I assume Tulsi actually wants to win the nomination, in which case voting no would be a bad idea, no matter her personal feelings.
Donald Trump - All things impeachment.... | Acquitted in the Senate
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
- Status
Today Pelosi held a vote to reaffirm her impeachment inquiry. This was theater, as everyone knew the outcome already. It's a weak case, but that doesn't matter. A partisan Senate won't convict.
Eh?
How is the case weak?
Representative Katie Hill, forced to resign after an affair with a staff member.
Any pardon wouldn't extend to state level charges, and with NY state hot on his trail, it wouldn't really remove the pressure if he decides to step aside.
The problem is Trump never said he was withholding aid in the July 25 call. Have you read the call transcript? It's 5 pages, easy to follow along.
The call was a routine congratulatory message to Zelensky on his election, diplomatic chit chat. We’re on page three before the first bit of possible significance comes. Here it is in its entirety:
The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance. But they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.
Zelensky gives a generally positive reply. Trump goes on:
Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.
To impeach, one must conclude from the text above that:
1) Trump asking for information, however far-fetched, on possible foreign interference in the 2016 election was wrong (but then would have to explain why the Democrats conducted a three year investigation of the same)
2) Trump asking for an investigation into whether then-Vice President and perhaps soon President Biden used his office for personal gain is of no interest to the people of the United States, even if that same information were also of interest to Trump
3) that Trump made clear to Zelensky aid was contingent on these investigations and
4) explain why the aid paid out soon after the call without any investigation
So the first problem is that Trump never said he was withholding aid in the July 25 call. The second problem is that nothing happened. Trump never asked the attorney general to contact Zelensky. The Ukrainians never investigated anything. It's unclear who Giuliani spoke with. This impeachment will be the first in American history without any underlying actual crime taking place on the ground. Democrats seek to impeach Trump for talking about something, and never doing something, that itself may not be a real offense anyway.
It's weak sauce.
I said a long while ago that if the Republicans ever turn on Trump, they won’t just vote for his impeachment/removal and cut a deal for him to sod off quietly like Nixon did because Trump won’t sod off quietly like Nixon did. He will want go on a tour of America stoking up his base against the betraying Republicans, bringing every single one of them down with whatever crap he has on them.
If they do ever get rid of him, they will have him put away at the same time.
If they do ever get rid of him, they will have him put away at the same time.
It’s already been revealed by a first hand witness to the call under oath that the transcript has been doctored to leave out key, damaging exchanges and the full transcript was stored in a code word secure server which itself is illegal.
There’s about 5 or 6 other key primary witnesses who have all corroborated each other’s accounts that it was a quid pro quo and various career diplomats raised ethical concerns at the time and were dismissed by White House lawyers whose only response each time was to remove evidence and store it on the code of word server.
If you think all of this is based on that transcript, you’re showing your ignorance that you’ve not followed any of this at all.
The 'transcript' is merely a summary composed by Trump admin officials.
I would call it wilful ignorance
the call was July 25th, the aid was released 11th September, 2 days after Congress first heard about the whistleblowers complaint.
Can you provide proof that the transcript was doctored?
I haven't seen the evidence of this. Could you please provide the names and a direct quote of what they said along with the citation, so I can read for myself?
I didn't claim it was doctored.
Ok, so what do we have going to impeach a sitting President? Forget the whistleblower. He had no first hand knowledge of a “high crime and misdemeanor,” just an opinion about a phone call he wasn’t party to. We have the memorandum of conversation between Trump and Zelinskiy. This is the U.S. government’s record of what was said and as such will form near 100 percent of what the Democrats will use to impeach. After all, it is the only primary document in the case. And imo it's weak sauce.
We've got Sondland, who stated, under oath and in a leaked text from the time of the original call, there was no such quid pro quo.
We've got William Taylor, who made it clear he was cut out of the White House’s back channel for Ukrainian policy, and only knew what insiders told him second hand. Taylor never spoke to the president or to the secretary of state.
And so far there are no documents or policy papers to support the claim the policy was aid for investigation.
