I've decided on a new post format which reflects my Franco-American heritage; I love a good argument. Now to a certain extent you could argue I've been opinionated from the get-go. This post format will be more direct, specific and nuanced/detailed.
I'm going to start with the GML guys, Nate Thurston and Chuck Thompson. If the names sound familiar, it may because I've written a half dozen or so posts differing with them on the Trump impeachments, Justin Amash (who I defended), and other things.
The contest for this post is episode 387. (Spoiler alert: the next AC post will debunk Nate's tiresome repeated defense of Trump's "very fine people on both sides" Charlottesville comments. He simply doesn't do due diligence of the facts, like I'll show below. It's like he makes 1 or 2 okay points and then he jumps the shark. It's difficult to explain; my latest journal post article addressed ivermectin. Nate pays lip service to research issues and then blasts the FDA for not pushing relevant research. OK, Nate, you don't quite understand how the FDA works; and why exactly are you pushing ivermectin: did it cure your horse from its COVID infection? People are overdosing on this drug in the real world. Does the FDA have to respond to every crackpot snake oil cure claim on the Internet that gullible desperate people latch onto?
This episode deals with Trumpkin newbie Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's immediate attempt to counter-impeach Biden on Ukraine. Expect Nate or Chuck to point out the obvious, that Biden could only be impeached over his acts as POTUS and he had just barely been inaugurated? Of course not. Never mind the fact that the House is controlled by Dems and the Senate would require a large percentage of Dems to flip on Biden? Even Greene isn't stupid enough to believe her attention-seeking gimmick would work. And Nate tongue-in-cheek remarked he wasn't in favor of anything resulting in a President Harris.
What is the crackpot story behind the Trump allegations against Biden? The basic gist is that Biden was using American aid as leverage to get Ukraine Prosecutor Shokin fired, who was investigating Ukraine oligarch Zlochevskiy, who owns Burisma; the idea is that Joe Biden was profiting through son Hunter's lucrative board appointment to Burisma, in effect a corrupt bribe to stave off local prosecution.
It's hard to know whether Nate Thurston is trying (and failing) to be funny or if he's ludicrously just abysmally ignorant of the facts and saying what rubbish comes to mind. I think he's serious because I've heard him attack the first Trump impeachment on multiple occasions. But he says something to the effect that Greene's case is more compelling than the impeachment over Trump's phone call to Ukraine President Zelensky.
There are so many things objectively wrong with Thurston's nonsense here. The facts are well-documented and I summarize the general timeline here. I've already written multiple posts on the first impeachment. But let me point out some salient points here:
First, I disagree with the fact that Biden allowed his son to sit on the board; I've on occasion had to provide exhaustive lists of any employer affiliate accounting firm client assets owned by myself or relatives and dispose of any immediately, even though I had no contacts to auditors and/or related interim findings. The fact that the Executive Branch has foreign policy responsibilities and that Zlochevskiy was being investigated by Europeans and the US for money laundering (in fact, Britain had frozen over $20M in Zlochevski's account the month Biden started for Burisma) clearly made for bad optics. You don't want the appearance of a possible conflict of interest. Now Trumpkins are obsessed with Biden's compensation and lack of relevant experience; I'm not impressed because Hunter's stipend was competitive and a number of board members lack industry experience.
Second, there is no evidence that Joe Biden ever pressured Ukraine officials to ease off prosecution of Zlochevskiy or Burisma. Multiple Ukraine officials, including one who had overseen the Burisma investigation have denied it. Recall that Shokin had been Prosecutor General by Feb. 2015; Shokin's office not only refused to send documentation required to keep the money laundering charge in play in Britain (resulting in unfreezing the assets by a British court), but it actually sent Zlochevskiy a letter exonerating him.
Third, the pressure from Biden to fire Shokin was not to protect Burisma but the lack of progress to root out corruption, including any relevant Burisma charges; it was not personal but administration policy, and the IMF and EU also targeted it to resume any loan or aid in question, and verification was tied to future US aid that Trump signed into law. If anything, Joe Biden's moves put Hunter's position at risk And the Ukraine parliament removed Shokin.
Now let's talk about Trump's infamous quid pro quo call with Zelensky. I don't know if Nate Thurston has a reading comprehension problem, but it's obvious to any intelligent person that Trump is setting Zelensky up. He notes that Ukraine doesn't have any dependable European allies, the US has given Ukraine a hell of a lot of aid without getting much of anything in return. Trump wants a favor and specifically identifies Biden, a political rival, and/or his son for investigation and regrets the sacking of that "very fine man" Shokin.
Never mind Trump specifically froze military aid to Ukraine without justification (note that his own DoD had certified corruption contingencies had been met), and only backed off under Senate pressure. What Trump had done in freezing the aid was illegal and unconstitutional, and using foreign aid to extort a foreign government is manifestly an abuse of Presidential power for his own, not national purpose.
Now I don't like having to repeat myself on Trump's misconduct. It's easy for Nate and Chuck to dismiss Amash or me for "irrational Trump hatred". For me, it's more of Trump's objectively corrupt, illegal pattern of behavior like transferring DoD funds for his Southern border fence, in explicit contradiction of Congress, which holds the power of the pursue. Maybe other Presidents also acted corruptly and didn't get caught. But I am not aware of anyone acting like this.
It's easy for Nate and Chuck to spout out inflammatory judgmental rubbish than to refute it, hut it does undermine their credibility.
