Author Topic: Ukraine  (Read 68873 times)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #550 on: November 19, 2019, 07:21:45 PM »
Quote
The Impeachment narrative only works if Giuliani is working under Trump's orders.
You do realize that Sondland and Giuliani are not the same person, right?  And that the quote to which you are responding had nothing to do with Giuliani..?

??? Part of that quote block directly mentions Giuliani, and suggests the former mayor was pushing it, not Trump.

Quote
Also the quote to which you were responding... It was in reaction to the claim that all evidence against Trump is hearsay, because Taylor only provided 3rd hand knowledge..

And I'd agree with that, Taylor relayed what he was told by Sondland.

Taylor's testimony is useless to a prosecutor, but potentially useful to a defense lawyer, as Taylor has managed to call in question Sondland's credibility. Which isn't what the Democrats were trying to achieve.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #551 on: November 19, 2019, 08:28:01 PM »
TheDeamon,

of the people that are being proposed - Trump, Guiliani, Sondman as the guilty party.  I'm curious what you think the odds are of they being the actually guilty individual?

Do you think maybe 33% Trump, 33% Guilliani, 33% Sondman?

Also if you think it isn't Trump - what is the reasoning and how did they arrange it all?  Just a 'go getter' attitude and true love and loyalty for Trump?  How did they manage to hold up the Ukraine money?  How did they trick Trump into the phone call where he tells the Ukrainian President to coordinate with Guilianni?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #552 on: November 19, 2019, 10:42:30 PM »
TheDaemon, I can kinda see where you got confused: when Holmes said
Quote
that Trump "doesn't give a s--t about Ukraine," and that his primary focus was on "big stuff that matters to him, like this Biden investigation that Giuliani is pushing."
you have to understand that he was quoting Sondland, not Trump.  Meaning, the reference to Giuliani is Sondland's reference, not Trump's (why the quote is to "big stuff that matters to him" not "big stuff that matters to me")

It's quite clear that the investigation is Trump's preoccupation, that it is "important" to him, that Trump is well aware of it, and that Sondland is also aware that Giuliani is tasked with pushing Ukraine on the topic of the investigations.

Or is it your point that Trump is somehow aware of what Giuliani is doing, that Giuliani's goal is important to the President, but that Giuliani had gone rogue and Trump simply could not stop Giuliani from doing the thing that was so important to Trump and that the president wanted done (and which Trump himself was pushing independently?) 

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #553 on: November 20, 2019, 01:33:05 AM »
TheDeamon,

of the people that are being proposed - Trump, Guiliani, Sondman as the guilty party.

Guilty of what?

Quote
How did they manage to hold up the Ukraine money?

Read the Mulvaney transcript, don't trust Shiff's misrepresentation about what is in it.  This isn't a mystery at all.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #554 on: November 20, 2019, 07:33:48 AM »
The next star witness for Democrats, former ambassador Kurt Volker:

Quote
... it was the turn of former diplomat Kurt Volker to look like a jackass courtesy of Rep. Mike Turner:

..."So I get to ask you. You had a meeting with the President of the United States, and you believe that the policy issues he raised concerning Ukraine were valid, correct?"
"Yes," Volker said.

"Did the President of the United States ever say to you that he was not going to allow aid from the United States to go to the Ukraine unless there were investigations into Burisma, the Bidens, or the 2016 elections?" Turner asked.

"No, he did not," Volker said.

Turner then asked, "Did the Ukrainians ever tell you that they understood that they would not get a meeting with the President of the United States, a phone call with the President of the United States, military aid, or foreign aid from the United States unless they undertook investigations of Burisma, the Bidens, or the 2016 elections?"

"No, they did not," Volker said.

Turner noted that Volker's answers essentially dismantled the Democrats' entire case for impeaching Trump.

"Pretty much, Ambassador Volker, you just, like, took apart their entire case," Turner said.

These are the handpicked, star witnesses, that Schiff and the Democrats said would prove the accusations against Trump. So far, literally every single one has blown up the case as they admit the same things Volker just admitted.

It’s incredible that this sham continues

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #555 on: November 20, 2019, 07:56:15 AM »
What’s really weird is that on social media people claim this is devastating to trump. By saying this, Volker proved the accusations against Trump. It’s just bizarre. How does anyone read that testimony and say, yeah, Volker proved the quid pro quo and bribery when Volker explicitly says Trump didn’t do it?

