Author Topic: Ukraine  (Read 31999 times)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #400 on: October 18, 2019, 07:31:25 AM »
"It was very far from an international priority."

Sure, you can make lying assertions all day long and we can attempt to demonstrate that is what you are doing. Trump playbook; you really look up to him don't you.

That was testimony before Congress. I didn’t make it up. You’re getting a little unhinged, you know that, right?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #401 on: October 18, 2019, 11:17:05 AM »
Seriati, I expect you've looked into this a lot more than me.  Are you confident in the timeline as you've outlined above?

I'm 100% certain the timeline doesn't matter to how it would appear in the Ukraine to people who have lived with Oligarch's ALWAYS being the motivators and benefactors.  But on the timeline itself, it seems consistent with what we know now (and what we discussed in the past).

Quote
Also, I  don't think anyone has suggested Biden is or should be immune from investigation.  Just that some of the things he's accused of are to greater or lesser extent... counter-factual

What do you think is "counter-factual." Pretty certain its all just "factual," and that the only piece we don't really know is Joe Biden's reasoning (which is exactly, what people are trying to obtain by "investigating" Trump and trying to avoid by declaring Biden innocent.

In other fun news, it's being reported that testimony from one of the diplomats involved that the issues with Biden were raised real time and that the VP's office dismissed them, that the EU was indifferent to replacing Shokin and that they went along with the US demand to do so, and ummm... that the replacement prosecutor was also corrupt and connected to the same people.

None of which is proof, but all of which clouds the picture.  Are you sure that an investigation into the records won't reveal something bad?  And if not, why do you think an investigation is unwarranted?

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #402 on: October 18, 2019, 01:10:04 PM »
Quote
What do you think is "counter-factual."
I don't know enough to point to things.  But scifibum brought up 4chan inventions.  That would be an example of what I meant, not that *I* had further info to toss into the ring.

The reason I asked about the timeline (which you seemed to hedge a bit on there) was that it does matter if the efforts to get him replaced took place during or after an investigation into Biden's son. 

I'm all for shutting down VIP kids from cashing in off their daddy's positions.  I'm sure not going to defend him.  I'm perfectly happy to compartmentalize this one and investigate both Biden and Trump.  :P  I'm pro transparency and anti-nepotism / dynasties. 

At this point I don't much care how it "seems" to those living under Oligarchs.  I'm only interested in holding OUR elected officials to the law, and doing what we can to stop Oligarchs here at home from consolidating power.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #403 on: October 18, 2019, 02:15:22 PM »
In a best case meritocracy, there wouldn't be family surnames or an ability to trade on the accomplishments of your forebears. That goes for Eli Manning and Steve Forbes, as well as the various Trumps.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #404 on: October 18, 2019, 02:44:33 PM »
Quote
What do you think is "counter-factual."
I don't know enough to point to things.  But scifibum brought up 4chan inventions.  That would be an example of what I meant, not that *I* had further info to toss into the ring.

Scifibum seemed convinced the issue is made up, notwithstanding that the facts actually establish that its real.  Again the only piece we don't have is the motive, which is what they are digging for in the Trump situation - by trying to interview everyone who ever had a conversation about Ukraine in the hopes that one of them will say they believed there was an order to get a qui pro quo.  However, what we have in the record, so far, is actually the opposite, with the top down orders being in the record specifically directing the opposite.  If that's the truth, then all the Dems are trying to do is convince enough voters that they should ignore the order in favor of believing that Trump could never act other than out of his own interests, in which case that must have happened here.

Quote
The reason I asked about the timeline (which you seemed to hedge a bit on there) was that it does matter if the efforts to get him replaced took place during or after an investigation into Biden's son.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed there was an investigation into Biden's son, just that his relationship may have been part of a target or something that would get targetted as part of the existing investigation of the company.  The investigation was ongoing. 

Quote
At this point I don't much care how it "seems" to those living under Oligarchs.  I'm only interested in holding OUR elected officials to the law, and doing what we can to stop Oligarchs here at home from consolidating power.

Okay.  Are you opposed to the head of the executive branch doing what the executive branch is charged to do?  The reason to consider how it seems to those living under Oligarchs is simply that no one but the President himself may have been in a position to convince them that a fair investigation of a Vice President's son would be okay.  Without the President's personal involvement, it's very possible they would deem the request as something that should be ignored as potentially triggering another attack by an Oligarch (e.g., like when Joe Biden threatened them with pulling $1B in aide).

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #405 on: October 18, 2019, 02:58:25 PM »
An actual politician wanting to investigate a political rival would have used a chain of go-betweens. I don't doubt such a thing has happened on one level or another, but they wouldn't be on record with personal involvement. Appearances matter.

Quote
One special agent, who spoke with Insider on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the press, said officials were "rattled" not just by the nature of Trump's actions but also by his brazenness.
- BI

Parse that carefully. The agent wasn't so much surprised that a President would mess with a political rival as much as he was shocked that he would roll around in mud and leave his fingerprints everywhere.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #406 on: October 18, 2019, 03:13:03 PM »
An actual politician wanting to investigate a political rival would have used a chain of go-betweens. I don't doubt such a thing has happened on one level or another, but they wouldn't be on record with personal involvement. Appearances matter.

Again, see my point about dealing with Oligarchs.  It's actually likely that only a specific request by the President would be convincing that its okay to investigate a former VP's son.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #407 on: October 18, 2019, 03:20:21 PM »
Then they probably shouldn't investigate. Full stop. If every allegation is true, Biden gets away with it, we don't have a crisis, life goes on.

Meanwhile, if you think that is a good idea, I look forward to all the Trump kids getting investigated ad-nauseum years after Trump leaves office.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #408 on: October 18, 2019, 03:33:07 PM »
Quote
Okay.  Are you opposed to the head of the executive branch doing what the executive branch is charged to do?  The reason to consider how it seems to those living under Oligarchs is simply that no one but the President himself may have been in a position to convince them that a fair investigation of a Vice President's son would be okay.  Without the President's personal involvement, it's very possible they would deem the request as something that should be ignored as potentially triggering another attack by an Oligarch (e.g., like when Joe Biden threatened them with pulling $1B in aide).
This seems reasonable but I fear there's a trap in there.  We need to abide by OUR laws and processes and ethics.  Not simply "speak their language" when it comes to dealing with other countries. 

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #409 on: October 18, 2019, 06:05:39 PM »
Meanwhile, if you think that is a good idea, I look forward to all the Trump kids getting investigated ad-nauseum years after Trump leaves office.

I think the difference is that what you are proposing is investigating people, Trump's kids, looking for a crime.  Rather than investigating a situation that is suspicious on its face.  I refreshed myself yesterday on Hunter, you might want to refresh yourself on his colorful history, and seeming success directly tied to his father's career.  It was clearly widely known, one of the things I read said that Obama's team was investigating him before they choose Biden as a running mate for example. 

