Author Topic: Ukraine  (Read 62868 times)

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #50 on: September 25, 2019, 02:38:42 PM »
That's an interesting way to interpret the Javelin line Grant.  Most people would see that as a big offer by Ukraine to send a lot of money to the US, not a begging to be allowed to purchase them idea.  In fact, the way I read that (and a couple other places in the convo) is that Trump was probably going down a list of topics and checking them off as he covered each.  That literally looked like the end of that point and the start of new.  I don't see anything that would even remotely imply that Trump was turning down a lucrative arms deal "unless" the Ukraine did a second favor, is that what you think you see?

I'll repeat that I don't see anything definitive that I would call evidence.  What I do see is ample reasons why people could call it all into question. 

The key here is the timeline.  The US had earmarked $250 million dollars in military aid to Ukraine.  It's not exactly giving them money, but we were giving them stuff and our people were there to train.  It was cut off.  Or if not specifically cut off, it was put on pause. 

But the timeline is tricky, since the cutoff of the $250 million was not reported until August 28th, and the phone call was on July the 25th, a month before the money was cut off.  This was news to me. 

Here is what happened.  The Z made an offer to buy Javelin missiles.  That is what it is on the face.  But in reality, it's also a request.  Because the United States doesn't NEED to sell missiles to Ukraine.  There is a whole lot of problems that go with selling missiles to anybody.  Look at Muja Stingers.  And there are all kinds of problems with Russia.  You'd probably have a hard time convincing me that Trump has any altruistic feelings towards Ukraine and sovereignty.  Lots of you don't either.  So to me, Z asking "we'd like to buy some Javelins" translates to "please sell us some Javelins".  It's much less of a business offer than it is asking a girl out on a date. "I'd like to take you to dinner" isn't an offer as much as a request.  It's just the wording.  Particularly since, yes, Ukraine is desperate for those missiles. 

But on the other hand, Trump had not cut off the money yet.  On the other hand, it's a possibility that Ukraine probably had foremost in their minds.

But if this was just a business deal, why the change of subject?  As soon as Z brings up buying more missiles, Trump changes the subject.  He doesn't even address the purchase of the missiles.  No feedback at all.  The subject is immediately changed to "can you do us a favor"?  In a normal business deal, I go up to the counter and offer to buy a pack of smokes for $7.  The guy behind the counter might try to counter-offer, but rarely does the discussion stray between the transfer of goods, services, and currency.  The clerk rarely responds to my offer with "hey, do me a favor". 

So yeah, I know I'm reading between the lines here, but I think that is what the situation calls for.  So either you're saying that most people can't read between the lines, or they read something else between the lines.     

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #51 on: September 25, 2019, 02:43:46 PM »
In any event I can't see anything wrong in asking for the actual evidence that "people say" Ukraine has, including apparent the "server" (is that Hillary's server?)

I think he was referring to Crowdstryke, and the data used to come to their conclusion about the origin of a missile attack a few years ago. My memory is foggy on the details but the thread derails in that direction I'll look it up again. I don't think it had to do with Hillary.

Not Hillary in particular the DNC server hack (I had to google how crowdstrike was involved as well).

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #52 on: September 25, 2019, 02:50:45 PM »
But if this was just a business deal, why the change of subject?  As soon as Z brings up buying more missiles, Trump changes the subject.  He doesn't even address the purchase of the missiles.  No feedback at all.  The subject is immediately changed to "can you do us a favor"?  In a normal business deal, I go up to the counter and offer to buy a pack of smokes for $7.  The guy behind the counter might try to counter-offer, but rarely does the discussion stray between the transfer of goods, services, and currency.  The clerk rarely responds to my offer with "hey, do me a favor".   

You've sort of answered your own question. It's because the call wasn't about making a business deal. The U.S.'s desire for Western weapons in Ukraine is old news and all Zelenskyy was doing was announcing a general increase in partnership with the U.S., of which Javelin missiles is one part. They didn't need to discuss that because (a) they both already knew the general foreign policy aims of the U.S., and (b) Zelenskyy agreeing to cooperate with Trump is general, on various fronts, seems to have been the point of his statements. It was a "we'll be buddies" call, not a "what deal can we make" call. It's talk, anyhow; the actions down the line are what count. I'm sure, historically, many calls like this are made that are total posturing on both sides. They are not deal-making, but rather establishing the tone of relations.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #53 on: September 25, 2019, 03:16:51 PM »
Not Hillary in particular the DNC server hack (I had to google how crowdstrike was involved as well).

I looked it up again for reference, and it appears he's referring to the allegation that Russia hacked some Ukrainian app to destabilize their artillary capabilities, when in fact the creator of the app called their report "delusional". He said there was no hack reported by any users of the app or using the artillery. The international claim that Russia was hacking Ukraine's infrastructure was based *solely* on Crowdstrike's report, which preceded some sanctions that were no doubt coming anyhow. But yes, it is noteworthy that this same company produced a debunked and spurious report aiding foreign policy at the time, making it two times they were prominently cited as providing evidence "proving" something anti-Russian. The facts of the Ukraine case severely undermine the other case (with the DNC), as it begins to look like Crowdstrike is just a media hit agency designed to create facts. Whether or not this is in fact the case, I think the Ukrainian connection is the artillery situation, not the DNC hack, but maybe Trump thinks they may have insight into both? From the garbled way Trump recites his case it's hard to make out exactly what point he's making.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #54 on: September 25, 2019, 03:18:48 PM »
Quote
So while my comment may have looked to you like a non sequitor, my point is that your comment was a non sequitor to Crunch's point, which in turn was an aswer to the argument that investigating Hunter was being held over Zelenskyy after he mentioned wanting to buy weapons. Not true.

I think you can rightly accuse me of taking the quote from Crunch at face value, because that is what I did.  He said Z brought up the investigations first. I in turn noted that Trump first brought up the subject.  You can say that Crunch meant something different, but there was no sign of that.  Trump did, in fact, bring up an investigation that he wanted first, before Zelenskyy.  To me, that is an incontrovertible fact.  Now, you could parse this to say that Trump was first talking about the Crowdstryke investigation rather than first talking about the Biden investigation.  OK.  But Crunch didn't specify this.  You also didn't mention this until after my response. 

As to whether the Biden investigation was being held over Zelenskyy, I don't think the transcript proves anything, positive or negative.  As I've mentioned before, the aid was not withheld until a month AFTER the phone call. 

Quote
It is not Ukraine, but NATO, who really really wants Western missiles in the Ukraine, looking over Russia.

