Trump allegedly requests foreign election interference

[Agema]

I'm not just accepting your premise that he got snubbed. The vast majority of reporting on the event doesn't include Zelenskyy cancelling,

The only person implying that Giuliani had a meeting with Zelenskyy officials that could be cancelled is Giuliani himself. Zelenskyy officials say he was turned down for a meeting.

I don't think Giuliani is a reliable source, I think he spun events to make himself look good.

Ask yourself this: if Zelenskyy was being strongly advised not to meet with Giuliani, and they had scheduled the meeting anyway, who on the Ukrainian side wanted to have that meeting with Giuliani? The answer is Zelenskyy. Because if Zelenskyy wasn't interested and his advisors were against it, it never have happened.

LOL! Dude, ffs!

What on earth do you think it means by "Zelenskyy actually had declined Giuliani's request for a meeting". It means Giuliani was doing the wanting. None of Zelenskyy or his team had asked to or wanted to speak to Giuliani in the first place.

I can hear your response already: "Trump obviously forced him to." If Trump was making that meeting happen and using the power of the US government to force it, Zelenskyy can't snub it. He can't snub the meeting if the US is strong-arming him into it.

This declined meeting we're talking about was May, before Zelenskyy's inauguration. At this point, there is no pressure being put on Zelenskyy, and he declines to see Giuliani.

The minute he declines, the strong-arming arrives, and this is all the shit that leads up to the Trump-Zelenskyy call we have much discussed already. Pence pulls out from Zelenskyy's inauguration. Giuliani starts a smear campaign that Zelenskyy is surrounding himself with enemies of the USA and is soft on corruption. The aid is withheld (although unclear whether Ukraine knows by the time of the call). Ukrainian officials start being warned Zelenskyy needs to be co-operative or Ukraine will be cold-shouldered, etc.

 

[tstorm823]

It's a nonsensical conspiracy theory which posits that the wording was changed to make the complaint more viable by masking its lack of a trait it actually had, and what's more that the decision was made as a response to questions received after the decision was made. It's...downright delusional in how it's scrambling to find any fault against the whistleblower complaint

Are you reading a word of what I've said? Any of it at all? I'm not trying to find fault in the whistleblower complaint. I'm not contesting the facts within the complaint with few exceptions. The importance of the revision isn't that it somehow nullifies the whistleblower report. Nothing is going to make the whistleblower not count. The importance is that it was done in August. They realized in August that the wording in the informational materials needed to be changed, and you linked me a press statement that states explicitly that they noticed because people were asking about this specific complaint in August. It's still very much evidence of a coordinated effort behind the scenes

Just to be clear of the order of events here.

Late July - Trump/Zelenskyy phone call.
Early August - whistleblower coordinates with, at minimum, Schiff's committee.
Mid August - Whistleblower files complaint.
Also in August - The press makes inquiries into the requirement for first-hand knowledge, and based on that...
Also in August - They revise that language out of the forms.
Mid September - Democrats publicly call for the release of the complaint. Not the transcript, the complaint.
Also September - Pelosi starts an impeachment investigation before the complaint is released.

Like, I'm describing to you how the change in language of the complaint forms is one piece of evidence for a month long, behind-the-scenes effort by Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) to prepare the whistleblower complaint (that they weren't supposed to have seen yet) for the public scrutiny of an impeachment investigation. And you're countering "but the whistleblower didn't break any rules, therefore you lose." That doesn't matter. That isn't the point.

The only person implying that Giuliani had a meeting with Zelenskyy officials that could be cancelled is Giuliani himself. Zelenskyy officials say he was turned down for a meeting.

I don't think Giuliani is a reliable source, I think he spun events to make himself look good.

LOL! Dude, ffs!

What on earth do you think it means by "Zelenskyy actually had declined Giuliani's request for a meeting". It means Giuliani was doing the wanting. None of Zelenskyy or his team had asked to or wanted to speak to Giuliani in the first place.

This declined meeting we're talking about was May, before Zelenskyy's inauguration. At this point, there is no pressure being put on Zelenskyy, and he declines to see Giuliani.

The minute he declines, the strong-arming arrives, and this is all the shit that leads up to the Trump-Zelenskyy call we have much discussed already. Pence pulls out from Zelenskyy's inauguration. Giuliani starts a smear campaign that Zelenskyy is surrounding himself with enemies of the USA and is soft on corruption. The aid is withheld (although unclear whether Ukraine knows by the time of the call). Ukrainian officials start being warned Zelenskyy needs to be co-operative or Ukraine will be cold-shouldered, etc.

