https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/617936-amp.html
As long as we’re chasing minutiae, this item may be of interest. As one wag put it: “That so-called ‘impeachment’ drive by Democrats is increasingly looking like a well-laid trap for them.”
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Smacks of fake news. I have yet to see any credible reporting on this subject. If you find some, let us know.
However, if it is true and Biden broke any laws – such as failing to register as a foreign lobbyist or hiding the money from the IRS – he should end his campaign (Yes!) and face prosecution.
As for the “impeachment trap” it actually does not matter that there IS dirt (assuming there is) on Joe Biden to be had, extorting Ukraine to dig it up is still a major crime and an impeachable offense.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “extorting Ukraine to dig it up is still a major crime and an impeachable offense.”
You seem to think so. Personally, I don’t see much to sustain the illusion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An illusion?
Then law is clear. It is a crime to solicit anything of value from a foreign person or entity. Dirt on a political rival is something of value. Giuliani was not representing the DOJ in his activities. He was the “political representative” – to use Tabor’s term – of Donald Trump.
Of course, far more important than criminal behavior vis a vis campaign finance law – where Trump is already and un-indicted co-conspirator – is the High Crime and Misdemeanor of his overriding congressional appropriations as means to coerce the foreign entity to comply with his requests for favors.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Murphy
“Dirt on a political rival is something of value”
Too true; what rational person could argue with that??
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not as defined by the underlying law.
Truth is supposed to be free. The law refers to things of material value.
The knowledge that Hillary Clinton is corrupt is not a material thing. If you prepared a political ad ready to run stating that truth, that ad would be a material thing you could not solicit from a foreign source, but the underlying knowledge is not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“defined by the underlying law”
I’d agree “value” is subjective, which is why I said “rational person”…
LikeLiked by 2 people
If dirt on a rival is of value, we should be able to quantify it, no?
LikeLike
“Quantify it”
Yes, and it has been. Market research quantifies the “value” of information both positive and negative to a very high degree.
In fact, ROI is done to access whether it is information worth obtaining based on its value.
In this case the cost (footed by the American public) was loss of trust and abuse of power and the value was potential re-election (which CAN be quantified).
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Dirt on a political rival is something of value.”
That may be your opinion. It is not DOJ’s, according the memo it wrote when the transcript of the phone call with Ukraine was released.
LikeLike
In looking at this I would surmise that the value of the political dirt requested is in the range of $450 million, the value of the Congressionally approved military assistance to Ukraine.
And the former REPUBLICAN chairman of the FEC said the dirt requested does have value. Just sayin’.
LikeLike
And you mean the Bill Barr-led DOJ? He has become a shill for Trump. Period. He has done nothing a true Attorney General should do. Why would the AG meet with the CEO of a media group and not disclose the reason for the meeting?
LikeLike
Well, let me clarify since you choose to quibble about established law and my choice of wording. Let’s say that it is the FREE opposition research that is the thing of value – not the results of that FREE opposition research. Trump was not asking questions, seeking answers. He was demanding an investigation be opened. Investigations cost money. If a campaign wants an investigation done, the law requires it to pay for that investigation itself with legally acquired funds.
BTW, DOJ opinions with Barr as AG are worthless. On ANYTHING.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…”I don’t see much”…
And that, Mr. Roberts, is the problem. You DON’T see.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When did the $900,000 payment take place? I could not find a date in the article.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “I could not find a date in the article.”
I couldn’t, either.
LikeLike
If it occurred any day AFTER Jan 20, 2017, as The Rock would say, “It doesn’t matter when you got paid.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the commitment to make the payment was made before Jan 20, 2017, it doesn’t matter either.
LikeLike