The clown show is made up of people that have literally gone crazy.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #556 on: November 20, 2019, 08:48:34 AM »
Can't wait to see what Sondland 3.0 has to say now.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #557 on: November 20, 2019, 09:17:05 AM »
These are the handpicked, star witnesses, that Schiff and the Democrats said would prove the accusations against Trump. So far, literally every single one has blown up the case as they admit the same things Volker just admitted.

It’s incredible that this sham continues

Volker was the witness requested by the Republicans, but whoever called him he is someone who should have been testifying. The question remains as to why he was working/talking with Rudy about US foreign policy.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #558 on: November 20, 2019, 10:31:19 AM »
Suddenly now Sondland says there was quid pro quo. He's either more amnesiac than a daytime TV character, or he lacks any credibility.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #559 on: November 20, 2019, 10:38:22 AM »
Wonder how long until Sondland is out as ambassador to the EU? Will he make it through the end of the day? I can't believe he hasn't resigned yet. No way he has the confidence of the president after this.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #560 on: November 20, 2019, 10:58:44 AM »
Suddenly now Sondland says there was quid pro quo. He's either more amnesiac than a daytime TV character, or he lacks any credibility.

You crack me up.  When he has 'memory lapses' that favor the President - he is 100% reliable.  When his memory is 'refreshed' by the testimony of others so that he no longer has memory lapses in the Presidents favor, and now those recollections clearly implicate the President 'he lacks any credibility'.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #561 on: November 20, 2019, 11:04:46 AM »
Suddenly now Sondland says there was quid pro quo. He's either more amnesiac than a daytime TV character, or he lacks any credibility.

You crack me up.  When he has 'memory lapses' that favor the President - he is 100% reliable.  When his memory is 'refreshed' by the testimony of others so that he no longer has memory lapses in the Presidents favor, and now those recollections clearly implicate the President 'he lacks any credibility'.

Actually I think any statement he's ever made, favorable to the President or not, is not credible. Not sure how you think otherwise. Now, you can pick and choose to believe the latest iteration if you want to, assuming that he was pretending to forget in earlier testimony and now is owning up to his obfuscation. I'm saying when somebody comes out with three different versions of a story, I'm going to ignore them.

It would be like a witness changing their story on the stand after declaring the opposite in a deposition before. It's up to the jury to believe them before, believe them now, or believe nothing. I'm in the latter camp.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #562 on: November 20, 2019, 11:21:41 AM »
Just watched some of this live this morning for the first time. What's fascinating to me is that you have this formal process being chaired and managed by Schiff, who then determines it's time to "take a 5-10 minute break".

During that break, he assembles the press and proceeds to describe in his opinion, what just said, why it proves the case, etc. I know this is technically not a legal proceeding but it seems bizarre that the chairman of the proceeding, while on a "break", continues with his own testimony and explains how the previous testimony should be interpreted to the press in order to reach the conclusion he's seeking.

So weird.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2019, 11:24:08 AM by ScottF »

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #563 on: November 20, 2019, 11:33:43 AM »

Actually I think any statement he's ever made, favorable to the President or not, is not credible. Not sure how you think otherwise. Now, you can pick and choose to believe the latest iteration if you want to, assuming that he was pretending to forget in earlier testimony and now is owning up to his obfuscation. I'm saying when somebody comes out with three different versions of a story, I'm going to ignore them.

It would be like a witness changing their story on the stand after declaring the opposite in a deposition before. It's up to the jury to believe them before, believe them now, or believe nothing. I'm in the latter camp.

Well the problem with your reasoning, is that now he has managed to find the emails that backup his current statement.  Testimony backed up by a paper trail is pretty credible.  So do you reckon he forged the emails and is an expert hacker and will have broke into secured servers of the State Department to falsify the time stamps of those emails?

Or does occam razor point towards that his 'memory lapses' were dubious and he has decided to come clean rather than go to jail to protect a corrupt President?  (Even if he is still charged with perjury for his original statements, it is still way better that obstruction of justice and conspiracy to commit bribery, etc.)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #564 on: November 20, 2019, 11:40:57 AM »
Suddenly now Sondland says there was quid pro quo. He's either more amnesiac than a daytime TV character, or he lacks any credibility.

