Trump allegedly requests foreign election interference

[Exley97_v1legacy]

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.

Or, alternative theory, you're both fighting back against inconvenient truths with propaganda. Please consider that possibility.

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."

About that theory....

AP Exclusive: US officials knew of Ukraine?s Trump anxiety
https://apnews.com/139dd535eac749aa961bc0205d10e872

"U.S. State Department officials were informed that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was feeling pressure from the Trump administration to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden even before the July phone call that has led to impeachment hearings in Washington, two people with knowledge of the matter told The Associated Press."

"State Department officials in Kyiv and Washington were briefed on Zelenskiy?s concerns at least three times, the two sources said. Notes summarizing his worries were circulated within the department, they said."

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?

You know, it's entirely possible to want to rid your country of corruption, and *also* not participate in another country's corruption by being forced to publicly announce a sham of an investigation into Trump's chief rival in the next election.

 

[tstorm823]

You know, it's entirely possible to want to rid your country of corruption, and *also* not participate in another country's corruption by being forced to publicly announce a sham of an investigation into Trump's chief rival in the next election.

You know, it's entirely possible there was no corruption at all. It's entirely possible that the Ukrainian government wanted the cooperation of the US government so that a reopened investigation into Burisma wouldn't be seen as foreign meddling in the election. It's entirely possible that Ukrainians pitched the idea of making a public statement prior to a White House visit because Zelenskyy wanted the PR. It's entirely possible that all these things got wrapped up together because officials from both governments were getting the same information from the same sources and not because Trump fed them lines.

 

[Agema]

You know, it's entirely possible there was no corruption at all. It's entirely possible that the Ukrainian government wanted the cooperation of the US government so that a reopened investigation into Burisma wouldn't be seen as foreign meddling in the elections. It's entirely possible that Ukrainians pitched the idea of making a public statement prior to a White House visit because Zelenskyy wanted the PR. It's entirely possible that all these things got wrapped up together because officials from both governments were getting the same information from the same sources and not because Trump fed them lines.

Sure. It's also entirely possible that Mossad has compromising information on Zelenskyy and tried to force him to investigate Burisma to help Trump keep power in order to further Israel's interests in the West Bank, and it's entirely possible that Giuliani is a deep cover Russian / Chinese agent trying to spread chaos in US politics for the the benefit of his Moscow / Beijing masters.

But, you know, the possibilities strongly supported by the evidence are much more useful if we want to know the truth. Otherwise it's chaff, distracting us rather than helping us.

* * *

Look, you yourself have made some robust criticisms of Donald Trump, which I think include the recognition he's completely self-absorbed and spills whatever runs through his brain all over social media, including noting his specific, vocal interests in Ukraine. How do you then argue anyone in Ukraine would think it a good idea to keep a politically sensitive investigation quiet by actively trying to push it into Trump's attention?

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

You know, it's entirely possible to want to rid your country of corruption, and *also* not participate in another country's corruption by being forced to publicly announce a sham of an investigation into Trump's chief rival in the next election.

You know, it's entirely possible there was no corruption at all. It's entirely possible that the Ukrainian government wanted the cooperation of the US government so that a reopened investigation into Burisma wouldn't be seen as foreign meddling in the election. It's entirely possible that Ukrainians pitched the idea of making a public statement prior to a White House visit because Zelenskyy wanted the PR. It's entirely possible that all these things got wrapped up together because officials from both governments were getting the same information from the same sources and not because Trump fed them lines.

You're reaching, and I think given the considerable amount of information available, from the initial call record to the recent testimony, you know you're reaching. It's why you keep repeating things like "investigation into Burisma" instead of "investigation into Hunter Biden" (as if Trump even knows what "Burisma" is). It's why you're positing all these "possible" scenarios and yet refusing to acknowledge the obvious.

 

[tstorm823]

Look, you yourself have made some robust criticisms of Donald Trump, which I think include the recognition he's completely self-absorbed and spills whatever runs through his brain all over social media, including noting his specific, vocal interests in Ukraine. How do you then argue anyone in Ukraine would think it a good idea to keep a politically sensitive investigation quiet by actively trying to push it into Trump's attention?