If this is how you're going to be, I'm going to decline to continue this debate until we have something new to talk about. You're simultaneously inventing narratives (plausible, but unlikely narratives) with little to support them while continuing to try to cast doubt on facts verified by literally every source.

How can you seriously keep saying things like "unclear whether Ukraine knows [about the aid] by the time of the call". The whsitleblower complaint says August, the text messages imply August, the Ukrainians say they didn't know until August, and basically every piece of media reporting says they didn't know til August, except for one report by ABC where they asked a Ukranian insider if he heard rumors that they knew about the aid before the call, he confirmed to have heard those rumors, they listed him as a primary source of intel, and he publicly came back that he'd heard those rumors from the media recently and had no inside knowledge about that actually happening. Like, you're carefully maintaining the possibility that everyone in both governments and in the media are all lying about this point just to spite me for being right about it.

 

[Asita]

It's a nonsensical conspiracy theory which posits that the wording was changed to make the complaint more viable by masking its lack of a trait it actually had, and what's more that the decision was made as a response to questions received after the decision was made. It's...downright delusional in how it's scrambling to find any fault against the whistleblower complaint

Are you reading a word of what I've said? Any of it at all? I'm not trying to find fault in the whistleblower complaint.

I'm going to stop you right there because yes, you absolutely are. You're latching onto "Deep State" conspiracy theories that are attempting to delegitimize the complaint on any grounds they can. This particular one initially claimed that it was legal chicanery and when that proved verifiably false in more than one respect they switched tracks to "well someone obviously planned this out because even if the change in wording had no impact on the acceptability of the complaint it's suspicious that it changed just now". It's trying to find some procedural fault that will give them an excuse to disbelieve the results, much like their "it's all hearsay" argument.

Whether or not it's your intent to contest the contents of the complaint itself, over the course of this thread you've jumped from "But Joe Biden", to "Ukraine approached Giuliani, not the other way around" (a song and dance we've been through before with the Trump Tower meeting. Short version is that who approached who doesn't matter as being receptive to an under the table deal for political dirt is just as bad as seeking it out). From there you jumped to "well maybe the State department deputized Giuliani for this", and eventually came to claiming that it's a coordinated effort behind the scenes and that while you aren't saying in as many words that it's a mark against the complaint that it's still obviously due to the dishonest efforts of Democrats and the media (and therefore really is a mark against the complaint). You are very much looking for ways to discredit the report even if you aren't directly contesting its contents.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

Like, I'm describing to you how the change in language of the complaint forms is one piece of evidence for a month long, behind-the-scenes effort by Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) to prepare the whistleblower complaint (that they weren't supposed to have seen yet) for the public scrutiny of an impeachment investigation.

Again, the Democrats aren't in charge of the intelligence community or its IG. Trump picked the current Inspector General for the IC, Michael Atkinson. So under your theory, he had to have been involved with this "behind-the-scenes effort," right?

 

[Agema]

If this is how you're going to be, I'm going to decline to continue this debate until we have something new to talk about. You're simultaneously inventing narratives (plausible, but unlikely narratives) with little to support them while continuing to try to cast doubt on facts verified by literally every source.

What invented narratives would these be?

Giuliani was clearly fishing for meetings in Ukraine. There is no evidence whatsoever in any form that Zelenskyy or someone in his team invited or wanted Giuliani to meet with them in May. Aside from the implications of Giuliani's own claims, no evidence a meeting was ever arranged or agreed with Zelenskyy or his team in May.

How can you seriously keep saying things like "unclear whether Ukraine knows [about the aid] by the time of the call". The whsitleblower complaint says August,

The whistleblower says "As of early August, I heard from some US officials that some Ukrainian officials were aware that U.S. aid may be in jeopardy, but I do not know how or when they learned of it." In other words, potentially they were aware of a threat before early August. In what form and of what severity is unclear.

I think it's worth drawing a distinction between two states of threat perception. The first is knowing about having a vulnerability that could be exploited, the more serious second is finding out someone is actually targetting that vulnerability. The aid has been delayed twice already, there's reasonable grounds for it to be of concern to Ukraine (in the first sense). I'd accept that evidence suggests that the threat (in the second, more severe sense) really kicks in later in August.