So unless there's a smoking gun (and I haven't seen it) this going the way of the Mueller investigation.
The significance of a phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky
In a phone call on July 25 2019 with newly elected Ukrainian President Zelensky, President Trump attempted to solicit the support of a foreign government and may be in violation of Federal Campaign Finance Laws.[1] When President Zelensky asked about military aid to combat Russia, Trump immediately segued the conversation into requesting an investigation against one of his political opponents. President Trump repeatedly made requests including opening up an investigation into former Vice-President Joe Biden and his role in the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor that Trump claims was supposedly unfairly shut down by Biden because he supposedly feared his son was being investigated.
This is a complete mischaracterization of events. Following Ukraine's revolution and Russia's annexation of Crimea, Ukrainian President Poroshenko was dealing with corruption scandals. Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was a discredited individual who was leading an investigation into corruption. The corruption was staggering, for example following assistance from the International Monetary Fund a $1.8 billion loan to help the Ukrainian banking system disappeared offshore in accounts owned by a Ukrainian Oligarch.[2] At one point Shokin fired prosecutors who were working on corruption cases against corrupt officials.[3] Following pressure from Western Allies and the Obama administration the Ukrainian parliament overwhelmingly voted to fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. The decision was celebrated by Western Allies that were providing financial support to Ukraine including the European Union to defend themselves from Russia.[4] Moreover, in a recent interview former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko debunked President Trump's conspiracy that Biden forced the firing of Shokin to protect his son, Hunter Biden, who had been working in Ukraine. Prosecutor General Lutsenko stated that "“[f]rom the perspective of Ukrainian legislation, he did not violate anything,” and added “Hunter Biden cannot be responsible for violations of the management of Burisma that took place two years before his arrival.”^[5]
Days before his conversation with Ukrainian leader Zelensky the Trump administration suddenly froze aid allocated to Ukraine.^[6]
The White House has attempted to mislead the public by claiming that aid was frozen due to corruption, however NPR obtained a letter from the Pentagon that certified Ukraine had taken action to decrease corruption 2 months before President Trump blocked aid.[7] Furthermore, the Trump administration had tried to cut billions of dollars to programs aimed at fighting corruption globally including millions in cuts to anti-corruption programs in Ukraine.[8]
A month before this phone call in June the Pentagon announced plans to provide $250 million to Ukraine in security cooperation funds for things such as training and equipment in an attempt to build the capacity of Ukraine's armed forces following Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine.[9] The State Department announced plans to provide $141 million in aid.[10]
Why are the United States and Western allies sending aid to Ukraine? In 1994 former Soviet Union member states including Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum. It was a diplomatic memorandum under which Ukraine removed all Soviet-era nuclear weapons and signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In return for these concessions the former Soviet state consecrated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine as an independent state by applying the principles in a Cold War era treaty signed by 35 states including the Soviet Union. Russia violated this agreement in 2014 when they invaded Ukraine.[11]
Following the phone call a whistleblower from DNI filed a complaint that stated President Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the US 2020 election," characterizing the conduct as a "serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of law". President Trump has been attempting to cover all of this up.[12] A Trump appointed Inspector General detailed his concerns in letters where he stated that the whistleblower complaint being kept from Congress was both urgent and *“relates to one of the most important and significant of the (Director of National Intelligence)’s responsibilities to the American people.”*[13]
The U.S. Ambassador to the EU and major Trump campaign donor Gordon Sondland told Congressional investigators that this was a quid pro quo deal.[14] Furthermore, top U.S. diplomat Bill Taylor testified to Congress that President Trump extorted Ukrainian President Zelensky by withholding $400 million in military aid. President Trump wanted President Zelensky to publicly act out a fake news script about opening up an investigation into Biden.^[15]