Because his specific vocal interests in Ukraine are the rumors that Ukraine worked against him in the 2016 election. Other Trump flaws: he can be single-minded and he holds grudges. We've gotten consistent information through this process that Trump doesn't seem to like or trust Ukraine because of 2016 nonsense. Trump isn't sitting there going "I don't like or trust these people, that makes them the perfect partner to help me take down Joe Biden." No. Zelenskyy's government wants US support and engagement, they're looking for any and all shared interests to get Trump's attention, and anti-corruption efforts are one of the things they see in common with Trump. "Drain the swamp" and all. Like, Zelenskyy both clearly doesn't want to be a pawn, but desperately wants to be a partner of the US, so logically he would look for things that he already wants to do that he can work on with the US.

Trump was probably thinking "I don't wanna work with these people until they make up for hurting me in 2016." I don't imagine his thinking got any more complicated than that.

You're reaching, and I think given the considerable amount of information available, from the initial call record to the recent testimony, you know you're reaching. It's why you keep repeating things like "investigation into Burisma" instead of "investigation into Hunter Biden" (as if Trump even knows what "Burisma" is). It's why you're positing all these "possible" scenarios and yet refusing to acknowledge the obvious.

I'm not saying "the obvious" isn't possible. I'm saying there are other possibilities, and everyone has horse blinders on preventing them from seeing any possibility other than criminal conspiracy that gets Trump impeached.

"The obvious" has gotten less obvious with every primary source we've seen. That's why they keep trotting out people who made the same assumptions or heard the same rumors and calling it bombshells as though the situation has changed. I suppose the claims that Ukraine knew the aid was held before the call were bombshellish, but they're also definitely lies. We've got Bill Tayler testifying that Yermak found out the 29th or 30th of August, and we have hard evidence in the texts to support this testimony, you'd need at least as much evidence the other way to convince me otherwise.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Ok, so Trump's aides (I'm sure he's not at all involved because these people would risk their jobs and freedom all on their own) has had the White House musing Weirdly Specifically Targeted Firings and/or "Loaning to other agencies" [https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/18/politics/donald-trump-never-trump-white-house-staff/index.html].

President Donald Trump's aides have explored moving some impeachment witnesses on loan to the White House from other agencies, such as Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, back to their home departments ahead of schedule, according to people familiar with the conversations.

As public hearings bring the officials' allegations to his television screen, Trump is asking anew how witnesses such as Vindman and Ambassador Bill Taylor came to work for him, people familiar with the matter said. He has suggested again they be dismissed, even as advisers warn him firing them could be viewed as retaliation.

The possible move of officials out of the White House could still be viewed by some as evidence of retribution for their testimony. Trump's frustration at his own officials comes as he attacks witnesses on Twitter, including during Friday's public hearing with the ousted ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. Trump appears to have adopted a strategy of maligning the officials, despite some allies encouraging him not to.

The uncertain fate and public thrashing of these officials has created a thorny situation for a White House wading through the impeachment process. Trump's impulse to dismiss them hasn't been realized, but he's made clear nevertheless he views them as unwelcome.

It's one of the persistent anomalies of the impeachment inquiry: most of the witnesses airing concerns at Trump's approach to Ukraine remain employed by him, despite his claims they are "Never Trumpers" and his overt suggestions they've already been fired.
None, for now, have been explicitly fired by Trump, even as he and his allies suggest otherwise. It's created an odd and uncomfortable situation for staffers, who say they are unclear on their colleagues' futures in the administration.

Let me look up Witness Tampering. Ok, Here we Go [https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/witness-tampering.html]

Unlawful Conduct Toward a Witness

Witness tampering can take many forms, and will vary based on whether the proceeding is under state or federal law. It's best not to think of prohibited actions as a narrow list, but any action that falls into the following categories:

Physical Force: Using any type of physical force to keep a witness from testifying is prohibited, and commonly results in felony charges. Confinement is considered a use of force.
Threatened Physical Force: Words, tone and gestures can combine such that threats of physical force constitute unlawful conduct. Shaking your fist at someone while saying you will knock them senseless if they testify against you, would likely qualify as witness tampering.
Corrupt Persuasion: Prohibited behavior includes persuading a witness to change their testimony, and blackmailing or bribing a witness and attempts to keep a witness from testifying.

