.

In other words if your understanding of social dynamics is so naive or limited to find that plausible there is no inductive argument I can use to alleviate your ignorance and these things aren't subject to deductive arguments in the first place (at least not until psycho history is invented).


Moreover, the fact that his dad was heavily involved in the country is the very thing that gave his last name such value.

You are acting as if Hunter threw a dart at a map and it just so happened to land on his dad’s “territory”. That’s not at all what happened.
... but I thought Biden didn't have any power, it was all Obama? What's more EVERYBODY knows this because it's in the public US constitution right? So if everybody knows Biden has no power what possible value would a connection to Biden have to them?

It is the unique property of truth that no matter how wide the context there are no contradictions. Your excuses are narrow and are colliding now with other excuses on top of the facts.


So... are you saying Joe Biden wasn't financially involved with Hunter?
I’m saying there is no evidence of this.
The message saying that he had to give half his salary seems to be evidence. As is "10% for the big guy". As is the shared bank account. As is the evidence that Hunter was paying for maintenance of Joe's property.


When it comes to the motivation for this move, again among many other points, we have the following
  • This scheme was carried out by his personal attorney in secret. If it were a legitimate operation he would have used the many resources he had at the state department and elsewhere
If it was secret from the government then Vindman wouldn't have been listening in.


His own officials testified that the goal was not an actual investigation, but rather an announcement of one.
I don't think there was such a thing as "his own officials".


There is no way you can seriously argue that these are the actions of a president using his power on behalf of the people he was elected to serve.
What you will take seriously is after all you have not taken seriously is inconsequential.

Exposing the corruption of public officials of the USA is a legitimate interest of a free people, and especially important to any chances of restoring this republic.

Officials claim they held aid, officials claim they let aid through, Zelensky claimed there was no quid pro quo, Trump claims he did not hold up aid in connection to the request for an investigation.

Everything that points to impropriety rests on the notion that government bureaucrats can be trusted. I do not trust them. They lie too many times. Vindman for example lied when he said that the contents of the phone call worried him enough to be a 'whistleblower'. If he had claimed to know about the rest of this secret mumbo jumbo Trump denies I would not be so certain; but he denied that he knew.

Reasonable people know from the transcript of the call that there was nothing to whisteblow about. Therefore reasonable people know that Vindman was told to whistleblow about it. Therefore we know there was a conspiracy. The flip flopping of other people who testified lends further support.

Again I remind you, I do not care what you take seriously since you have proven yourself constitutionally incapable of admitting the possibility that conspiracies against DJT exist.


But as I have explained:
  • Shokin was not just one guy, he was the guy responsible for stopping the corruption you fully acknowledge was rampant
As I said circumstantial evidence requires the ability to evaluate the probability of coincidence and relate it to all other probabilities. Nothing will change the fact that you have displayed thusfar either incredible bias or profound inability in evaluating relative probabilities.

That's not something I can prove, you can't prove that someone's probability is wrong without statistically significant datasets.

However, it just so happens that more evidence just keeps coming out. Since we first sparred on this issue many new facts and evidence has come to light; none of it phasing you in the slightest it seems.

Mere hours before I read your statement above I listened to this:

I believed you said something to the effect of "everyone in the world wanted Shokin gone because he was failing" (on top of the above statement).

P.S. That first email is 5 or 6 days after the US ambassador started whining about Shokin.
Topic's author
#74
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The only fact that truly matters is the public's collective nose regarding the BS surrounding Biden, and what is reflected in the popular polls.

Biden is but a domino starting a chain reaction of everyone who participated in said BS.
#75
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,164
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
The only fact that truly matters is the public's collective nose regarding the BS surrounding Biden, and what is reflected in the popular polls.

Biden is but a domino starting a chain reaction of everyone who participated in said BS.
I haven't a great deal of confidence in the public nor that the will of the public translates to "election" results; but it really does not take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that Hunter is selling us foreign policy when he doesn't have anything else to sell and every other fact that you encounter when looking into it confirms it.

Topic's author
#76
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
the will of the public translates to "election" results

Whoever said the public will was restricted to "election results"???
#77
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No it's not, I consider that proven already. The notion that they were hired, paid huge amounts for significant periods of time, and delivered nothing but hot air is absurd enough to be beyond the scope of something I could prove online.
The fact that these individuals sat on a board of directors because of their connections doesn't in any way whatsoever prove some sort of improper link between themselves and the people they were connected to. Under qualified people sit on boards all the time, it's one of the most do nothing overpaid positions on earth which is exactly what makes it ripe for this kind of thing.