You crack me up.  When he has 'memory lapses' that favor the President - he is 100% reliable.  When his memory is 'refreshed' by the testimony of others so that he no longer has memory lapses in the Presidents favor, and now those recollections clearly implicate the President 'he lacks any credibility'.

That's a bizarre thing to say to TheDrake.  It might make more sense if it were directed at someone like me.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #565 on: November 20, 2019, 11:52:56 AM »
For what it's worth, Sondland directly testified this morning that he was never told that the aide was linked to any concession by the Ukranians and that he made that conclusion himself.  If that's true, it pretty much dead ends the legitimate impeachment of the President based on any communications Sondland made or that were made based on information he conveyed.  Effectively, he's admitting to being the "source" of that as a matter of what may have been communicated.

He did indicate that he understood from the Guiliani position (unclear how this was conveyed based on the snippet I heard) that the white house visit was contingent on the connections to the investigations.  His additional testimony on what was being asked muddles this though - as it's not clear whether that really meant the investigation of the Bidens or just a commitment on corruption generally, it literally sounds like he was told "investigations" which could mean either and is filling in with the worse context after the fact.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #566 on: November 20, 2019, 12:04:48 PM »
During that break, he assembles the press and proceeds to describe in his opinion, what just said, why it proves the case, etc. I know this is technically not a legal proceeding but it seems bizarre that the chairman of the proceeding, while on a "break", continues with his own testimony and explains how the previous testimony should be interpreted to the press in order to reach the conclusion he's seeking.

Wouldn't that legally count as state propaganda and be illegal? How can it be legitimate to guide the press about how to cover an event whose findings haven't even been concluded yet?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #567 on: November 20, 2019, 12:28:51 PM »

Actually I think any statement he's ever made, favorable to the President or not, is not credible. Not sure how you think otherwise. Now, you can pick and choose to believe the latest iteration if you want to, assuming that he was pretending to forget in earlier testimony and now is owning up to his obfuscation. I'm saying when somebody comes out with three different versions of a story, I'm going to ignore them.

It would be like a witness changing their story on the stand after declaring the opposite in a deposition before. It's up to the jury to believe them before, believe them now, or believe nothing. I'm in the latter camp.

Well the problem with your reasoning, is that now he has managed to find the emails that backup his current statement.  Testimony backed up by a paper trail is pretty credible.  So do you reckon he forged the emails and is an expert hacker and will have broke into secured servers of the State Department to falsify the time stamps of those emails?

Or does occam razor point towards that his 'memory lapses' were dubious and he has decided to come clean rather than go to jail to protect a corrupt President?  (Even if he is still charged with perjury for his original statements, it is still way better that obstruction of justice and conspiracy to commit bribery, etc.)

If there are emails, they can be introduced into evidence. That's fine. Any testimony apart from the emails is still suspect.

Quote
"Everyone was informed via email on July 19, days before the Presidential call," Sondland said. "As I communicated to the team, I told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to 'run a fully transparent investigation' and 'turn over every stone' were necessary in his call with President Trump."

So he told the team what he was going to say. I'll wait for the transcript to find out the full context, since this news blurb doesn't even mention the military aid or the visit.

I know you think I'm being either pedantic or stupid, but I have a particularly sensitive spot for people who monkey with their stories and veracity.

The shoe walks in the other direction too. Seriati wants his testimony that he was never told that the aid was linked to concessions to refute everything. I say not so fast.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #568 on: November 20, 2019, 01:39:38 PM »
During that break, he assembles the press and proceeds to describe in his opinion, what just said, why it proves the case, etc. I know this is technically not a legal proceeding but it seems bizarre that the chairman of the proceeding, while on a "break", continues with his own testimony and explains how the previous testimony should be interpreted to the press in order to reach the conclusion he's seeking.

Wouldn't that legally count as state propaganda and be illegal? How can it be legitimate to guide the press about how to cover an event whose findings haven't even been concluded yet?

If the Republicans get the house in the next cycle, he'll probably be sitting in front of a Republican led House Ethics committee to explain himself. No point in bringing it up right now, the Dems will likely whitewash it.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #569 on: November 20, 2019, 05:21:05 PM »
Suddenly now Sondland says there was quid pro quo. He's either more amnesiac than a daytime TV character, or he lacks any credibility.

