LogFAQs > #931662726

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I said "investigating a company within their country and what happened with a preosecutor in their legal system that was looking into that company." I didn't say he was tryting to fight corruption. If anything he was inadequate in his role of looking into it.

Fucking what? You want Shokin to investigate himself?

And yes, he was inadequate into looking into Burisma - that's exactly what I said in my first post. That's precisely why the Americans - with Joe Biden as their point man - the EU, and the IMF all wanted him gone.

Do you see the problem yet? You're arguing that Biden was corrupt, while simultaneously arguing that he was trying to get a prosecutor shitcanned who was overlooking the corruption you're accusing him of partaking in. That is the opposite of a sensible argument.

Please decide which set of Republican talking points you're going to stick with - when you mix them together, the logical inconsistencies are rather jarring.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So if the president has doubt about whether sending aid is in the interest of the US is he not able to go before congress with reasons why they should reconsider?

Sure. And if Trump had done that, he would have been completely within his rights.

But he didn't do that. He didn't stand before the relevant committees in congress and say, "I think this aid is misguided." Maybe he met with some of them privately, that's possible - but in the end, he failed to convince them of any concerns he may or may not have had and congress - who, as a reminder, have exclusive power over government spending - did not rescind their spending order.

So yes, if Trump presses on and refuses to spend money on Ukraine, despite congress telling him he has to, he is violating appropriations law. He is allowed to go before congress and voice concerns; he's not allowed to unilaterally change spending priorities when congress tells him to get lost.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

He would have liked to test them further but was adequately convinced he wasn't giving aid to the bad guys.

Good grief, this level of straw-grabbing is just sad.

How did he "test" Ukraine? He attempted to solicit a bribe, Ukraine demurred, and that's supposed to prove... what, exactly?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

With the Ukrainians aware of the delay he released the aid lest the delay itself become an obstacle in future diplomacy.

Pentagon e-mails and testimony from Laura Cooper show that Ukraine was well aware that the aid was delayed and were asking the US what the holdup was as early as July, before Trump ever made his demands to Zelenskiy. It was already an obstacle in diplomacy before that phone call ever took place.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

He doesn't want to openly say he thought the Ukraine President was shady following the willingness he has shown to help the US. That would be bad diplomacy.

But holding up military aid that an ally desperately needs to fight off a geopolitical rival isn't?

You have strange priorities.

Seriously, this is an absolutely ridiculous non-defence here. Trump thought Ukraine was corrupt, so he fires his anti-corruption ambassador, asks Ukraine to investigate an American citizen and political rival, then is so pleased with their non-answer and worried he's ruining diplomatic relations that he panics and releases the aid despite Ukraine doing nothing? Do you not realize how utterly nonsensical that sounds?

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!