Penalties for Witness Tampering

The degree of punishment for witness tampering is proportional to the seriousness of the criminal behavior. A person convicted of having a witness killed can be sentenced to life imprisonment, while a person convicted of harassing a witness into testifying untruthfully won't be punished by more than one year of imprisonment.

Depending on the circumstances of the case, witness tampering can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. The following are sample punishments for this crime:

Federal witness intimidation is punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000.
Using physical force to intimidate a federal witness results in a federal prison sentence of up to 30 years.
State witness tampering without physical force is punishable by up to 10 years in state prison and a $4,000 fine.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that we would all think that our boss threatening to fire (or move to a less favorable position) anyone who testifies against them and given that we're on the docket, we would consider the situation at large intimidating.

I don't know what to say at this point. Those who are following this process intently are probably just all out of shock at this point. Those who don't care really don't care and think this is all being overblown. And those on the side of the cult will scrape and search for another way of looking at the situation. And once they find this less obvious way, they will insist on everyone entertaining their notion of how the world is actually shaped according to them.

I'm frankly getting tired of hearing hooves in the distance and people yelling "MUTATED ZEBRAS BRED FOR WAR AND MAKING OUR BABIES GAY".

 

[Agema]

...and anti-corruption efforts are one of the things they see in common with Trump. "Drain the swamp" and all.

If Trump were against corruption, he wouldn't be aggressively driving US public money to his own property empire and failing to separate himself properly from his business interests, and he wouldn't have vigorously anti-corruption ambassadors to Ukraine sacked, and he wouldn't do things like hide his tax returns. He wouldn't be super chummy with famously corrupt regimes like Saudi Arabia and Russia. Do you think his history of scandals in business and personal - dodgy tax reporting, refusing to pay contractors, fraudulent charity dealings, scam university, paying off porn actresses, mafia ties, breaking casino laws, etc. - are the sign of man of upstanding morality?

What has Trump actually done about corruption?

Trump removed rules on US firms dealing abroad to make it harder to trace illegal money use (for things such as bribery). Trump has repeatedly attempted to cut foreign aid designed to support anti-corruption efforts. He's reducing funding to US agencies that investigate corruption. We might think of "the swamp" as the vast sums of money swilling around lobbying in the USA, and where's that? Rising heavily. [https://www.statista.com/statistics/257337/total-lobbying-spending-in-the-us/]

Why on earth would we simply accept Trump at his word about "drain the swamp" when his actual anti-corruption efforts amount to a combination of either nothing or undermining anti-corruption efforts? In fact, the single, sole, evidence of Trump taking an actual action against corruption is when - conveniently enough - he could manipulate it for personal gain.

It's just irrational to believe a man with Trump's record as a human, a businessman or a politician is motivated by combatting corruption.

"The obvious" has gotten less obvious with every primary source we've seen. That's why they keep trotting out people who made the same assumptions or heard the same rumors and calling it bombshells as though the situation has changed. I suppose the claims that Ukraine knew the aid was held before the call were bombshellish, but they're also definitely lies.

This depends what we mean.

Ukraine knew the aid was supposed to be released. At least one source relates they were checking their accounts every day for a month, waiting for the money to arrive... and it wasn't arriving. They knew there was a problem. It seems reasonable to think that someone in the State Dept. may have confirmed that there was some sort of issue.

What the Ukrainians almost certainly didn't know were the specifics - firstly that the aid had been held by explicit order of the US president, or secondly for what reason the aid was held. That's what they find out for sure later and Yermak demands to talk.