We're going to have to disagree here.  First, I think NATO has been very shy about projecting into the former Soviet countries, because it pisses Russia off.  Secondly, I'm unsure if you know what Javelin missiles are.  You can't point Javelin missiles at Russia.  They are not ballistic missiles.  They're anti-tank missiles.  The only thing Russian that the missiles will be pointed at is Russian takes that Russia is giving to supposedly separatist forces that are highly funded and controlled by Russia and in some cases are Russian special forces or mercenaries paid by Russia in Ukrainian sovereign territory. 

Quote
Around this time there was a coup, which was either a regime change CIA operation, or else some local disturbance that went wild; we'll leave that point aside.

Sure.  We'll leave it aside.  Because you have no proof that it's a CIA operation.  But that is your main point, isn't it?  That NATO was attempting to encircle Russia by expanding NATO and to do this they needed pro-western governments and Russia was only protecting itself. 

Quote
the economic connection would help (from Russia's perspective) prevent Ukraine from being another hostile missile-laden anti-Russian site looming over Russia like other countries have been in the past

Yes.  I'm curious what missile-laden anti-Russian sites you are talking about.  Turkey?  China?  Those poor Russians.  NATO is such a bully.  The Soviets just wanted to protect themselves. 

Quote
NATO has been trying to spread its net closer and closer to Russia ever since the Berlin Wall came down, even though it had made an agreement to the contrary. A huge part of the foreign policy there has been to tighten the noose around Russia by trying to alienate every country from them (for better or worse).

I'm curious.  Who do you think is behind this?  Why is NATO doing this?  What political or financial or international interests are behind this desire to spread a net closer and closer around Russia?

Quote
I can see a potential conflict of interest here too, but is it avoidable? Suppose that a Trump opponent is actually conducting criminal activity.
 

Depends on the crime and whose jurisdiction it falls under.  If the crime is a Ukrainian crime under Ukrainian jurisdiction, it's the Ukrainians duty to pursue justice.  They shouldn't need the President of the United States telling them how to do their job.  If they don't, that's the Ukrainians who have lost out on justice.  I'd say this applies to the Obama administration as well when they demand prosecutors fired in Ukraine, though I think there is a difference in degree if there is a widespread and general sense of corruption rather than a single case of a political opponent committing a crime.  It certainly looks better.  Basically, if a Trump opponent is committing crimes in other countries, it's those countries that should be investigating it without prompting from Trump, if for NO OTHER REASON, because it looks bad and brings us to this. 

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #55 on: September 25, 2019, 04:49:55 PM »
Quote
And no Wayward, I'm not dropping discussion of the underlying crime, since you seem to be asserting that the President investigating a crime is somehow criminal just because it relates to his political opponents.

No, Seriati, don't stop talking about Biden supposed crime.  Please, keep talking about it.  Start a thread on it.  I'll start it for you, if you'd like.

Just don't talk about INSTEAD of Trump's possible crime.

Because, as is obvious to any disinterested observer, Trump did not "investigate" this supposed "crime."  Because if he wanted to investigate it, he would have called in the professional investigators.  That's what they do.  They know how to do it, not some New York real estate magnate.  They are the ones who can do the job.  Even the "Genius Trump" is smart enough to realize that.

No, he just wanted dirt.  He didn't want to prosecute Biden.  He just wanted to smear him.

So discuss Biden's possible crime, Seriati.  Just not on this thread.  Because we're talking about Trump possible crime here.  And the one has little to nothing to do with the other.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #56 on: September 25, 2019, 05:13:04 PM »
Well, Biden’s crime happened in Ukraine. I suppose that would be up to them to investigate, maybe?  I’m not sure we staff our own “professional investigators” in Ukraine or if they have any real jurisdiction there. Can you fill on those blanks?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #57 on: September 25, 2019, 05:59:44 PM »
I'll repeat that I don't see anything definitive that I would call evidence.  What I do see is ample reasons why people could call it all into question.

I would suspect that if you received a transcript of every call every President has ever had with a foreign leader, this isn't even in the top 25% of most "damning" based on what's in it and what's being demanded.  I'm willing to bet that President's of both parties have made express quid pro quo demands related to the interests of their own parties, and if you go back in time any length, I'm willing to bet they did the same for personal benefits.

So to me, the basic standard here is not "what could be called into question," it's specifically what conduct is not okay.

Asking for the evidence they have in their hands related to hacking of the DNC/Hillary and/or the predicates of the Meuller/DOJ investigations?  That's totally legit.  There's a reasonable basis to believe that crimes occurred in connection therewith and the executive branch is responsible for investigating them.  It's pretty clear Trump wasn't asking for falsification, as the President responded about getting to the truth and handling investigations properly, and Trump seemed happy with that.

Asking for evidence about Hunter Biden is similarly legit.  There's an open question about whether his circumstances were legit (they clearly weren't, though I doubt there's any direct evidence of Joe Biden actually trying to cause that result - and I doubt he did - it just seems to have been routine and barely examined that Hunter was receiving what amounts to bribes to stay favorably on his radar), and about whether there was a proper investigation of the pressure applied, which there may or may not have been.  Again though, no ask for an improper investigation, it's not even implied. 

I'll ask, if the Ukraine has a video of Biden threatening the Ukraine President at the time with withholding the aid unless he quits coming after his son, it'd be pretty clear that's worse than anything that's being alleged here, but would you think Trump asking for that video is improper in some way?  If so what way?

If it wouldn't be improper to ask for that video, why would it be improper to ask for unknown evidence where the circumstances generate a reasonable suspicion?  I note there isn't probable cause here - which is a failing the Dems routinely ignored in their compulsory demands for evidence - but the government is entitled to investigate when there is reasonable suspicion and that's clearly present. 

Quote
The key here is the timeline.  The US had earmarked $250 million dollars in military aid to Ukraine.  It's not exactly giving them money, but we were giving them stuff and our people were there to train.  It was cut off.  Or if not specifically cut off, it was put on pause. 

But the timeline is tricky, since the cutoff of the $250 million was not reported until August 28th, and the phone call was on July the 25th, a month before the money was cut off.  This was news to me.
 

As I understand it the pause was prior to the phone call, which is way worse for Trump if you're inclined to believe the conspiracy.  If you look at Vox, for example, who are eating the conspiracy up, the aid had been delayed from February until September, and questions to Congress were repeatedly misdirected.  There was a refresh of Trump's instruction to delay the aid about a week before the call.

However, in another way that looks better for Trump.  Whatever Trump's actual issue was and he named two (concerns over corruption misapplying the aid, anger at the EU not contributing their fair share - which is enough of a theme with Trump it's almost impossible not to have been part of the reason), the idea that the aid was delayed from February and he didn't have his call about the "quid pro quo" until late July makes it seem like the laziest effort to cut a deal ever.