 

[tstorm823]

I'm going to stop you right there because yes, you absolutely are. You're latching onto "Deep State" conspiracy theories that are attempting to delegitimize the complaint on any grounds they can. This particular one initially claimed that it was legal chicanery and when that proved verifiably false in more than one respect they switched tracks to "well someone obviously planned this out because even if the change in wording had no impact on the acceptability of the complaint it's suspicious that it changed just now". It's trying to find some procedural fault that will give them an excuse to disbelieve the results, much like their "it's all hearsay" argument.

I am loath to respond to people using fallacy buzzwords, I find it to be counterproductive at best. But have you ever heard the phrase "straw man" before? Like, you're actually literally telling me that I'm not arguing what I think I am and then presenting an argument that I've never made in order to dismiss me.

Again, the Democrats aren't in charge of the intelligence community or its IG. Trump picked the current Inspector General for the IC, Michael Atkinson. So under your theory, he had to have been involved with this "behind-the-scenes effort," right?

Prior to reading the statement, I would have said potentially. Someone being appointed by Trump doesn't mean they can't want to advance the complaint or couldn't be convinced to do so. But now that we have that statement from the Office of the IG IC, there's no need to even consider that. If there never was a requirement to have first-hand knowledge in order to file through the ICWPA, and the forms to fill out claimed "If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than secondhand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA", then that sentence is probably illegal and needed to be removed.

If that statement had said the whistleblower asked about that requirement and we realized that information was bad so they removed it, I'd be right here saying "well ok, that doesn't reflect poorly on anyone." But his statement said the press asking about it helped inspire that August revision. It seems pretty obvious to me that the New York Times knew about the whistleblower, knew the contents of the complaint, and knew the whistleblower's life story well before anything went public.

 

[Asita]

I'm going to stop you right there because yes, you absolutely are. You're latching onto "Deep State" conspiracy theories that are attempting to delegitimize the complaint on any grounds they can. This particular one initially claimed that it was legal chicanery and when that proved verifiably false in more than one respect they switched tracks to "well someone obviously planned this out because even if the change in wording had no impact on the acceptability of the complaint it's suspicious that it changed just now". It's trying to find some procedural fault that will give them an excuse to disbelieve the results, much like their "it's all hearsay" argument.

I am loath to respond to people using fallacy buzzwords, I find it to be counterproductive at best. But have you ever heard the phrase "straw man" before? Like, you're actually literally telling me that I'm not arguing what I think I am and then presenting an argument that I've never made in order to dismiss me.

Well that's certainly the pot calling the kettle black, Mr. "And you're countering 'but the whistleblower didn't break any rules, therefore you lose'", which in no way reflects the arguments I've been making. Or should I call you Mr. "You just hate Trump", to account for past discussions?

But let's set aside the snark for a moment. I am not saying you're wrong based on an argument you never made or a position you never espoused (a strawman). In fact, you'll note that the post you're quoting actually fell back heavily on the arguments you made within this thread. What I did do was point out that your arguments have largely been "Deep State" conspiracy theories which try to undermine the credibility of the whistleblower complaint through implying that it's basically nothing more than a political hit job which they claim is evidenced by people "behind the scenes" greasing the wheels for it (a claim you yourself made earlier on this very page of the thread). This carries the heavy implication of corrupt motive/methodology, which is then used as an excuse to downplay if not outright dismiss the whistleblower complaint; in essence, undermining it without directly arguing against its claims.

 

[JamesStone]

EDIT: My dumbass posted on a different thread, my bad.

 

[tstorm823]

Well that's certainly the pot calling the kettle black, Mr. "And you're countering 'but the whistleblower didn't break any rules, therefore you lose'", which in no way reflects the arguments I've been making. Or should I call you Mr. "You just hate Trump", to account for past discussions?

But let's set aside the snark for a moment. I am not saying you're wrong based on an argument you never made or a position you never espoused (a strawman). In fact, you'll note that the post you're quoting actually fell back heavily on the arguments you made within this thread. What I did do was point out that your arguments have largely been "Deep State" conspiracy theories which try to undermine the credibility of the whistleblower complaint through implying that it's basically nothing more than a political hit job which they claim is evidenced by people "behind the scenes" greasing the wheels for it (a claim you yourself made earlier on this very page of the thread). This carries the heavy implication of corrupt motive/methodology, which is then used as an excuse to downplay if not outright dismiss the whistleblower complaint; in essence, undermining it without directly arguing against its claims.

