Biden’s conflict of interest was brought up to Biden’s office by George Kent, according to Kent’s testimony to Congress.

Fact Check on the Bidens in Ukraine

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/c-span-video-joe-biden-ukraine/

Does a C-SPAN Video Show Joe Biden ‘Confessing to Bribery’?

One example of [whataboutism] was a video clip posted to C-SPAN’s website on Sept. 21, 2019 under the title “Joe Biden Confesses to Bribery.” The video was accompanied by a caption reading “Former Vice President Joe Biden confesses to being in charge of Ukraine for the Obama Administration, and withholding $1 billion in loan guarantees from the USA to force Ukraine to fire prosecutor who was looking into the company that Hunter Biden was receiving $83,000+ PER MONTH from”

The user-created clip fostered a false impression by pairing a misleading caption with an excerpt from a much longer video with no context. (The video carries a statement from C-SPAN noting that “This clip, title, and description were not created by C-SPAN.”)

The video clip was taken from a portion of a talk Biden gave in January 2018 at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting in Washington, D.C., which was held in conjunction with the publication of the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. Biden had co-authored an article for that month’s issue with former White House official Michael Carpenter, titled “How to Stand Up to the Kremlin: Defending Democracy Against Its Enemies.”

In the excerpted portion of the clip, Biden was discussing his efforts on behalf of the Obama administration to pressure Ukraine into to prosecuting corruption and firing Viktor Shokin, an ineffective prosecutor. That effort by Biden has been used by Trump supporters to argue, inaccurately, that Biden single-handedly had Shokin fired because Shokin was investigating Burisma, a Ukrainian group of energy exploration and production companies of which Biden’s son Hunter was a board member.

However, Shokin was not fired for investigating Burisma, but for his failure to pursue corruption investigations — including investigations connected to Burisma.

There has been zero investigations into Biden’s conflict of interest to this day.

Fact Check on the Bidens in Ukraine

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/c-span-video-joe-biden-ukraine/

Moreover, among the reasons the U.S. and others sought Shokin’s ouster was his failure to assist with or pursue an investigation of Burisma Holdings’ owner:

Hunter Biden joined [Burisma’s] board in April 2014, two months after U.K. authorities requested information from Ukraine as part of a probe against [Burisma Holdings owner Mykola] Zlochevsky related to money laundering allegations. Zlochevsky had been minister of environmental protection under then-President Viktor Yanukovych, who fled to Russia in February 2014 after mass protests.

After the U.K. request, Ukrainian prosecutors opened their own case, accusing Zlochevsky of embezzling public funds. Burisma and Zlochevsky have denied the allegations.

The case against Zlochevsky and his Burisma Holdings was assigned to Shokin, then a deputy prosecutor. But Shokin and others weren’t pursuing it, according to the internal reports from the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office reviewed by Bloomberg.

In a December 2014 letter, U.S. officials warned Ukrainian prosecutors of negative consequences for Ukraine over its failure to assist the U.K., which had seized Zlochevsky’s assets, according to the documents.

Shokin took no action to pursue cases against Zlochevsky throughout 2015, said [Vitaliy] Kasko, who was Shokin’s deputy overseeing international cooperation and helping in asset-recovery investigations. Kasko said he had urged Shokin to pursue the investigations.

“There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky,” Kasko said in an interview. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015.”

Fact Check on Bidens in Ukraine
Politifact

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/may/07/viral-image/fact-checking-joe-biden-hunter-biden-and-ukraine/

Key takeaways

• Hunter Biden did hold a directorship for a Ukrainian gas company while his father was vice president. Experts agree that Hunter Biden's acceptance of the position created a conflict of interest for his father.

• Vice President Joe Biden did urge Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor, with the threat of withholding U.S. aid. But that was the position of the wider U.S. government, as well as other international institutions.

• We found no evidence to support the idea that Joe Biden advocated with his son's interests in mind, as the message suggests. It's not even clear that the company was actively under investigation or that a change in prosecutors benefited it.

There’s a strong case that Hunter Biden’s position with the company had nothing to do with Biden’s position on Shokin’s ouster. That’s because Western leaders and institutions were largely united in seeking Shokin’s removal, arguing that he was not pursuing corruption cases aggressively.

For instance, in early 2016, International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde said that "it’s hard to see how the I.M.F.-supported program can continue" unless corruption prosecutions accelerate.

