Can you imagine a worse reason to start a civil war?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Are you for real? The whole nonsense is about Trump's request for aid from a foreign government. That request, per the MLAT treaty was valid and treaty members are obliged, per treaty, to assist when asked.

And legitimate requests are typically hidden on that server?

Presidential conversations with a foreign leader are circulated among the members of the administration that are affected by them.
No one saw it.
They buried it.
They buried the whistleblowers report.
They are stonewalling the investigation.

[Pete F.]

What mutual aid treaty do we have with the People's Republic of China?
Or is it, he didn't ask them for a favor.

[Pete F.]

Bill Taylor, top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine, wrote that he thought it’s “crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign” in newly disclosed text messages shared with lawmakers.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Detbuch, do you know if the Europeans did, in fact, pony up more?

I don't know. Trump's reasoning is what is in question, not if Trump's opinion about the Europeans need to give more is correct. And it wasn't simply about money aid. In the phone call in question, Zelensky specifically said the Europeans needed to do more re sanctions on Russia. And Pete F. keeps bringing up the EU as a whole, whereas Trump was referring to individual Euro countries.

Is there legitimate, credible evidence to suggest aid was withheld to get the Europeans to help more, rather than to pressure them on Biden? Or is it all he said / she said?

It has not been a secret that Trump believed that the Europeans were not assisting as much as he though they should. He had stated it several times including to the NATO Secretary General. The limited time left to OK the aid is why he did finally OK it. Congressman Rob Portman corroborated Trump's reasoning. He had discussed with Trump the necessity of getting the aid without further delay, and he said that the only reason that Trump said he wanted to delay it was that the Europeans were not doing enough. (And Portman agreed with him). Trump claims that after he put a hold on the aid and why, he got calls from some that they were willing to pony up more. That could be a "he said." I don't know. But Ken Vogel reported in the NYT that Ukraine didn't know until a month after the call that a hold had been put on the aid. It's a hell of a way to bribe someone when you haven't revealed to that person what the bribe is.

[Pete F.]

By a 52-21 margin, Americans think asking Ukraine to investigate Biden is an abuse of power, per USAToday poll.

The gap among independents is huge: 45%-16%.

It's even close among Republicans: 30%-40%.

Doubling down like this is ... unbelievably risky.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And legitimate requests are typically hidden on that server?

Presidential conversations with a foreign leader are circulated among the members of the administration that are affected by them.
No one saw it.
They buried it.
They buried the whistleblowers report.
They are stonewalling the investigation.

Trump released the transcript. It is not hidden. If you don't know what is on the server, how can you definitively accuse Trump of bribery, treachery, high crimes and misdemeanors?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It has not been a secret that Trump believed that the Europeans were not assisting as much as he though they should. He had stated it several times including to the NATO Secretary General. The limited time left to OK the aid is why he did finally OK it. Congressman Rob Portman corroborated Trump's reasoning. He had discussed with Trump the necessity of getting the aid without further delay, and he said that the only reason that Trump said he wanted to delay it was that the Europeans were not doing enough. (And Portman agreed with him). Trump claims that after he put a hold on the aid and why, he got calls from some that they were willing to pony up more. That could be a "he said." I don't know. But Ken Vogel reported in the NYT that Ukraine didn't know until a month after the call that a hold had been put on the aid. It's a hell of a way to bribe someone when you haven't revealed to that person what the bribe is.

What did Rudy tell Zelensky's representative?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

By a 52-21 margin, Americans think asking Ukraine to investigate Biden is an abuse of power, per USAToday poll.

The gap among independents is huge: 45%-16%.

It's even close among Republicans: 30%-40%.

Doubling down like this is ... unbelievably risky.

Oh for God's sake. Let's take a poll to determine the truth. How many Americans even know about MLAT's. What is sacrosanct about Biden. Is he above the law? Being a President who bucks the establishment is unbelievably risky. I'm surprised Trump has gotten this far.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Trump released the transcript. It is not hidden. If you don't know what is on the server, how can you definitively accuse Trump of bribery, treachery, high crimes and misdemeanors?

Trump released the memo, he claims there is a word by word transcript by professional stenographers.
The full conversation remain hidden.
Until the obstruction stops and all the evidence is produced no one can be definite.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Oh for God's sake. Let's take a poll to determine the truth. How many Americans even know about MLAT's. What is sacrosanct about Biden. Is he above the law? Being a President who bucks the establishment is unbelievably risky. I'm surprised Trump has gotten this far.

Using the power of your office to investigate your opponent is illegal.
McGhan told him that.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What did Rudy tell Zelensky's representative?

I think that you responded to the wrong post since it has nothing to do with it.

Anyway, I'm just guessing that Trump would have some inclination about that. Certainly more than you.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Bill Taylor, top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine, wrote that he thought it’s “crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign” in newly disclosed text messages shared with lawmakers.

Were you a professional cherry picker? Seriously, was that your job? That would explain a LOT.