Hunter served on the board of Amtrak for 5 years prior to Burisma. Was he qualified for that? Does this prove Biden's involvement there as well? What about the guy who appointed HB to the board, what does this say about him?

Board positions are not "deliver or else" kind of jobs.

but I thought Biden didn't have any power, it was all Obama? 
Power and influence are not the same thing.

Moreover, I never said Biden had "no" power, I said he didn't have the power to halt foreign aid. That's the kind of decision that goes straight to the president. Everyone knows this.

The message saying that he had to give half his salary seems to be evidence. As is "10% for the big guy". As is the shared bank account. As is the evidence that Hunter was paying for maintenance of Joe's property.
The property maintenance emails were sent in 2010, 4 years before Hunter joined Burisma. There is also no context to any of this, so we have no idea why he was doing whatever he was doing. This is a classic argument from ignorance.

The 10% for the big guy remark I've already debunked. Joe was never part of the deal and was never involved in any discussion about it. You're using one person's idea which was rejected as evidence of someone else's involvement. That does not logically follow.

The text is not evidence of any kind that the two were involved in business dealings. Again, we have no idea what the backstory is here and when it comes to family there are always odd things going on from an outsiders perspective. This is yet another argument from ignorance.

All you have is mere speculation, and much of it does not support the conclusion even if accepted as true.

If it was secret from the government then Vindman wouldn't have been listening in.
Not the fact that Rudy was involved, I'm talking about his day to day involvement and his overall objective. The testimonies of Fiona Hill, Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondland made it clear that Rudy was acting on his own and not reporting to or even coordinating with the state department which was frustrating state department employees.

So again, if Donald Trump was acting as our virtuous leader on behalf of the American people he would not have decided to use some backdoor channel while not telling anyone else what he was doing or what the plan was.

  • Once the hold became public he immediately released the aid without the investigation and denied the allegations
I see you skipped over this one which I would argue was the most important point. If Trump was acting on behalf of the American people in demanding the investigation he would not have relented without it.

The fact that he relented as soon as word about what he was doing became public and then denied having done it made his corrupt intentions beyond obvious.


His own officials testified that the goal was not an actual investigation, but rather an announcement of one.
I don't think there was such a thing as "his own officials".
I accept your concession on this point, which again, objectively shows that he wasn't acting in the American people's best interests. There's a word for that, it's called corruption.

Zelensky claimed there was no quid pro quo
Of course he did, he would have been an idiot to say anything else. He was desperate for the US's help and he, like everyone, knew that when you cross Trump he puts a target on your back. The worst thing he could have possibly be done for himself and his country was to get himself involved in a political firestorm in the US.

This is common sense.

We do of course know that Zelensky with his back to the wall and desperate for Trump's help was in fact planning to go on CNN to make a major announcement. That announcement was all of a sudden cancelled once news of all of this broke. I wonder what that was about.

Also one of Zelensky's officials interviewed in 2021 by Chris Cuomo and told the whole story of how Zelensky and others reacted to being extorted by Trump. This was obvious to all of them.

Trump claims he did not hold up aid in connection to the request for an investigation.
So to be clear, are you saying that someone accused of acting corruptly saying that they did no such thing, is in fact evidence of their innocence? Please clarify.

Everything that points to impropriety rests on the notion that government bureaucrats can be trusted
No, it doesn't. It rests among many other things, on an understanding of human nature, namely that people will generally act within their own best interests. This is why we have a system of holding people accountable for things like committing fraud and lying under oath.

It also rests on a basic application of logic and critical thinking to avoid committing fallacies. One such fallacy would be to group people into categories so that you can claim one person doing something improper gives you rational justification to assume other people in the same category should also need assumed to be acting improperly. That's not how reasonable people evaluate one's credibility.

Reasonable people know from the transcript of the call that there was nothing to whisteblow about.
Reasonable people understand what the word "though" means.
Topic's author
#78
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That I believe is correct, and different from the normal right-tribe narrative. Simple 'greed' doesn't explain all. Not for Alexander, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, or this.

Still, it's probably going to end up a net loss as USA loses the petro-dollar over failed Ukraine sanctions.

Having Haliburton 2.0 in a blasted Ukraine post-war can't possibly make up for that.