Oh Donnie, You're invited

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i meant when Sondman asked trump what he wanted, and trump told him nothing, no qpq.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

President Trump himself has not been proven to have done anything wrong, because there was no witness who testified to having personally heard the President announce that he was seeking a quid pro quo from Ukraine, in exchange for release of the security assistance.

This “defense,” it should be noted, is hardly a defense at all. There is no dispute that the President used the powers of his office to coerce a foreign state into investigating a domestic political rival, nor is there any dispute that the Ukrainians were informed by the Trump administration that the hold on security assistance would not be lifted until these investigation were publicly announced. Multiple witnesses also testified that EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland had told them that, in his conversations with the president, Trump had described his requirement for Zelenskyy to publicly announce the investigations into Biden and 2016. However, to the extent that no witness testified to having personally heard Trump request a quid pro quo in regards to the security assistance, there are two reasons for this.

The first is that, with a single exception, every individual who interacted directly with President Trump refused to comply with House subpoenas for their testimony.

The second is that the single exception who did testify, Ambassador Sondland, did not testify accurately when he said that President Trump had never asked him for a quid pro quo from Ukraine. In fact, President Trump had personally informed Sondland of his specific demands for a quid pro quo from Ukraine – and the White House National Security Council is sitting on documents that confirm it.

When Trump is impeached and has to release the documents and allow his staff to testify, it will emerge.

https://www.justsecurity.org/67536/h...ever-happened/

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Moscow Mitch has transformed the GOP into a cult, he puts party over the needs of the nation and Trump is the cult leader. I sincerely hope blindly following Trump bites them back hard and they loss seats they might not have had they acted differently.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Snow day got you whining?
Set a good example and go make snow angels with Peg. Teach fun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Not when it is counter to US foreign policy, no.

What Biden did was not the same Jim, no matter how many times you say it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

while i can argue that there’s a good reason for all of us to want to know the truth about what the bidens were doing in ukraine, i’m not going to try to say that trump had only noble intentions there. obviously he had political motives. But there’s a decent chance Biden had personal motives with his quid pro quo, too.

I’m not going to say trumps
motives were the same as bidens. but they both used a quid pro quo to get what they wanted, and both cases seem fishy to me. Are they sufficiently different that one is impeachable and one isn’t even questionable? Not to me. But that’s opinion, judgment. We can disagree.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Not when it is counter to US foreign policy, no.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the president sets foreign policy

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

the president sets foreign policy

It's not the point

The whistleblower complaint said

In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.

Trump’s ask of Zelensky was so grave that both the CIA general counsel, Courtney Simmons Elwood, and the general counsel at the National Security Council, John Eisenberg, decided the accusations had a “reasonable basis” and together called the Justice Department on Aug. 14 to discuss how to handle them. Elwood reportedly intended this call to be a criminal referral about the president’s conduct. Later in August, the Acting Director of National Intelligence and Inspector General for the Intelligence Community referred the allegations to the Justice Department as a possible criminal matter. This means that upon learning of Trump’s ask alone (forget everything else we’ve learned), multiple senior government lawyers, all appointed by Trump, were worried the president had committed a crime.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It's not the point

The whistleblower complaint said

.

not a whistle blower....partisan hack

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

there was no direct evidence of anything.

tell us again how the economy hasn’t done anything, and how trump plays no role in getting federal judges put in place.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

your beyond blind I get it all these people just misunderstood what Trump wanted

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

so??

Shocking you never actually had a point

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

not a whistle blower....partisan hack

Trump’s ask of Zelensky was so grave that both the CIA general counsel, Courtney Simmons Elwood, and the general counsel at the National Security Council, John Eisenberg, decided the accusations had a “reasonable basis” and together called the Justice Department on Aug. 14 to discuss how to handle them. Elwood reportedly intended this call to be a criminal referral about the president’s conduct. Later in August, the Acting Director of National Intelligence and Inspector General for the Intelligence Community referred the allegations to the Justice Department as a possible criminal matter. This means that upon learning of Trump’s ask alone (forget everything else we’ve learned), multiple senior government lawyers, all appointed by Trump, were worried the president had committed a crime.

[Sea Dangles]

All the people with an agenda at least
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Shocking you never actually had a point

more likely it escaped you

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You never listened to a witness, did you?

From Sondland's testimony

Reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements. Within my State Department emails, there is a July 19th email. This email was sent. This email was sent to Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Perry, Brian McCormack, who is Secretary Perry’s chief of staff at the time. Ms. Kenna, who is the acting… Pardon me. Who is the executive secretariat for Secretary Pompeo, Chief of Staff Mulvaney, and Mr. Mulvaney’s senior advisor, Rob Blair. A lot of senior officials. A lot of senior officials.

