Trump allegedly requests foreign election interference
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Recommended Videos
*blink* I'm sorry, I think I must be misunderstanding you, because that sounds very much like you just pulled a 180 and have changed your tune from "Biden was considering his son's interest over US interests" and are instead suggesting that Hunter Biden was in effect a deliberate plant for the purpose of helping the US to influence Burisma.tstorm823 said:
Not quite.Asita said:
I don't think Biden was a plant. I think Burisma hired him to make nice with the US government. But I also think from the perspective of geopolitical influence through oil supplies, the US was more than happy to embrace Ukrainian oil moving away from Russian influence and towards US influence. Burisma was deliberately putting itself in a position where protecting Burisma was in not just Joe Biden's interest, but US interests, and hiring Hunter Biden was part of that campaign. Which is to say, I don't think Joe Biden did anything wrong in Ukraine.
BUT, that is some major speculation on my part. We don't have a whole lot of information about what the hell was going on at Burisma when they hired Hunter. For all I know, they were actually working for Russian interests behind the scenes and hired a relative of a US politician as a smoke screen. And we're not going to find out unless Ukraine digs into it. And why the hell not look into it? If the counter-narrative is that the former prosecutor was taking bribes not to prosecute them, dig that up and prosecute that corruption. Bill Taylor I believe testified that Andrei Yermak asked US officials to request the investigation into Burisma. That exchange doesn't make sense at all from the "Ukraine didn't want to investigate but Trump was forcing them to" perspective. That makes sense from the "they want to investigate corruption but want permission to involve a US presidential candidate" perspective. It looks to me like they should and do want to tear Burisma apart, and the US is standing in their way.
It doesn't have to be punished at all, and it's not lashing out to point out Saelune's motivation is bald-faced hatred.Silvanus said:
That's entirely due to the fact that you're treating it as unprompted, which is simply not accurate. According to Taylor's testimony, the request you refer to came after months of what Taylor refers to as the "irregular channel" (including Volker, Sondland, Perry, and Giuliani) pushing for that investigation. The earliest reference to this is listed as June 27th, wherein Sondland told Taylor that "President Zelensky needed to make it clear to President Trump that he, President Zelensky, was not standing in the way of investigations". The very next day, Volker said he "planned to be explicit with President Zelensky should do to get the meeting with the White House", relaying that President Trump "wanted to see rule of law, transparency, but also, specifically, cooperation with investigations to get to the bottom of things".tstorm823 said:
On July 10, Taylor reports meeting with Zelensky's Chief of Staff, who told him that "he had heard from Mr. Giuliani that the phone call between the two Presidents was unlikely to happen and that they were alarmed and disappointed". On July 18, Taylor overheard that - at the command of the President, and relayed through chief of staff Mick Mulvany - security assistance to the Ukraine was suspended until further notice. (He testifies that in the immediate wake of this, interagency meetings and the Defense Department all concluded that the security assistance should be resumed immediately and the hold lifted, and the CIA director, Secretaries of Defense and State, and National Security Advisor all sought to convince the President to release the hold).
On July 19, Taylor was informed by Hill and Vindman that in the prior call with Zelensky Sondland "had connected investigations with an Oval Office meeting for President Zelensky, which so irritated Ambassador Bolton that he abruptly ended the meeting, telling Dr. Hill and Dr. Vindman that they should have nothing to do with domestic politics." He further notes that this naturally confused the Ukrainians in the meetings as while the regular channel wanted to talk about security, energy and reform, Sondland and the irregular channel "wanted to talk about the connection between a White House meeting and Ukrainian investigations".
Between late July 19 and early July 20 (Kyiv time), Taylor received texts in a three-way conversation with Volker and Sondland, wherein Sondland indicated that a call between Trump and Zelensky would occur soon and "that it was most important for Zelensky to say that he will help with investigation and address any significant personnel issues, if there are any." It was later that day that Sondland told Taylor over the phone that "he had recommended to President Zelensky that he use the phrase 'I will leave no stone unturned' with regards to investigations when President Zelensky spoke with President Trump". This same day Taylor "also had a conversation with Mr. Danyliuk, during which he conveyed that Zelensky did not want to be used as a pawn in a U.S. reelection campaign", which he conveyed to Volker and Sondland.
