|
JohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
|
Yes. The ambassador said he was not told by Trump directly that the miiltary aid was tied to the investigation.
He came to believe that it was, because he can tell which way the wind is blowing and says he mentioned it to Pence, who denied that conversation when asked.
Sondland identifies Giuliani as the president's liaison here, saying "Well, when the President says talk to my personal attorney, and then Mr. Giuliani, as his personal attorney, makes certain request or demands, we assume it's coming from the President," but the White House was successful in stonewalling Giuliani's subpoena, damn I would have liked to see that!
But they were able to get Giuliani's phone records which were consistent with him being a central figure in Trump's execution of foreign policy by these parallel, non-conventional means, the records included repeated communication with the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, the very department that oversaw the aid money. The aid money that wasn't getting released because it was tied to these investigations, so believed the ambassador as he testified.
Besides all that, Giuliani went on TV and said he is an operative of the state department
Sondland was in the loop as much as he was in the loop. Everything revealed is perfectly consistent with what the congress has charged the president with doing. We need Giuliani's testimony and the records congress subpoenaed to reveal it with more clarity, but they are behind a stonewall guarded by a corrupt White House and attorney general who will not enforce the law.
Edited by JohnRainy (12/21/19 11:31 PM)
|
JohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: JohnRainy]
#26394792 - 12/21/19 11:14 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
In my reading of things he would not judgde the relative merits of arguments on both sides - this is not a constitutional issue - but would simply conclude that, in absence of non-partisan support, the impeachment motion should not proceed.
Alexander Hamilton himself would not judge the impeachment on the innocence or guilt that was demonstrated, but rather would vote against the impeachment based on some concept pertaining to partisanship.
Does that sound right?
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: JohnRainy]
#26394817 - 12/21/19 11:52 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
It sounds to me like if there was that much of a divide, then guilt or innocence wasn't very clear. I think that was his point.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: JohnRainy]
#26394820 - 12/21/19 11:56 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Did Zelensky know about the quid pro quo for military aid? His knowledge would be imperative here, wouldn't it?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
JohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: It sounds to me like if there was that much of a divide, then guilt or innocence wasn't very clear. I think that was his point. 
But Hamilton wanted decisions based on the demonstration of innocence or guilt
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: JohnRainy]
#26394853 - 12/22/19 12:30 AM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Right, that's when impeachments should be done.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
JohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
|
He didn't testify at the impeachment, and all Ive heard about him is when he's asked about it, he just says his conversations with Trump and co. are private and confidential. He won't talk.
Stonewall there too. What a coincidence.
He looked positively sick at that sit down a few months ago, which must be another coincidence that has nothing to do with the weight of this imbroglio, which was just erupting yet because Trump has told us 'The call was perfect" and released a tiny portion of it which is even consistent with the things he's being accused of.
|
JohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: JohnRainy]
#26394860 - 12/22/19 12:45 AM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Some guilt was demonstrated.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: JohnRainy]
#26394861 - 12/22/19 12:45 AM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
JohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
"Look, I never talked to the president from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing," Zelensky said. "I don’t want us to look like beggars. "But you have to understand. We're at war," he added. "If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying."
Hadn't seen that yet.
That sound duplicitous. It sounds like something to appease Trump and yet not be technically a lie. Politician talk. You know.
If you read that clarification he provided, it says he did not talk to Trump from the 'position' of a quid pro, which he implies is subordinate and would make Ukraine look like beggars. Then he explains how he rationalizes the beggar's look away.
The quid pro quo attached to the military aid was so vital to his country which was 'at war' that it made it fair to accept these requests, because it is no longer about a quid pro quo. Its about winning the war with his ally, who was holding up the aid they needed.
Zelinski did not say "Trump never attached any conditions to the military aid".
Zelinski is also the powerless one in the equation here, dealing with a White House that had already left him hanging, and we know Giuliani had still been doing things in Ukraine.
Sondland has positively testified that quid pro quo was taking place with zelinski and trump in the area of White House meetings. This had already come out by the time Zelinsky said this. Zelinski couldn't possibly have meant Trump has never quid pro quoed him, unless Sondland is lying. But Sondland wishes this whole thing wasn't real. Why would he lie? He doesn't want conflict with Trump.
This is the question Zelinski was answering in this Time magazine interview where this came from...
Quote:
When did you first sense that there was a connection between Trump’s decision to block military aid to Ukraine this summer and the two investigations that Trump and his allies were asking for? Can you clarify this issue of the quid pro quo?