Another that his firm specialized in lobbying - no surprise - and that the Administration made it clear to him that he couldn't keep doing that with his father being VP.  That means they knew real time how much he traded on his father's influence, they knew that when he flew in to China on Air Force 2 and signed large deals in the next 2 weeks.  They knew what he was doing when he took a position in the Ukraine that's largely unjustifiable.  His father was fully aware of Hunter's history of drug use and other bad decisions.  Do you really think he had no doubts about what value was providing to the gas company or what else he might be getting involved in that could come to light during an investigation?  Was it a "twofer" in Joe's view to kill the investigation?

Again though, investigating what looks to be criminal is hugely different than just investigating a person to try and find a criminal action.  I mean heck, it's not like anyone's digging through everything Hunter's ever done (and plenty of that was illegal), or looking at all of his lobbying activities.  Would it surprise anyone to find violations in his past lobbying practices?  Not at all, but there's no apparent crime there hence no investigation that anyone's aware of.   Now if someone goes public with a credible criminal act there, will that change?  Sure would, cause then there would be an apparent crime to investigate.

What's the "crimes" you see that you think the Trump kids are involved in.  Go ahead and list them out.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #410 on: October 22, 2019, 10:29:24 PM »
Here is some interesting breaking news:

https://www.memorandumdaily.com/2019/10/us-ambassador-testifies-trump-directly.html?m=1

Quote
Ambassador Bill Taylor testified today that President Trump directly linked funding for Ukraine to an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden.

According to several people in the room, Mr. Taylor acknowledged that the President wanted an investigation into Mr. Biden, as well as a public statement from Ukraine that they were also investigating the company that Mr. Biden’s son worked for.

Members of Congress who heard the testimony described it as “devastating for the President.”

If anyone wants to read Ambassador Taylor's opening statement itself, here it is:

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/542ee36f-eafc-4f2b-a075-b3b492d981a5/note/75965f57-6561-42f8-af40-a9e984a85660.pdf

Taylor's statements are seemingly exclusively about things Gordon Sondland (ambassador to the EU) told him, and that Sondland confirmed to him on the phone explicitly that Trump was doing a quid pro quo for investigating Hunter. Now the one thing I'll mention briefly is that some have argued that it doesn't even matter if there was a quid pro quo, and that impeachment could go forward with or without that being the case. But nevertheless this "new" statement about quid pro quo seems to be taken as a huge smoking gun. I'll withhold judgement about whether it is or not, but I would like to remind everyone that this is the same Taylor and Sondland that featured in the famous text messages "proving" quid pro quo, even though in my view they proved no such thing. They only showed the Taylor was seriously concerned that it might be the case, and that Sondland was convinced it was not and that Trump had been crystal clear about that. Now Taylor's new testimony is that Sondland told him outright on the phone that it was. So either Sondland is a liar (possible) or Taylor is a liar (possible). I don't see how they can both be truth-tellers, since the content of the text messages appears to contradict the testimony he's giving now.

One other interesting thing is that Taylor's testimony seems to be taken as being "more proof" that Trump is guilty, whereas to me it seems like a repetition of the last "proof", not a new thing. Or am I missing something? I seriously doubt that the average consumer is going to notice that all of the big proof of it so far is all coming from one single guy's statements on the matter. Not that we should assume he's wrong, but I hope this doesn't turn into another case of "multiple sources show X" where it's actually one source made to look like many due to how the news presents it.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #411 on: October 22, 2019, 11:23:05 PM »
I read it, and if it turns out to be supportable or true, it's pretty bad for Trump.

But there's a lot in there that makes me doubt it is true.  I mean start with talking with the removed ambassador before you take the job, clearly disclosed to get ahead of an issue that would appear like playing to a set up.

The whole talk about "two channels" seems purpose written to give the dems what they want to hear.  Is there any basis to believe it - he doesn't even claim that he knows it exists - it's all an inference to explain what he sees and doesn't like.

Then there's the statements he seems to make that indicates he was working against what he understood US policy to be (whether or not he was wrong about US policy, it definitely seems he was pursuing his own personal agenda rather than the administration agenda).

I also found the number of "conversations" that disclosed information that seems like people admitting to what he thinks would be crimes to him a bit suspicious.  Particularly, where they contradict other account.

Who really knows.  All I really know is that people will harden their positions before we get to the Senate where there will be a cross examination, where witnesses will be confronted by the factual record and where everyone (including the Senators, and I assume the House prosecutors) will be under oath.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #412 on: October 23, 2019, 01:33:35 AM »
"I read it, and if it turns out to be supportable or true, it's pretty bad for Trump.

But there's a lot in there that makes me doubt it is true."

I think Seriati's comment is a perfect illustration why Trump supporters (and all hard and fast anti-liberals) will never be willing to support the impeachment process.  He looks for and finds a snake under every rock in Taylor's tale. 

I would wager that if anti-liberals had known of all of Bill Taylor's accomplishments up to the day before he accepted Pompeo's offer they would have unanimously agreed that he was a man of enormous experience, integrity and sense of duty to further the best interests of the United States.  After all, George Bush liked him.

But then he went and spoke up about the odd and alarming actions Trump and Giuliani undertook in Ukraine.  Now they realize that he's just another deep-state partisan bureaucrat who is lying for unspecified nefarious purposes with the sole goal of damaging Trump.  As Lindsey Graham said, this is a lynching in every sense of the word.  There's no other possible explanation for it.

Ah, Bill, we thought we knew ye well...

Mynnion

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #413 on: October 23, 2019, 07:36:56 AM »
Quote
The whole talk about "two channels" seems purpose written to give the dems what they want to hear.  Is there any basis to believe it - he doesn't even claim that he knows it exists - it's all an inference to explain what he sees and doesn't like.

I thought this had already been confirmed by Trump.  It seemed strange that Trump would involve his personal lawyer in Ukraine especially when it appears Giuliani may have his own corruption problems there.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #414 on: October 23, 2019, 10:04:51 AM »
"One other interesting thing is that Taylor's testimony seems to be taken as being "more proof" that Trump is guilty, whereas to me it seems like a repetition of the last "proof", not a new thing. Or am I missing something? I seriously doubt that the average consumer is going to notice that all of the big proof of it so far is all coming from one single guy's statements on the matter. Not that we should assume he's wrong, but I hope this doesn't turn into another case of "multiple sources show X" where it's actually one source made to look like many due to how the news presents it."

Hard to understand how you think Taylor is merely aping others or is the only "source" given all the testimony from others, the whistleblower's complaint and even the partial transcript of the phone call itself.  Does Trump have to be captured on tape stipulating to every element of the crime before you're convinced?  If he does appear on tape, would you wonder if it wasn't a deep fake commissioned by Hillary or Little Schitt?