Quote
Here is what happened.  The Z made an offer to buy Javelin missiles.  That is what it is on the face.  But in reality, it's also a request.  Because the United States doesn't NEED to sell missiles to Ukraine.

I'm just going to have to say I think you misunderstand this, you have the direction backwards.  And as I think that seems to be a major reason of why you think there's a quid pro quo I'm not going to get there with you on that reasoning.

Quote
But if this was just a business deal, why the change of subject?

What makes you think this was a business deal?  This was a congratulatory call where Trump had a number of points he wanted to move forward.  Again, it doesn't appear to me that the Javelin line was anything other than the end of the prior topic discussion.

Quote
As soon as Z brings up buying more missiles, Trump changes the subject.  He doesn't even address the purchase of the missiles.  No feedback at all.

Why would there be "feedback"?  Again you seem to be reading alot into the conversation and finding fault that things you seem to think should be there are not.  I agree he changed the subject, he had a response on the prior point and moved on to his next topic.

Quote
In a normal business deal, I go up to the counter and offer to buy a pack of smokes for $7.  The guy behind the counter might try to counter-offer, but rarely does the discussion stray between the transfer of goods, services, and currency.  The clerk rarely responds to my offer with "hey, do me a favor".

Oddly enough, after I buy a product at the store, I very often "immediately change the subject" and make a comment to the clerk.  Sometimes it's have a nice day, sometimes its I love that shirt where did you get it.  Sometimes when I'm on a business call and I get an answer to a question rather than follow up on it unnecessarily I cross it off my list and move to the next item on list.  Oddly. 

Quote
So yeah, I know I'm reading between the lines here, but I think that is what the situation calls for.

You're not "reading between the lines" you're watching the made for tv movie loosely based on real events (note, the producers disclaim any inference that any of these events actually happened).  The situation calls for reading the lines.

If you really want to "read between the lines" what's inbetween the lines of an anti-Trumper, that's purported to be a whistle blower about a call they weren't on, that they leaked to to prominent anti-Trump media, retained Democrat aligned counsel, and the leaks that the IG said it was urgent (hence required to be disclosed to Congress - and he told Congress that), but the GC said was not urgent and not about a member of the Intelligence community (which by the way is absolutely true, which may be a failing in the law, but is actually another violation of law that's being ignored).  What's in between the lines of this leak rapidly being coordinated by the media and the Democrats to up their game on the fake impeachment investigation?

I mean still no House vote, which means still no fair process, but I bet you it shows up in amended filings in their subpeona case.

Quote
So either you're saying that most people can't read between the lines, or they read something else between the lines.

I'm saying that most people are not reading between the lines, they're being told things that are not true so that when they get the lines they just see the "confirmations" of the narratives they already believe.

It's hard to argue against that when opinions had completely hardened and Pelosi had announced a "formal" impeachment because of Trump's 'crimes,' 'betrayal of his oath of office' and 'violation of the Constitution' without having even seen the transcript.  I guess they have to investigate it to know what they are investigating.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #58 on: September 25, 2019, 06:00:07 PM »
Well, Biden’s crime happened in Ukraine. I suppose that would be up to them to investigate, maybe?  I’m not sure we staff our own “professional investigators” in Ukraine or if they have any real jurisdiction there. Can you fill on those blanks?

Meh.  If Biden put pressure on Ukraine in order to facilitate the financial gain of a family member, what he did sounds like a violation of 5 CFR § 2635.702.   Use of public office for private gain.  Of course, the problem is that the regulations only apply to executive branch employees.  Biden, as Vice-President, is the ONLY member of the executive branch not considered an employee of the executive branch since he is a constitutionally appointed officer.  He is appointed by the electoral college, not the POTUS and confirmed by the Senate.  If he were not, you could open an investigation.  Then you can ask for foreign cooperation on the investigation.  You can even apply political pressure.  The problem arises when you're doing all this without an actual formally opened investigation.  When an investigation is officially opened, then it is the United States that wants the investigation done.  Even if there is no formal investigation, it certainly looks better if you're not asking for a foreign investigation on your political opponent. 

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #59 on: September 25, 2019, 06:02:56 PM »
Well, Biden’s crime happened in Ukraine. I suppose that would be up to them to investigate, maybe?  I’m not sure we staff our own “professional investigators” in Ukraine or if they have any real jurisdiction there. Can you fill on those blanks?

As Grant suggested, it would be better for the professional investigators to coordinate with the Ukrainians for an investigation, rather than having a President pressuring the Ukrainians to come up with something.

Redskullvw

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #60 on: September 25, 2019, 06:04:49 PM »
Wayward

Do you understand why Trump wanted to know wtf happened? The Steele Dossier had a large part of its origins in assumptions and outright falsehoods that were ironically brought to falsehood during Manafort"s trial. And the fact of the matter is that the DNC was looking in Ukraine especially for the DNC server info. The strangeness is that the origins of the Steele Dossier ultimately seems to be in the Ukraine.

After 2 and a half years of the Russia bull*censored*- where yes Trump was vindicated, he promised he wanted to know how this started and where its origins are. Most people paying attention know its the DNC, and Ukraine.

If the server gets released- Obama has some serious explainign to do.

we have literally gone through an attempted coup.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #61 on: September 25, 2019, 06:06:24 PM »
BTW, it is better to wait for the entire complaint to be released before jumping to conclusions, since this AP article from September 20 suggests that the complaint is “based on a series of events.”

If true, that means that one lousy transcript means nothing.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #62 on: September 25, 2019, 06:10:43 PM »
Wayward

Do you understand why Trump wanted to know wtf happened? The Steele Dossier had a large part of its origins in assumptions and outright falsehoods that were ironically brought to falsehood during Manafort"s trial. And the fact of the matter is that the DNC was looking in Ukraine especially for the DNC server info. The strangeness is that the origins of the Steele Dossier ultimately seems to be in the Ukraine.

After 2 and a half years of the Russia bull*censored*- where yes Trump was vindicated, he promised he wanted to know how this started and where its origins are. Most people paying attention know its the DNC, and Ukraine.

If the server gets released- Obama has some serious explaining to do.

We have literally gone through an attempted coup.

Except he never really believed that.  He just wanted dirt that he could use for his campaign.

Because he never opened a formal investigation.  He never got the experts involved.  He never got our professionals involved, the ones he's in charge of, the ones who could have done a better job than he could.

Show me that the Justice Department was investigating Biden and had asked for his help.  Otherwise, you're just fantasizing.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #63 on: September 25, 2019, 06:11:02 PM »
No, Seriati, don't stop talking about Biden supposed crime.  Please, keep talking about it.  Start a thread on it.  I'll start it for you, if you'd like.