It's funny, I read an article on this at lunch just today. Bill Taylor is the Chargé d’Affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, and as you say, he said a quid pro quo was crazy.

Here's what you so conveniently left out. Gordon Sondland is the US Ambassador to the EU, and when he heard what Bill Taylor said, he texted Taylor and told him this:

"Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign."

Now, I have never heard of either of these two men. I have no idea who they are, or who is more correct here. One guy feels there is a quid pro quo, the other says there wasn't. That tells me I have no idea what actually happened. It tells you, that Trump is guilty.

This is what happens. Conflicting accounts, followed by partisan nuts like you immediately leaping to the conclusion that serves your personal agenda, and you ignore that which doesn't serve your agenda.

Try showing a tiny speck of intellectual honesty once in awhile. You ignore everything that could offer a benign explanation, and everything that makes Trump look bad, you suck it up like a Hoover deluxe and question none of it.

Destroyed.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fmr...d-door-session

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Using the power of your office to investigate your opponent is illegal.
McGhan told him that.

So when senate democrats used their office to ask Ukraine to investigate Manafort and Trump, what was that? Heroism?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I think that you responded to the wrong post since it has nothing to do with it.

Anyway, I'm just guessing that Trump would have some inclination about that. Certainly more than you.

You said that Ken Vogel said Zelensky did not know.

Rudy met with Zelensky's rep.

What did Rudy tell Zelensky's representative?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Using the power of your office to investigate your opponent is illegal.
McGhan told him that.

McGhan wasn't referring to the power of office to request assistance from an MLAT partner. It would be silly to say that, Oh, it's OK to investigate somebody if they are not your opponent, but if they are, then you can't touch them. That is non-sense. The request had to do with Ukraine corruption that affected and/or interfered with an election. Nobody is immune from such an investigation just because he is an opponent.

Trump certainly wasn't immune from being investigated even though he was a candidate for office and his opponents asked for help in discrediting him and finding out if he had committed crimes and interfered with an election.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So when senate democrats used their office to ask Ukraine to investigate Manafort and Trump, what was that? Heroism?

They hid it in the congressional record.

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/m...estigation.pdf

WASHINGTON–U.S. Senators Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), #^&#^&#^&#^& Durbin (D-Ill.), and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)issued the following joint statement in response to President Trump’s reference to a letter they sent to the General Prosecutor of Ukraine in 2018 raising their concerns that the Trump Administration could unduly pressure Ukraine into obstructing the Mueller investigation by withholding funding:

“President Trump is desperate to divert attention from his abuse of power. We wrote to the Ukrainian prosecutor general in 2018 regarding press reports that, in order to curry favor with President Trump, Ukraine was considering not cooperating with Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in U.S. elections.

“The Ukrainians were justifiably concerned that Trump would exact revenge by blocking security assistance if they did not act in his political favor. It turns out that was truer than any of us could have imagined. Yes, we were worried that the President of the United States would abuse his office and leverage U.S. security assistance for his own personal agenda back in 2018. It looks like we were right then and we are right now.

The Senators’ letter was written in response to a New York Times report that the Ukrainian Prosecutor General was considering not cooperating with the Mueller Probe out of concern that President Trump would cut off aid as punishment. The Senators’ letter in no way calls for the conditioning of U.S. security assistance to Ukraine.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Were you a professional cherry picker? Seriously, was that your job? That would explain a LOT.

It's funny, I read an article on this at lunch just today. Bill Taylor is the Chargé d’Affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, and as you say, he said a quid pro quo was crazy.

Here's what you so conveniently left out. Gordon Sondland is the US Ambassador to the EU, and when he heard what Bill Taylor said, he texted Taylor and told him this:

"Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign."

Now, I have never heard of either of these two men. I have no idea who they are, or who is more correct here. One guy feels there is a quid pro quo, the other says there wasn't. That tells me I have no idea what actually happened. It tells you, that Trump is guilty.

This is what happens. Conflicting accounts, followed by partisan nuts like you immediately leaping to the conclusion that serves your personal agenda, and you ignore that which doesn't serve your agenda.

Try showing a tiny speck of intellectual honesty once in awhile. You ignore everything that could offer a benign explanation, and everything that makes Trump look bad, you suck it up like a Hoover deluxe and question none of it.

Destroyed.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fmr...d-door-session

And then said we should discuss this offline.

As far as who they are one is a career diplomat, the other gave a Million to the Trump campaign and was made ambassador to the EU.

Bet you can figure out who's who.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Favors are a funny thing, once you have a few foreign powers doing you favors, they are going to request you do the same. Most likely those requests will not be in plain sight or public, but could very well impact our national security.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And Trump is the first President to ask favors, of the kind that would make the person granting the favor, entitled to a favor in return? That doesn't happen every day in politics?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

They hid it in the congressional record.