You crack me up.  When he has 'memory lapses' that favor the President - he is 100% reliable.  When his memory is 'refreshed' by the testimony of others so that he no longer has memory lapses in the Presidents favor, and now those recollections clearly implicate the President 'he lacks any credibility'.

That's a bizarre thing to say to TheDrake.  It might make more sense if it were directed at someone like me.

You have a point.  TheDrake my apologies.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #570 on: November 20, 2019, 05:27:49 PM »
During that break, he assembles the press and proceeds to describe in his opinion, what just said, why it proves the case, etc. I know this is technically not a legal proceeding but it seems bizarre that the chairman of the proceeding, while on a "break", continues with his own testimony and explains how the previous testimony should be interpreted to the press in order to reach the conclusion he's seeking.

Wouldn't that legally count as state propaganda and be illegal? How can it be legitimate to guide the press about how to cover an event whose findings haven't even been concluded yet?

Could you clarify what you think is illegal?  He is giving press briefings on his interpretation of the testimony. Seems perfectly consistent with free speech and free press. It is common for politicians, lawyers, etc. to give their interpretations, as well as a variety of press and talk show hosts.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #571 on: November 20, 2019, 09:38:35 PM »
More on Vindman...

In his prepared statement provided to Congress, Vindman claimed to be the top adviser to the President of the United States on Ukraine policy. He was later forced to admit he's never met Trump, never spoke to Trump, and has never advised him on anything.

Ok, look, Vindman is what the guys in my division typically referred to as an *censored*. He’s a lying little *censored*. No wonder the NSC wanted him out and all his peers hated him.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #572 on: November 20, 2019, 10:27:00 PM »
"I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get reelected." Al Green

According to Al's interpretation of the Constitution, a sitting President can be impeached for high crimes, misdemeanors, or if it looks like if he is not impeached he will win re-election.

https://www.politifact.com/texas/article/2019/oct/25/putting-al-greens-comments-impeachment-context/

“The weak response to these hearings has been, ‘Let the election decide.’ That dangerous position only adds to the urgency of our action, because the President is jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections.” Nancy Pelosi

https://news.yahoo.com/nancy-pelosi-already-attacking-legitimacy-113013917.html

So letting the voters decide is dangerous.


The accusation against Trump and the reason why he needs to be removed from office is because he abused the power of his office to initiate an investigation into his political opponent.

Exactly what the Democrats are doing right now.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #573 on: November 20, 2019, 11:01:26 PM »
Quote
Wouldn't that legally count as state propaganda and be illegal? How can it be legitimate to guide the press about how to cover an event whose findings haven't even been concluded yet?

Could you clarify what you think is illegal?  He is giving press briefings on his interpretation of the testimony. Seems perfectly consistent with free speech and free press. It is common for politicians, lawyers, etc. to give their interpretations, as well as a variety of press and talk show hosts.

Well I was asking partially because I don't know what exact legal role Schiff has in his investigation. For instance in a court setting I imagine there would be legal consequences to a prosecutor or a judge announcing to the press mid-trial how what's been presented so far "demonstrates the obvious guilt of the accused". Wouldn't that be a breach of the ethics of the process, and in effect be disseminating an opinion as fact to the public, thereby making them think it's a fact? And wouldn't the position of that person be compromised if they were declaring ahead of the final verdict what the verdict would be? Now I guess I don't know enough about this process to understand exactly what Schiff's ethical responsibilities are, but if they are to conduct an impartial investigation then wouldn't it basically be mere propaganda to instead of insisting on the veracity of one particular outcome before the investigation is even done? I'd call that propaganda, personally, if that's what's happening. Doesn't even mean he's wrong; that's not really my issue.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #574 on: November 20, 2019, 11:27:42 PM »
Trump was right again.

    "The Ukrainian Office of the Prosecutor General has drawn up an indictment against the owner of the Burisma Holdings energy company, ex-Ecology Minister Nikolai Zlochevsky, that contains information that the son of former US Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter, as a Burisma board member along with his partners received $16.5 million for their services, Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada MP from the ruling Servant of the People party Alexander Dubinsky told a press conference on Wednesday, citing the investigation’s materials. According to him, the money came from duplicitous criminal activity.