It's interesting to me that the benefit of the doubt from many here seems to always lean towards Trump despite the weight of suspicion and evidence leaning the other way.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #415 on: October 23, 2019, 10:16:01 AM »
Quote
If he does appear on tape, would you wonder if it wasn't a deep fake
In all honesty?  Yes, we should wonder that.  It's coming any day now.  If not him, some other prominent politician. 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #416 on: October 23, 2019, 10:18:12 AM »
Hard to understand how you think Taylor is merely aping others or is the only "source" given all the testimony from others, the whistleblower's complaint and even the partial transcript of the phone call itself.

What other sources are you referring to? There's the whistleblower, yes. But the thought just occurred to me (wild idea): what if Bill Taylor *is* the whistleblower?

Quote
Does Trump have to be captured on tape stipulating to every element of the crime before you're convinced?  If he does appear on tape, would you wonder if it wasn't a deep fake commissioned by Hillary or Little Schitt?

I can see why some people think the memorandum shows quid pro quo. What's interesting to me is you seem unable to see how it might not be.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #417 on: October 23, 2019, 10:28:10 AM »
Does Trump have to be captured on tape stipulating to every element of the crime before you're convinced?

Not every element, but getting at least one would be super helpful.

New "evidence" de jour will and should be met with some skepticism when the scale of effort to "get" Trump is so blatant. Why just yesterday he used the word "lynching" in a way that he knew was a secret racist dog whistle. He's an affront to decency and we shouldn't let the validity of evidence stand in the way of what we all know is the greater good.

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #418 on: October 23, 2019, 12:09:28 PM »
Why just yesterday he used the word "lynching" in a way that he knew was a secret racist dog whistle. He's an affront to decency and we shouldn't let the validity of evidence stand in the way of what we all know is the greater good.

I think this one is funny.  I guess dog whistles are only for Republicans.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/politics/biden-1998-impeach-kfile/index.html

Quote
In an appearance on CNN in October 1998, however, Biden said the impending impeachment proceedings against then-President Bill Clinton could be viewed as a "partisan lynching."
"Even if the President should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching or whether or not it was something that in fact met the standard, the very high bar, that was set by the founders as to what constituted an impeachable offense," Biden said.
The Biden campaign declined to comment.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #419 on: October 23, 2019, 12:16:53 PM »
What's the "crimes" you see that you think the Trump kids are involved in.  Go ahead and list them out.

They are involved in each of the below, just for starters.

In the spring of 2012, Donald Trump’s two eldest children, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr., found themselves in a precarious legal position. For two years, prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office had been building a criminal case against them for misleading prospective buyers of units in the Trump SoHo, a hotel and condo development that was failing to sell. Despite the best efforts of the siblings’ defense team, the case had not gone away. An indictment seemed like a real possibility. The evidence included emails from the Trumps making clear that they were aware they were using inflated figures about how well the condos were selling to lure buyers.

Trump raised a record $107 million for his inauguration, but investigators have little idea where the money went. Prosecutors are investigating an array of troubling maneuvers that include allegedly booking rooms at the Trump Hotel at inflated prices and mail and wire fraud and money laundering. WIS Media Partners, a firm run by a friend of first lady Melania Trump, was the highest paid contractor for the inauguration, earning $26 million.

The lawsuit skewers the Trump Foundation for alleged “extensive unlawful political coordination with the Trump presidential campaign” as well as “repeated and willful self-dealing transactions” and “violations of basic legal obligations for non-profit foundations.” The alleged misconduct of the Trump Foundation includes using funds to buy a portrait of the president at a fundraiser in an effort to burnish his image, as well as allegedly using its money to funnel resources into organizing a campaign fundraiser in Iowa that raised millions of dollars.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #420 on: October 23, 2019, 12:21:45 PM »
Quote
If he does appear on tape, would you wonder if it wasn't a deep fake
In all honesty?  Yes, we should wonder that.  It's coming any day now.  If not him, some other prominent politician.
In that case, we've gone beyond cherry picking facts and using "alternative facts" to having no facts at all.  Everything is an opinion, even when you see and hear it with your own eyes and ears.  If Trump shot somebody on 5th Avenue, we would have to see a live autopsy of the body and hear interviews with 1000 eyewitnesses to verify that it happened and he did it.  Except, of course, the body could be a fake and all of the eyewitnesses were paid by Hillary.  We may already be there, since President Trump says the Constitution is fake, so why should he even care what it says?  That's a rhetorical question, since in many respects we can see him ignore it with our own eyes and hear him dismiss it with our own ears.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #421 on: October 23, 2019, 12:26:57 PM »
"I read it, and if it turns out to be supportable or true, it's pretty bad for Trump.

But there's a lot in there that makes me doubt it is true."

I read it again, and I still have doubts.  I find it interesting that you seem to think that it's odd to have doubts about it.

Quote
I think Seriati's comment is a perfect illustration why Trump supporters (and all hard and fast anti-liberals) will never be willing to support the impeachment process.  He looks for and finds a snake under every rock in Taylor's tale.

There's a reason we have an adversarial trial process, and why the power to TRY impeachments is in the Senate.  One sided testimoney, taken in secret, often includes opinions and conclusions of the observer that may not be based in facts.  In this case, Taylor, by his own words is effectively a war hawk on the Ukranian issues, with his highest goal being to repel the Russians.  Fine.  But that made him questionable when he felt that goal was threatened.  Not sure how anyone can say that didn't color his view of the temporary withholding of aide, for which he did not have direct knowledge of the reasons but still provided a lot of "damning" speculation.

So why didn't I trust him?  Look at this passage:

Quote
But it was not an easy decision. The former Ambassador, Masha Yovanovitch, had been treated poorly, caught in a web of political machinations both in Kyiv and in Washington. I feared that those problems were still present. When I talked to her about accepting the offer, however, she urged me to go, both for policy reasons and for the morale of the embassy.

By my readings, prior to this point, Yovanovitch was an anti-Trumper that had been undermining policy in the Ukraine (a position that those in the Ukraine have also expressed).  Reading, what appears to me, to be a sympathetic passage about how she was "treated poorly" was a dog whistle for me, and particularly that he took her charge to go for "policy reasons," which I take in no way to be the administration's current policies, but rather the preservation of the bureaucracies resistance positions, and for morale reasons, makes it clear he was there to pursue his own agenda.  You could certainly read that differently, but I think you'd be lying to yourself if you believe that doesn't signal a massive "resist" agenda, and most likely you'd be endorsing "resist" as legitimate when it's not.

His passages on the "irregular channel" are drafted to try and make suspicious the fact that high level members of the US government had discussions with the Ukraine.  Such discussions occur every day with foreign countries and are not labeled as "irregular channels" in this manner.  I mean he flagged, it as unusual that Ambassador Volker - the former ambassador to NATO and at that time had been the special envoy to the Ukraine for almost 2 years and Sondland - the ambassador to the EU were involved.  Why?  Taylor is NOT AN ambassador, and Volker should have been there and with the EU's heavy involvement (and Trump's express policy of wanting Europe to do more - by the way same policy in Syria where they were not involved either) so should Sondland.  If anything, that would be expected.  He flagged as unusual  that Secretary Perry was involved, Perry was the Energy Secretary and the main strategic interest of the EU in the Ukraine is in energy.  Again, something that is completely normal and expected.   And the fourth member?  Oh yeah Senator Ron Johnson, the Chairman of the Subcomittee on European and Regional Security Cooperation.