Steven Pifer is a career foreign service officer who was ambassador to Ukraine under President Bill Clinton and deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs under President George W. Bush. Pifer told PolitiFact that "virtually everyone" he knew in the U.S. government and virtually all non-governmental experts on Ukraine "felt that Shokin was not doing his job and should be fired. As far as I can recall, they all concurred with the vice president telling Poroshenko that the U.S. government would not extend the $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine until Shokin was removed from office."

Pam Bondi’s case against Hunter, complete with documents and congressional testimony, was pretty damning. I wouldn’t mind hearing the house Manager’s rebuttal, however,

Trump’s personal lawyer continues: House managers claim Biden story is “debunked”, “discredited”, even though the issue has never been investigated.

Pam Bondi’s case against Hunter, complete with documents and congressional testimony, was pretty damning. — NOS4A2

Other than quoting people saying it looked bad, what else did she have? What's the damning evidence you're referring to?

The term “lies” implies an intention to deceive. — NOS4A2

OK, you're correct - I do not know what's going on in his mind. I'll rephrase.

Trump makes factually incorrect statements on pretty much a daily basis. I.e., the words coming out of his mouth - or his tweets - do not correspond to reality.

I can think of at least 3 possible explanations. Maybe you have a 4th (or 5th)

1) He is lying
2) He believes what he is saying
3) He is just making stuff up off the top of his head and doesn't think about it afterwards
4) ???

It's possible that it's some combination of the above.

In either case, I think this behavior is unacceptable for any human being - let alone the POTUS. Maybe you're OK with this, and maybe I'm stupid & naive, but I expect better.

No, not really. Again I don’t look to politicians for truth. In fact I think it would be idiotic and naive to do so. What I want is leadership and results. — NOS4A2

No matter what?

Good thing you aren't making any important decisions around here.

:smirk:

I want Alan Dershowitz to testify as a witness/expert opinion regarding the constitutionality of the current impeachment process.

I think Trump is guilty.

Professor Dershowitz would surely testify that the founding fathers were very careful about what counted as justificatory ground for congress to impeachment a duly elected president. Mr. Dershowitz would surely agree that the framers of the constitution did decide, after careful debate - much of which Mr. Dershowitz spoke about earlier - to include the ability for Congress to impeach a president under certain conditions.

These conditions are vague, as they are meant to be. However, I think the professor would readily agree that the framers did not intend for the president to be able to invoke executive privilege as a means to impede an impeachment proceeding already in progress.

I'm sure the professor would also readily explicate upon the differences between other president's invoking it and this one.

As if it's not just been done. None of the other presidents invoked it as a means to block testimony into an investigation of their own impeachable behaviour - as determined by congress.

I think Trump is guilty. — creativesoul

It's the eeriest thing to hear the Trump defense assert that abuse of power is too vague a notion to be impeachable. Mark Levin, on Fox New's Hannity, compared it to pornography - "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." (Thereafter he referred to the House managers as "pornographers.")

To their lights, guilty or not, Trump can't be impeached for abuse of power. In part an attempt to diminish Bolton's first-hand accusations. (They actually mentioned Bolton's name. That was unexpected.)

OK, you're correct - I do not know what's going on in his mind. I'll rephrase.

Trump makes factually incorrect statements on pretty much a daily basis. I.e., the words coming out of his mouth - or his tweets - do not correspond to reality.

I can think of at least 3 possible explanations. Maybe you have a 4th (or 5th)

1) He is lying
2) He believes what he is saying
3) He is just making stuff up off the top of his head and doesn't think about it afterwards
4) ???

It's possible that it's some combination of the above.

In either case, I think this behavior is unacceptable for any human being - let alone the POTUS. Maybe you're OK with this, and maybe I'm stupid & naive, but I expect better.

I accept that. That’s at least fair. But I have to ask, how many truths has he spoken?

Either way, this is the politics of words. Anyone can talk. Any trained actor can read a script or recite a list of facts. But I think we’re done hiring people who can only talk and sing lullabies to their electorate. Those days are over.

Don’t take my word for it.

Distraction. It is not the reason Trump pressured Ukraine.

Distraction. It is not the reason Trump pressured Ukraine.

There was no pressure according to Ukrainian president and other officials.