I've never dismissed the whistleblower, I haven't tried to undermine their credibility, I've been operating under the assumption that the complaint contains accurate information since at least the second post of this thread. When a second whistleblower came up, my response was to question why a second whistleblower was needed, we've already confirmed the claims of the first one. And you're insisting to me repeatedly that I'm trying to undermine that credibility. I'm not doing that at all. You're wrong to suggest that. Stop arguing against that.

And it's not deep state spooky conspiracy theories when Adam Schiff knew the complaint before it was even filed [https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/schiff-wrong-on-whistleblower-contact/] to suggest that Democrats were preparing for impeachment proceedings long before they were supposed to even know the complaint existed. That's why they demanded it be released, that's why they started an investigation before seeing it, that's the White House released the transcript instead of the complaint. None of it is accident, they're employing strategies to win political advantages.

 

[Agema]

For example, the ongoing debate between Agema and I depends on the question "who initiated the contact between Trump and Zelenskyy". The whistleblower complaint states "I do not know who initiated the call"... But it's worth noting that if they did know Ukraine initiated contact, it would hugely undermine the claim that Trump acted inappropriately. Gaps in knowledge can be used to make something seem more incriminating.

Going back to this, no we are not significantly arguing about this. Who "initiated" the Trump-Zelenskyy call is not really important at all. The problem begins and ends with whether Trump asked Zelenskyy to carry out investigations advantageous to Trump's electoral campaign in return for advantageous foriegn policy.

We start at the phone call: Trump really does explicitly ask for those investigations, and that alone is, at best, inappropriate.

From there, we have the whistleblower report and Volker texts. They then show Giuliani and State Department employees actively worked to drive Zelenskyy to promise those investigations in return for contact with Trump. It makes little sense to claim Zelenskyy wanted those investigations given a) his refusal to see Giuliani in May, b) Giuliani's subsequent attacks on him, c) his repeated concerns about being seen to interfere in the US elections, and d) that the State Dept. carries out actions designed to make him play ball.

At this point, assuming the veracity of the whistleblower report and texts, it's highly implausible to claim Trump isn't complicit: a) it appears everyone believed his assent to speak was dependent on the basis of promised investigations, and b) there's that phone call, where he personally asks for investigations.

 

[tstorm823]

Going back to this, no we are not significantly arguing about this. Who "initiated" the Trump-Zelenskyy call is not really important at all. The problem begins and ends with whether Trump asked Zelenskyy to carry out investigations advantageous to Trump's electoral campaign in return for advantageous foriegn policy.

We start at the phone call: Trump really does explicitly ask for those investigations, and that alone is, at best, inappropriate.

From there, we have the whistleblower report and Volker texts. They then show Giuliani and State Department employees actively worked to drive Zelenskyy to promise those investigations in return for contact with Trump. It makes little sense to claim Zelenskyy wanted those investigations given a) his refusal to see Giuliani in May, b) Giuliani's subsequent attacks on him, c) his repeated concerns about being seen to interfere in the US elections, and d) that the State Dept. carries out actions designed to make him play ball.

At this point, assuming the veracity of the whistleblower report and texts, it's highly implausible to claim Trump isn't complicit: a) it appears everyone believed his assent to speak was dependent on the basis of promised investigations, and b) there's that phone call, where he personally asks for investigations.

OR we are debating that because your version of events isn't necessarily right.

Its equally (more) possible that Zelenskyy is trying to get in with Trump. That he wanted to meet with Giuliani, but the people tasked to arrange the meeting sabotaged it and the US media/Democrats publicly shamed Giuliani to try and prevent the meeting from ever happening. So once Zelenskyy was sworn in, he tasked a single trusted advisor/personal friend to reach back out to Rudy. Yermak told Giuliani they were investigating Biden, and presented the idea of new US-Ukraine relations with the new Ukrainian president kick started by investigative cooperation. Giuliani convinces Trump to talk to Zelenskyy based on a proactive offer they had made, and then it plays out from there.

You understand that every part of your description of events relies on perfectly secret correspondence you have no evidence of where the White House intimidated Zelenskyy into cooperating. You are somehow unwaveringly confident that Trump managed to demand investigations prior to all the events we have on record in such a perfectly kept secret that we've gotten no information about it from any report, any transcript, or any whistleblower.