1. Washington Post - How Trump’s Ukraine call could violate campaign finance laws
2. Reuters - Corruption in Ukraine is so bad, a Nigerian prince would be embarrassed
3. Kyiv Post - Demonstrators protest Shokin’s firing of anti-corruption prosecutors
4. New York Times - Ukraine Ousts Viktor Shokin, Top Prosecutor, and Political Stability Hangs in the Balance
5. Washington Post - Former Ukraine prosecutor says Hunter Biden 'did not violate anything’
6. Wall Street Journal - Trump Put Hold on Military Aid Ahead of Phone Call With Ukraine’s President
7. The Hill - Pentagon letter certified Ukraine had taken action to decrease corruption before White House blocked aid
8. Washington Post - Trump administration sought billions of dollars in cuts to programs aimed at fighting corruption in Ukraine and elsewhere
9. Military Times - Russia’s conflict with Ukraine: An explainer
10. Defense News - Here’s what you need to know about the US aid package to Ukraine that Trump delayed
11. Radio Free Europe: Radio Liberty - Explainer: The Budapest Memorandum And Its Relevance To Crimea
12. BBC - White House 'tried to cover up details of Trump-Ukraine call'
13. PBS - Read what the inspector general said about the ‘urgent’ whistleblower concern
14. Wall Street Journal - Sondland Told House Panels Trump’s Ukraine Pressure Was Quid Pro Q
15. The Intercept - Trump Pressed Ukraine’s President to Act Out a Fake News Script, Live on CNN
(Cheers PoppinKream)
Didn't read any of that but I can tell you that's all fake news.
I knew it was you
Ha my Uni assignments aren’t anywhere near as well referenced as one of his casual posts.
Look, I despise Orange cnut, but based on the evidence presented to the public, this will amount to a nothingburgher. Deep Throat this is not.
Amb Taylor made it clear he was cut out of the White House’s back channel for Ukrainian policy, and only knew what insiders told him second hand. Taylor admitted he had no evidence aid was connected to the investigation. Taylor never spoke to the president or to the secretary of state. Taylor was not a player. His testimony was just his opinion.
"look, I voted remain but..."
You're focusing on one or two people and omitting the fact that every single person seems to be corroborating the same information. If that is true then that would be more than sufficient to convict anyone in any normal court of law. He may not get removed from office but he's definitely getting impeached in the house.
Always funny that during specific moments like these some folks on the forum come out of the woodwork all of the the sudden shooting the same old WH talking points after having not contributing anything during all the times when substantial information against POTUS and co comes out. But I guess that's all fake news.
Last edited:
And he won't be removed from office, and we'll have a giant turd by the roadside until November 2020 with both sides arguing the other has stepped on it.
Sorry if I disturbed your tranquility in the eco chamber.
John Bolton, the man who more than any other individual helped elect Elizabeth Warren. Sorry, I can't see it happening.
Is that true? If so someone needs to f*cking sue those corrupt stooges.
Reminder, less than 2 years ago an actual psycho sent actual pipe bombs to people Trump identified as his enemies.
Reminder, less than 2 years ago an actual psycho sent actual pipe bombs to people Trump identified as his enemies.
Do you believe witholding the aid is the only offence here?
Because the rules around solicitation of foreign interference strike me as pretty f*cking clear.
Then again, so does the law around the Stormy Daniels payment which every evangelical in the US seems to have forgotten about. So yeah, if you're appealing to the right idiots, you can kinda do what you want.
Let's face it, if an intern came forward tomorrow and said Trump had taken advantage of her in the oval, Lindsay Graham would point out that the President is a powerful person, and honestly who wouldn't get down on their knees for the man.
Who is Alexander Vindman?
Also:
If you're going to copy somebody else's work almost verbatim, it's customary to link to their article lest people assume it's your own. In this case: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/nancy-pelosis-impeachment-gun-still-isnt-smoking/
"There is none so blind as those who will not see".
Someone literally in on the call said the summary was bullshit.
Three people say Bolton saw it as a "drug deal".
As Raoul said, if the was a court of law, you're looking at a conviction and Sondland is looking at perjury charges.
Someone literally in on the call said the summary was bullshit.
Three people say Bolton saw it as a "drug deal".
As Raoul said, if the was a court of law, you're looking at a conviction and Sondland is looking at perjury charges.
- Status