July 25 naturally had the call, but Taylor notes that anomalously he never got the readout of the call and "did not see any official readout of the call until it was publicly released on September 25". On the 26th Zelensky told Taylor and Volker that he was happy with the call (but did not elaborate) and asked about the face-to-face meeting that had been promised back in May. On July 28, Morrison (replacing Hill) told him that the call could have gone better and "that President Trump suggested that President Zelensky or his staff meet with Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr."
It was on August 16th that Volker informed Taylor "that Mr. Yermak had asked that the United States submit an official request for investigation into Burisma's alleged violations of Ukrainian law, if that's what the United States desired."
That build up is very important in understanding the aforementioned request. According to Taylor's testimony, the 'improper channel' had been pushing for that investigation since June, and made it apparent that US cooperation was predicated on the Ukraine promising exactly that. Point of fact, this actually ties into the text messages we learned about earlier.
July 19, Volker: "Had breakfast with Rudy this morning - teeing up call w Yermak Monday. Must have helped. Most impt is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigation - and address any specific personnel issues - if there are any".
July 25, before the call between Trump and Zelensky, Volker advises Yermak: "Good lunch - thanks. Heard from White House - Assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate/"get to the bottom of what happened in 2016", we will nail down a visit to Washington. Good luck! See you tomorrow - kurt"
And - a week before Yermak's request, we get this little exchange:
Up until that point, we can see in Taylor's account and the text exchanges that the 'irregular channel' had been trying to convince Zelensky and Yermak to say that they "would help with the investigation", and Trump had told Zelensky to look for further meetings through that irregular channel. In light of that, the Ukraine asking for a formal request is not asking permission, it's capitulating to the demand and asking that they get it in writing.Sondland: Morrison ready to get dates as soon as Yermak confirms
Volker: Excellent!! How did you sway him?
Sondland: Not sure i did. I think potus really wants the deliverable
Volker: But does he know that?
Sondland: Yep.
Sondland: Clearly lots of convos going on
Volker: Ok - then that's good coming from two separate sources
Sondland: To avoid misunderstandings, might be helpful to ask Andey for a draft statement (embargoed) so that we can see exactly what they propose to cover. Even though Ze does a live presser they can still summarize in a brief statement. Thoughts?
Volker: Agree!
You can't comprehend that someone may have other reasons for condemning nepotism? Not the rank corruption or inequity of it? That might explain the continued support for the nepotist-in-chief, at least.tstorm823 said:
I'm not talking about just "someone", I'm talking about a specific person who may or may not have made literally dozens of Trump hate threads on this website.Silvanus said:
It's not "simply not accurate". It's possibly not accurate, but we haven't seen that yet. We've circled back around to the argument I was having with Agema for pages and pages. In the phone call, Trump explicitly asks for investigation into Clowdstrike, Zelenskyy guides the conversation towards Burisma. In the texts, US officials explicitly ask about getting to the bottom of 2016, they refer to "investigation" or "the deliverable" always singular, until Yermak first mentions Burisma being involved. Bill Taylor is the first indication we got that Burisma was a part of it from the beginning, but he's also admitted he took "investigation" to be code for both Clowdstrike and Burisma based on what he read about Giuliani in the New York Times. And Giuliani was digging based on rumors that we know were spread at least as fervently in Ukraine as in the US, so it's a near certainty that Yermak and Zelenskyy were aware of the Burisma-Biden allegations before making any contact with Giuliani. And I haven't seen anyone suggest investigating Burisma isn't in Ukraine's interests, the Ukrainian's insist they weren't pressured, and George Kent on the stand this week testified that he tried to raise red flags about Hunter Biden's role at Burisma in February of 2015 and said he'd still love to see Burisma fully investigated. Everything we see, Ukrainian's are the one's bringing Burisma into the conversation, and why shouldn't they be the ones concerned?Asita said:
You are literally this site's primary Trump supporter. All you do is defend Trump without any fact, logic, reason, or evidence to back you up. When you are pressed, you either lie, move the goalposts, make strawmen, or ignore the posts entirely.tstorm823 said:
Put up or shut up.
My motivation is to keep corruption out of government. Your motivation is to defend Donald Trump. You literally do not care that Trump is doing exactly what you criticize the Bidens of. That is called hypocrisy. If you dont like being called out on it, then stop doing it.
