Man I just hate discussing the self-same issue in two simultaneous threads. However, that's probably inevitable with this one, so here goes.
Let me explain exactly why this impeachment enquiry is going to turn out to be - as Pubs claim - another "nothingburger".
First off, as I am on record as stating, I firmly believe that Trump's motivation was solely to see if he could get dirt on Biden, a perceived political rival. I also believe that the with-holding of aid was used by Trump as leverage to get Ukraine to do that self-interested digging.
Those are my beliefs - and if they are provable, then that would in my view constitute impeachable bribery or coercion. As Sky has said:-
Skyweir wrote:Hashi bribery is an impeachable offence ... Pelosi has already announced the investigation is into what they now consider bribery.
...
No Nano its the self same allegation .. but instead of the innocuous quid pro quo term loosely flip flopping about they have narrowed their focus to describing the actual impeachable offence.
Its no different to setting aside the term collusion which has no significance in legal terms and moving forward with conspiracy as the focus.
I agree with this.
Now Zee has pointed out that powerful countries like the US use "bribery and/or coercion" - i.e. the provision or not of foreign aid as one example - all the time in order to get other states to act in a preferred way. And that's both true and absolutely fine... but where it crosses into the realms of impeachability IMV is if said leverage is applied solely and primarily in order to benefit the personal interests of the POTUS.
HOWEVER - and here's the point -
no matter what I personally may believe and however firmly I may believe it, I equally strongly believe that this is NOT going to be provable.
I've said this already in the Impeachment thread - but I'll say it again here.
George Kent, a witness called by the Impeachment enquiry
to support grounds for impeachment gave the following evidence to that enquiry:-
George Kent, deputy assistant secretary at the State Department under the Obama admin, last week at the Impeachment Enquiry wrote:"To summarize, we thought that Mykola Zlochevsky had stolen money," Kent said of the oligarch head of Burisma. "We thought a prosecutor had taken a bribe to shut the case, those were our main concerns."
"Are you in favor of that matter being fully investigated and prosecuted?" asked Steve Castor, Republicans' counsel on the House Intelligence Committee.
"I think since U.S. taxpayer dollars were wasted, I would love to see the Ukrainian prosecutor's office find out who the corrupt prosecutor was and who took the bribe, and how much was paid, and that's what I told the deputy prosecutor general on February 3, 2015," Kent replied.
When asked if he thought individuals or organizations responsible for the bribes should be prosecuted, Kent replied, "I agree that the Ukrainian law authorities should uphold the rule of law and hold people accountable for breaking Ukrainian law."
So...
What we have here being placed on the record are the following:-
1. Some time prior to 2015, so under the Obama administration, US taxpayers' dollars were misappropriated or wasted in the Burisma affair. Don't ask me how they were wasted or who stole them (almost certainly Zlochevsky the then Burisma CEO) - but it's now on record that they were.
2. As Kent clearly testifies, the State Department's belief back then was that, prior to 2015, the Ukrainian prosecutor had unjustifiably shut down the Ukrainian investigation into the Burisma affair. The State Department
had "main concerns", both about the missing US dollars and corruption on the part of the Ukrainian prosecutor in charge of the original Burisma investigation. As stated by Kent, It strongly suspected he had been "bribed" to close off the investigation by parties unknown.
3. Kent - who was don't forget a high-ranking State Department official under the Obama administration and a witness called by the Impeachment enquiry to
support grounds for impeachment - then specifically goes out of his way to state that he would
"love to see" the Ukrainian investigation into Burisma and the allegedly corrupt prosecutor re-opened.
So
regardless of my personal beliefs, what can we take from the above three points?
First, solely because US taxpayers' dollars were wasted, this then clearly makes it possible to present the desire for re-opening of Ukrainian investigation into the Burisma affair as
a legitimate matter of US national interest.
Second, for the exact same reasons, it is again entirely viably presentable as
a legitimate matter of US national interest to push for a probe into the reasons behind the original prosecutor dropping the Burisma investigation.
And, given both Bidens' involvement in the Burisma affair in 2014 if not before,
no matter how peripheral or innocent, it is completely reasonable for Joe's and Hunter's activities to be looked into as a side part of that re-opened investigation.
Conclusion? The above is a perfectly viable and credible defence for Trump and his administration to present re the whole Ukraine phonecall investigation, should they need to.
Do I personally believe such a defence is in fact a truthful account? Nope...
Do I personally believe that such a defence is without a doubt sufficiently credible? Yep...
And that is why the Impeachment enquiry is again going to follow down the Mueller Report route and again turn out to be a "nothingburger".
