The aspect of impeachment trial that everyone overlooks

Post Reply New Topic

Instead of asking the question whether or not Trump threatened to "withhold" the help to Ukraine, why not ask "why was there the help to begin with". I thought founding fathers said "no foreign entanglements". The impeachment document also simply mentions "Russian aggression" in the passing -- as if its a fact -- when actually it isn't (most Crimeans claim they actually prefer to be part of Russia). So if "Russian aggression" -- or the need to side with Ukraine rather than Russia -- is not a fact, then it means that we have to talk about *that* before we talk about anything else.

Now, if US decides it is okay for it to interfere into Eastern European politics (namely, to side with Ukraine over Russia) then why would it not be okay for Eastern European countries (be it Ukraine or Russia or what not) to interfere in US election? So asking for this kind of favor in exchange for the other is "only fair". Well, not really: as they say "two wrongs don't make it up to right". But then again, saying one wrong is okay while the other isn't, doesn't sound right either. At least having two wrongs would remove double standard. At least thats how I see it.

I think that you have fallen for propaganda if you believe that the people of Crimea liked Russia rolling up in tanks and taking over the country. The narrative at the time that Russia gave that it was not them, as supposedly some unknown army decided to bring down the government, and then Russia took over. From my understanding things were not perfect in Crimea beforehand, there was corruption with Oligarchs, but Russia is even worse as a country where the Oligarchs are mostly the friends of the man who rigs his elections by arresting any opposition that poses a threat to his power. And deifies himself.

The thing is that there is a good risk of Russia deciding to pull the same stunt again by invading Ukraine. It is not getting involved in politics rather than helping an independent country from being overpowered by a much more powerful one. Regardless, it was not Donald Trump's decision whether they should have gotten the aid, the Legislative branch passed it, the executive branch does not get to decide to stop it. The reasoning of stopping corruption is BS, because he has given no examples of corruption of people of the Ukraine, rather than wanting to target his opponents, why else would he send his personal lawyer and not government officials?

Regardless, the whys of there being aid in the first place are in no way a defense of stopping it, nor an obfuscation of intention in doing so, especially when there is on the record targeting of people of his interest. Anyone who tells you different is either jumping through hoops or lying.

I'm not sure how much of it is propaganda. Crimea is heavily Russian and they've tried in the past to break free of Ukraine with the implicit and occasionally explicit goal of rejoining Russia. In 1991 a referendum along those lines was held and passed with 94% approval. Though the Ukrainian government had other ideas and it got a little messy. Everyone lost their minds at the 2014 referendum (96% approval) and subsequent declaration of status - but I have little doubt it was what the Crimeans ultimately wanted, even if they did not like the bloodshed it took to get there.

What do you mean "taking over the country"? Crimea is not the country -- Ukraine is. Russia didn't take over Ukraine. It took over Crimea. Big difference.

Historically, Crimea used to be part of Russia. The way it became part of Ukraine is that one of the Soviet leaders -- Khruschev -- was Ukrainian, so he decided to "give Ukraine a present" by giving Chrimea from Russia to Ukraine. He had power to do it since both Russia and Ukraine used to be Soviet Union and he was the president over the entire Soviet Union.

Back in the Soviet times it wasn't a big deal since Soviet Union was one country anyway. But after Soviet Union split and Russia and Ukraine became two different countries, it became a big deal since most people in Crimea are ethnic Russians yet they were forced to live in Ukraine. So most of them were greatful to Putin when he took them back from Ukraine to Russia.



I don't know what you are even talking about. Like I said, Crimea is not the country, so there is no "government of Crimea". The issue here is that Russians sent their soldiers to take Crimea. And that might have happened, yes. But like I said, taking Crimea does not amount to overtaking the government, since Crimea is not a country.

The only "overtaking the government" that has happened is when Yanukovich was replaced by Poroshenko. But keep in mind: Yanukovich is pro-Russia, Poroshenko is anti-Russia. So clearly Russia wouldn't be replacing someone pro-Russia with someone anti-Russia, it wouldn't be in its best interest. The controversy regarding this one is that Russians allege that Americans financed this overtaking of power while Americans say no they didn't do it, it was all done by Ukrainians all on their own. But I don't think either side says that Russians did it, that would be absurd.