And you'll note that in the aforementioned text exchanges, when Volker's running the proposed Zelensky statement by Sondland, the script similarly refers to looking into Burisma and the 2016 US elections as one investigation and one problem to be solved. "We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, including those involving Burisma and the 2016 election, which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in the future." This provides circumstantial evidence suggesting that Sondland et al treated Burisma and the 2016 election as a package deal.tstorm823 said:
Meanwhile we get further context with Holmes's testimony. Getting the incidental out of the way, it is perhaps interesting in how it established that on April 25, the head of Security Services in Ukraine had told him that "someone named Giuliani, who said he was an advisor to the Vice President" had contacted him.
Stopping there for a moment, you may recall that about two weeks later, Giuliani said that he planned to travel to Kiev and wanted to meet with the nation?s president-elect to urge him to pursue inquiries that allies of the White House contend could yield new information about two matters of intense interest to Mr. Trump, specifically the 2016 election and Burisma. Per Giuliani's own words: "Somebody could say it's improper. And this isn?t foreign policy ? I'm asking them to do an investigation that they're doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I'm going to give them reasons why they shouldn?t stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government". You may also recall some references to a Madrid meeting in the various texts and testimonies, and it's worth reminding that said meeting was between Giuliani and Yermak, two days after the big phone call, wherein Giuliani spelled out the two cases he thought the Ukraine should pursue: The 2016 election, and Burisma. And we know this because of how he responded to the question of who paid for his expenses on the trip. "Nobody pays my expenses. What does it matter if I?m getting paid for it. Isn?t the real story whether he (Biden) sold out the vice presidency of the United States, not whether I got paid for it?"
Now that we've refreshed ourselves on that, let's continue with with Holmes's testimony. According to Holmes, on July 26, Sondland told him that Trump only cared about the "big stuff" like the "'Biden investigations'. Supposedly, aside from Sondland, two other government officials were present and can corroborate this, and he immediately debriefed the Deputy Chief of Mission at the Embassy on the matter. Holmes further stated that when on Sept 8, Taylor informed him that "now they're insisting that Zelensky commit to the investigation in an interview with CNN", he was shocked that the requirement was so specific and concrete, as "this was a demand that President Zelensky personally commit to a specific investigation of President Trump's political rival on a cable news channel". And that on Sept 13, he heard from a colleague that "Sondland said the [Zelensky] interview is supposed to be today or Monday [Sept 16] and that they planned to announce that a certain investigation that was 'on hold' will progress". During a meeting with Taylor, Zelensky and Yermak later that day, he relates that Taylor stressed the need to stay out of US politics and that in response "Mr. Yermak shrugged in resignation and would not answer, as if to indicate they had no choice. In short, everyone believed that there was going to be an interview, and that the Ukrainians believed that they had no choice".
That's a pretty bizarre chain of events if Zelensky and Yermak had any interest in the Burisma investigation, much less if they were the ones pushing for it as you claim.
Moving onto another account, Morrison's testimony similarly notes that when he replaced Hill, she warned him (between July 1 and July 15) that "Ambassador Sondland and President Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, were trying to get President Zelensky to reopen Ukrainian investigations into Burisma" (Morrison notes that he had to google Burisma after the fact, as he was unfamiliar with it when Hill told him about it). He then testifies that in a Sept 1 meeting, "Ambassador Sondland's proposal to Mr. Yermak was that it could be sufficient [to secure the security assistance] if the new Ukrainian Prosecutor General, not President Zelensky, would commit to pursue the Burisma investigation", broadly corroborating Taylor's testimony about the same meeting.
Again, very bizarre circumstances under your premise, but very straightforward under the premise that Trump et al were the ones pushing for the Burisma investigation as the testimonies have asserted.
That came after "might be helpful to ask Andrey for a draft statement so we can see exactly what they propose to cover" followed by Yermak offering "outlining vision for the reboot of US-Ukraine relationship, including among other things Burisma and election meddling." I'm arguing about the order of events and you're not taking things in order. See also:Asita said:
You know Giuliani said this, you should know that the rumors Giuliani was working with were known in Ukraine already, in what way is it far-fetched to suggest Ukraine wanted this investigation completely independent of Trump's interest?
I'm not listening to Holmes just yet. Everything Holmes added feels like an outright lie to me, but he said he emailed people about what he heard, so if they track down that paper trail, I'll take it seriously. I'm not accepting at face value "I clearly heard Trump over Sondland's cell phone in a restaurant, and then Sondland told me he was asking about the investigations. And then I immediately told everyone so that everyone knew what was going on, and it's just freak coincidence that nobody brought this up until I "reminded" Taylor about it last weekend, because he must have forgotten all about it."