Sondland: (30:45)
Here is my exact quote from that email, “I talked to Zelensky just now. He is prepared to receive POTUS’s call. Will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation, and will turn over every stone. He would greatly appreciate a call prior to Sunday so that he can put out some media about a friendly and productive call. No details. Prior to Ukraine election on Sunday.” Chief of Staff Mulvaney responded, “I asked the NSC to set it up for tomorrow.” Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was informed via email on July 19th, days before the presidential call. As I communicated to the team, I told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to run a fully transparent investigation and turn over every stone were necessary in his call with President Trump. On July 19th, in a WhatsApp message between Ambassador Taylor, Ambassador Volker, and me, Ambassador Volker stated, “Had breakfast with Rudy this morning.” That’s Ambassador Volker and Rudy Giuliani. “Teeing up call with Yermak Monday.” That’s senior advisor, Andriy Yermak. “Must have helped. Most important is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigation and address any specific personnel issues, if there are any.”

Sondland: (32:33)
On August 10th, the next day, Mr. Yermak texted me, “Once we have a date,” which is a date for the White House meeting, “we will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of the US-Ukraine relationship, including among other things, Burisma and election meddling in investigations.” This is from Mr. Yermak to me.

Sondland: (33:06)
The following day, August 11th, and this is critical, I sent an email to Counselor Brechbuhl and Lisa Kenna. Lisa Kenna was frequently used as the pathway to Secretary Pompeo, as sometimes he preferred to receive his emails through her. She would print them out and put them in front of him. With the subject “Ukraine.” I wrote, “Mike,” referring to Mike Pompeo, “Kurt and I negotiated a statement from Zelensky to be delivered for our review in a day or two. The contents will hopefully make the boss happy enough,” the boss being the President, “to authorize an invitation. Zelensky plans to have a big presser,” press conference, ” on the openness subject, including specifics next week.” All of which referred to the 2016 and the Burisma.

There is no mention of military aid funds in any of this.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Awful lot of people with the same presumption, obviously mass hysteria.

Dan Goldman: (27:26)
And at this time you were aware of the President’s desire along with Rudy Giuliani to do these investigations, including the 2016 election interference investigation, is that right?

Gordon Sondland: (27:38)
That’s correct.

Dan Goldman: (27:40)
And you said President Trump had directed you to talk, you and the others to talk to Rudy Giuliani at the Oval Office on May 23rd, is that right?

Gordon Sondland: (27:51)
If we wanted to get anything done with Ukraine, it was apparent to us we needed to talk to Rudy.

Dan Goldman: (27:55)
Right, you understood that Mr. Giuliani spoke for the President, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (28:00)
That’s correct.

Dan Goldman: (28:03)
And in fact, President Trump also made that clear to President Zelensky in that same July 25th phone call, he said, “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.” And after this, President Trump then mentions Mr. Giuliani twice more in that call. Now from Mr. Giuliani by this point, you understood that in order to get that White House meeting that you wanted President Zelensky to have and that President Zelensky desperately wanted to have, that Ukraine would have to initiate these two investigations. Is that right?

Gordon Sondland: (28:55)
Well, they would have to announce that they were going to do it.

Dan Goldman: (28:58)
Right, because Giuliani and President Trump didn’t actually care if they did them, right?

Gordon Sondland: (29:03)
I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or had to be completed. The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form and that form kept changing.

Dan Goldman: (29:19)
Announced publicly?

Gordon Sondland: (29:20)
Announced publicly.

There is no mention of military aid funds in any of this.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There is no mention of military aid funds in any of this.

What's your spin, oops sorry, point?

The military aid, the investigation of the Bidens and the WH meeting are all things of value that Floridaman asked for or withheld for personal gain and are referenced in multiple witnesses testimony.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What's your spin, oops sorry, point?

The military aid, the investigation of the Bidens and the WH meeting are all things of value that Floridaman asked for or withheld for personal gain and are referenced in multiple witnesses testimony.

They weren't referenced in those posts. And the personal gain bit is an assumption, not a fact. The "appearance" of something, such as the appearance of Hunter Biden being hired by Burisma being bad optics is not a crime. And when there are conflicting "appearances," such as wanting investigations in this case to assure that corruption is being fought, then it is a matter of spin, not fact.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

They weren't referenced in those posts. And the personal gain bit is an assumption, not a fact. The "appearance" of something, such as the appearance of Hunter Biden being hired by Burisma being bad optics is not a crime. And when there are conflicting "appearances," such as wanting investigations in this case to assure that corruption is being fought, then it is a matter of spin, not fact.

You're wrong, they are reason enough to investigate, and there is no precedent or reason for the ongoing obstruction, unless you are guilty of course.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You're wrong, they are reason enough to investigate, and there is no precedent or reason for the ongoing obstruction, unless you are guilty of course.