But that's the trick, isn't it? In the absence of clarity, the Ukrainians would be inclined to try to fill in the blank themselves. And that's where the aid hold can work as an implicit threat: because an obvious possibility they must consider is that the money isn't arriving until they do what's being asked of them and start investigations. They don't need to be explicitly told, they just need to worry about the possibility.

 

[tstorm823]

It's just irrational to believe a man with Trump's record as a human, a businessman or a politician is motivated by combatting corruption.

A corrupt person can be against the corruption of others. Or are we saying "Trump can't be against corruption, that would make him a hypocrite! I'll accuse Trump of treason, but hypocrisy is just too much to believe."

Also, I'm not talking about Trump's motives here, I'm talking about Zelenskyy. Who ran on an anti-corruption platform and told Trump he imitated Trump's campaign in some ways.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

After boost from Perry, backers got huge gas deal in Ukraine [https://apnews.com/6d8ae551fb884371a2a592ed85a74426]

Two political supporters of U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry secured a potentially lucrative oil and gas exploration deal from the Ukrainian government soon after Perry proposed one of the men as an adviser to the country?s new president.

Perry's efforts to influence Ukraine's energy policy came earlier this year, just as President Volodymyr Zelenskiy's new government was seeking military aid from the United States to defend against Russian aggression and allies of President Donald Trump were ramping up efforts to get the Ukrainians to investigate his Democratic rival Joe Biden.

Ukraine awarded the contract to Perry's supporters little more than a month after the U.S. energy secretary attended Zelenskiy's May inauguration. In a meeting during that trip, Perry handed the new president a list of people he recommended as energy advisers. One of the four names was his longtime political backer Michael Bleyzer.

A week later, Bleyzer and his partner Alex Cranberg submitted a bid to drill for oil and gas at a sprawling government-controlled site called Varvynska. They offered millions of dollars less to the Ukrainian government than their only competitor for the drilling rights, according to internal Ukrainian government documents obtained by The Associated Press. But their newly created joint venture, Ukrainian Energy, was awarded the 50-year contract because a government-appointed commission determined they had greater technical expertise and stronger financial backing, the documents show.

Perry likely had outsized influence in Ukraine. Testimony in the impeachment inquiry into Trump shows the energy secretary was one of three key U.S. officials who were negotiating a meeting between Trump and the Ukrainian leader.

White House and State Department officials have testified that the president would only meet with Zelenskiy if he committed to launching an investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter. In the impeachment inquiry against Trump, the officials have also said that U.S. military aid to Ukraine was being withheld until Zelenskiy publicly announced such an investigation.

The sequence of events suggests the Trump administration?s political maneuvering in Ukraine was entwined with the big business of the energy trade.

Perry made clear during trips to Kyiv that he was close to Bleyzer, a Ukrainian-American investor and longtime Perry supporter who lives in Houston, and Cranberg, a Republican mega-donor who provided Perry the use of a luxury corporate jet during the energy secretary's failed 2012 presidential bid.

Also of note, after this sweetheart deal and the heat of the whistleblower kicked in, Rick Perry Resigned [https://www.npr.org/2019/10/17/593950148/energy-secretary-rick-perry-resigns]. And hey, isn't it odd that Giuliani and Associates were trying to get in good with a Ukraine Gas Company [https://apnews.com/196b3007d9db4747b55f9019f0f9da91]? Oh, when the stars align...

Here's the thing. Even if I allowed for the Cult-like level of self delusion to try to find the most innocent painting of these 'random coincidences', I would like to believe I had the wherewithal to grasp the optics of this:

The Story was that Biden must have done something bad to get his son in Burisma, and that prosecutor getting fired was because he was getting too close to the Biden awful truth. This is up for debate. But the reality that's well-documented right now is that a rightfully worried nation of Ukraine is staring at a conflict with an actual superpower. And Ukraine's biggest ally was holding up help until Ukraine did some favors. Then suddenly, long time backers of this Administration and its hangers-on are suddenly all clamoring to get into the gas business. Even Trump's personal lawyer.

This looks extraordinarily bad to anyone paying attention and not in Trump-Cult Denial Mode.