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/m...estigation.pdf

WASHINGTON–U.S. Senators Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), #^&#^&#^&#^& Durbin (D-Ill.), and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)issued the following joint statement in response to President Trump’s reference to a letter they sent to the General Prosecutor of Ukraine in 2018 raising their concerns that the Trump Administration could unduly pressure Ukraine into obstructing the Mueller investigation by withholding funding:

“President Trump is desperate to divert attention from his abuse of power. We wrote to the Ukrainian prosecutor general in 2018 regarding press reports that, in order to curry favor with President Trump, Ukraine was considering not cooperating with Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in U.S. elections.

“The Ukrainians were justifiably concerned that Trump would exact revenge by blocking security assistance if they did not act in his political favor. It turns out that was truer than any of us could have imagined. Yes, we were worried that the President of the United States would abuse his office and leverage U.S. security assistance for his own personal agenda back in 2018. It looks like we were right then and we are right now.

The Senators’ letter was written in response to a New York Times report that the Ukrainian Prosecutor General was considering not cooperating with the Mueller Probe out of concern that President Trump would cut off aid as punishment. The Senators’ letter in no way calls for the conditioning of U.S. security assistance to Ukraine.

And again, when the senators claim they did nothing wrong, that's good enough for you. Because they are democrats.

[Pete F.]

In a poll this week, 40% of Republicans said they believe that Trump never asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.

He just did it in front of a camera on the South Lawn of the White House.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And then said we should discuss this offline.

As far as who they are one is a career diplomat, the other gave a Million to the Trump campaign and was made ambassador to the EU.

Bet you can figure out who's who.

Oh, so qualifications are important to you? Except in wondering why Hunter Biden got a huge job at a Ukranian energy concern.

No principles. Only politics.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You said that Ken Vogel said Zelensky did not know.

Rudy met with Zelensky's rep.

What did Rudy tell Zelensky's representative?

I said that Vogel said that Zelensky did not know that aid had temporarily been put on hold until a month after the phone call. Are you implying that Rudy told the rep about the withholding of aid? If so, you might want to give Vogel your documentation so he can retract the story.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And again, when the senators claim they did nothing wrong, that's good enough for you. Because they are democrats.

Which of the three questions are wrong?
As members of a coequal branch of government what are they prohibited by the Constitution from doing that is in that letter?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I said that Vogel said that Zelensky did not know that aid had temporarily been put on hold until a month after the phone call. Are you implying that Rudy told the rep about the withholding of aid? If so, you might want to give Vogel your documentation so he can retract the story.

Why did Rudy meet with him?
What was said?

What has happened in Ukraine lately and why?

Putin's Puppet is making payments on his last election.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And then said we should discuss this offline.

As far as who they are one is a career diplomat, the other gave a Million to the Trump campaign and was made ambassador to the EU.

Bet you can figure out who's who.

Wow. You knew the detail that they said theyd discuss offline, but you STILL left out the part that one denied there was a quid pro quo.

Sondland's nomination received bipartisan support during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 21, 2018.[12] Both Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) testified in support of Sondland.[13] Sen. Wyden suggested that Sondland’s "family history is both fascinating and instructive as to why he has the experience and understanding to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the E.U"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Sondland

Oh. People who stay in public service either career, are more legitimate than those who succeed in the private sector, and then enter public service. That makes all kinds of sense.

How many more of the 10,000 anti Trump articles you posted here, are missing suck vital facts? Can't help but wonder...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As members of a coequal branch of government what are they prohibited by the Constitution from doing that is in that letter?

Trump is the executive branch. Where in the constitution does it say he can't ask a foreign government to look into what appears to any fair-minded person, as corruption?

I'm not saying what the senators did was wrong. I'm saying what they did, is a lot like what Trump did. I'm saying it was either OK for all of them, or unethical for all of them. You're saying it was acceptable for one, but not the other. And gee whiz, the one you don't exonerate, is Trump.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Why did Rudy meet with him?
What was said?

Must be some gender-erotic thing. One of those bromance things . . . like Trump and Putin. No doubt, they'd prefer to keep their conversation private. But it will probably be leaked. Or at least a version of it.

What has happened in Ukraine lately and why?

Putin has sent in thousands of those renowned beautiful Russian agent women to seduce the Zelensky's government into surrendering. Trump has taught him to make love not war.

Putin's Puppet is making payments on his last election.

Sounds like a very responsible thing to do.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trump released the memo, he claims there is a word by word transcript by professional stenographers.
The full conversation remain hidden.
Until the obstruction stops and all the evidence is produced no one can be definite.

No one except you. That being said, let's impeach the m-fer anyway.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not saying what the senators did was wrong. I'm saying what they did, is a lot like what Trump did. I'm saying it was either OK for all of them, or unethical for all of them. You're saying it was acceptable for one, but not the other. And gee whiz, the one you don't exonerate, is Trump.

It was nothing like what Trump did, not to mention the antics of Rudy and Barr. Whole thing stinks like a pile of rotting fish.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It was nothing like what Trump did, not to mention the antics of Rudy and Barr. Whole thing stinks like a pile of rotting fish.

Wow! A powerful statement!