The part that Russians did -- overtaking a Crimea -- was a *reaction* to the above. Like I said, there were historic reasons why Crimean should have been part of Russia anyway. However, what made it all *more urgent* is that replacement of Yanukovish with Poroshenko made it a lot more likely that Ukraine was going to join NATO. Russia didn't want NATO right next to its border, so thats why it wanted to take Crimea to have it as a "buffer" between Russia and NATO.

I realize that "wanting a buffer between Russia and NATO" has to do with Russian interest rather than Crimean interest. But, as it happens, the two interests happened to coincide. Russians wanted a buffer, Crimeans wanted to get back into Russian homeland. So it was win/win for both.

And as far as a buffer between Russia and NATO, it is justifiable, if you keep in mind that express purpose of NATO is to oppose Russia in the cold war. So how would Americans feel if there was an international organization whose sole existence was for one single goal: to oppose America? And what if an American neighboring country -- Canada -- were to join that organization? How would Americans feel?

Well, keep in mind that Ukrainians and Russians used to be one single ethnic group back at the Czars time. It was only at the communist revolution that they became two separate "republics" of Soviet Union. So, given that Ukrainians ethnically tied together with Russians, and now all of a sudden they want to join an organization with an express purpose of opposing Russia, don't you think Russians can feel betrayed if that happens?

By the way, in the above paragraph I am *not* saying Russia should take over Ukraine. Yes, Russia can feel betrayed by Ukraine, but Ukraine is still a free country, if it wants to betray Russia it can. But, once again, Crimeans are not Ukrainians, Crimeans are Russians. So, as Russians, Crimeans don't like what Ukrainians are doing. So that would make them want to join Russia all the more wouldn't it? Yes its true they would want to be part of Russia regardless -- even if the two countries were friendly with each other -- since they happened to be Russian. But at least if the two countries were friendly it would "soften the blow" so to speak, so they could wait. But since the two countries are *not* friendly, well, that makes it all the more painful. So that would make them all the more want to join Russia.

Speaking of NATO, I heard that there was an agreement at the end of the Cold War that NATO won't move an inch beyond its current limits. They clearly broke that agreement -- and I am not even talking about Ukraine, I am talking about all those other countries joining NATO in the 90s. But at least those other countries aren't as close to Russia as Ukraine is. The Ukraine is the whole new level of it.

I am not saying Russia should take those countries. Clearly not. Rather I am saying they shouldn't have been joining NATO either. So since we are talking about who is the bad guy, why not point out the way Western side broke agreements.



So now you are basically saying "Russia is wrong in a particular issue because its a bad guy". Well, I don't buy that kind of argument. Nobody is "always good" or "always bad". Things should be looked upon at issue by issue basis.

And what exactly do you mean by Putin deifying himself? Perhaps you mean that Putin interferes in Ukrainian politics. But then how is United States interfering in Eastern European politics any better?



This is an *assumption* a lot of Americans make, but that assumption is completely unfounded. Perhaps Americans don't know that Crimea used to be part of Russia before Khruschev gave it to Ukraine. So if -- as Americans assume -- Crimea was always part of Ukraine, then *of course* one would say "well if Putin took one part of Ukraine, he will take other parts too". But since Crimea used to be, in fact, part of Russia, that changes things, doesn't it.



Well, lets look at bigger picture:

1) America is stronger than Russia

2) Russia is stronger than Ukraine

3) Ukraine is stronger than Crimea

4) Stronger country, Russia, is saving weaker region, Crimea, from its oppressor, Ukraine

5) Stronger country, America, is saving weaker country, Ukraine, from its oppressor, Russia

So do you see the logical parallel between 4 and 5? So why is it that when something is done by American side its okay, yet when something very similar is done by Russian side its not okay?

Also when you say "its okay to oppose Putin because he is such a bad guy", it sounds really similar to Putin saying "its okay to oppose Ukraine because it is overtaken by Nazis" (yes, this is in fact one of the things he was saying). If you say its not Putin's place to judge the level of Nazism in Ukraine, then, by the same token, its not USA place to judge the character of Putin.



Okay I don't know much about this type of stuff. But here is a question. If its not up to legislative branch, then why was Trump *able* to stop it -- right or wrong. I mean, Trump isn't *physically* taking weapons to Ukraine. So, whoever physically does it -- why can't that person simply do it because congress said so? Why is it that Trumps action stopped them from doing it? So it means that Trump *does* have some say? And, if he does, how can you say it was illegal then?