You're wrong. I am correct in pointing out that the military aid was not referenced in those posts. And the personal gain bit IS an assumption. If it takes an investigation to prove it, then, until and if that happens, it is an assumption.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You're wrong. I am correct in pointing out that the military aid was not referenced in those posts. And the personal gain bit IS an assumption. If it takes an investigation to prove it, then, until and if that happens, it is an assumption.

I could post every bit of the testimony, Floridaman's asks were detailed in the testimony.
Having Guiliani as a cutout does not make it impossible to prosecute the crime.
Floridaman is following his lifelong pattern of obstruction, he's been doing it fairly successfully since the 70's.
He has way more people watching him now than ever before.
It's closing in on him.

But don't worry the laughable GOP report says, yes, Trump did it. But his motives were pure!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I could post every bit of the testimony, Floridaman's asks were detailed in the testimony.
Having Guiliani as a cutout does not make it impossible to prosecute the crime.
Floridaman is following his lifelong pattern of obstruction, he's been doing it fairly successfully since the 70's.
He has way more people watching him now than ever before.
It's closing in on him.

But don't worry the laughable GOP report says, yes, Trump did it. But his motives were pure!

So I was not wrong.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So I was not wrong.

But don't worry the laughable GOP report says, yes, Trump did it. But his motives were pure!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

But don't worry the laughable GOP report says, yes, Trump did it. But his motives were pure!

You keep repeating yourself. As if reinforcing your own opinions makes them more valid.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You keep repeating yourself. As if reinforcing your own opinions makes them more valid.

Well, I am still waiting for you to produce the shred of evidence that Floridaman turned over to the house IC..........

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Well, I am still waiting for you to produce the shred of evidence that Floridaman turned over to the house IC..........

Well, if you're waiting for me to produce shreds of evidence before you stop repeating yourself, I supposed you'll just have to keep babbling.

[Pete F.]

You previously said that Floridaman had produced a shred to prove me wrong when I said zero.
Apparently I was correct.

[Sea Dangles]

🍔🍔🤡🍔🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You previously said that Floridaman had produced a shred to prove me wrong when I said zero.
Apparently I was correct.

Well, he did, and I must admit that it is becoming too tiresome to keep riding your anti-Trump merry go round. I don't have the energy that you do to keep going back and pointing out what was said by whom. And it is getting to the point with me to not even care. It will all continue to morph from one accusation, one investigation, one condemnation and pearl clutching OMG, one supposedly impeachable or criminal offense, that all fail, into the next one that you hope will work. It is obvious what's going on. Sea Dangles approach is looking more and more an attractive one.

Like jim said. It is not possible to talk to you. I have stopped reading your long cut and pastes because they have all been uncritical politically slanted opinions. I used to debunk them line by line for which you had no answer. The last one, except for a few shorter ones, that I read was by some retired CIA "expert" that analyzed Trump to be a useful idiot for Putin. It was amazing to me that you, or any analytically minded person, could not see that this "expert's" analysis could equally, or more so, show most of the Presidents since, and especially including, FDR to be useful idiots either of Russia or China. And that Trump is a piker as useful idiot compared to others.

I mean, TO THIS DAY, (so it is not merely an old so-called whataboutism), Franklin D. Roosevelt is considered to be the Democrats greatest President. And yet he was by far, indisputably and demonstrably, the most egregious useful idiot for the Soviet Union that occupied the Oval Office. His policies were directly responsible for handing over Eastern Europe to Russia and eventually China into the soviet sphere.

And, as far as policies that are useful to those communist regimes, The Democrat Party association with the CPUSA as well as our Progressive's policy in general have been aids to those regimes. When Kruschev said "We will bury you" he understood the direction Progressives were taking this country, and he knew well how our educational system, especially the academic, were disposed toward communist style views toward social and political outcomes.

Further, that useful idiocy has been extended by "great" or mediocre past Presidents in giving aid to Russia's partner China. Nixon started it and all the others, before Trump, continued and expanded it. They all allowed China to rape the wealth we produced, and aided it by things like granting China favored nation status which helped it into the WTO. The supposed useful idiot Trump is the only one that is seriously trying to reverse that.

That CIA expert, if you critically analyzed his analysis, showed Trump to be "presidential" in terms of his critique. Trump was being what all the pasts Presidents were in that respect. It was one of those many articles which actually, if critically looked at, contradicted your view of Trump. It even debunked your notion that Trump conspired with Putin. It showed that Trump's personality, as the "expert" saw it, would not have made that possible--he could only be a supposed "useful idiot" not a conspiratorial partner.

You just keep piling on those long and boring opinions without critically analyzing them. Just taking them as gospel.