I just find it funny how much Democratic crime is ignored so that we can focus on the important crimes of Trump, like say publically defending himself against a fake investigation (or as the Democrats call it, obstruction of justice), or like asking for evidence on crimes of a political opponent (which the Democrats literally did with the same country, but when it's Trump apparently they think it's treason).

Quote
Just don't talk about INSTEAD of Trump's possible crime.

Well lay it out, what statute did Trump violate and how.

Quote
Because, as is obvious to any disinterested observer, Trump did not "investigate" this supposed "crime."  Because if he wanted to investigate it, he would have called in the professional investigators.

I get he didn't call in Bob Barr, though he mentioned him like what 5 times?  I mean Nadler is so convinced that the "professional investigators" "were not called in" that he's demanding that Barr recuse himself, wait.. what...?

If he had called in the professionals, you'd be on here saying he should be impeached for politicizing the FBI and DOJ.  Lol.

Quote
That's what they do.  They know how to do it, not some New York real estate magnate.  They are the ones who can do the job.  Even the "Genius Trump" is smart enough to realize that.

Now if only they did it fairly and applied the law to both sides.

Quote
No, he just wanted dirt.  He didn't want to prosecute Biden.  He just wanted to smear him.

Not sure why he'd mention Barr if that's the case.  I would love to understand the mental process that leads you to believe he didn't want to prosecute Biden if he was guilty.

Quote
So discuss Biden's possible crime, Seriati.  Just not on this thread.  Because we're talking about Trump possible crime here.  And the one has little to nothing to do with the other.

Well I agree with that, Trump's is a made up crime related -potentially- to actually doing his job to investigate what appears could have been an actual crime, so they do have little in common.

However, I feel no inclination to let you set fake narratives free from pointing out the blatant hypocrisy.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #64 on: September 25, 2019, 06:12:26 PM »
Well, Biden’s crime happened in Ukraine. I suppose that would be up to them to investigate, maybe?  I’m not sure we staff our own “professional investigators” in Ukraine or if they have any real jurisdiction there. Can you fill on those blanks?

As Grant suggested, it would be better for the professional investigators to coordinate with the Ukrainians for an investigation, rather than having a President pressuring the Ukrainians to come up with something.

I’m pretty sure Ukraine has investigators capable of conducting an investigation. Certainly good enough that Biden needed to get one fired before he nailed his son.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #65 on: September 25, 2019, 06:15:34 PM »
Wayward

Do you understand why Trump wanted to know wtf happened? The Steele Dossier had a large part of its origins in assumptions and outright falsehoods that were ironically brought to falsehood during Manafort"s trial. And the fact of the matter is that the DNC was looking in Ukraine especially for the DNC server info. The strangeness is that the origins of the Steele Dossier ultimately seems to be in the Ukraine.

After 2 and a half years of the Russia bull*censored*- where yes Trump was vindicated, he promised he wanted to know how this started and where its origins are. Most people paying attention know its the DNC, and Ukraine.

If the server gets released- Obama has some serious explaining to do.

We have literally gone through an attempted coup.

Except he never really believed that.  He just wanted dirt that he could use for his campaign.

Because he never opened a formal investigation.  He never got the experts involved.  He never got our professionals involved, the ones he's in charge of, the ones who could have done a better job than he could.

Show me that the Justice Department was investigating Biden and had asked for his help.  Otherwise, you're just fantasizing.

Read your post, that’s where the fantasies are. You know what he believed, crest this concept of a formal investigation that is pretty irrelevant. That’s all pretty much fantasy.

The reality is, the call transcript completely exonerated Trump. At some point, you guys are really gonna have to realize that Trump won the election and that winning an election is not an impeachable offense.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #66 on: September 25, 2019, 06:16:36 PM »
Wayward

Do you understand why Trump wanted to know wtf happened? The Steele Dossier had a large part of its origins in assumptions and outright falsehoods that were ironically brought to falsehood during Manafort"s trial. And the fact of the matter is that the DNC was looking in Ukraine especially for the DNC server info. The strangeness is that the origins of the Steele Dossier ultimately seems to be in the Ukraine.

After 2 and a half years of the Russia bull*censored*- where yes Trump was vindicated, he promised he wanted to know how this started and where its origins are. Most people paying attention know its the DNC, and Ukraine.

If the server gets released- Obama has some serious explainign to do.

we have literally gone through an attempted coup.

We still are.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #67 on: September 25, 2019, 06:31:32 PM »
Because he never opened a formal investigation.  He never got the experts involved.  He never got our professionals involved, the ones he's in charge of, the ones who could have done a better job than he could.

Lol, this in a thread about the House "opening" a formal impeachment investigation to be heading by people like Shiff and Nadler.  We're not talking seriously about professional investigations.

In any event, Trump referenced Barr multiple times, certainly enough that the Ukrainian President would know he could send him materials or reach out with findings.  Even if Trump didn't follow up with calling Barr.

In any event, that's a completely bizarre tack for you to take given your neverending support for the Mueller investigation for which the predicate is far less.  Somehow you seem to believe that the President is required to ignore what appears, on the surface to be a Politician's son getting a job based on graft or improper connections, where the Politcian's father expressly conditioned US benefits on firing the prosecutor that was investigating the same company. 

What part of the Constitution do you believe supports your belief that the President is required to ignore what on the surface looks to be a blatant violation of law and abuse of power?

One of the most interesting theories I've seen out there is that the real reason Pelosi jumped on this, and specifically didn't wait for the transcript because the party saw it as a chance at a twofer.  They've decided they need Biden out, can't make him go, and know by making this part of the focus of the impeachment hearing that either he or Trump gets damaged and possibly both. 

Does it change your view of the propriety of this action if there were express discussions of acting now specifically to harm Biden?  Or would you ignore that too?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #68 on: September 25, 2019, 06:34:34 PM »
It’s incredibly ironic to see Biden calling for Trump’s impeachment for the very thing Biden bragged about doing as VP. All against the backdrop of a third hand rumor where the actual call transcript exonerates Trump. Add in the wrinkle that several democrats did exactly what they’re accusing Trump of doing - and that’s perfectly acceptable to democrats.

Just incredible.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #69 on: September 25, 2019, 06:34:53 PM »
Quote
Well lay it out, what statute did Trump violate and how.

That will be interesting to see what Trump violated.

Just remember, it doesn't have to be a statute.  As Wikipedia explains to us laymen:

Quote
The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as dishonesty, negligence, perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of public funds or assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, including such offenses as tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. The word "High" refers to the office and not the offense. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute.See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for “intentional, evil deeds” that “drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency” — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws."

Abuse of authority (using the office of the Presidency and withholding funds allocated by Congress) might fit nicely. :)

Quote
I would love to understand the mental process that leads you to believe he didn't want to prosecute Biden if he was guilty.