Once again I don't know much about the law about which branches have which powers. It was just the question that popped up in response to what you just said.



What do you mean he didn't give examples? When he talked about Biden, wouldn't Biden be "an example"? Now, I know you are saying that Biden wasn't guilty. But then instead of saying "he didn't give examples" you should say "the examples that he gave were the wrong ones". But then that is what investigation is for. If he asks Ukrainian president to *investigate* Biden, the outcome of *invetstigation* can be either yes or no. So why not invetstigate then?

And I can see the reasons beyond the selfish ones why he would specifically pick out a presidential candidate. A corrupt potential president is a lot worse than a corrupt random person. So that would be a good reason to pay extra attention to potential presidents -- even if Trump wasn't running for re-election.

In any case, like I said in the OP, its besides the point. The question is: why is America helping Ukraine to begin with -- regardless of Biden controversy. And if America can infringe into Russia vs Ukraine controversy, why can't either Russia or Ukraine infringe into Trump vs Biden controversy? How is one any different from the other?



That sounds like "the boy that cried wolf" story. But, unlike the common interpretation of the story, I claim that it was other people's fault that they didn't listen to the boy that one time. The lesson from that story is to listen to everyone, credible or not.

Saying "lets not listen to Trump because he is a bad guy" and saying "well Ukraine is corrupt everyone knows it" is remarkably similar. So why is one any better than the other?

I am not a geography or historical expert, I am not even American. Had to rely on a few Wikipedia articles to get an idea. Looks like the referendum was to become a republic like it used to be when the USSR controlled the region, and was disbanded after WW2 to an "Oblast" by the USSR. Something about the USSR thinking that the people were traitorous in helping the Germans invade. The 1991 referendum seemed to be specifically be about making them a republic again like they were with the USSR, but being part Ukraine now, the Ukraine did make them an autonomous republic of them. I don't know if that was against the spirit of the referendum, there is a bit about it being unclear if Ukraine had that power.

Regardless, it is still facts that Russia used force to take Crimea, and at first denied that it was their men, saying they had no idea who they were, before they took it. If we look at heritage, you can go back to the ethnic cleansing of the native Crimean Tatars in 1944 that had native right, and it was 1954 that it became a part of the Ukraine. I am not defending here that Ukraine has immediate ownership of the land, just that this idea of it being inherently Russia is also pretty shaky. A military coup by a foreign country is not something you can just excuse, not when the people of Crimea probably could have built up a political stink and done the invitation to Russia rather than mysterious group of soldiers that were at first disavowed and even ordered to hide their colours. I think that would create fear that Russia might further think they can recreate their pre fall of soviet fall empire.

Just because he was able to block it, does not mean he was supposed to be able to do it without a good reason, which he did not have, but decided to release the aid after it was found out that he was holding it up. He was not supposed to be able to do so, despite the fact he could simply physically tell people to stop, it was interference with another branch.




His only example was of corruption was saying Biden did it, not any say corruption by other people of the Ukraine. And it never should have been him running that investigation rather than the proper areas of government, not having Ruddy act as a point man. Pretty clear that Trump was trying to make an announcement of an investigation by Ukraine as a requirement for them to get the aid.

And another thing is I don't care if Biden was corrupt, it matters not in saying Trump did bad. He probably is as corrupt as the other politicians who sell themselves to donors, where you have political leaders that get given money for their election, do favours, and then get lucrative deals after they are out. The thing is that the Republicans are even worse than the Democrats in that way, why there should be a stand against the corporatists.




Then Trump should have passed it along to the right people, not go "I want you to do us a favour though" when asked where the aid was by the Ukrainian leader. Trump's conspiracy over corruption included an official being removed, when said official was actually replaced by someone who was tougher on corruption.

It isn't about anyone particular being maybe bad, it is about Trump using the power afforded to him by his office to specifically target someone he saw as a threat politically. Doing so through intimidation and interfering with the power of another branch. It is like how the courts have to throw out any evidence that was gained through illegal methods, even if some good might come out in finding a criminal, you cannot encourage the police to do something they should not, it is too easy to abuse.

The Ukrainians have been a separate ethnic group from the Russians for centuries.

The Ukrainian language emerged in the late medieval period.

There was a Ukrainian community in the Lower East Side who certainly did not consider themselves Russians.

I am not sure about this one. I heard that the word Ukraine didn't even exist, it was called "malorossia" (small Russia).