Smells bad to me. I wouldn't be surprised if this witness never made the public hearings because the claims are close to as believable as "Brett Kavanaugh gang raped adult women when he was a high-schooler".
Doesn't matter. The segment this part was addressing was "In the texts, US officials explicitly ask about getting to the bottom of 2016, they refer to "investigation" or "the deliverable" always singular, until Yermak first mentions Burisma being involved", wherein you used the fact that they said "investigation" rather than "investigations" to imply that Burisma wasn't on the table for most of the texts. The point here was that in the draft for the official statement we again see a singular investigation being used to describe "all available facts and episodes, including Burisma and the 2016 election", which, as previously stated, means that the use of the singular investigation in other texts cannot be used to suggest that only one issue was on the table at the time.tstorm823 said:
Well for starters, Giuliani saying that they were already investigating is by all accounts wishful thinking on his part at best. And as this is a man who has outright fabricated facts for political reasons, you should probably take his claims about events with a grain of salt, as a general rule.
Though more to the point: see again April 25, wherein the head of Security Services in the Ukraine relayed that "someone named Giuliani, who said he was an advisor to the Vice President" had contacted him. See again Fiona Hill telling Morrison in early July that "Ambassador Sondland and President Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, were trying to get President Zelensky to reopen Ukrainian investigations into Burisma". See again, on July 20 Zelensky saying that he "did not want to be used as a pawn in a U.S. reelection campaign". See again, that as of Sept 1, Morrison testifies that Sondland told Yermak that the Ukraine might get the promised security assistance if "the Ukrainian Prosecutor General would commit to pursue the Burisma investigation". That simply doesn't make sense if the "Ukrainians wanted this completely independently of Trump's interest".
Ah, so we're back to the John Solomon interview, then? Well here's something that might surprise you: Lutsenko did nothing of the sort. As of May, the investigation into Burisma had not been reopened and Lutsenko had walked back the key claims of the Solomon interview, including the allegations he made against the Bidens and the US Embassy's involvement in the 2016 elections. Moreover, he claimed that the information he wanted to forward to Barr was about Burisma Board payments so American authorities could check whether Hunter Biden had paid U.S. taxes on the income, and specifically said that neither Biden nor Burisma was the subject of an investigation (looking into Zlochevsky, yes, but in the context of Zlochevsky's connection with the subject of investigation, Serhiy Kurchenko).tstorm823 said:
Though it is perhaps interesting to note that Lutsenko also claimed that Giuliani had reached out to him for a meeting late last year, and when they met in January Giuliani had specifically asked about investigations into the owner of Burisma and whether Ambassador Yovonovich was not loyal to Trump. He would also later claim both that "while he was Ukraine's prosecutor general he told Rudolph W. Giuliani that he would be happy to cooperate if the FBI or other U.S. authorities began their own investigation of the former vice president and his son Hunter but insisted they had not broken any Ukrainian laws to his knowledge" and that "he had urged Giuliani to launch a U.S. inquiry and go to court if he had any evidence but not to use Ukraine to conduct a political vendetta that could affect the U.S. election." Quoting him directly: "I told him I could not start an investigation just for the interests of an American official". He would later characterize Giuliani as obsessed with possible misconduct of Biden or his son Hunter.
Though if you want more on the Solomon interview, I'll let Rolling Stone field that one.
The decision to reopen the investigation into Burisma was made in March by the current Ukrainian prosecutor general, who had cleared Hunter Biden?s employer more than two years ago. [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html?module=inline]Asita said:
Look, through my course of conversation on this topic, you have to remember that people are trying to make you lose sight of what the facts are. I know it's frustrating, but you have to argue the facts of the situation, not what people want you to look at.Asita said:
It really doesn't matter if Zelensky was right on the heels of the Bidens and Burisma. Let them do it until the heat death of the universe. I welcome it if the Bidens are corrupt. It doesn't matter if the investigation was two years old before Trump heard about it.
What matters is this. Trump held up funds allocated for our allies in Ukraine. A nation at war with one of our biggest rivals. On the 'transcript', Trump asked for his favor and said Giuliani and others will be in touch with what he needs. Yuriy Lutsenko [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/01/ukraine-opens-investigation-into-yuriy-lutsenko-lawyer-who-gave-giuliani-biden-information-trump-call] has been on record saying that Giuliani pushed for an investigation, but there was no cause to investigate Bidens and it would be up to the US to investigate them. Only when the US government found out that Ukraine still didn't get their aid and made their concerns known did Trump's administration finally give the rightful aid to Ukraine.