I'm sure he'd love to prosecute Biden if he was guilty.  But his advisers may have told him there wasn't enough evidence.

Fortunately, for a smear campaign, you don't need that much evidence. ;)

Quote
Well I agree with that, Trump's is a made up crime related -potentially- to actually doing his job to investigate what appears could have been an actual crime, so they do have little in common.

However, I feel no inclination to let you set fake narratives free from pointing out the blatant hypocrisy.

Well, that's what an investigation determines, isn't it?  If there was a crime committed or not.  And we won't know until all the evidence is seen.

And while you may see "blatant hypocrisy," and while there may even be such, there is still the matter of the crimes themselves.  It still doesn't matter if Biden is guilty of a crime or not in regards to whether Trump committed a crime or not.  Unless you're one of those who would be standing in the aforementioned puddle of blood... ;)

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #70 on: September 25, 2019, 06:35:17 PM »
Quote
I would suspect that if you received a transcript of every call every President has ever had with a foreign leader, this isn't even in the top 25% of most "damning" based on what's in it and what's being demanded.  I'm willing to bet that President's of both parties have made express quid pro quo demands related to the interests of their own parties, and if you go back in time any length, I'm willing to bet they did the same for personal benefits.

Look, Serati, I don't know where you're getting this from.  I know you havn't read the transcripts for every call every President has ever had with a foreign leader.  So you're making it up.  You "suspect" something.  Fine.  What are you basing this suspicion on? 

Secondly, regardless of how bad all the other Presidents on telephones were, it doesn't negate that this particular phone call can cause motives to be questioned.  It doesn't matter.  It's a red herring. 

Focusing on actual conduct rather than suspicious motives is fair.  I've already stated twice that there is no smoking gun.  There is no clear evidence of quid pro quo.  Only nuance and doubt. 

Quote
Asking for evidence about Hunter Biden is similarly legit.  There's an open question about whether his circumstances were legit (they clearly weren't, though I doubt there's any direct evidence of Joe Biden actually trying to cause that result - and I doubt he did - it just seems to have been routine and barely examined that Hunter was receiving what amounts to bribes to stay favorably on his radar), and about whether there was a proper investigation of the pressure applied, which there may or may not have been.  Again though, no ask for an improper investigation, it's not even implied. 

The whole point is that there is NO INVESTIGATION on the part of the United States.  The POTUS is personally asking the leader of a foreign country to work with his personal lawyer on sharing information on a Ukrainian matter that involves a political opponent. 

Quote
As I understand it the pause was prior to the phone call, which is way worse for Trump if you're inclined to believe the conspiracy.  If you look at Vox, for example, who are eating the conspiracy up, the aid had been delayed from February until September, and questions to Congress were repeatedly misdirected.  There was a refresh of Trump's instruction to delay the aid about a week before the call.

Jupiter's Rooster!  I don't read VOX.   I'm following the timeline on Lawfare Blog.  The announcement of the delay of Ukrainian military aid was not announced until a story by Politico broke it in August.  A month after the phone call.  That's my source.  I'm open to different ones.  https://www.lawfareblog.com/timeline-trump-ukraine-scandal

Quote
I'm just going to have to say I think you misunderstand this, you have the direction backwards.  And as I think that seems to be a major reason of why you think there's a quid pro quo I'm not going to get there with you on that reasoning.

Arrrrrghhhhhh.   I barf.  Next I'm going to have explosive diarrhea. 

1.  I already said I don't think there is clear evidence of quid pro quo.  I've said it looks suspicious. 

2.  You say i'm misunderstanding this, but then say you're not going to provide any reasoning behind this.  That might be better than the Chewbacca defense. 

Ladies and gentlemen!  Grant is mistaken!  I'm not going to get into why!  That is all!

Quote
What makes you think this was a business deal?  This was a congratulatory call where Trump had a number of points he wanted to move forward.  Again, it doesn't appear to me that the Javelin line was anything other than the end of the prior topic discussion.

Serati, you're the one who called it a big offer by Ukraine to send America a lot of money, and referred to it as a lucrative arms deal as a way of criticizing my characterization of that PORTION of the call as a request for arms.  The heart of the matter is weather Ukraine was requesting, or simply making an offer.  It's ridiculous. 

Quote
Why would there be "feedback"?  Again you seem to be reading alot into the conversation and finding fault that things you seem to think should be there are not.  I agree he changed the subject, he had a response on the prior point and moved on to his next topic.

Oh cumon.  You call somebody up.  "I'd like to buy your car?".  They they change the subject?  Maybe you do it that way Serati.  Whatever.  Most people respond with, OK, or no.  And I'm not finding fault.  I'm pointing out why it looks weird.  Keep saying it's all normal, Serati.  Maybe for you it is. 

Quote
Oddly enough, after I buy a product at the store, I very often "immediately change the subject" and make a comment to the clerk.  Sometimes it's have a nice day, sometimes its I love that shirt where did you get it.  Sometimes when I'm on a business call and I get an answer to a question rather than follow up on it unnecessarily I cross it off my list and move to the next item on list.  Oddly. 

 ::)





Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #71 on: September 25, 2019, 06:44:07 PM »
Quote
In any event, that's a completely bizarre tack for you to take given your neverending support for the Mueller investigation for which the predicate is far less.  Somehow you seem to believe that the President is required to ignore what appears, on the surface to be a Politician's son getting a job based on graft or improper connections, where the Politcian's father expressly conditioned US benefits on firing the prosecutor that was investigating the same company.

What part of the Constitution do you believe supports your belief that the President is required to ignore what on the surface looks to be a blatant violation of law and abuse of power?

You keep missing the point.

Trump wasn't serious about investigating Biden, because if he was, he would have had the serious investigators do it, not him.  He would have had an investigation opened to do it, before he purportedly pressured the Ukrainian President to investigate.  He had much better ways of doing an investigation than the way he did.  He wouldn't have mentioned Barr five times; he would have referred him to Barr to coordinate the investigation.

However, he didn't have any better way to get dirt on Biden under the table.  Which is why it seems to be the more likely explanation.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #72 on: September 25, 2019, 06:56:51 PM »
Serious investigators. WTF? What does that even mean?  LMAO

You keep making thing up. Seriously, you’re fabricating everything. Have you read the actual transcript? Not the one CNN and others are putting out - that’s been selectively edited- the actual transcript? It doesn’t lay out like you seem to think it does.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #73 on: September 25, 2019, 07:18:06 PM »
Here’s the way CNN and MSNBC, among others, are literally lying to you.

Quote
Here’s the transcript has reported by CNN: “I would like you to do us a favor… There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.”

See those three dots? It’s called an ellipsis, look it up, find out what it means. They used that to cut out 543 words. NPR cut even more words out. They selectively edited the transcript so that it connects the favor to Biden.