How did he describe what looks like the exact team that should be involved?  Like this:

Quote
At the same time, however, there was an irregular, informal channel of U . S . policy -making with respect to Ukraine, one which included then - Special Envoy Volker, Ambassador Sondland , Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, and as I subsequently learned,Mr. Giuliani.

And like this:

Quote
Although this irregular channel was well connected in Washington, it operated mostly outside of official State Department channels. This irregular channel began when Ambassador Volker, Ambassador Sondland, Secretary Perry, and Senator Ron Johnson briefed President Trump on May 23 upon their return from President Zelenskyy s inauguration.

Pretty much there's nothing unusual about that group, they are the exact team you'd expect to be involved, and Taylor even admits that he "knows about" it because he was involved in it by Volker and Sondland.  So how is it not "official" when it's exactly as you'd expect it to be, through ambassadors, the special envoy, the Senate chair of the most relevant committee, the Energy secretary, and oh yeah, Taylor himself as the temporary head of mission?  You don't get much more official, notwithstanding Taylor's nonsensical assertion. 

And then it "wasn't clear" to Taylor why Trump wanted to hear from Zelenskyy before meeting in the oval office.  Why wasn't that clear?  It's not at all uncommon that the first meeting with a foreign leader isn't in the oval office, but rather by way of a phone call.  Seriously, why is Taylor throwing shade at an entirely typical circumstance?  In this case it's even more breathtaking, because the commitment by Zelenskyy to end corruption (which Taylor himself lauds) was brand new and part of a major long term US goal.  Why wouldn't he think the President would want to get a direct sense of whether it was serious?  And then the follow ups?  That the President wanted to make sure he wasn't standing in the way of "investigations"?  Makes perfect sense in context though, to be fair it makes just as much  sense in a nefarious context, which is exactly why he drafted the normal things that had already happened to be "nefarious."  It's a backwards looking writing to try and explain why he jumped on a fringe theory, where corruption in the Ukraine was literally part of out policy goals for a really long time (if you believe in Biden's innocence you can't deny this, cause then that was exactly why he threatened withholding a Billion in aide).

Then he "senses something odd," like wow, that Sondland didn't want a bunch of people on a call - even though Taylor was on the call himself.   What was said about the call?  "Ambassador Volker noted that he would relay that President Trump wanted to see rule of law , transparency, but also, specifically, cooperation on investigations to 'get to the bottom of things.'  Once President Zelenskyy joined the call, the conversation was focused on energy policy and the Stanytsia-Luhanska bridge." 

So Trump wants the Rule of Law and Transparency and to get to the bottom of things?  That's a completely legitimate list of requests.  And then the conversation itself turns about to be exactly the things you'd expect.  Yet Taylor was so troubled he reported it to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, and wrote a memo.  What?  There's no evidence of anything improper, yet he wrote a memo and reported, and his very next paragraph moves onto his theory that there's a quid pro quo.  We already know Trump asked for the assistance of the Ukraine on Burisma and the 2016 interference, yet this seems to be the only "evidence" that there is a quid pro quo.  He's got nothing that ties it together other than his belief (which we already knew about, and knew that he was specifically told he was wrong).

And then, he discovers that aide has been held and jumps the shark by attributing it (without any actual evidence) to the "irregular channels".  How would that "channel" have been relevant if the Ukranians didn't know about the withholding?  Seriously, he seems to believe that US policy on the Ukraine was something that he had a right to decide and if it didn't match exactly what he wanted it was illegal.  It wouldn't have been illegal to cancel the aide.  It wasn't illegal to premise it on certainty that the corruption measures were real (or if you think so, you need to explain why you don't believe it was illegal when, in the best case, Biden did exactly that).  As if to bolster his argument, he lists out that staff meetings routinely agreed aide should go forward - whoop dee do.  The decision on that was always above the staff level, it's their job was to make recommendations or implement policy decisions.

Again, this reflects to me, an overwhelming arrogance by the bureaucracy that they control our policies not our elected government.

His references to Bolton are interesting.  Would be interested if Bolton will support or debunk him.  Bolton may actually have been in a position to know something, Taylor on the other hand seems to be doing nothing but speculating cause his preferred policy wasn't moving at the speed he wanted it.
 
He then took offense at the concept of the Ukranians leaving "no stone unturned" in the investigation.  Sounds, again, like a request to actually follow the law and go where the information leads.  That's at odds with an improper motive argument.

Much of what follows is just an accounting of how he was talking to people on the ground, where he suspected that policies had changed but didn't know, and then we get to this:

Quote
I asked him if there had been a change in policy of strong support for Ukraine, to which he responded, “ it remains to be seen . He also told me during this call that the President doesn't want to provide any assistance at all.” That was extremely troubling to me. As I had told Secretary Pompeo in May, if the policy of strong support for Ukraine were to change, I would have to resign. Based on my call with Mr.Morrison, I was preparing to do so.

This is honestly what the whole thing seems to have been about.  He didn't like what he thought the policy was going to be.  He discussed it with Bolton, in person, a few days later in Ukraine, and was told to send a message to Pompeo.  Here's what he says he said:

Quote
I wrote and transmitted such a cable on August 29 describing the “folly in withholding military aid to Ukraine at a time when hostilities were still active in the east and when Russia was watching closely to gauge the level of American support for the Ukrainian government. I told the Secretary that I could not and would not defend such a policy.

Again, shows you his state of mind.  His next paragraph once again segues into asserting there is a quid pro quo (again without proof, just his speculation).  And how did Taylor serve US interests?  He decided, without being directed to do the following:

Quote
Just hours before the Pence-Zelenskyy meeting, I contacted Mr. Danyliuk to let him know that the delay of U.S. security assistance was an " all or nothing” proposition, in the sense that if the White House did not lift the hold prior to the end of the fiscal year (September 30), the funds would expire and Ukraine would receive nothing.

First of all, it's not clear that is true, particularly not in anything but a technical sense.  Nor is there any good reason to think it was going to occur.  But moreover, that's a deliberate undermining of US interests.  Is it a huge deal?  No, but it's highly inappropriate.  And what happened in the Vice President's meeting?  He said he'd talk to Trump, and "The Vice President did say that President Trump wanted the Europeans to do more to support Ukraine and that he wanted the Ukrainians to do more to fight corruption."  Again, legitimate policy positions, and exactly the same message as Trump sent.

So much of what he said is totally normal, and when he gets to the "damning" stuff it reads like this:

Quote
During this same phone call had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at Warsaw. Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation.