 

[Asita]

I've never dismissed the whistleblower, I haven't tried to undermine their credibility, I've been operating under the assumption that the complaint contains accurate information since at least the second post of this thread. When a second whistleblower came up, my response was to question why a second whistleblower was needed, we've already confirmed the claims of the first one. And you're insisting to me repeatedly that I'm trying to undermine that credibility. I'm not doing that at all. You're wrong to suggest that. Stop arguing against that.

And it's not deep state spooky conspiracy theories when Adam Schiff knew the complaint before it was even filed [https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/schiff-wrong-on-whistleblower-contact/] to suggest that Democrats were preparing for impeachment proceedings long before they were supposed to even know the complaint existed. That's why they demanded it be released, that's why they started an investigation before seeing it, that's the White House released the transcript instead of the complaint. None of it is accident, they're employing strategies to win political advantages.

Amusingly enough, your second paragraph here actually supports my point, as you are again echoing the aforementioned Deep State spin. Note for instance, how the spin tries to cast it specifically as a Democratic initiative and something they "weren't supposed to have", implying illicit coordination if not outright coaching (which the "the rules changed" variant more strongly implies). The actual story, however, is that the whistleblower reached out to the House Intelligence Committee, of which Schiff is the current chair as David Nunes was before him. Said committee advised the whistleblower "to find a lawyer to advise him and meet with the Inspector General, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint". This is not out of the ordinary. And that spin is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[tstorm823]

Amusingly enough, your second paragraph here actually supports my point, as you are again echoing the aforementioned Deep State spin. Note for instance, how the spin tries to cast it specifically as a Democratic initiative and something they "weren't supposed to have", implying illicit coordination if not outright coaching (which the "the rules changed" variant more strongly implies). The actual story, however, is that the whistleblower reached out to the House Intelligence Committee, of which Schiff is the current chair as David Nunes was before him. Said committee advised the whistleblower "to find a lawyer to advise him and meet with the Inspector General, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint". This is not out of the ordinary. And that spin is exactly what I'm talking about.

It's not necessarily out of the ordinary until Schiff passes the Intel to other Democrats and the media and then lies about having the information in the first place.

 

[Agema]

OR we are debating that because your version of events isn't necessarily right.

No, it isn't. But it's the most likely from the available evidence.

Its equally (more) possible that Zelenskyy is trying to get in with Trump.

Zelenskyy doesn't really want to get in with Trump per se. Ukraine is relying on American political, financial and economic support, particularly with regard to Russia. Normally and in the past, simple pragmatism sufficed to keep things going.

That he wanted to meet with Giuliani, but the people tasked to arrange the meeting sabotaged it and the US media/Democrats publicly shamed Giuliani to try and prevent the meeting from ever happening.

You can say that, but there is simply no evidence whatsoever to defend the idea, and several pieces of evidence suggesting against. And to try to make it stick you've adopted Giuliani's conspiracy theory of a shadowy cabal of anti-Trumpists around Zelenskyy.

So once Zelenskyy was sworn in, he tasked a single trusted advisor/personal friend to reach back out to Rudy.

Okay, think that through for a minute.

Zelenskyy's the president. If he wants to meet Giualiani he just fires off an email or phone call or two and it happens. If he wants Yermak to meet Giuliani, he just tells Yermak to go do it and they'll meet the minute they both have a spare slot in the diary.

Giuliani is an openly practising professional with a publicly registered business. I could get his workplace email and telephone number myself, right now, with a quick Google. Given Yermak and Giuliani's positions it'd be child's play to get a contact with Giuliani without going through his front desk. So why the hell is Yermak going through the US State Dept. with all the palaver that entails, and why is the State Dept. so involved if Yermak just wants to meet Giuliani?

And again referencing the whistleblower report, why does the whistleblower report that the State Dept. appears to be pressurising Ukraine? Why is that, if it doesn't have anything it wants from Ukraine?

You understand that every part of your description of events relies on perfectly secret correspondence you have no evidence of where the White House intimidated Zelenskyy into cooperating.

No, it doesn't rely on secret correspondence. The danger to Ukraine is completely out in the open for everyone to see.

Ukraine is close to a state of conflict with Russia, and has been strongly supported by the USA and EU (sanctions, aid, etc.) However, Ukraine has seen its US aid delayed again in May. It took a snub when it was expecting the Veep to turn up to Zelenskyy's inauguration, and got Rick Perry. The president's very own personal lawyer is noisily filling the airwaves with talk that Zelenskyy is surrounded by advisors who are enemies of the USA and soft on corruption. If you were Zelenskyy, your country relying on US support, you'd have good reason to worry.