Trump withheld aid to our rivals for his benefit. And yes, Ukraine knew about the freeze [https://www.axios.com/ukraine-trump-pressure-military-aid-fb86bc7a-87a8-40a3-8f60-13c8bfc7eb12.html] On the Transcript that he desperately wants us to read, he states that Guiliani and His Attorney General will call Zelensky about his favor. And then he mentions Hunter Biden by name. Zelensky was going to do an interview with CNN about Biden [https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/volodymyr-zelensky-fareed-zakaria-ukraine-aid/index.html] but cancelled it once Trump released the Aid.
And that's it.
Everything else is a Children's Party Magician trying to distract you from the burning building behind him with magic card tricks while yelling out into the night sky: "BOY, I'M SURE GLAD I DON'T SMELL ANY SMOKE!! WHAT A NICE, FIRELESS TIME WE ARE HAVING!! Hey, by the way, we should find out who lied to you about there being a fire somewhere. That person made a false call and he should be arrested!"
They are saying the testimony from witnesses stemming from within their own party and Trump's own administration is partisan or fabrications. The time line that syncs up perfectly with the Whistleblower's evidence is wrong. Giuliani is a mad genius who is doing this on his own even though Trump's own transcripts prove that Guiliani is telling the truth all along, that he was doing this at Trump's insistence. We need to vet the Whistleblower? Do we need to vet tips that come in from Crimestoppers? Nope. They stay anonymous.
Everything else is vocal miasma. Do not fall for it. If you cut through one thing, they will keep you in place with another Talking Point Fog.
Yes, Lutsenko said that, announcing it in the interview. But he didn't do what he announced.tstorm823 said:
"The prosecutor laid out a more detailed explanation about what was under investigation by his office after a flurry of diverging reports. While the prosecutor's office hasn't reopened a case against Burisma, it is pursuing information about the company's owner in connection with a long-running criminal investigation of another mogul who fled the country five years ago. That matter concerns a transaction unrelated to Hunter, he volunteered."
That's from Bloomberg on May 7, talking about a recent 'Tuesday interview'. In an article linked within it, you'll also find this:
"Earlier this year, Ukraine's current prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, met with Trump attorney Giuliani, and the two discussed the Burisma investigation, according to Lutsenko's spokesperson Larysa Sargan.
Sargan said the prosecutor general hasn't reopened the case into Burisma or Zlochevsky, contradicting a claim in the New York Times that the Ukrainian prosecutor is scrutinizing millions of dollars in payments from Burisma to the firm that paid Hunter Biden." (the article you just cited, in fact).
All granted. But there's a bit of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" going on right now. While yes, we should refocus the conversation on what is actually germane to the issue, refusing to combat the misinformation presented to us means that they're going to keep on using it and trying to convince others with it, without a moderating voice pointing out why the misinformation is wrong.ObsidianJones said:
Or, alternative theory, you're both fighting back against inconvenient truths with propaganda. Please consider that possibility.Asita said:
Something you should know: I'm not getting fed these lines from anywhere. I've got a pretty good idea what mainstream news is saying, what conservative news sources are saying, what crazy people on the internet are saying, and I haven't seen anyone asking the question "did Ukraine want to investigate Burisma?" Everyone's arguing about whether Zelenskyy and Yermak were pawns for Trump or pawns for the US, nobody is saying "maybe he didn't feel pressured because he wants to do those things anyway." US pundits aren't giving 6 seconds of consideration into the Ukrainian perspective, despite the fact that they're putting up diplomats as witnesses to Trump's "crimes" and they're saying "I love Ukraine, the US should be supporting Ukraine, and Burisma should probably be investigated."
Like back up, look at the bigger picture. The last 3 Prosecutors General for Ukraine have all been criticized for going light on corruption. Mykola Zlochevsky has suspiciously gotten out from under the magnifying glass multiple times in the last decade, despite having used a government position to give his own companies oil and gas licenses. He's run from Ukraine to avoid justice. Burisma is his company. Zelenskyy ran on an anti-corruption platform and it's looking like he's delivering on it. You think he's against investigating Burisma? Do you really think that's what's going on?