Katy Tur on MSNBC went even further:
Quote
Will you do me a favor and investigate Vice President Biden’s son? Will you do me a favor and get involved in the 2020 election? Vice President Biden is my chief political opponent,” Tur said.

Here’s what they tried to hide, from the actual transcript:

Quote
I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… the server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you and your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you said yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

The favor is about investigating the 2016 election and how the Russian collusion hoax  got started. The media is lying to you guys. Literally. They are intentionally misleading you.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #74 on: September 26, 2019, 09:47:02 AM »
Quote
The media is lying to you guys. Literally. They are intentionally misleading you.

That would take a lot of coordination. Its possible the media plays the useful fool, or like Fox affiliates its self to a political party but to get all media to coordinate on how information is reported. Sounds like MDS to me

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #75 on: September 26, 2019, 10:12:20 AM »
Quote
The media is lying to you guys. Literally. They are intentionally misleading you.

That would take a lot of coordination. Its possible the media plays the useful fool, or like Fox affiliates its self to a political party but to get all media to coordinate on how information is reported. Sounds like MDS to me

I'm just glad we're finally moving beyond "fake news" and back to accusations of "lying". 

I havn't seen the CNN and MSNBC clips Crunch is referencing, but I think there is a good point behind what he is talking about.  Crunch didn't reference his quotes, that's not new. I think they're from a Federalist article.  But If CNN and MSNBC are presenting quotes inaccurately and without explanation, I believe that's bad journalism.  I don't agree with Crunch's assertion that it fundamentally falsifies the assertion that Trump asked for Biden investigation as a "favor".  I agree with that assertion.  But doctoring a quote to help your point isn't really cool.  It's fraud.  It's false.  It can be misleading. 

I also don't think it requires a great deal of coordination when several different media outlets with notable liberal bias end up saying the same things.  Their similar conclusions can be a result of their similar pre-conceptions rather than any form of conspiracy.  Plus, they all read each other anyways.  Parroting isn't necessarily conspiracy or require coordination either. 

Media outlets have an obligation towards objective truth.  I know objective truth is not popular philosophically with some.  Call me old fashioned.  I think this means that the media needs to investigate their assertions and stick to provable facts whenever possible. 

In turn I believe that consumers of media need to understand that journalists are all too human.  Sometimes they can be biased.  Sometimes they can make mistakes.  A responsible consumer of media needs to try and fact check as best as possible.  This means checking everything.  Not just casting assertions aside because the source has a bad reputation or is biased.  If you're a seeker of truth and an investigator, you take your information from all sources and not just the Archangel Gabriel. 

This all takes a great deal of time and it's understandable that people want to stick with a trusted news source because they don't have the time to look everything up.  All these problems stem from the human condition, and nobody is immune.  I believe some sources are must trustworthy than others, but everyone makes mistakes.  Being wise consumers of news is more important than ever, and harder than ever to do.  But if we don't get a handle on it, things can get out of control. 

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #76 on: September 26, 2019, 10:13:50 AM »
It wouldn't take much coordination rightleft, and in fact Media Matters is in exactly the business of coordinating journalists and Democratic politicians so even if you think it takes coordination it's more than there.

On the lies, at least a dozen articles with paraphrases of that "quote" that Trump's favor was to investigate Biden, not to give information on the 2016 election interference.  Think about how insidious that lie is, if Trump was actually trying to get to the bottom of the 2016 hacking and election interference it's a complete undercutting of the media theme that he was involved, so they pretend that didn't happen.  But it's even more, by that deliberate reconstruction is full on and intentional lie to convince people that the media knows will not read the actual transcript.

I just read the whistle blower complaint.  If you didn't believe in  a deep state before, that document should remove all doubt.   It was clearly compiled with the help of activist lawyers (bet you they didn't have security clearance), purports to be unclassified (notwithstanding that it reveals information that is presumptively classified), and was absolutely and clearly compiled using the resources of the US government, at a minimum by inappropriate access to State department files, but more likely intelligence files.  There's no way a single whistleblower put that together, which almost certainly means there is in fact a conspiracy operating internally to the government. Trump misusing official resources is "impeachable" deep state activists? 

It's massively agenda driven.  Read it for yourself, then go back and consider everything the DNC politicians have been saying "without evidence" it's pretty clear that they had a copy, or even helped draft it, to give themselves a pretext.  Fact is Trump releasing the transcript demonstrates conclusively that this was a contrived hit piece.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #77 on: September 26, 2019, 10:35:59 AM »
In fact reading it again, this document seems designed to try and criminalize the investigation of what appears to have been a deep state plot to use the Ukranian government to influence the 2016 election.  Makes sense, the Mueller probe was able to hide all DNC malfeasance in the 2016 election for over 2 years by intimating that anyone doing such an investigation would be obstructing justice.  Why not try again here, by trying to force anyone with an actual interest in justice out of the investigation so that it can be run again by deep state cronies.

Think specifically of Nadler's demand that Barr recuse himself in that context.  There's nothing about Barr that calls for that, so what was it about?  Fear.  It's pretty clear there's either DNC or deep state bodies in the Ukranian files, or that senior people on that side believe their could be.  Yet it's Trump who is the bad guy for trying to get to the bottom of it.

Getting tired of living in a world where the "crime" is investigating Democratic lawlessness.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #78 on: September 26, 2019, 10:58:45 AM »
Which, of course, is why Trump specifically told Zelenskyy to talk to his No. 1 crime investigator: Rudy Giuliani.  He's done outstanding service, working in the Department of...uh...hmm, who is it that Giuliani works for again?  ???  And why was he one of the people Zelenskyy was supposed to talk to? ;)

Yeah, Trump just wants a crime to be investigated.  Just like he never said The Wall would be made of concrete.  ::)

(BTW, just to be clear, the summary is not an actual transcript. 

As it says at the beginning: "CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty Officers and-NSC policy staff assigned to listen.and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place.  A number of factors can affect 'the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation. The word "inaudible" is used to indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear.")

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #79 on: September 26, 2019, 10:59:33 AM »
In turn I believe that consumers of media need to understand that journalists are all too human.  Sometimes they can be biased.  Sometimes they can make mistakes.

No, they can't really. That's what editors are for. And when editors aren't up to the job, that's what the editor is chief is for. The integrity of the paper (now 'media outlet') can be up to any standard they choose, and theoretically the ceiling for integrity could be pretty high if they so chose. Printing literal cut-and-pastes of documents that spin material in a specific direction can't just slip past the editors, unless they're illiterate. They either signed off on it or else gave the instruction in the first place. And who do you think gave them the instruction? That's how things actually work in a big, high-profile business.