The question was not "Did trump attach conditions to the aid?" The question actually assumes that a quid pro quo was taking place, and sets the stage for his duplicitous answer where he rationalizes the assumed quid pro quo.
Q Can you clarify the issue of the quid pro quo
A It's not a quid pro quo 'position' when you're allies trying to win a war.
Edited by JohnRainy (12/22/19 02:51 AM)
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: JohnRainy]
#26394926 - 12/22/19 03:07 AM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
JohnRainy said:
Quote:
"Look, I never talked to the president from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing," Zelensky said. "I don’t want us to look like beggars. "But you have to understand. We're at war," he added. "If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying."
Hadn't seen that yet.
That sound duplicitous. It sounds like something to appease Trump and yet not be technically a lie. Politician talk. You know.
If you read that clarification he provided, it says he did not talk to Trump from the 'position' of a quid pro, which he implies is subordinate and would make Ukraine look like beggars. Then he explains how he rationalizes the beggar's look away.
Zelinski did not say "Trump never attached any conditions to the military aid".
Again, this makes quid pro quo very uncertain is all I'm saying.
Quote:
JohnRainy said: The quid pro quo attached to the military aid was so vital to his country which was 'at war' that it made it fair to accept these requests, because it is no longer about a quid pro quo. Its about winning the war with his ally, who was holding up the aid they needed.
I'm not sure why you think it is Vital and why you think Zelensky is trying to "win" this war. Zelensky actually has been pushing for peace in Eastern Ukraine.
Quote:
JohnRainy said: Sondland has positively testified that quid pro quo was taking place with zelinski and trump in the area of White House meetings. This had already come out by the time Zelinsky said this. Zelinski couldn't have meant Trump has never quid pro quoed him, unless Sondland is lying. But Sondland wishes this whole thing wasn't real either. Why would he lie? He doesn't want conflict with Trump.
Again, from what I've seen thus far form Sondland, the quid pro pro was for a meeting in the white house, not military aid.
Quote:
JohnRainy said: This is the question Zelinski was answering in this Time magazine interview where this came from...
Quote:
When did you first sense that there was a connection between Trump’s decision to block military aid to Ukraine this summer and the two investigations that Trump and his allies were asking for? Can you clarify this issue of the quid pro quo?
The question was not "Did trump attach conditions to the aid?" The question actually assumes that a quid pro quo was taking place, and sets the stage for his duplicitous answer where he rationalizes the assumed quid pro quo.
The question came after the media tried already pitched the quid pro quo story, that's why it was assumed. And Zelensky denied it.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Metoo
Stranger


Registered: 10/13/18
Posts: 1,524
Last seen: 2 hours, 30 minutes
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: JohnRainy] 1
#26394943 - 12/22/19 03:27 AM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
JohnRainy said: But Hamilton wanted decisions based on the demonstration of innocence or guilt
Correct. He also recognized that in a partisan impeachment motion the sides will entrench and the final vote will simply reflect the relative strengths of the opposing parties. Since in this scenario the decision is not based on demonstration of innocence and guilt he advised against partisan impeachment motions.
The fiasco playing out at the moment confirms Hamilton's intuitions. The Dems impeachment push opposed by all GOP representatives has descended into a partisan farce and the inevitable final acquittal will only reflect the fact that the Dems own the house and GOP have the Senate.
|
JohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
|
He did not say 'there was no quid pro quo attached to the military aid'
He said it wasn't 'about' a quid pro quo, that he never talked to trump in the 'position' of one.
It was a weird, unclear statement that sounds duplicitous to me.
If Trump never quid pro quoed him, why wasn't he louder about it when the scandal broke? Why were his lips zipped shut for a time? Trump would have had him vehemently deny this if it wasn't true and he probably would have gladly done that for Trump. Instead we have these weird few lines where 'position' and 'about' come into it and that's all we have.
Are they going to call him to the senate trial, he is a central figure to this whole damn thing! Or is a vague answer from a magazine enough testimony for the senate to demonstrate innocence at the president's impeachment trial?
|
JohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: JohnRainy]
#26394950 - 12/22/19 03:36 AM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I'm not sure why you think it is Vital and why you think Zelensky is trying to "win" this war. Zelenski actually has been pushing for peace in Eastern Ukraine.
Zelinski said "we are at war". You don't think it's a top priority for him to win it? You don't think a country at war doesn't consider 400 million of military capital important?