Note, that's a third hand account, and maybe more.  I doubt Sondland is going to agree that this is what he said on the call.  On the other, other hand, Taylor's write up makes me wonder if  Morrison, or someone he's working with,  isn't the whistle blower.  This happened on Sept 1st, and is the "first time" he heard the security assistance was premised on the "investigations."  If it happened, and if the underlying claims are true, and if even then Sondland said what is claimed, and if Sondland was correct about (which means it had to come from Trump, which means it had to be communicated to Sondland directly or through someone), then this would be a lead on some actual evidence.  Lucky for the left, there are no evidentiary rules or even a baseline of reasonableness required for evidence here.

He then claims he had a conversation with Sondland where Sondland told him that a public announcement of the investigations was required to get the aide or the white visit and that he passed that on to Morrison (note the resemblance to the WB's tale about being told things?).  And lest we forget he talks about the undercutting of the official channel by the unofficial channel, notwithstanding that everything he said above was communicated through an actual ambassodor (if he's correct). 

He then participated in a meeting with Senators Johnson and Murphy to let the Ukraine now that "bipartisan" support was contingent to not "getting drawn into U.S. domestic policies."  Interesting, cause that's an admission of exactly the kind of quid pro quo that he's accusing Trump's "irregular channel" of participating in.  He clearly did it, and he did it with the Senators' assistance.  Then he doubles down and says that he'd been "making (and continue to make)" this point to all his official Ukranian contacts.  Keep in mind, this is four days after he "first" became aware of a possible improper motive.  Up to that point, the requests were completely proper and he was in fact undermining the express policy of the executive to apply the Rule of Law, Transparency, and to get to the bottom of the interference in the 2016 election.  This section, he thinks is noble, is a literal admission of his own guilt.

Following his confusion here, he recounts that Trump repeatedly makes clear there is no quid pro quo.  He even recounts that what he previously relayed as from Sondland, Sondland now says was a mistake on his part.  Again, be curious what Sondland actually said, and what he'll say if he's recalled.  And then a whole bunch of trying to relay what sounds like long conversations with Sondland where it looks as if Sondland is trying to correct Taylor's erroneous conclusions by speaking about multiple scenarios and Taylor is doing his best to take it out of context to be damning.  None of it - by the way - is attributable to anything Trump actually relayed, which was the clear message, there will be no quid pro quo.

Then he finds out the hold on security assistance is lifted, and what does he do?  He not only conveys that message, he once again goes off script to remind them of the importance of not interfering in the US election.  Trump asks for an open investigation that follows the Rule of Law and Taylor's primary concern is to tell them not to get involved?  Again, Taylor is pursuing a policy that does not accord with the official policy.  Talk about an "irregular channel," that's exactly what it is when a senior diplomat chooses to undermine the official policies of the President.  It looks expressly like a warning from the establishment that they will punish the Ukraniane if they do an honest investigation of the election interference of 2016.

He even tried to stop the Ukranian President from confirming that they would do the investigations publically.  I can't even imagine the world in which that can be explained away.  Remember he claimed that the anti-corruption efforts were great - then he undermined them repeatedly.  He claimed that Trump's team was inappropriate then he turned around and tried to dictate policy to the same person, policy that was not US policy, but either his personal - or more likely the anti-Trumper's policy.  One could consider that bordering on treason.

I really enjoyed that his conclusion brings up Giuliani again.  Why?  There's nothing in his statement that ascribes anything to Guilliani, yet he references him multiple times.  Why?  Well we know, its a key part of the WB story and it's probably the only non-official contact involved.  Otherwise the "irregular" channel is literally the exact people that should be involved, some of whom are more relevant to the official channels than Taylor himself.

So his evidence of the "quid pro quo" is effectively that he feels there was one, and that he claims Sondland told him (not in so many words) that there was one, but that when confronted Sondland said he was wrong, and that everything directly from Trump said no quid pro quo.  That he didn't understand Trump's concerns over corruption in the Ukraine (notwithstanding that corruption has literally been part of the US government policy and in his direct knowledge for as long as any of us can remember), therefore it must of had a secret motive.  That he viewed Trump's demands for the Rule of Law and transparency in investigations as something other than what they plainly were.  And that he didn't agree that assistence in investigating the 2016 interference was legitimate.

So get outraged if you want but like I said I see a lot to doubt in what Taylor said (which was almost completely third hand or further removed) and about his motivations, and specifically about his personal actions which undermined -deliberately- US policy.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #422 on: October 23, 2019, 12:27:42 PM »
would wager that if anti-liberals had known of all of Bill Taylor's accomplishments up to the day before he accepted Pompeo's offer they would have unanimously agreed that he was a man of enormous experience, integrity and sense of duty to further the best interests of the United States.  After all, George Bush liked him.

Probably true.  Hard to know which long standing bureaucrats can put their personal opinions aside and carry out the official policies until you test them.   It's pretty clear, from Taylor's own words, that he could not and did not do so.

Quote
But then he went and spoke up about the odd and alarming actions Trump and Giuliani undertook in Ukraine.

He mentioned Giulliani a few times, didn't see him talk about much in the way of actions.

He also characterized routine things handled appropriately, in which he was expressly included, as odd for no reason other than to fit a narrative.

As to Trump, pretty much all he says that he attributes to Trump is that Trump was clear there was no quid pro quo.

Quote
Now they realize that he's just another deep-state partisan bureaucrat who is lying for unspecified nefarious purposes with the sole goal of damaging Trump.

He's telling his story because he doesn't agree with the President's foreign policies.  He stated that pretty openly in his account.  I suspect that he feels he is doing a service by trying to remove Trump, not because he did anything wrong, but because he's "wrong" in Talyor's view on how he's handling foreign relations.

Quote
As Lindsey Graham said, this is a lynching in every sense of the word.  There's no other possible explanation for it.

It is.  Lynching mobs didn't care about evidence, due process, testing accusations in an adversarial process and agianst the facts.  They literally cared about the person who was accused/guilty.  Existence was proof of guilt.

That's exactly the standard being used with Trump.  You've defended that he's guilty because of who he is, others have defended a secret process without any semblance of fairness.  Could just as easily said it was a witch trial and been accurate.

Of course, fairness and process would get in the way of a good ole lynching, and we couldn't have that when he was clearly guilty from the election onwards.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #423 on: October 23, 2019, 01:40:26 PM »
Too many words, Seriati.  I don't have time to read such a detailed disquisition, and although words matter, sometimes too many words make less matter.  I'll just comment on one simple statement and leave it at that:

Me: "As Lindsey Graham said, this is a lynching in every sense of the word.  There's no other possible explanation for it."

Seriati: "It is.  Lynching mobs didn't care about evidence, due process, testing accusations in an adversarial process and agianst the facts.  They literally cared about the person who was accused/guilty.  Existence was proof of guilt."