 

[Silvanus]

A corrupt person can be against the corruption of others. Or are we saying "Trump can't be against corruption, that would make him a hypocrite! I'll accuse Trump of treason, but hypocrisy is just too much to believe."

A hypocrite is not genuinely committed to the principle they are espousing. They want to appear to care; they do not actually give a toss.

So, he is not motivated to tackle corruption. The line is a cudgel to be wielded exclusively against political opponents, and nothing more.

 

[tstorm823]

Also of note, after this sweetheart deal and the heat of the whistleblower kicked in, Rick Perry Resigned [https://www.npr.org/2019/10/17/593950148/energy-secretary-rick-perry-resigns]. And hey, isn't it odd that Giuliani and Associates were trying to get in good with a Ukraine Gas Company [https://apnews.com/196b3007d9db4747b55f9019f0f9da91]? Oh, when the stars align...

You understand that the company Giuliani was talking to and the company owned by a Perry supporter were rivals for this bid? I don't think that rises to the level of criminal conspiracy when they were literally on opposing interests.

This looks extraordinarily bad to anyone paying attention and not in Trump-Cult Denial Mode.

No it doesn't. I mean, it does when someone makes it look bad deliberately. Now stop doing that for a second. Rick Perry, then US energy secretary, recommended for Ukrainian energy secretary a Ukrainian native/US citizen with 15 years experience at Exxon who spent the last 20 years using his expertise and US funding to work on the energy industry in Eastern Europe. I'm pretty sure you call that "representing US interests abroad". Ukraine then awarded that man's company a drilling license despite a lower bid based on "technical expertise and stronger financial backing". Mind you, the contract they won wasn't "pay us and you get all the oil for 50 years", after they recoup the initial bid, they split the profits with Ukraine 50/50. So immediately chop off half the difference in bids because they'll get that anyway, without any corruption involved, Ukraine could be making the bet that this guy's company will make $7 million more off the oil rights in the long run. That's not a sign of corruption.

And Giuliani talking to the other bidder really isn't a sign of corruption. And how they hell do you connect any of this to Trump?

 

[tstorm823]

A hypocrite is not genuinely committed to the principle they are espousing. They want to appear to care; they do not actually give a toss.

So, he is not motivated to tackle corruption. The line is a cudgel to be wielded exclusively against political opponents, and nothing more.

And? Trump posits himself as anti-corruption. Zelenskyy and Trump agree to work together... against corruption. Why does Trump's motivation effect Zelenskyy's? Why does that stop Zelenskyy from saying "hey, we both campaign against corruption in our governments, let's work together on that." It doesn't matter if Trump means it, it matters what Ukraine wanted.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

Trump posits himself as anti-corruption. Zelenskyy and Trump agree to work together... against corruption. Why does Trump's motivation effect Zelenskyy's? Why does that stop Zelenskyy from saying "hey, we both campaign against corruption in our governments, let's work together on that." It doesn't matter if Trump means it, it matters what Ukraine wanted.

Bro, are you even watching/following the testimony today? Seriously, you should tune in.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

*Sighs*

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.

Ok.

Also of note, after this sweetheart deal and the heat of the whistleblower kicked in, Rick Perry Resigned [https://www.npr.org/2019/10/17/593950148/energy-secretary-rick-perry-resigns]. And hey, isn't it odd that Giuliani and Associates were trying to get in good with a Ukraine Gas Company [https://apnews.com/196b3007d9db4747b55f9019f0f9da91]? Oh, when the stars align...

You understand that the company Giuliani was talking to and the company owned by a Perry supporter were rivals for this bid? I don't think that rises to the level of criminal conspiracy when they were literally on opposing interests.