You are somehow unwaveringly confident that Trump managed to demand investigations prior to all the events we have on record in such a perfectly kept secret that we've gotten no information about it from any report, any transcript, or any whistleblower.

I actually have no idea what you're trying to argue here.

None of this is secret either. Everyone knows what Giuliani's after in Ukraine because Giuliani has publically shouted it from the rooftops. Everyone knows Trump is interested in Ukraine over the 2016 election - he's said so as far back as 2017, and he's got AG Barr running a counter-investigation to discredit the Mueller probe. Are you seriously arguing (for instance) telling Mike Pompeo to squeeze Ukraine to do Trump favours is remotely difficult, or likely to require a 6" neon sign official declaration in triplicate with two copies going straight for oversight by Congress?

 

[Asita]

Amusingly enough, your second paragraph here actually supports my point, as you are again echoing the aforementioned Deep State spin. Note for instance, how the spin tries to cast it specifically as a Democratic initiative and something they "weren't supposed to have", implying illicit coordination if not outright coaching (which the "the rules changed" variant more strongly implies). The actual story, however, is that the whistleblower reached out to the House Intelligence Committee, of which Schiff is the current chair as David Nunes was before him. Said committee advised the whistleblower "to find a lawyer to advise him and meet with the Inspector General, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint". This is not out of the ordinary. And that spin is exactly what I'm talking about.

It's not necessarily out of the ordinary until Schiff passes the Intel to other Democrats and the media and then lies about having the information in the first place.

This is once again based far more in spin than truth. In fact, it's basically the same reading that I was addressing in the previous post, casting "Schiff knew (via the House Intelligence Committee) the gist of the complaint" as "Democrats were told about it", which eventually morphed to "Schiff passed the information to Democrats". This is, at best, based on the idea that, because the House Intelligence Committee knew a complaint was being filed, the Democrats within that committee knew that a complaint was being filed (often spun as "knew in advance" or "had an early warning").

The spin likes to cast it as seeking out Democrats and Schiff specifically, but we actually have a reasonably complete picture of how this went down. The whistleblower first approached the CIA's legal counsel, and shortly after that the White House lawyers started trying to track them down down. There's strong circumstantial evidence that these were the same lawyers who arranged to have the transcript of the Ukraine call put in the restricted server, ie, the same ones implicated in the whistleblower complaint. Fearing that this meant that the complaint would be swept under the rug, the whistleblower approached the House Intelligence Committee (which is tasked with oversight of Intelligence Agencies), who advised the whistleblower to submit it to the Inspector General. Where Trump et. al are calling foul is in the fact that because as head Schiff had a vague idea of what the complaint might entail (which again, is attributable to the HIC being asked for advice on it), they knew to ask for it after Maguire was instructed by the White House not to forward the complaint as he is legally required to do. This is misrepresented as them being familiar with the report and circulating it in advance and is more than a little disingenuous.

 

[tstorm823]

This is misrepresented as them being familiar with the report and circulating it in advance and is more than a little disingenuous.

And if I only had a little to go on, it would be a stretch to reach that conclusion, but there are many, many pieces of evidence. We had Schiff tweeting about basically the content of the report. We now know the press was asking about it in August. We have the call for impeachment before the whistleblower report was theoretically seen while the transcript's release was already publicly announced. That same day, #cancelNYT trended because they revealed details about the whistleblower. That same New York Times had a reporter telling people the Ukrainians didn't know about the aid money freeze before the whistleblower report or text messages had been revealed. And like, do you think Nancy Pelosi would move on something with incomplete information? The evidence that these people knew what was going on is overwhelming.

Over the course of this whole thing, the worst moment for Trump was before anything was released. When the news story was a whistleblower claiming that Donald Trump asked the Ukrainian President repeatedly to start an aggressive investigation into Joe Biden while withholding military aid. Some of the new evidence we've gotten over time has seemed bad for Trump depending on perspective, but none of it ever made things worse than the original accusation period. Because a lot of information we didn't have makes Trump look less guilty. "Trump asked for a Biden investigation!" ... "though he's not the one who brought it up in the conversation". "Trump was withholding aid to Ukraine while making the demand!" ... "but the Ukrainians didn't know." "He made them put the transcript in a double plus secure system to hide his crimes!" ... "but they've been doing it with a lot of correspondence and didn't treat this call in a special way." "He's asked all sorts of heads of state to help with investigations!" ... "exactly, so why do you suspect he was threatening this one nation when he's asked for and seemingly gotten cooperation from plenty of others." Even if you still think Trump committed a crime here, you have to admit that the game has been "Headline! High crimes and misdemeanors!" and then a day later we get "well, we found out there might have been a reason for that." What a load. They aren't finding out anything, some of the Democrats and the press knew the full story before they started breaking it. They could have laid bare the entire situation on day 1, but instead we get "oh my goodness me, there's a whisleblower! We must listen and learn what horrible misdeeds they were witness to." Because the full story doesn't sell impeachment quite as well as the most damning parts they decided to leak out.