    According to the politician, “the son of Vice-President Joe Biden was receiving payment for his services, with money raised through criminal means and money laundering.” He also clarified that “Biden received money that did not come from the company’s successful operation but rather from money stolen from citizens.”

    Dubinsky stressed that the information on Hunter Biden’s income under his contract with Burisma is a “link that reveals how money is siphoned [from Ukraine].“

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/indictment-against-head-of-burisma-reveals-hunter-biden-was-receiving-payments-from-money-raised-through-criminal-means-siphoned-laundered-from-ukraine/

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #575 on: November 20, 2019, 11:30:45 PM »
I think even the dems wouldn't have the temerity to call this an impartial investigation. From what I can tell, there seems to be a rough format (each party takes turns asking questions, or filibustering under the guise of asking questions) but no real repercussions re: veracity. There doesn't appear to be any notion of a real-time objection, so each side can literally say anything they want while they have the conch.

So if it's not a legal proceeding with no real rules then I guess all bets are off. And it's fair play for the head of the proceeding tell the republicans, mid session, that their turn for rebuttal/cross-examination needs to wait until after he holds a conference out in the hall to make sure the press understands why what they've just heard is so damning and proves his case.

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #576 on: November 21, 2019, 06:08:29 AM »
https://twitter.com/RepAndyBiggsAZ/status/1197232692171083777

Video of Rep. Turner questioning Sondland yesterday.

As the exchange was taking place, the chyron on CNN stated: “SONDLAND: ‘YES’ THERE WAS QUID PRO QUO IN UKRAINE SCANDAL.”
Quote
Turner: “After you testified, Chairman [Adam] Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president of the United States because of your testimony and if you pull up CNN today, right now, their banner says ‘Sondland ties Trump to withholding aid,'” Turner said. “Is that your testimony today, Ambassador Sondland? That you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations to the aid? Because I don’t think you’re saying that.”

Sondland: “I’ve said repeatedly Congressman, I was presuming,”

Turner: “So, no one told you? Giuliani didn’t tell you? Mulvaney didn’t tell you? Pompeo didn’t tell you? Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations, is that correct?”

Sondland: “I think I already testified,”

Turner: “No, answer the question, Is it correct? No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to the investigations? Because if your answer is ‘yes,’ then the chairman is wrong and the headline on CNN is wrong.”

Turner: “No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations, yes or no?”

Sondland: “Yes”

Turner: “So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?” Turner pressed.

Sondland: “Other than my own presumption,”

Turner: “Which is nothing,”

Seriously, barring some new evidence, Shouldn't this shut the door on this whole charade?


LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #577 on: November 21, 2019, 06:30:34 AM »
Lloyd Perna,

Quote
As the exchange was taking place, the chyron on CNN stated: “SONDLAND: ‘YES’ THERE WAS QUID PRO QUO IN UKRAINE SCANDAL.”

He was directly told that for the Ukranians to get the aid would require the public statement of investigation and he told that to the Ukranians.  Hence the headline is correct.

What appears to be confusing you is Sondland is claiming that Trump didn't personally tell Sondland that, he 'presumed' it was Trump who was directing Guilianni and others to tell him that.

So Turner merely was decieving you.  The headline is accurate.

Quote
Seriously, barring some new evidence, Shouldn't this shut the door on this whole charade?

Simply because Sondland testified Trump didn't directly tell Sondland isn't relevant.  Their is other evidence that it was Trump who established this condition.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2019, 06:35:31 AM by LetterRip »

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #578 on: November 21, 2019, 06:39:01 AM »
Lloyd Perna,

Quote
As the exchange was taking place, the chyron on CNN stated: “SONDLAND: ‘YES’ THERE WAS QUID PRO QUO IN UKRAINE SCANDAL.”

He was directly told that to get the aid would require the public statement.  Hence the headline is correct.

What appears to be confusing you is that Trump didn't tell Sondland that, he 'presumed' it was Trump who was directing Guilianni and others to tell him that.

So Turner merely was decieving you.  The headline is accurate.

In the testimony I quoted above he testified that no one on the Planet told him that Trump was tying the aid to investigations.  Not even Guilianni.  Please provide his testimony that contradicts this, because I cant find it.


LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #579 on: November 21, 2019, 07:35:30 AM »
In the testimony I quoted above he testified that no one on the Planet told him that Trump was tying the aid to investigations.  Not even Guilianni.  Please provide his testimony that contradicts this, because I cant find it.

No one has to 'tell him that Trump was tying the aid to investigations' - what he was told by Guiliani was that Trump wanted a public announcement of an investigation into Biden, and that the aid (and a white house visit) was tied to that public annoucement.  Since the only person with the power to do that is Trump (Trump had control over both the aid and granting of white house visits), and the person who was telling him this was Guilliani, and he was told by Trump to do what Guilliani said - then it was reasonable to 'infer' it was Trump doing said tying.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/Gordon-Sondland-Testifies-Trump-Impeachment-Hearings-565202612.html

Basically they are decieving via how language is actually used.  You don't repeat redundant information.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2019, 07:44:42 AM by LetterRip »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #580 on: November 21, 2019, 08:01:47 AM »
Your problem is that everyone with direct knowledge of this call, including the president and Zelensky, say it didn’t happen. Everyone that says it did relies on second and third hand info and states an opinion on that hearsay. Only the most hyper partisan reading of the call transcript allows you to torture it into the idea that Trump did anything wrong. That’s why Schiff had to lie about it.

The only bipartisan support so far is the democrats and republicans that voted against the impeachment hearings. Based on the complete lack of evidence and the undeniable fact that every single witness has largely exonerated Trump, the odds of conviction in the Senate are as close to zero as it gets. They had Clinton on a real crime, undeniable, and would not convict. It’s impossible to see how they get a conviction when there is zero evidence.

Polling strongly suggests people are seeing this for the bull*censored* it is. They’re not buying it because it’s rather obvious what’s going on and normal people, even if they don’t like Trump, have a sense of decency and want this to stop. Normal people see that it’s a lie.

The real question left is how far to go with the sham. Once it goes to the senate, Republicans get to make the rules and there will be payback. The trial could go months if McConnell and Republicans want it to, taking all those senators wanting to be president off their campaigns throughout the primaries. Schiff, the leakers, everyone even remotely involved will be subpoenaed- including Joe and Hunter Biden. Perhaps even Obama if they want to go scorched earth. Does anyone have any illusions about whether or not Trump wants to go scorched earth?

Already, the sound bites of hand picked Democrat witnesses denying the accusations over and over again will be running during the general election. Heavy rotation. Trump will play that for thousands of votes. It’s a gold mine of campaign material the democrats are providing Trump right now.

« Last Edit: November 21, 2019, 08:07:16 AM by Crunch »

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #581 on: November 21, 2019, 08:50:35 AM »
Schiff, the leakers, everyone even remotely involved will be subpoenaed- including Joe and Hunter Biden. Perhaps even Obama if they want to go scorched earth. Does anyone have any illusions about whether or not Trump wants to go scorched earth?

Do they get to ignore the subpoenas like everyone close to Trump?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #582 on: November 21, 2019, 10:01:09 AM »
Ukraine in the membrane...


Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #583 on: November 21, 2019, 10:06:39 AM »
Schiff, the leakers, everyone even remotely involved will be subpoenaed- including Joe and Hunter Biden. Perhaps even Obama if they want to go scorched earth. Does anyone have any illusions about whether or not Trump wants to go scorched earth?

Do they get to ignore the subpoenas like everyone close to Trump?

If it were simply a congressional "Investigation" I think Obama and Joe could argue Executive Privilege, Hunter certainly not.  I'm not sure if Executive Privilege would apply in an actual Impeachment Trial though.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #584 on: November 21, 2019, 10:13:12 AM »
it’s rather obvious what’s going on and normal people, even if they don’t like Trump, have a sense of decency and want this to stop. Normal people see that it’s a lie.

Other than, like, all the anti-Trumpers I know, who relentlessly post headlines about how he's clearly guilty, and who add messages to the effect that this criminal needs to go away. Other than them, you mean...

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #585 on: November 21, 2019, 10:31:08 AM »
Schiff, the leakers, everyone even remotely involved will be subpoenaed- including Joe and Hunter Biden. Perhaps even Obama if they want to go scorched earth. Does anyone have any illusions about whether or not Trump wants to go scorched earth?