I realized it. And phrased it as such. "A Ukraine Gas Company". Not the same. Not because of the same deal. A Ukraine Gas Company. My statement is more so that higher ups in the Trump Administration read the tea leaves all at the same time and saw how the precarious spot Ukraine found themselves in made it very easy to try to exploit an ally. That is reprehensible. And even if Trump members weren't on the same plan, they were on the same action in trying to do a deed eerily analogous

No it doesn't. I mean, it does when someone makes it look bad deliberately. Now stop doing that for a second. Rick Perry, then US energy secretary, recommended for Ukrainian energy secretary a Ukrainian native/US citizen with 15 years experience at Exxon who spent the last 20 years using his expertise and US funding to work on the energy industry in Eastern Europe. I'm pretty sure you call that "representing US interests abroad". Ukraine then awarded that man's company a drilling license despite a lower bid based on "technical expertise and stronger financial backing". Mind you, the contract they won wasn't "pay us and you get all the oil for 50 years", after they recoup the initial bid, they split the profits with Ukraine 50/50. So immediately chop off half the difference in bids because they'll get that anyway, without any corruption involved, Ukraine could be making the bet that this guy's company will make $7 million more off the oil rights in the long run. That's not a sign of corruption.

And Giuliani talking to the other bidder really isn't a sign of corruption. And how they hell do you connect any of this to Trump?

The totality of the efforts of validating Trump's attempts to enlist Ukraine to reopen an already investigated case with the Bidens is how it looks.

New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik [https://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/news/local-news/2019/11/stefanik-suggests-trumps-concern-about-hunter-biden-was-justified/]

"I know my constituents in NY-21 have many concerns about the fact that Hunter Biden, the son of the vice president, sat on the board of a corrupt company like Burisma," Stefanik said at the hearing. "The Obama administration's State Department was also concerned, and yet Adam Schiff refuses to allow this committee to call Hunter Biden despite our requests."

Stefanik then asked the witnesses if they agree Hunter Biden, by being on the board of Burisma, "has the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest."

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham [https://floridapolitics.com/archives/311395-lindsey-graham-promises-to-investigate-hunter-biden-call-whistleblower-if-impeachment-proceeds]

"I think we should look at the State Department's concern about Hunter Biden's conflict of interest," the South Carolina Republican told Florida Politics.

That includes investigating emails about Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings and its affiliation with Hunter Biden.

"See where that goes," Graham said.

Rep. Jim Jordan [https://ijr.com/jordan-blasts-hunter-biden-foreign-work/]

Jordan noted on "Fox & Friends" on Tuesday "two things stuck out" to him from Biden?s interview: "First, it sounds like he's upset that he got caught in this ridiculous arrangement, and second, he said something about when his dad becomes president."

"Look, the American people knew right from the get-go this was wrong. American people understand fairness. They instinctively get that this wasn't fair. This was improper. This wasn't right. I think it was pretty obvious. He just said now kind of what the American people already understood when this story first broke."

Jordan continued to slam Biden, as he said Americans "know it smells."

Rep. Devin Nunes [https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-nw-cb-trump-impeachment-hearings-fact-check-20191119-qdj66yn74rerfpzfuzxn3zgs6a-story.html]

REP. DEVIN NUNES, the top Republican on the committee, speaking of the news media: "You'd think they would be interested in Joe Biden threatening to withhold U.S. loan guarantees unless the Ukrainians fired a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma. That would be a textbook example of bribery."

The Republican response when a similar matter comes along? "Hey. No. Don't do that. It's ok if we do it, you just have to not look at it the same way". In fact, much of the defenses presented is basically that. It's not the same because we simply don't see it the same so it can't be the same.

It is, and it isn't.

How it is the same is that a high ranking member of the United States Government spoke to Ukraine in efforts to carry out the duties of their station. In efforts to release aid, certain provisos had to be met. Once they were, aid would have been released.

How it is different is that Joe Biden carried out Global Policy, with most common statement being the prosecutor was corrupt. Shokin wasn't prosecuting corrupt officials in the Ukrainian government [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/].

Rick Perry was the C List politician we spared because Trump didn't want to go, and Pence didn't want to go. Zelensky, worried about the held up aid since August [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-ukraine-aid-biden-zelensky_n_5db097cfe4b0d5b789450445]. just wanted to say on America's good side and did whatever it took to get an audience. Documents of that are all over the place. Perry was doing whatever he could to get Trump on the phone. Zelensky was doing whatever he could to get Trump on the phone. So Perry got his wishes and then so did Michael Bleyzer, who won the deal.