 

[Agema]

Over the course of this whole thing, the worst moment for Trump was before anything was released.

Given the increasing numbers of people who seem to think there is a fair reason to either impeach or heavily investigate Trump for impeachment, I suspect this to be untrue.

If, as per Yovanovic's testimony, we get a spill of officials deciding it's time to say what's going on under the hood, it's potentially going to get a lot worse. They don't even necessarily need to relate that heavily to the Ukraine: if it turns out that the State Department and US foreign policy is pretty much boned at the moment, that is going to hurt. It's also going to be interesting to see what's going on with his tax returns.

I might not like Pence and his outlook on the world, but I'd easily take 8 years of him and mostly professional, honestly objectionable policies over the sewer of corruption, impropriety, chaos, incompetence and dishonour of offices of state that characterises the current incumbent.

 

[Asita]

This is misrepresented as them being familiar with the report and circulating it in advance and is more than a little disingenuous.

And if I only had a little to go on, it would be a stretch to reach that conclusion, but there are many, many pieces of evidence. We had Schiff tweeting about basically the content of the report. We now know the press was asking about it in August. We have the call for impeachment before the whistleblower report was theoretically seen while the transcript's release was already publicly announced. That same day, #cancelNYT trended because they revealed details about the whistleblower. That same New York Times had a reporter telling people the Ukrainians didn't know about the aid money freeze before the whistleblower report or text messages had been revealed. And like, do you think Nancy Pelosi would move on something with incomplete information? The evidence that these people knew what was going on is overwhelming.

Hoo boy...so much misinformation to unpack here.

"We had Schiff tweeting about basically the content of the report."
Ok, first of all, Schiff is again the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, so he would have been apprised of the general details after the whistleblower approached the HIC for advice. The whistleblower filed their complaint to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees (addressed to their respective chairs, Adam Schiff and Richard Burr) on the subject on August 12. (For those curious, the message has since been declassified and can be seen here). Schiff issued a subpoena to Maguire to release the complaint on Sept 13, four days after Atkinson notified the HIC that the whistleblower complaint had been received on August 12 and qualified as a credible urgent concern, and that Maguire was supposed to have forwarded the complaint to Congress by September 1. Atkinson met with Schiff on Sept 19 to discuss the report.


"We now know the press was asking about it in August."
A leap in logic at best and fabricated whole cloth at worst. This particular claim seems to have been reached by working backwards from the Federalist's spin that the whistleblower forms were changed to smooth the road for this specific complaint (despite the fact that the whistleblower used the old form anyway and the change in wording meant jack-diddly regardless) and through which the IG's statement about press inquiries is reinterpreted to again apply to this specific report, and from that assuming that the inquiries could have been made no more recently than August. From that leap in logic it's then implied that the press was illicitly involved in this.

Alternatively, and perhaps more generously, you might be referring to their questions to Pence on Sept 2 about whether the freeze on Ukrainian funds had anything to do with the administration's attempts to dig up dirt on Biden, particularly through Giuliani. This line of logic, however, is totally reliant on the assumption that the whistleblower complaint is the only way they could have known that Trump et al were hoping for dirt on Biden from Ukrainian sources...when we'd known that since at least May when Trump touched on that particular conspiracy theory in a Fox News interview.


"We have the call for impeachment before the whistleblower report was theoretically seen while the transcript's release was already publicly announced."
False. At least in the sense you're implying. There's been a subset of the population that has been calling for impeachment since the Trump Tower meeting went public, so it's accurate in that sense, but that would be equivocation between any call for impeachment and call for impeachment on what's described in the whistleblower complaint. That one dates to Sept 24, well after the story originally broke. And the insinuation you're making here is predicated entirely on the idea that nobody should have known about the complaint even in a general sense, despite the HIC being at that point briefed on it and effectively told that - under law - they were supposed to have had it weeks ago.