Irrelevant. A defrauder isn't excused merely because his attempt at fraud fails.

Irrelevant. A defrauder isn't excused merely because his attempt at fraud fails.

Begging the question. Unless you can point to some other reason, the mere accusation of Schiff’s that Trump pressured Zelensky is all you have.

You don't know law or understand fallacies.

If I threaten to punch you in the face if you don't do x. And you call my bluff by doing x and I don't punch you, I still did threaten you. What you do or say about the matter is irrelevant.

Retreat into your equations all you want. You’re assuming Trump pressured Zelensky without being able to prove it. All parties involved say there was no pressure.

Now you're just repeating yourself. Cute but not an argument. Trump's comments on the matter are even less relevant and he certainly cannot testify as to the mindset of others.

"The criminal went out of his way to deny wrongdoing, let's acquit!"

Now you're just repeating yourself. Cute but not an argument. Trump's comments on the matter are even less relevant and he certainly cannot testify as to the mindset of others.

"The criminal went out of his way to deny wrongdoing, let's acquit!"

You just assume that Trump pressured Zelensky. All parties involved say the opposite. So why do you believe Trump pressured Zelensky? Is there any evidence? Or are you question begging?

I'm not assuming anything. I'm only telling you your arguments don't work.

So why do you believe Trump pressured Zelensky? — NOS4A2

Also, that's the wrong question as I just explained.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm only telling you your arguments don't work.

That’s false. You’ve begged the question in all of your false analogies. Not only that but the argument that Trump pressured Zelensky is entirely relevant. In fact it’s one of the premises of the House managers.

By the way you’re right I don’t know fallacies, apparently. I didn’t mean begging the question. I meant presumption of guilt.

I'm not presuming guilt either. I'm only telling you the arguments you raise about the mindset of the Ukrainians and Trump's comments about the same are irrelevant. Nowhere have I said that he therefore must be guilty. You're jumping to conclusions and are attributing statements to me that I haven't made.

For what it's worth, the legal discussion should be about the extent of executive privilege. If it extends far enough he was in his rights to do what he did, if not, then it's abuse of power and I suspect, but I'm not a US lawyer, that a negligence or even strict liability standard would apply in such a case. I suspect that because appointed civil servants are supposed to know the extent of the powers conferred to them (as is the case in the Netherlands). In that case Trump's intent is totally moot.

EDIT: @Hanover, maybe you can shed some more light on this - even though, in the end, legal/criminal standards don't apply to an impeachment proceeding. But let's pretend that those standards will inform Senate members.

There was no pressure according to Ukrainian president and other officials. — NOS4A2

Yeah, I imagine they would come out and say: "Yeah sure, the sitting US President Trump, who will likely be President at least for one year if not longer, pressured us".

Trump wouldn't mind that, or what?

I'm not presuming guilt either. I'm only telling you the arguments you raise about the mindset of the Ukrainians and Trump's comments about the same are irrelevant. Nowhere have I said that he therefore must be guilty. You're jumping to conclusions and are attributing statements to me that I haven't made.

Then why is it irrelevant if the argument is central to their entire case?

You presumed guilt here:"The criminal went out of his way to deny wrongdoing, let's acquit!". Your use of the word “criminal” presumes both a crime has been committed and that Trump has committed it. Both are untrue.

Yeah, I imagine they would come out and say: "Yeah sure, the sitting US President Trump, who will likely be President at least for one year if not longer, pressured us".

Trump wouldn't mind that, or what?

The House’s entire case is premised on their imagination. That’s why it’s falling apart.

Then why is it irrelevant if the argument is central to their entire case? — NOS4A2

What argument? The argument that the Ukrainians didn't feel pressured or that Trump didn't intend to pressure them ? If that is indeed central to their case it simply illustrates their lack of confidence in winning the argument they should win. If they want Trump to be acquitted they should prove that executive privilige extends so far that Trump can withhold money in return for favours.

You presumed guilt here:"The criminal went out of his way to deny wrongdoing, let's acquit!". Your use of the word “criminal” presumes both a crime has been committed and that Trump has committed it. Both are untrue. — NOS4A2

No, I was illustrating a point by making an argument ab adsurdum. If Trump's denials were relevant to ascertain his guilt, as you argue, the same should hold true for criminals. It clearly isn't so his denials are irrelevant and so is your argument.