Do they get to ignore the subpoenas like everyone close to Trump?

It's not entirely clear, but the answer - at least with respect to Schiff and his staff - is probably yes.  As I understand it, Congressional privilege would have to be waived by a majority of the House to force any representative or their staff to testify about their legislative duties, including their work for the committee, or to compel them to turn over records.  Seems unlikely that will be waived here.

That's true whether its a Senate subpeona (though the optics look bad) or a DOJ subpeona (which they would characterize as an abuse by the President regardless of the underlying strength of the case).  It would probably take an SC decision determining that their actions were outside of the legistlative process, or impermissably encroaching upon the executive authority (this is actually possible) or the judicial (this seems less likely in the context of an impeachment) to force them to do so, and then they could still plead the fifth or just refuse to comply and force what would almost certainly look like a political imprisonment to occur (think of the optics of a journalist refusing to name a source, and apply that to a resistance democrat standing up to Trump).

For all the outrage over Executive privilege I doubt people even understand that Congress enjoys similar privileges versus the President and literally against the federal agencies he is in charge of (DOJ, FBI, etc).

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #586 on: November 21, 2019, 10:36:34 AM »
https://twitter.com/RepAndyBiggsAZ/status/1197232692171083777

Video of Rep. Turner questioning Sondland yesterday.

As the exchange was taking place, the chyron on CNN stated: “SONDLAND: ‘YES’ THERE WAS QUID PRO QUO IN UKRAINE SCANDAL.”

It's amazing how people are still hanging on to (and defending) the wrong question. It's never been about the existence of qpq. One of these are true:

1. Trump wanted a qpq for reasons that were entirely motivated for personal political gain.
2. Trump wanted a qpq for reasons that were entirely motivated around US interests.
3. Trump wanted qpq and both 1 and 2 were defensibly in play.

Only number 1 is impeachable, and zero percent of the witnesses are able to determine, much less testify, whether 1 or 2 were in Trump's mind.

A growing number of people diligent (or stupid) enough to even skim the facts are realizing that these proceedings are a joke, because it will forever remain impossible to prove assumption 1.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #587 on: November 21, 2019, 10:42:27 AM »
Scottf, you are not going to win the point.  The same was largely true in the Mueller investigation of obstruction, it relied on Mueller/Comey's magical ability to deduce a nefarious motivation for Trump's actions over what he actually repeatedly said (to everyone) were his motivations.  Even when what he said was 100% consistent with his philosophies and his campaign promises and personality.

Those on the left start from the position that NOTHING Trump does is for a good reason, ergo, it must always be the bad motive, even if there is evidence and documented evidence of the proper motives and nothing but speculation supporting the bad.  Heck it's even worse than that, not finding the evidence or even the speculation is also proof that he's guilty AND proof that he obstructed the investigation trying to find the proof.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #588 on: November 21, 2019, 10:52:58 AM »

It's amazing how people are still hanging on to (and defending) the wrong question. It's never been about the existence of qpq. One of these are true:

1. Trump wanted a qpq for reasons that were entirely motivated for personal political gain.
2. Trump wanted a qpq for reasons that were entirely motivated around US interests.
3. Trump wanted qpq and both 1 and 2 were defensibly in play.

Only number 1 is impeachable, and zero percent of the witnesses are able to determine, much less testify, whether 1 or 2 were in Trump's mind.

A growing number of people diligent (or stupid) enough to even skim the facts are realizing that these proceedings are a joke, because it will forever remain impossible to prove assumption 1.

I think an argument could be made that delaying the aid was counter to US interests and therefore only 1 is possible. Especially since Trump's decision to withhold the aid circumvented the measures in place to ensure the US's interests in the matter were taken care of.

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #589 on: November 21, 2019, 10:59:56 AM »
 Who gets to decide that giving aid to Ukraine is in the US interest?

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #590 on: November 21, 2019, 11:03:43 AM »
Congress does, which also spelled out the criteria Ukraine had to meet in order to receive the aid.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #591 on: November 21, 2019, 11:04:53 AM »
Who gets to decide that giving aid to Ukraine is in the US interest?

Congress that overwhelmingly passed the aid package.