I don't know what happened with Joe Biden and his Son. He was cleared once, I guess that means something. But the same issue that has Republicans insisting that it looks so bad that we have to make sure is happening now with Perry and Giuliani. Perry who was on record saying he wouldn't step down before this all blew up suddenly changed his mind and resigned. Giuliani is facing proceedings on this.

It's reprehensible. This is the scenario that Trump wanted to use to Frame the Bidens as deplorable, and his own handpicked men are doing the same thing for profit and for backers. That's what I mean when I say "The stars align". Decrying the evil you do yourself.

I choose my words carefully. The Optics of this is severely bad, as long as you use the same optical viewer. And not if you use Rose-tinted optics for one party and dirt-encrusted optics for the other that you dislike.

Oh, by the way, Sondland says there was no doubt of a Quid Pro Quo and everyone knew it [https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/20/gordon-sondland-impeachment-testimony-071708]. Just to keep on topic.

 

[tstorm823]

I choose my words carefully. The Optics of this is severely bad, as long as you use the same optical viewer. And not if you use Rose-tinted optics for one party and dirt-encrusted optics for the other that you dislike.

Oh, by the way, Sondland says there was no doubt of a Quid Pro Quo and everyone knew it [https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/20/gordon-sondland-impeachment-testimony-071708]. Just to keep on topic.

Yes you choose your words carefully. You choose them carefully to communicate untruths. You deliberately frame things in the worst possible way and then act as though it's delusion to question your narrative. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Hey look, guess what! The only person known to have communicated that the aid was withheld related to investigations says in sworn testimony that he said that based on his own guesswork (3 weeks after the whistleblower report was written). Oh, were you not going to mention that part? That there is, once again, no connection between Trump freezing the aid and the investigations? And are you just going to hang the "everyone knew it" out there as though it means everyone knew there was a quid pro quo the whole time, instead of the very in context meaning of "higher ups were aware of Sondland's concerns only after the freeze on aid became public".

Yeah, you choose your words carefully alright.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I choose my words carefully. The Optics of this is severely bad, as long as you use the same optical viewer. And not if you use Rose-tinted optics for one party and dirt-encrusted optics for the other that you dislike.

Oh, by the way, Sondland says there was no doubt of a Quid Pro Quo and everyone knew it [https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/20/gordon-sondland-impeachment-testimony-071708]. Just to keep on topic.

Yes you choose your words carefully. You choose them carefully to communicate untruths. You deliberately frame things in the worst possible way and then act as though it's delusion to question your narrative. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Hey look, guess what! The only person known to have communicated that the aid was withheld related to investigations says in sworn testimony that he said that based on his own guesswork (3 weeks after the whistleblower report was written). Oh, were you not going to mention that part? That there is, once again, no connection between Trump freezing the aid and the investigations? And are you just going to hang the "everyone knew it" out there as though it means everyone knew there was a quid pro quo the whole time, instead of the very in context meaning of "higher ups were aware of Sondland's concerns only after the freeze on aid became public".

Yeah, you choose your words carefully alright.

Thank you.

I was actually feeling very, very bad for not responding to you for a while. I no longer do that.

Reopening was a mistake. And it's not because of a policy. I don't agree with Batou or Dreiko on a lot of things, but we can still at least communicate. You've once again ignored the substance and cast aspersions on my character. We have no longer any need to communicate.

 

[Agema]

A corrupt person can be against the corruption of others. Or are we saying "Trump can't be against corruption, that would make him a hypocrite! I'll accuse Trump of treason, but hypocrisy is just too much to believe."

If you're only against the corruption of others, you're not against corruption. It'd be like arguing a gang leader is against crime because he resents it when people steal from him. More importantly, you're just dodging the point that Trump has done nothing about corruption whatsoever. Nearly three years now, and not one apparent, concrete move against corruption.