Except, of course, THIS IS NOT A LYNCHING.  This is an evidentiary inquiry substituting for Grand Jury and Special Prosecutor investigations that William Barr explicitly ruled out because he thought there was nothing at all worth investigating here.  Due process is absolutely being followed with great care, in other words.  The actual impeachment hearings (remember, this is just the inquiry to establish whether a basis exists for such hearings) will start soon enough and will be carried out in public.  The transcripts from these closed door sessions (which Republicans are represented in at equal strength and participate in equal measure -- When did you ever hear of a lynching where blacks were in attendance to watch and offer their opinions and interrogate the lynchee? -- ) will be released with classified material redacted.

So, in short form:

* It's nonsense to claim this is a one-sided banana-republic behind-closed-doors lynching by a blood-thirsty mob of haters. It is a Constitutionally mandated process being conducted according to the rules.

* Lindsey Graham has insisted that he will change his view if he sees evidence of a quid pro quo, but don't hold your breath.

* Anybody who dismisses the information being offered by professional diplomats whose long careers have demonstrated integrity, ability and dedication is clearly leading with their hardened opinion and is not (so far, at least) open to the facts that are presented.

I'm not actually trying to convince you, for the obvious reasons.  Like many others here, I just like to hear myself talk.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2019, 01:43:06 PM by Kasandra »

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #424 on: October 23, 2019, 01:47:32 PM »
Quote
Of course, fairness and process would get in the way of a good ole lynching, and we couldn't have that when he was clearly guilty from the election onwards

I hear what your saying and how from that perspective - all those that disagree with Trump handling of some issue comes from a place where they have determined he is guilty from the election on.  Any debate or investigation on any specific issue or policy has been hamstrung.

Isn't the danger of viewing all issues as it concerns Trump from this perspective, even if true for many, undermining the rule of law? How do you get past it? Is the only alternative to lynch everyone?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #425 on: October 23, 2019, 01:50:47 PM »
Yep, you (Kasandra) call me out for having doubts, but don't have the patience to see why I have them.  Totally convincing me that you're serious.  We both know that you believe Taylor because he's saying what you want to hear, and not because you have an independent reason to dispute anything I said.

Truth is he could be right, but he didn't relate anything that approaches a first hand account.  Again, at best it's a lead, and yet, it sure is being sold as a fact.

And no, there's nothing normal about this, nor is there anything reasonable about.  We all know  this process is running this way because Nadler is a terrible public face and he'll single handedly botch the impeachment.  Ergo, we need a secret process where leaks can be made to make sure the "correct" answer is reached in the public mind before the Democrats are brave enough to move forward.

It's all a lie though, the Democrats are going to impeach, even if they turn up nothing more than what they have.  Why not do it?  Simple, they haven't swayed the public enough to pre-decide the issue.  That's all they are waiting for, not more evidence, just better polling.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #426 on: October 23, 2019, 02:10:00 PM »
Quote
I hear what your saying and how from that perspective - all those that disagree with Trump handling of some issue comes from a place where they have determined he is guilty from the election on.
Don't be silly.  We thought this long before he ever ran for office.  We just didn't care about him enough to make issue of it.   ;D

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #427 on: October 23, 2019, 02:19:48 PM »
 :(

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #428 on: October 23, 2019, 02:26:26 PM »
It's interesting to me that the benefit of the doubt from many here seems to always lean towards Trump despite the weight of suspicion and evidence leaning the other way.

Innocent until proven guilty, against the standard of against "a reasonable doubt" so not exceptional at all.

Investigstion may be justified and turn up more, and this testimony helps bolster the basis for digging deeper, but it doesn't prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt" on its own.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #429 on: October 23, 2019, 02:32:42 PM »
We may already be there, since President Trump says the Constitution is fake, so why should he even care what it says?  That's a rhetorical question, since in many respects we can see him ignore it with our own eyes and hear him dismiss it with our own ears.

Pelosi was there back in 2009/2010 what with the whole (from memory) "most of what we do (in the House of Representatives) has nothing to do with the Constitution"

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #430 on: October 23, 2019, 02:43:30 PM »
When did you ever hear of a lynching where blacks were in attendance to watch and offer their opinions and interrogate the lynchee? -- )

Some people seem to be under the mistaken and very anti-historical view that only black people were ever lynched in the history of the term/practice. From my recollection of history, that is not so, and it was far from being something that was exclusively done to blacks. Far from it, blacks weren't even the first ones it was done to. What they are, is some of the last ones to experience it.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #431 on: October 23, 2019, 02:45:28 PM »
We may already be there, since President Trump says the Constitution is fake, so why should he even care what it says?  That's a rhetorical question, since in many respects we can see him ignore it with our own eyes and hear him dismiss it with our own ears.

Pelosi was there back in 2009/2010 what with the whole (from memory) "most of what we do (in the House of Representatives) has nothing to do with the Constitution"
Of course, your recollection could be tainted with "preferential inference".  I can't find any quote from her that resembles that, so it would be interesting if you can find the exact quote so we can see how closely it matches what she actually said.

I'll take a shot a your recollection, anyway. Since it obviously lacks context, she could be saying that mostly they sit around waiting for someone to say or do something, perhaps snacking or sharing pictures of their grandchildren, like in any organization.  Where in the Constitution does it say to sit around or eat?  There were no photographs in 1789, so clearly sharing them now is extra-Constitutional and could be construed as a misuse of their Constitutional authority.

More likely the context is something like, "we're here to pass legislation.  We don't have to keep looking in the Constitution to see if everything we do is spelled out there.

It's interesting to me that the benefit of the doubt from many here seems to always lean towards Trump despite the weight of suspicion and evidence leaning the other way.

Innocent until proven guilty, against the standard of against "a reasonable doubt" so not exceptional at all.

Investigstion may be justified and turn up more, and this testimony helps bolster the basis for digging deeper, but it doesn't prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt" on its own.
That's what a Grand Jury or Special Prosecutor would have done for them.  Given the amount of inferential and documented evidence found so far, someone should ask Barr why he concluded that there wasn't even anything there worth investigating.  But, we already know, of course.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #432 on: October 23, 2019, 02:46:40 PM »
First, Seriati thank you very much for that write-up, as I haven't had time to pour over it like you did. I'll read it soon if I can for but now I'll trust you're write-up. I personally still think Taylor himself could have been the whistleblower, but maybe it was someone else directly involved, yeah. Your comments on how Taylor's main animosity seems to be towards the foreign policy itself rang some truth bells for me, as this is entirely consistent with how I think Trump's Presidency has fit in with the usual party politics. When a stooge is in the oval office (read: all Presidents lately) certain establishment cliques can know that their agendas will go forward more or less how they want. It doesn't matter what party it is, really, in this sense - or at least it doesn't any more. Right from the word go we knew the GOP absolutely didn't want Trump in power, but like the DNC they flubbed the attempt to keep him out. Worse control systems, I guess. But even though they had to officially endorse him in the end if the GOP was going to have someone in power at all, I never thought they actually wanted him there, messing up all of their plans. One of those plans always has been establishing military and political entrenchment in Ukraine to push Russia back in terms of reach.