Quote
This all takes a great deal of time and it's understandable that people want to stick with a trusted news source because they don't have the time to look everything up.  All these problems stem from the human condition, and nobody is immune.  I believe some sources are must trustworthy than others, but everyone makes mistakes.  Being wise consumers of news is more important than ever, and harder than ever to do.  But if we don't get a handle on it, things can get out of control.

It has already been shown that clicking on preferential material and finding things people like on social media is like getting a drug hit, and the format maximized on them getting the hit as often as possible. Finding contrary material not only fails to get them the high but is worse, because it's almost like a condemnation of the high they got from the last hit. It's like telling a drug addict "you're bad!" when they want to hear "have another!" I don't have much faith just now in the idea of expecting people to be 'good consumers' when the reality is something more chemically like there's a new drug on the market that doesn't seem to be immediately damaging (i.e. no going to the ER from OD) and more and more people are hooked on it, and tie it in to their worldview and avoid all content that doesn't give them the high. It's not just an echo chamber, it's a drug den, and you expect them to wise up? In a context of an actual drug network feeding drugs to the youth of a community your first reaction would probably be "we need to get them behind bars", not "those kids need to wise up." Maybe the kids do need to wise up, but they're only kids after all. You may ask where the parents are, but now imagine that in the psychological realm they're really kids too. There are just more kids than we think there are.

It's not just about looking stuff up and doing legwork. There is a psychological effect in play of getting your positive feedback from media sources feeding you the drivel you want to hear, which is a vicious cycle of you craving it and them feeding it to you. But the feeding came first, I think, because prior to the 24 hour news cycle I don't think people were craving it. And now the feeding comes with political strings attached, on both sides.

The old debate is Huxley vs Orwell, and although of course both were right in different ways, Huxley in some ways is proving to be the more correct of the two (control through pleasure, rather than control through fear and pain).

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #80 on: September 26, 2019, 11:08:10 AM »
Quote
The media is lying to you guys. Literally. They are intentionally misleading you.

That would take a lot of coordination. Its possible the media plays the useful fool, or like Fox affiliates its self to a political party but to get all media to coordinate on how information is reported. Sounds like MDS to me

I'm just glad we're finally moving beyond "fake news" and back to accusations of "lying". 

I havn't seen the CNN and MSNBC clips Crunch is referencing, but I think there is a good point behind what he is talking about.  Crunch didn't reference his quotes, that's not new. I think they're from a Federalist article.  But If CNN and MSNBC are presenting quotes inaccurately and without explanation, I believe that's bad journalism.  I don't agree with Crunch's assertion that it fundamentally falsifies the assertion that Trump asked for Biden investigation as a "favor".  I agree with that assertion.  But doctoring a quote to help your point isn't really cool.  It's fraud.  It's false.  It can be misleading. 

Then you're going to really like this.  Rep Adam Schiff on the call transcript during today's hearing and what was on the call:
Quote
I have a favor I want from you, though. I’m going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good, I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand, lots of it, on this and on that, I’m going to put you in touch with people...

This is really what Schiff said was the content of the call. Look, we can all see the transcript and we can all see that Schiff is literally making this up. None of that was in the call. Just incredible.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2019, 11:14:54 AM by Crunch »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #81 on: September 26, 2019, 11:14:15 AM »
Which, of course, is why Trump specifically told Zelenskyy to talk to his No. 1 crime investigator: Rudy Giuliani.  He's done outstanding service, working in the Department of...uh...hmm, who is it that Giuliani works for again?  ???  And why was he one of the people Zelenskyy was supposed to talk to? ;)

This again is where people are not being completely honest about what's in the call.  Zelensky brought up Giuliani and the Biden investigation first. Not Trump, although Trump was certainly ok with it.

You can, weirdly, argue that Giuliani is not the best person to talk to about what went down in the 2016 election and the whole Russian Collusion thing but don't pretend that Trump drove that aspect of the call. I say weirdly because, if Ukraine is investigating how the collusion hoax got started, it would make sense that they'd want to talk to the people most familiar with it. Giuliani has a lot of information to share on that topic that is relevant so it's not even remotely surprising that Zelensky would ask about talking to him nor is it any big deal that Trump would be ok with that.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #82 on: September 26, 2019, 11:31:04 AM »
Yeah, Trump just wants a crime to be investigated.

You don't think that after suffering through a special counsel investigation and having his entire Presidency derailed on a fake investigation he wants the crimes connected with creating that fake investigation investigated?  Seems nonsensical to me to believe that.

Quote
(BTW, just to be clear, the summary is not an actual transcript.

Last refuge of the scoundrel, when what you want isn't there call it into question.  It's the same transcript that the whistle blower referred to in their complain as the "word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced."  It's the same one that is produced as the transcript of other calls by the situation room, where you get the combined notes of nearly a dozen people in the room.

But yeah, make hay over the disclaimer, even if that's just silly.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #83 on: September 26, 2019, 11:38:37 AM »
This again is where people are not being completely honest about what's in the call.  Zelensky brought up Giuliani and the Biden investigation first. Not Trump, although Trump was certainly ok with it.

Er, no. Zelenskyy brought up that he wants to "drain the swamp" as per Trump's platform, and that he wants to put a new crop of people into key positions in Ukraine, and that investigations going forward will be open and candid. But it was decidedly Trump who brought up (repeatedly) wanting to hook up Giuliani and Barr so that they could communicate directly with Zelenskyy and his people. And it was Trump who brought up the prosecutor's ouster.

Quote
You can, weirdly, argue that Giuliani is not the best person to talk to about what went down in the 2016 election and the whole Russian Collusion thing but don't pretend that Trump drove that aspect of the call.

The question is - what was this call? We found out earlier in the thread part of the disagreement may be on the literal substance of the call. Grant thinks it was a 'business call' and that the brief mentions of each of these items (Javelin missiles, favors, etc) were very swift negotiation points and that their sequence basically amounts to an almost adept-level negotiation process where terms are being laid down. Others, like I guess WS, seem to think that it wasn't so much a negotiation as Trump making a series of demands. If this was a business deal then I guess invoking Giuliani would be something like him ratifying the details? If it was Trump making demands, then, what, Giuliani would be acting as his de facto secretary?