Or is your argument that the president can pursue any foreign policy for any reason and all such decisions are beyond the review of any other part of government.

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #592 on: November 21, 2019, 11:14:08 AM »
You are wrong.  Congress passes the appropriation.  It is at the discretion of the Secretaries of State and Defense whether it gets spent or not.




Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #593 on: November 21, 2019, 11:49:56 AM »
It's actually pretty complicated, here's a link to a good write up https://www.lawfareblog.com/role-omb-withholding-ukrainian-aid.  This one certainly implies that the administration may have engaged in wrong doing.

In summary, before Nixon, Presidents had a broad authority to simply not spend funds.  The SC effectively ended that, and Congress passed a law crystallizing that, as the power had effectively come to be an unreviewable veto by the President who could simply refuse to spend funds on programs they didn't want to implement.

That older process was replaced by a process where essentially the President has to ask permission of Congress to not spend money by way of recession, which both houses have to approve for the recession to take effect. 

Of course that's not the whole story, Congress may specifically designate funds for specific purposes or provide them in a general manner, which impacts the ability of the President to choose how or if to spend them.  There are other laws that allow the President to repurpose funds in certain circumstances. 

Congress also frequently puts mandatory conditions on the release of funds.  In this case as Lloyd Perna notes the Secretary of Defense and State each had to sign off on portions of the aid, which they did.  However, Congress previously imposed yet another step that requires that the OMB conduct oversight of all executive spending and sign off.  That's where this got interesting, as the OMB didn't sign off in the typical time period, nor did they take any of the typical actions that indicate they won't sign off.

The question of course is whether the OMB had a legal reason to delay (they certainly may have, even if they haven't shared it) or not.  The fact is that Trump's OMB has - in most years - tried to delay a chunk of foreign aid and other amounts they deem wasteful and submit them as a recession request to Congress.  Congress doesn't approve it and the aid (among other things) is required to be spent.  In other words more than just Ukrainian aid has been caught up.

There seems to be a pattern of the OMB trying to time this recession request to run into the September 30th "deadline" that would effectively "expire" unspent aid, even though the GAO has determined that's not a legitimate thing to do.  This is one of those "technicalities" games associated with trying to cut the budget over Congresses objections by playing games.

It doesn't sound right to me.  Reminds me a lot of "Hilary's Server" and the way it played on technicalities and violated the spirit and in my view the letter of the law.  That said, it seems like it would be bad faith to criticize this if you've argued that Hillary did nothing wrong.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #594 on: November 21, 2019, 12:39:03 PM »
Interesting letter by Ron Johnson recounting his personal knowledge of the Ukraine situation, as well as, the details of his conversations with the President on the matter.  https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/e0b73c19-9370-42e6-88b1-b2458eaeeecd/johnson-to-jordan-nunes.pdf?mod=article_inline

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #595 on: November 21, 2019, 01:47:00 PM »
a 2.5 minute summary of the past 3 years, and why the public doesn't give a s$%t about these impeachment hearings:

https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1197491328206213121



TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #596 on: November 21, 2019, 02:20:43 PM »
a 2.5 minute summary of the past 3 years, and why the public doesn't give a s$%t about these impeachment hearings:

https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1197491328206213121

This is quite the bombshell, I feel the walls closing in.  8)

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #597 on: November 21, 2019, 02:57:31 PM »
It's a turning point, the beginning of the end.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #598 on: November 21, 2019, 05:09:45 PM »
Yet another self own brought to you by CNN, this time by Chris Cuomo trying to disprove a Trump tweet, where Trump was casting doubt on Holmes being able to hear Sondland's cell phone call (which was not on speaker phone).  https://www.foxnews.com/media/cuomo-phone-trump-mom

After hyping it up that it would be easy to overhear.  Cuomo decided to call his mom live and prove it.  No one in the studio (or audience) could hear her until he put the phone on speaker mode.  lol

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #599 on: November 21, 2019, 05:49:02 PM »
It does depend on both the phone being used, and how the phone is being held.

Although my experience with being able to eavesdrop when that happens is that it is still somewhat unreliable.

Unless the person with the phone is actively trying to help make it possible, has the volume maxxed out, has a loud handset, and there isn't a lot of background noise to compete with.

I'd class the claim as possible, but without more specifics of their circumstances during the call, it is questionable.