Having read your write-up, it strikes me that - of course! - there are going to be plenty of people in the establishment that are not only anti-Trump in the general sense but more specifically who are pursuing policy goals that predate him and are at odds with his own policy wishes. That was never going to stop just because he's President, any more than it does when anyone is elected President; those forces keep moving in their preferred direction and they try to co-opt the new President as much as possible. That leads me to a point Kasandra made earlier which I have re-evaluated in new light:

I would wager that if anti-liberals had known of all of Bill Taylor's accomplishments up to the day before he accepted Pompeo's offer they would have unanimously agreed that he was a man of enormous experience, integrity and sense of duty to further the best interests of the United States.  After all, George Bush liked him.

At first glance Kasandra's point would seem to add credibility to Taylor: he's a man the GOP has been behind in the past, so we have no reason to think he'd be disloyal or be working against the current administration. After all, in the red vs blue turf war, he's no blue, therefore no realistic objection could be made against him, right?

Except hold on: the very fact that George Bush liked him is exactly the most likely reason to think Taylor would *not* be on the same side as Trump now. Getting stuck too much in the red vs blue mindset (which I mentioned to rightleft just a bit ago) is precisely what will make us get lost and mis-evaluate details. The fact that GWB's Presidency favored Taylor should be a clear indication that he's in with the crowd that flourished under that Presidency: the warhawk crowd, the sabre rattling crowd, and the moving military armaments crowd. Maybe other cliques should be included but let's limit it to that for now since those have been very evidently interested in what goes on in Eastern Europe for the past 5-10 years (that I've seen). So *of course* someone like Taylor, being part of that crowd, is going to be antagonistic to Trump and his policies: we shouldn't gather that Trump has upset someone nominally on his side who is now turning coats, but rather than Taylor was already on the opposite side. But this can only make sense when you stop thinking of the sides as being Republican and Democrat. They are actually establishment and upstart.


Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #433 on: October 23, 2019, 02:48:17 PM »
When did you ever hear of a lynching where blacks were in attendance to watch and offer their opinions and interrogate the lynchee? -- )

Some people seem to be under the mistaken and very anti-historical view that only black people were ever lynched in the history of the term/practice. From my recollection of history, that is not so, and it was far from being something that was exclusively done to blacks. Far from it, blacks weren't even the first ones it was done to. What they are, is some of the last ones to experience it.
Nitpick much?  Substitute any [class, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, etc] for "blacks" and see if it means something other than what I was saying.

"Except hold on: the very fact that George Bush liked him is exactly the most likely reason to think Taylor would *not* be on the same side as Trump now."

Very good!  Taylor is now impeached as a witness, so strike his testimony.  Carry on.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #434 on: October 23, 2019, 02:54:31 PM »
I didn't strike his testimoney.  I said have doubts about it, but also that if its true and can be backed up by the people that did have first hand testimony its very damaging.  I just don't see anything substantial in there that supports the quid pro quo.  Taylor wasn't aware of, or ignored Trump's general concern with corruption, and he filled in the blanks with the worst possible version of what happened.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #435 on: October 23, 2019, 02:55:19 PM »
Quote
Of course, fairness and process would get in the way of a good ole lynching, and we couldn't have that when he was clearly guilty from the election onwards

I hear what your saying and how from that perspective - all those that disagree with Trump handling of some issue comes from a place where they have determined he is guilty from the election on.  Any debate or investigation on any specific issue or policy has been hamstrung.

Isn't the danger of viewing all issues as it concerns Trump from this perspective, even if true for many, undermining the rule of law? How do you get past it? Is the only alternative to lynch everyone?

Not that anyone cares however isn't such a perspective painting all people who disagree with any Trump issue as having convicted him as guilty from the election. Making the same error of those that have made that error declaring Trump guilty at election? Everyone who defends Trump is guilty, everyone who dislikes Trump is guilty.

How does such blanket statements not end up as a excuse to undermine the rule of law?
« Last Edit: October 23, 2019, 02:58:04 PM by rightleft22 »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #436 on: October 23, 2019, 03:06:11 PM »
Quote
"Except hold on: the very fact that George Bush liked him is exactly the most likely reason to think Taylor would *not* be on the same side as Trump now."

Very good!  Taylor is now impeached as a witness, so strike his testimony.  Carry on.

This sounds like a burden shift to me. You were making the point that we (or Democrats, at any rate) should find Taylor credible because 'even GWB liked him'. I was contesting that exact point and suggesting that it does not show that. But you're taking me contradicting your point and now using it to show that I'm trying to disqualify Taylor's testimony, which is a point I never made. Do you see how burden shifted there, transferring me questioning your evidence into me making a forward point of my own that I now need to defend, even though I never made the point you say I did?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #437 on: October 23, 2019, 03:08:17 PM »
When did you ever hear of a lynching where blacks were in attendance to watch and offer their opinions and interrogate the lynchee? -- )

Some people seem to be under the mistaken and very anti-historical view that only black people were ever lynched in the history of the term/practice. From my recollection of history, that is not so, and it was far from being something that was exclusively done to blacks. Far from it, blacks weren't even the first ones it was done to. What they are, is some of the last ones to experience it.
Nitpick much?  Substitute any [class, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, etc] for "blacks" and see if it means something other than what I was saying.

"Except hold on: the very fact that George Bush liked him is exactly the most likely reason to think Taylor would *not* be on the same side as Trump now."

Very good!  Taylor is now impeached as a witness, so strike his testimony.  Carry on.

Fenring's theory isn't too far off the mark IMO. I think the Republicans would love nothing more than an excuse to get Trump out of office, so a GOP affiliated person being involved in something which could be used as a "potential smoking gun" to get Trump out is within reason. Call it "deep state" or whatever you want to, but there is motive for people on both sides of the Republican/Democrat political divide to join forces to go against Trump. It was going on in 2016 after all, to believe it magically stopped after November 2016 is more than a bit silly in my view.

What did change after that election is the GOP had to change tactics, as they have to find a lever they can use without putting themselves on the receiving end of wrathful vengeance of Trump's supporters.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #438 on: October 23, 2019, 03:15:27 PM »
We may already be there, since President Trump says the Constitution is fake, so why should he even care what it says?  That's a rhetorical question, since in many respects we can see him ignore it with our own eyes and hear him dismiss it with our own ears.

Pelosi was there back in 2009/2010 what with the whole (from memory) "most of what we do (in the House of Representatives) has nothing to do with the Constitution"
Of course, your recollection could be tainted with "preferential inference".  I can't find any quote from her that resembles that, so it would be interesting if you can find the exact quote so we can see how closely it matches what she actually said.

I'll take a shot a your recollection, anyway. Since it obviously lacks context, she could be saying that mostly they sit around waiting for someone to say or do something, perhaps snacking or sharing pictures of their grandchildren, like in any organization.  Where in the Constitution does it say to sit around or eat?  There were no photographs in 1789, so clearly sharing them now is extra-Constitutional and could be construed as a misuse of their Constitutional authority.