Also, I'm not talking about Trump's motives here, I'm talking about Zelenskyy. Who ran on an anti-corruption platform and told Trump he imitated Trump's campaign in some ways.

Everyone who wants something from Trump flatters him. I know the July call transcript isn't verbatim, but if it is fairly close to reality then Zelenskyy was clearly apeing Trump's style of language. Secondly, Ukraine is full of corruption. Given all the stuff they could be looking at to investigate, it seems frankly bizarre to decide to put Burisma at the top of the queue given the concerns of interference in the US election.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

Hey look, guess what! The only person known to have communicated that the aid was withheld related to investigations says in sworn testimony that he said that based on his own guesswork (3 weeks after the whistleblower report was written). Oh, were you not going to mention that part? That there is, once again, no connection between Trump freezing the aid and the investigations?

I'm honestly curious about what you think took place here. Is it your belief that either Giuliani or Mulvaney or someone other advisor close to Trump went rogue and decided to withold the aid or at least communicate that condition (threat) to Ukraine on their own, without any direction from Trump?

 

[Agema]

I'm honestly curious about what you think took place here. Is it your belief that either Giuliani or Mulvaney or someone other advisor close to Trump went rogue and decided to withold the aid or at least communicate that condition (threat) to Ukraine on their own, without any direction from Trump?

Well, it's the age old tactic, isn't it? Throw as many people in the way as meatshields to protect the guy at the top. There's a rumour Sondland was going to be made a scapegoat, which is why he might have gone in all guns blazing (much to the evident dismay and surprise of the Republicans). Giuliani can of course also be thrown to the wolves easily enough.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Pentagon official reveals Ukrainians asked about stalled aid as early as July [https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/politics/david-hale-laura-cooper-public-hearing/index.html]

A top Pentagon official testified Wednesday that Ukrainian officials knew as early as July 25 that there was an issue with US aid to the country, undercutting a key Republican rebuttal to accusations of a "quid pro quo."

In their defense of President Donald Trump, Republicans have alleged that no bribery could exist if the Ukrainians weren't aware the aid was being held.

But Laura Cooper, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, testified as part of the House impeachment inquiry that some members of her staff recalled receiving queries about the aid from Ukrainian officials on July 25 -- the same day as Trump's much-scrutinized phone call with the Ukrainian President.

"What is going on with Ukrainian security assistance?" one Ukrainian contact emailed a member of her staff, Cooper said.

It was a new piece of information in the impeachment proceedings, which are exploring whether Trump conditioned the US aid -- which included military and financial assistance -- on Ukraine announcing investigations into a political rival.

Trump, White House officials and Republican members of Congress have insisted there could be no wrongdoing if the Ukrainians weren't aware the aid was being held up. They have argued Kiev wasn't aware of the delay until it was publicly reported in late August.

But Cooper's testimony dramatically altered the timeline, bringing the time of realization a month earlier to the very day Trump asked President Volodymyr Zelensky for a "favor" in opening investigations into Hunter Biden and the energy company Burisma.
Based on Cooper's accounting, the emails describing Ukrainian questions about the aid came in the mid-afternoon -- hours after Trump's 9 a.m. phone call with Zelensky.

Trump's allies continued to insist Wednesday that Zelensky himself has denied knowing anything about the hold until it was revealed in public reports.

Still, the revelation that at least some Ukrainian officials were aware of an issue makes clear the delay was known in some circles well before the end of August.

Like other witnesses, Cooper described her concern at the freeze in assistance, both because it had already been approved by Congress and because Ukraine depended on it to defend itself against Russian aggression.

"The United States and our allies provide Ukraine with security assistance because it is in our national security interest," she testified. "We also provide security assistance so that Ukraine can negotiate a peace with Russia from a position of strength."

So, another timeline complete with receipts broken. And the absolutely ludicrous defense that the president of a nation wouldn't have the knowledge on whether its biggest ally has come through with the military aid they needed to fend off the Russians.

Has any witness said anything that's bolstered the Republicans on the facts? Or has support for the Republicans remained due to sound quips and defiance?