If the call is what I think it is - i.e. a simple congratulations and vaguely embarassing love-in announcing improving relations - then all of these points would merely be reiterations of things they've probably discussed before, or plan to discuss going forward. Nothing more than a summary of the sort of business they'll have to deal with now that their partnership will move forward. Giuliani's involvement, along with Barr's, makes more sense in this context, specifically in that Trump will have legal counsel (his own, and the U.S.'s) make sure that the procedures undergone either in the investigations or whatever else are done properly. Trump could have offered to send intelligence agents too if it was to collude with them or to dig up dirt; sending Giuliani seems to me out of place if he was going in as an intelligence gatherer. It makes more sense that he's being sent in as a lawyer, which is why Trump repeatedly mentioned both him and Barr.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #84 on: September 26, 2019, 11:41:15 AM »
Ah, well, what can you do if the facts, written on the "transcripts" itself, are the last refuge of the scoundrel. :)

And to speed up the conversation, here's a article on the White House talking points, which they conveniently e-mailed to the Democrats (including Pelosi).  I notice that your reply to my Giuliani post is right there in Jacqueline Alemany's tweet.  Did you get a copy? :)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #85 on: September 26, 2019, 11:49:11 AM »
Yes, wow, you read the disclaimer - which always appears when the call isn't recorded.  you got me.

Lol, I struck by my view that everything discussed on the call is in fact proper and reasonable.  So what's your complaint again, and how are you applying it evenly?

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #86 on: September 26, 2019, 11:49:57 AM »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #87 on: September 26, 2019, 11:59:52 AM »
Ok, let’s all read the transcript. CNN link

This is the very first mention of Giuliani, paragraph 8,
Quote
I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine

The following paragraph, Trump’s response includes:
Quote
Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.

Trump later mentions he’ll get Giuliani to call. And that's it. Zelensky brought it up first. You can all see that for yourselves.

Now, also paragraph 7, Zelensky:

Quote
We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.. That I can assure you.

Trump’s response:
Quote
Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair.

So it’s a fairly natural conversational development but it does lead to Trump saying:
Quote
The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
This is in context of rampant corruption and an investigation in the Ukraine. What the Biden’s did really does look horrible and it’s worthy of investigation. That’s it, no quid pro quo, nothing.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #88 on: September 26, 2019, 12:02:32 PM »
And for those interested, here is the letter (without attachments) of the whistleblower's complaint.

Please note the part where the person states he has no firsthand knowledge of the events. It’s all second or third hand.

It’s literally all rumor and conjecture.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #89 on: September 26, 2019, 12:10:22 PM »
If CNN and MSNBC are presenting quotes inaccurately and without explanation, I believe that's bad journalism.

If?

The "fine people" hoax is a glaring example that they zero issues running with misleading/incomplete quotes to fill a narrative. In this case, they take a single statement, and then literally ellipse/hide the statement, unprompted and within a minute of the preceding one: "I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally."

You can throw a dart at CNN, MSNBC, or Joe Biden on any given Sunday and still hear them braying "he said neo-Nazi's are fine people!".

I've seen the crazy cognitive dissonance people experience when they read the actual transcript or watch the entire video of that Charlottesville press conference. When they see the "not talking about neo-Nazis" part, their brain's do a kind of "brrrp" record-skip and they quickly shift to tracks like "well, how does he know there were people other than neo-nazis there?" or "he's still a racist deep in his heart".

They have to either admit and agree that Trump says literally the opposite of what the narrative being driven is, quickly change lanes to other logistics, or get an instant nose-bleed. Most people need to change lanes because that's how our brains work when faced with cognitive dissonance.

All that to say that if you replace the first word of your sentence with "When", I agree with you 100%.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #90 on: September 26, 2019, 12:25:09 PM »
Useful link,

Quote
The House Intelligence Committee has released a declassified copy of the whistleblower complaint at the center of the recent controversy concerning President Trump's conduct regarding Ukraine. The document is available here and below, along with the intelligence community inspector general's letter to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/house-intelligence-committee-releases-whistleblower-complaint?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral


ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #91 on: September 26, 2019, 12:27:47 PM »
So just to be clear, the big bombshell from the whistleblower report is that Trump covered up a transcript that he just released to the public yesterday?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #92 on: September 26, 2019, 12:30:33 PM »
CNN peddling some altered news by acting like Trump's "favor" comment immediately preceded his talk about Biden:

https://twitter.com/ShelbyTalcott/status/1176993667325861888


Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #93 on: September 26, 2019, 12:36:09 PM »
Everyone on the left seems to believe that they have an absolute right to investigate the President for anything at anytime, and that anything that the President asks for that he can't prove is solely unrelated to his own benefit is a crime.

Out of curiosity, what's the appropriate remedy or oversight for members of the House of Representatives conducting fake or overblown investigations to serve their own political interests?

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #94 on: September 26, 2019, 12:40:49 PM »
So just to be clear, the big bombshell from the whistleblower report is that Trump covered up a transcript that he just released to the public yesterday?

No transcript has been released.  A memorandum has been released.

Also that isn't the 'bombshell' what is the bombshell is that he extorted a foreign nation to get dirt on an opponent (which is obvious even from the memorandum).  It is a clear criminal act. The hiding of the transcript is only further evidence that they knew it was a criminal act.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #95 on: September 26, 2019, 12:42:36 PM »
Everyone on the left seems to believe that they have an absolute right to investigate the President for anything at anytime, and that anything that the President asks for that he can't prove is solely unrelated to his own benefit is a crime.

Out of curiosity, what's the appropriate remedy or oversight for members of the House of Representatives conducting fake or overblown investigations to serve their own political interests?

An election.

The President is supposed to do at least some due diligence to avoid using the office for his own benefit.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #96 on: September 26, 2019, 12:43:12 PM »
Schiff explaining that even though he completely made up what Trump said (it was "parody") it's still more or less what Trump meant. Incredible.

https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1177232032625319938


ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #97 on: September 26, 2019, 12:44:03 PM »
Everyone on the left seems to believe that they have an absolute right to investigate the President for anything at anytime, and that anything that the President asks for that he can't prove is solely unrelated to his own benefit is a crime.

Out of curiosity, what's the appropriate remedy or oversight for members of the House of Representatives conducting fake or overblown investigations to serve their own political interests?

Depends which party?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #98 on: September 26, 2019, 12:45:41 PM »
So just to be clear, the big bombshell from the whistleblower report is that Trump covered up a transcript that he just released to the public yesterday?

No transcript has been released.  A memorandum has been released.

Also that isn't the 'bombshell' what is the bombshell is that he extorted a foreign nation to get dirt on an opponent (which is obvious even from the memorandum).  It is a clear criminal act. The hiding of the transcript is only further evidence that they knew it was a criminal act.

Yes I heard the extortion plain and simple from Adam Schiff and saw it with my own eyes on CNN. Lock him up.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #99 on: September 26, 2019, 12:52:22 PM »
BTW, this kind of glaring witch hunt stuff (omitting txt, making stuff up, "parody", etc) does nothing but radically grow Trump's base and all but lock his win.

If dems had been content to let the american public watch Trump crap the bed with his own actual bad antics, they would have had a real chance. Now, not so much.