Hopefully, better men than me will keep pushing back. I tire of fruitlessly going round and round with your relentless horse-blinder views.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Well, he did, and I must admit that it is becoming too tiresome to keep riding your anti-Trump merry go round.
He did not,"The president informed every department for which we sought records — the State Dept. the Office of Management and Budget ... the Defense Department, his own White House personnel — to refuse to turn over a single document."

I don't have the energy that you do to keep going back and pointing out what was said by whom. And it is getting to the point with me to not even care. It will all continue to morph from one accusation, one investigation, one condemnation and pearl clutching OMG, one supposedly impeachable or criminal offense, that all fail, into the next one that you hope will work. It is obvious what's going on. Sea Dangles approach is looking more and more an attractive one.

Like jim said. It is not possible to talk to you. I have stopped reading your long cut and pastes because they have all been uncritical politically slanted opinions. I used to debunk them line by line for which you had no answer. The last one, except for a few shorter ones, that I read was by some retired CIA "expert" that analyzed Trump to be a useful idiot for Putin. It was amazing to me that you, or any analytically minded person, could not see that this "expert's" analysis could equally, or more so, show most of the Presidents since, and especially including, FDR to be useful idiots either of Russia or China. And that Trump is a piker as useful idiot compared to others.

I mean, TO THIS DAY, (so it is not merely an old so-called whataboutism), Franklin D. Roosevelt is considered to be the Democrats greatest President. And yet he was by far, indisputably and demonstrably, the most egregious useful idiot for the Soviet Union that occupied the Oval Office. His policies were directly responsible for handing over Eastern Europe to Russia and eventually China into the soviet sphere.

And, as far as policies that are useful to those communist regimes, The Democrat Party association with the CPUSA as well as our Progressive's policy in general have been aids to those regimes. When Kruschev said "We will bury you" he understood the direction Progressives were taking this country, and he knew well how our educational system, especially the academic, were disposed toward communist style views toward social and political outcomes.

Further, that useful idiocy has been extended by "great" or mediocre past Presidents in giving aid to Russia's partner China. Nixon started it and all the others, before Trump, continued and expanded it. They all allowed China to rape the wealth we produced, and aided it by things like granting China favored nation status which helped it into the WTO. The supposed useful idiot Trump is the only one that is seriously trying to reverse that.

That CIA expert, if you critically analyzed his analysis, showed Trump to be "presidential" in terms of his critique. Trump was being what all the pasts Presidents were in that respect. It was one of those many articles which actually, if critically looked at, contradicted your view of Trump. It even debunked your notion that Trump conspired with Putin. It showed that Trump's personality, as the "expert" saw it, would not have made that possible--he could only be a supposed "useful idiot" not a conspiratorial partner.

You just keep piling on those long and boring opinions without critically analyzing them. Just taking them as gospel.

Hopefully, better men than me will keep pushing back. I tire of fruitlessly going round and round with your relentless horse-blinder views.

Your belief, like Floridamans that we are better off alone against the world is foolish.

The John Birch Society went out in the 70s, perhaps you can revive it, I hope not.

We cannot singlehandedly force anyone to do anything. Floridaman is currently claiming that we might not honor NATO treaties, specifically article 5. We are the only ones who have ever called for help based on that and received it and more.
Next time will likely be different.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I have only two requirements from the Democratic nominee. First, he or she must not be obviously mentally unstable.

good luck with that one

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Your belief, like Floridamans that we are better off alone against the world is foolish.

It is foolish to believe that there is this whole world out there against us. Or that what there is of such a world is unified within itself. There have always been disagreements between members in the alliance. Trump has done nothing to weaken that alliance. By demanding that the members pull their own weight, he may be strengthening it.

The John Birch Society went out in the 70s, perhaps you can revive it, I hope not.

I'm not interested, thanks for mentioning it though.

We cannot singlehandedly force anyone to do anything. Floridaman is currently claiming that we might not honor NATO treaties, specifically article 5. We are the only ones who have ever called for help based on that and received it and more.
Next time will likely be different.

Has Trump made a current claim about article 5. In 2017 he made a strong commitment to it in his Poland speech. He is known to give seemingly different (at least in the brains of his critics)"signals" for strategic purposes. He has criticized NATO's effectiveness and its members lack of commitment to paying their share, but I don't think he has ever specifically said that we would not commit to article 5.
If he has, as you say, "currently" that we would not honor it, when was that? "Might not" does not carry much weight since he, as I said, gives off different signals for strategic (bluffs to get desired action) reasons.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

He did not,"The president informed every department for which we sought records — the State Dept. the Office of Management and Budget ... the Defense Department, his own White House personnel — to refuse to turn over a single document."

When I said he did I was referring to the various documented statements he and Zelensky and other Repubs have said, not to documents that he has a legal right to keep private.