But, regardless of this, none of it changes the fact that Crimea in particular was part of Russia rather than Ukraine. Since Putin is *only* taking Crimea -- and he doesn't intend to take Ukraine (contrary to false allegations) -- his actions are justified.

The only context in which I mentioned Ukraine is that Russia feels betrayed by Ukraine when Ukraine joined NATO. And I still stand behind those words. Even if there are small differences between Russia and Ukraine, they still have cultural ties, do they not? So why would Ukraine -- that has a lot more cultural ties to Russia than to the US -- suddenly be on the US side of the cold war? Don't you think its a little bit of a shocker?

We are talking about different time periods. When I said Crimea used to be part of Russia I was referring to 1950-s when Khruschev gave it to Ukraine "as a present" so to speak. On the other hand, the context of 1991 referendum was that Crimea has already been part of Ukraine -- thanks to what happened in the 1950s -- so they were sticking with the status quo. What Putin did recently was to reverse what was done in the 1950-s since it shouldn't have been done to begin with.



I agree that the "means" by which they did it were bad. But the "end" was good. I am not saying "the means justify the end", rather I am saying "lets not throw baby with bathwater". Just because the means were bad, doesn't mean the end is bad. Regardless of whether the end can justify the means, the end is still good -- and that is what Americans don't want to acknowledge.



From what I understand, Tatars are neither Russian nor Ukrainian. So the presence of Tatars doesn't change the fact that Crimea is more Russian than Ukrainian.

I mean lets say that Canada says "Americans weren't true owners of the land because they killed Indians; so US territory can now become part of Canada". That makes no sense since Canada isn't any closer to natives than US is. So similarly saying that "Crimea will now be part of Ukraine" isn't going to "undo" the unfairness done to Tatars.

I am also not sure how many Tatars were there. I suspect Tatars were a minority, in which case the whole thing is a moot point. But I would have to look that up, I am not sure.



How would you have expect them to have done it? I mean what you are saying is theoretic, but how would this have been carried out in practice?



As I said in the previous reply I don't know much about this policy. So what does the law actually says and what would constitute "a good reason"?

The ultimate question is: why would he be "able" to block something he isn't "supposed" to? I mean he didn't do it through his physical strength -- so clearly the law somehow enabled him to do it. Yet you are saying its against the law. So thats why it sounds like a contradiction.



First of all, the fact that Ukraine as a country is corrupt is a fact -- just like it is a fact that Russia is corrupt. Now, if I say "Russia is corrupt" most Americans would agree with me. If I say "Ukraine is corrupt", then Americans are suddenly skeptical. But in actuality they are both corrupt in very similar ways since -- as I was saying in other parts of this post -- they have the same ethnic origins and the same history, which results in the same thinking and the same ways of doing things. So the fact that Americans acknowledge Russian corruption yet deny Ukrainian corruption shows a bias in their thinking. Here is the corruption map that confirms my point: https://www.transparency.org/cpi2019

But in any case, this should be irrelevant since you don't go to court and say "this person is corrupt lets sue this person". Rather, you bring an evidence of what they "did". So the fact that "Trumps only evidence is Biden" makes perfect sense: thats what you do when you investigate -- you bring up single issue and investigate that issue -- next time you bring a different issue and investigate a different issue, and so forth.

What makes Biden investigation more urgent than other investigations is that if Biden becomes US president -- and he happens to be corrupt -- that would be much greater threat to the US than some other corrupt person. So that would be a reason why Trump would investigate presidential candidates that is *not* about his personal interests. Well, yes, he has personal interests too, and yes I could guess that his personal interests are at the forefront of his thinking. But just because I can guess this doesn't mean I can state it as facts: I can't read other peoples minds and, as they say, "innocent till proven guilty".



Once again I don't know much about those laws. I guess several questions come to mind though:

1. Can the law really forbid Trump from "saying" something to Zelensky? That looks like an infringement on freedom of speech

2. The law that forbids "conditional help", how can it legally be formulated? I mean, how can anybody -- other than Trump -- really prove that their help doesn't have any motives? I mean you can't read people's minds. So it seems like the only "fair" solution is either to allow all help (conditional or not) or forbid all help (conditional or not) and leave it at that

3. If it is up to Congress where to send aid, then why can't the people that deliver aid go ahead and deliver it because the congress said so? How did Trump physically stop them?