More likely the context is something like, "we're here to pass legislation.  We don't have to keep looking in the Constitution to see if everything we do is spelled out there.

Source was a sound byte from Glenn Beck while he was doing his crying Conspiracy Theorist stint at Fox News, I want to say it was in the lead up to Obama Care being passed into law. My google searching for it is also coming up empty at this time. Ah well.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #439 on: October 24, 2019, 09:44:08 AM »
This is not a robbery, but if you don't give me your money and valuables of your own free will I will shoot you.  Totally legit, not a robbery.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #440 on: October 24, 2019, 11:07:41 AM »
WSJ has refloated my favorite defense of Trump: he's too incompetent to actually break the law. Like, sure, he was trying to blackmail Ukraine into attacking his political rival but he was too inept to actually carry it off. And you can't impeach him for simply wanting to use America's foreign policy for political shenanigans. 

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #441 on: November 06, 2019, 04:06:21 PM »
So... the $400M package of US military and security aid for Ukraine... it absolutely had/has a concrete value to the Ukraine (oh, I'd say about $400M worth...)

But did that $400M have any value to the USA?  Could it have been used for anything else, or, knowing that it was valued by the Ukraine, could it have been used in some kind of trade with that country for something of value to the USA?

Obviously, the question that's coming is pretty obvious: what is the lost opportunity cost to the USA if those $400M were used instead to benefit the president's re-election campaign?  And what might the financial value be to the president's campaign of using at least part of that $400M as leverage?

I've heard a number of apologists make the claim (now that there is nothing wrong with the quid pro quo, there never was a problem with quid pro quo) that all presidents do this.  But they never really consider the cost to the country, all those millions and millions of taxpayer dollars, that were theoretically diverted to the president's election campaign...
« Last Edit: November 06, 2019, 04:08:26 PM by DonaldD »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #442 on: November 06, 2019, 05:43:53 PM »
Except they weren't diverted, Ukraine got their money, and as I recall, Trump didn't get the public announcement he was seeking.

This only became public knowledge when the Democrats leaked it for political gain. Hrm.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #443 on: November 06, 2019, 06:02:24 PM »
When did you ever hear of a lynching where blacks were in attendance to watch and offer their opinions and interrogate the lynchee? -- )

Some people seem to be under the mistaken and very anti-historical view that only black people were ever lynched in the history of the term/practice. From my recollection of history, that is not so, and it was far from being something that was exclusively done to blacks. Far from it, blacks weren't even the first ones it was done to. What they are, is some of the last ones to experience it.

Perhaps the last ones, but certainly the main ones.  :(

Per the NAACP, about 73 percent of those lynched were black.

Quote
From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States.  Of these people that were lynched 3,446 were black.  The blacks lynched accounted for 72.7% of the people lynched.  These numbers seem large, but it is known that not all of the lynchings were ever recorded.  Out of the 4,743 people lynched only 1,297 white people were lynched.  That is only 27.3%.  Many of the whites lynched were lynched for helping the black or being anti lynching and even for domestic crimes.

So, yeah, it was something done primarily to blacks.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #444 on: November 06, 2019, 08:24:01 PM »
Quote
Trump didn't get the public announcement he was seeking.
So you also accept that Trump attempted to leverage the value of the QPQ, he was just unsuccessful in his attempt... That's refreshingly honest...

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #445 on: November 06, 2019, 11:39:00 PM »
When did you ever hear of a lynching where blacks were in attendance to watch and offer their opinions and interrogate the lynchee? -- )

Some people seem to be under the mistaken and very anti-historical view that only black people were ever lynched in the history of the term/practice. From my recollection of history, that is not so, and it was far from being something that was exclusively done to blacks. Far from it, blacks weren't even the first ones it was done to. What they are, is some of the last ones to experience it.

Perhaps the last ones, but certainly the main ones.  :(

Per the NAACP, about 73 percent of those lynched were black.

Quote
From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States.  Of these people that were lynched 3,446 were black.  The blacks lynched accounted for 72.7% of the people lynched.  These numbers seem large, but it is known that not all of the lynchings were ever recorded.  Out of the 4,743 people lynched only 1,297 white people were lynched.  That is only 27.3%.  Many of the whites lynched were lynched for helping the black or being anti lynching and even for domestic crimes.

So, yeah, it was something done primarily to blacks.

And conveniently, the statistics start in 1882.

I know a group of law abiding people that were dealing with being tarred and feathered, burned out of homes, attacked (and often killed) by violent mobs, and just generally treated very poorly sometimes even at the direction of the state as early as the 1820's, and they weren't black. They weren't even in "the south" for much of it, unless you want to consider New York, Ohio, and Illinois as part of the south.

More than a few lynchings to be found during the Revolutionary War era as well.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #446 on: November 07, 2019, 10:47:13 AM »
Ah, I see, that is what you meant by "some of the last ones to experience it."  That since 1882 or so, it was primarily blacks who were lynched, but before that, it was (possibly?) mainly whites.

While this may be historically accurate, it does not take away the apparent fact that, since 1882 or so, it was primarily used to terrorize blacks, and that is the most recent use of the practice.  And the most recent use is the one that people think of when they think of historical usage.  For example, consider the swastika, a traditional sign of peace in Indian cultures (IIRC).  Do you think for one second that people would consider the display of the swastika a sign of peace today? ;)

So while it is true that lynchings have been color-blind through most of its history, it was decidedly color-depended for its most recent use.  And so there is more than adequate reason to see the practice as color-dependent, unless you are referring to a specific period of history when it wasn't.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #447 on: November 07, 2019, 10:55:02 AM »
Meanwhile, Gordon Sondland admits that the military aid offered to Ukraine was dependent on Ukraine investigating Biden's son.

Quote
After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks. I also recall some question as to whether the public statement could come from the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than from President Zelensky directly.

6. Soon thereafter, I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself. I do not specifically recall how I learned this, but I believe that the information may have come either from Mr. Giuliani or from Ambassador Volker, who may have discussed this with Mr. Giuliani.
(Emphasis mine.)

So there is no question now whether quid pro quo occurred.  The only question now is who directed it.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #448 on: November 07, 2019, 11:08:38 AM »
Quote
And conveniently, the statistics start in 1882
What exactly would have been the point of lynching one's own property, or worse, of lynching somebody else's property?  Are you really unaware of why statistics prior to 1865, or even in the immediate post-war years, would not have been comparable to the reported timeline, anyway?

Of course, prior to 1865, lynching of blacks would more likely have come under the description of "death while escaping" "death while being punished" or "death from natural causes (over-work, insufficient nutrition, poor health care, etc)"
« Last Edit: November 07, 2019, 11:11:17 AM by DonaldD »

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #449 on: November 07, 2019, 11:08:49 AM »
You left part of it out.  Emphasis is mine.

Quote
I always believed that suspending aid to Ukraine was ill-advised, although I did not know (and still do not know) when, why or by whom the aid was suspended.  However, by the beginning of September 2019, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.