"That same day, #cancelNYT trended because they revealed details about the whistleblower. That same New York Times had a reporter telling people the Ukrainians didn't know about the aid money freeze before the whistleblower report or text messages had been revealed."
I sincerely do not know what you're trying to suggest here. Based on the second sentence, I assume you're trying to draw some link between the two, but I can't fathom how they're supposed to build your point either in isolation or in concert.

"And like, do you think Nancy Pelosi would move on something with incomplete information? The evidence that these people knew what was going on is overwhelming."
Dude, by the time Pelosi moved on it, the general public had a relatively good overview of the situation.


"Trump asked for a Biden investigation!" ... "though he's not the one who brought it up in the conversation".
You're talking about the memo the White House released? The one where Trump explicitly asks the Ukraine to look into Crowdstrike? And that it's very important that Ukraine does it? I'm sorry, but how is it that Zelenskyy alluding to having received Giuliani, who we know has been going to the Ukraine on this very subject at least for months at this point less damning to you? Especially when, even according to the memo, Trump then immediately ties Giuliani to that same subject? I mean for goodness sake, we have it from Giuliani himself in a Sept 19 interview that he asked the Ukraine to investigate the Bidens!

"Trump was withholding aid to Ukraine while making the demand!" ... "but the Ukrainians didn't know."
Irrelevant. What matters is whether or not the aid was withheld out of intent to use as leverage or otherwise extort the Ukraine, not whether or not such extortion was recognized or successful. And we have circumstantial evidence suggesting that was indeed the case, notably including multiple text message exchanges expressing exasperation that security assistance was being predicated on investigations/help with a political campaign.

"He made them put the transcript in a double plus secure system to hide his crimes!" ... "but they've been doing it with a lot of correspondence and didn't treat this call in a special way."
Misleading. The "double plus secure system" is designed for "classified information of an especially sensitive nature" for national security. This call did not qualify for such treatment, which is what makes the White House officials' demand that it be stored there so unusual and concerning.

"He's asked all sorts of heads of state to help with investigations!" ... "exactly, so why do you suspect he was threatening this one nation when he's asked for and seemingly gotten cooperation from plenty of others."
...I'm sorry, what? That's basically like trying to defend a bank robber from the accusation of robbing a bank by questioning what could have possessed them to bring a gun to their most recent robbery when they didn't bring one to all the other bank robberies. The threats exacerbate the issue (the gun), but trying to get foreign governments to investigate a political opponent (the bank robbery) is a crime in and of itself.

 

[tstorm823]

Hoo boy...so much misinformation to unpack here.

It's weird of you to introduce your misinformation with a disclaimer, but I hardly have much to do since you put the label on it yourself.

In seriousness, I don't feel like retreading all this ground over again. You're nitpicking stuff that's already been nitpicked enough and you're entirely missing the big picture.

Just like the argument with Agema, where it came down to a single question of whether Trump approached Ukraine or vice versa, I really only need you to consider one question and all the nitpicking ceases to be important.

Do you think that press organizations like the New York Times or Democrats like Nancy Pelosi are finding new information as it comes out just like we are, or do you think they had a clear image of the events before starting the impeachment investigation?

 

[Asita]

Hoo boy...so much misinformation to unpack here.

It's weird of you to introduce your misinformation with a disclaimer, but I hardly have much to do since you put the label on it yourself.

In seriousness, I don't feel like retreading all this ground over again. You're nitpicking stuff that's already been nitpicked enough and you're entirely missing the big picture.

Cute, if predictable deflection. I actually debated how to open it because I figured the odds were good that you'd try something to the tune of "oh, thank you for describing your own arguments as misleading", but I'd hoped you were more mature than to try that. And nitpicking? Really? You're implying that, in pointing out how the claims you're making do not withstand scrutiny, I am being excessively concerned with insignificant details?

Just like the argument with Agema, where it came down to a single question of whether Trump approached Ukraine or vice versa, I really only need you to consider one question and all the nitpicking ceases to be important.

Do you think that press organizations like the New York Times or Democrats like Nancy Pelosi are finding new information as it comes out just like we are, or do you think they had a clear image of the events before starting the impeachment investigation?

Which is to say you're asking if I think that there was illicit coordination between the Democrats, media and the whistleblower for the purpose of exaggerating the impact of the whistleblower report. No. I think that's a conclusion people reached by trying to salvage the Federalist's initial story about the process being manipulated to get the complaint through.