4. Could it be that part of the reason Trump didn't go through the proper channels is that he learned the hard way that everyone always blocks everything he does, as illustrated by

a) Forcing him to strengthen the sanctions against Russia when his intention was to lift them
b) Forcing him to lift the ban against immigrants from terrorist countries
c) Stopping him from building the border wall with Mexico

Now I realize that just because people make it hard for him it doesn't justify bypassing those channels. But I am just trying to say that his motive might not necesserely be what you think. Maybe his motive was not "hmmm I am trying to do something illegal, lets do it quietly" but instead "everyone always try to stop me, what can I do to be able to do something this time". Once again, he is still in the wrong for doing it, but just the fact that he is wrong doesn't mean he is automatically guilty of everything attributed to him.



What I said in the OP is that -- even if its true -- I don't see anything wrong with it. Since US doesn't "owe" the Ukraine any aid to begin with, what is wrong with making aid conditional? As far as I am concerned, US could have stopped the aid "just because" -- without Ukraine violating any conditions -- simply because Russian aggression is not the fact. So since US is doing Ukraine a favor -- something it didn't have to do to begin with -- why not make the favor conditional? How is conditional favor any worse than unconditional one? To me, either one of these looks like a biased politics, just in a different way.



I thought part of accusation against Trump is that Trump made "unfounded" allegation against Biden. Well, if Biden is corrupt then its not unfounded any more.



Other politicians aren't trying to become US presidents, Biden does. So in this way Biden can do more harm to the US than those other, equally corrupt, politicians.

Most people think of it as "Biden threatens Trump personally by running for re-election". But what about the part that "Biden threatens US as a whole by becoming corrupt president". Can you really "prove" that Trump is motivated by former rather than the latter? Perhaps its a bit of both? And, if so, where do you draw the line in terms of which percentage ratio is acceptable and which isn't -- and then measure the percentage ratio in Trumps brain?



Well, when you investigate, you investigate individual, not the party. So both individual Republicans and individual democrats should be investigated. So the real issue is not "why did Trump want to investigate Biden" but rather "why didn't he try to investigate anyone else". But then the way to fix it is just suggest the other people to investigate (with specific names) as opposed to stop Biden investigation.



Whom are you referring to?



Well, if Biden was bad, then how can you "prove" that Trumps motive was Biden being his political competitor as opposed to Biden being a threat to the country by becoming a corrupt President?



How is it intimidation? Trump didn't threaten to do anything "bad" to Ukraine. He only considering "removing the good". But if he doesn't do either good or bad to Ukraine, what is wrong with it on the first place? Thats why I was asking in the OP why is it taken for granted that US "should" help Ukraine if that internal eastern Eurolean conflict shouldn't involve the US to begin with?

You are setting up some weird standards. Do you remember when Trump made accusations that Obama had bugged Trump and targeted him with illegal investigations? The sort of thing Trump never gave any evidence of? When you are in government you cannot use the power you are given to act in the best interests of its people, to focus on your own personal interests, this is called conflict of interest, a reason why you gain such power your investments are meant to be transferred to things you are not aware of. Something Donald Trump has not done by being well aware of his businesses and in contact with his sons that are running them. In the memo that Trump keeps calling a transcript, the Ukrainian president even mention staying in Trump Tower to carry favour, pretty much a bribe.

It does not matter if Trump was stonewalled in regards to his pointless wall or illegal bans to Muslim countries that excluded the one where the 9/11 terrorists come from because they give money. There was no good reason that Trump should have directly mentioned something for his own political benefit when he was meant to be acting on the country's interest. He had no business setting what any requirements for aid should have been. And he blocked the aid by sending memos that told the specific parts not to do so, while denying that he did and trying to keep those memos secret. The Whitehouse blocked people from testifying in Congress that could have revealed they were given these illegal orders by saying it was too early to do so, and are then blocking them in the Senate by saying it is too late to bring in new evidence.

It is a huge double standard where the Republicans even made up accusations that the Democrats while in power were throwing their executive power to investigate people like Trump, which they did not. And now are acting like these investigations are normal, that there is nothing wrong with the party in power to use its power to target its opposition. Do the Biden investigation at the right time through the proper channels, but none of that should actually be a defense or excuse what has already been done, not when Trump has done everything in his power to replace anyone who might act as a check to his power, with someone who will act only as someone loyal to him.