Yes, Zelinski wants to win the war and have peace in Eastern Ukraine. That's winning the war for him then, if that's how he defines it. You don't win wars by not getting military capital.
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 3 hours, 54 minutes
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: JohnRainy]
#26395203 - 12/22/19 08:57 AM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Let’s pretty much discount anything zelensky says about the matter. His job is to make sure Ukraine gets aid and pissing off Donald Trump while he’s still president is counterindicated. This should be obvious.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
JohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: koods]
#26395650 - 12/22/19 01:44 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
It's obvious. The whole thing is obvious.
There is a lot of evidence, but I guess there is no one who will testify that Trump tied the aid to the investigation.
The ambassador believed it was. He believed it so much he told Zelinski as such, but he wasn't 'told' by Trump to do this. He came to understand it after he could not get a credible reason for the delay in aid.
So I guess the most directly provable article of impeachment is the obstruction of congress. All those subpoenas that were ignored.
I hope something juicy leaks.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: JohnRainy]
#26395669 - 12/22/19 02:01 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
JohnRainy said: He did not say 'there was no quid pro quo attached to the military aid'
He said it wasn't 'about' a quid pro quo, that he never talked to trump in the 'position' of one.
It was a weird, unclear statement that sounds duplicitous to me.
Did Trump ever actually tell Zelensky he would freeze military aid if Zelensky wouldn't discuss a Biden investigation, or is there only evidence that this was a condition for a White House meeting?
Quote:
JohnRainy said: If Trump never quid pro quoed him, why wasn't he louder about it when the scandal broke? Why were his lips zipped shut for a time? Trump would have had him vehemently deny this if it wasn't true and he probably would have gladly done that for Trump. Instead we have these weird few lines where 'position' and 'about' come into it and that's all we have.
Zelensky has said repeatedly that he doesn't want get involved in US politics.
Quote:
JohnRainy said: Are they going to call him to the senate trial, he is a central figure to this whole damn thing! Or is a vague answer from a magazine enough testimony for the senate to demonstrate innocence at the president's impeachment trial?
I doubt you can call foreign leaders to trial in other countries. Imagine if Russia said he needed Trump in a Moscow court for a Bill Browder trial. I don't think that'd go over too well.
Anyway, I understand your position, but I think you're too biased to see the other side's position.
Let me demonstrate with another example:
It's my personal belief the impeachment started because Trump wanted to expose Biden corruption, but Biden is the establishment's leading presidential candidate for 2020, and that had to be stopped, so impeachment was the best way to stop it.
Whether that was the motive or not (I can't be certain), I still think there's pretty strong evidence that Biden is corrupt. Would you agree? If not, this another clear example of partisanship.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: JohnRainy]
#26395703 - 12/22/19 02:23 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
JohnRainy said: Zelinski said "we are at war". You don't think it's a top priority for him to win it? You don't think a country at war doesn't consider 400 million of military capital important?
Zelensky said his objective is peace, not escalation or more war, and the link I provided seems to show this.
Quote:
JohnRainy said: Yes, Zelinski wants to win the war and have peace in Eastern Ukraine. That's winning the war for him then, if that's how he defines it. You don't win wars by not getting military capital.
Ok fine. But military aid isn't required for this type of victory.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
JohnRainy
Stranger

Registered: 07/09/19
Posts: 1,244
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
|
No one could testify directly to Trump conditioning the military aid. I guess the stonewall held there.
And yeah, the fact that Biden and most of the Dems are as corrupt as the day is long doesn't help things.
The Zelinski thing is funny to me. Surely if he could confirm Trump's innocence he'd have made clear and direct statements in his favour. He said that weird thing in Time magazine, and Trump seized on that like it was an exoneration of sorts.
There may be no way to subpoena him, and that's fine if there isn't. He could still make comments. He can still be asked to say something about this and clarify what was going on on his end. But all we have is that weird statement following an Eddy Tightlips act. He was never asked "Did the Trump administration condition military aid to the Burisma investigation " and he still has not directly said that he didn't.
If the Repubs have cast doubt on the conditioning of the aid, there is still the issue of obstruction of congress. I wonder if that will ever get addressed.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: The abuse of power which led to impeachment [Re: JohnRainy]
#26395711 - 12/22/19 02:26 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I hear what you're saying, and I'm not even saying you're wrong. I'm just trying to present the other side's view.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
|