Thoughts - Day one of the Impeachment hearings

ChristianForCats said:

It is in the phone call transcript.

Click to expand...

the. It should be easy to quote, because I read the transcript and it is not there.

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.

Later:

I will ask him (Rudy Guiliani) 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.

I highlighed the elliipses to point out this is clearly a phone call summary, not the full transcript, and how close they are to what Trump said that many people are upset about.

wing2000 said:

...the potential witness queue grows:

".... it was learned Thursday that a second official from the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv was present when U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland spoke on a July 26 phone call from Ukraine with Trump that more directly ties the president to his administration’s effort to pressure Ukraine’s new leadership."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...3b27da-0660-11ea-8292-c46ee8cb3dce_story.html

Click to expand...

NYT:

The new witness who emerged on Thursday, Suriya Jayanti, a State Department official in Kiev, would be able to describe a phone call she overheard between the president and Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, in which they discussed the investigations Mr. Trump sought. Ms. Jayanti sat at a restaurant with Mr. Sondland and at least one other embassy official, David Holmes, as Mr. Sondland and Mr. Trump spoke by phone in July, according to two people briefed on the matter.

Pelosi Points to Possible Bribery Charge Against Trump

One observation I have and it seems in both these witnesses had in their opening speeches is talking about the traditional policies the U.S. has had in regard to the Ukraine file and the impression they leave is what a surprising disturbing thing it is for President Trump to be doing things somewhat different in things he may or may not do. I was thinking when I was listening to this, hold on, hold on, hold on! Neither of you two gentlemen are the President of the United States! Well they might consider Trump might be doing something crazy. Yes maybe so. So what! It's THE PEOPLE and ONLY THE PEOPLE as in an election which have given him leadership. If THE PEOPLE have said YES for four years than that's what they mean.

tall73 said:

While they reiterated the framework of the case these two witnesses had not spoken to the president, and could not establish motive. And it will likely come down to that. Republicans are unlikely to vote against Trump unless clear statements come out regarding his intent to sway the election, etc.

Click to expand...

And would you not agree CLEAR STATEMENTS should be the benchmark for removing the President of the United States? One can obstinately hold to it's clear enough for them but when it's not clear to a SUPER MAJORITY of the Senate OR even the people than what a great wrong it is to unnecessarily divide the nation over this especially seeing there's an election in less than a year. I'd contend that future generations of Americans will not think well of these present Dems for they've created such a low bar to impeach a President which might effect them even into their day. Will they say thanks to them we have constant political instability?

hislegacy said:

Have we seen any first hand facts as of yet?

Click to expand...

Yes, the White House released a memo summarizing a call where Donald attempted to trade a weapons deal to a foreign government in exchange for them interfering in our election process.

FreeinChrist said:

I like the face Taylor made finally - like "what nonsense is this?!?"

Click to expand...

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...s-impeachment-facebook-misinformation-day-one

ChristianForCats said:

It is only a bad time because the House started investigating it too late.

Click to expand...

I was talking more about the fact that the evidence seems to pretty solidly implicate Donald in a bunch of criminal activity. Given that situation, it would be a bad strategy for Donald to focus on that evidence.

hislegacy said:

there is, at this time, nothing more than hearsay.

Taylor spoke with Ukraine President three times, no mention of anything

Taylor spoke with Ambassador, no mention.

Ukraine President was not even aware of the delay in funding

Trump tells Sonderlin (sp). No Wui pro quo
Sonderlin yells Taylor President is crystal clear night Quid pro quo.

President says no quid pro quo

Ukranine President says no Quid pro quo

Ukraine did nothing, zero, nadda and the money was released.

but hey! We have 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay of 6 people having 4 conversations that no one has testified to who has first hand knowledge.

it’s laughable.

Click to expand...

Well, at least we see one of the far-right talking points starting to take shape.

Too bad it ignores a bunch of facts to try and make a point, but at least it is something.

tall73 said:

As I mentioned, the best defense the Republicans have is to say that his intent was not to sway an election.

Click to expand...

Hard to do when a little while later he spent a bunch of money on campaign ads designed to sway the election using the same messaging.

Aldebaran said:

The public can think for themselves.

Click to expand...

Yes, the blue wave in the last two elections shows what they think about GOP candidates.

NightHawkeye said:

Incorrect.

Click to expand...

Trump's EU envoy admits Ukraine quid pro quo in updated testimony
'No doubt' Trump was demanding Ukraine launch investigations, national security official testified

hislegacy said:

and every bit of that is based on hearsay.

Click to expand...

TIL that the fact Ukraine is being attacked by Russia is "based on hearsay". Sounds legit.

Bobber said:

One observation I have and it seems in both these witnesses had in their opening speeches is talking about the traditional policies the U.S. has had in regard to the Ukraine file and the impression they leave is what a surprising disturbing thing it is for President Trump to be doing things somewhat different in things he may or may not do. I was thinking when I was listening to this, hold on, hold on, hold on! Neither of you two gentlemen are the President of the United States! Well they might consider Trump might be doing something crazy. Yes maybe so. So what! It's THE PEOPLE and ONLY THE PEOPLE as in an election which have given him leadership. If THE PEOPLE have said YES for four years than that's what they mean.

Click to expand...

Nixon replied: "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

hislegacy said:

.

Click to expand...

For some reason your timeline omits that on Sept 9th (Three House Committees Launch Wide-Ranging Investigation into Trump-Giuliani Ukraine Scheme)

Trying to back out of a crime after being caught is pretty strong evidence of guilt to me.

hislegacy said:

My favorite part of all of yesterday.

their star witness. LOL

Click to expand...

LOL ...

I listened to that again this morning. It gets more hilarious every time it's listened to.

Bobber said:

One observation I have and it seems in both these witnesses had in their opening speeches is talking about the traditional policies the U.S. has had in regard to the Ukraine file and the impression they leave is what a surprising disturbing thing it is for President Trump to be doing things somewhat different in things he may or may not do. I was thinking when I was listening to this, hold on, hold on, hold on! Neither of you two gentlemen are the President of the United States! Well they might consider Trump might be doing something crazy. Yes maybe so. So what! It's THE PEOPLE and ONLY THE PEOPLE as in an election which have given him leadership. If THE PEOPLE have said YES for four years than that's what they mean.

Click to expand...

Think about what you're actually saying here. According to your logic, once someone has been elected president they can do ANYTHING and no-one in any government department should be able to raise alarm bells. Did Trump run for the presidency on this Ukraine position? Or do you just believe that one man should have so much power as to be able to decide every aspect of American policy and life for a four year period, regardless of whether he choses to ignore all the experts and just make snap decisions based on whatever he feels like that morning?

Is America really that insane? No other democratic country works like that. Absolutely none. In any of the European countries (or Canada, or Japan etc etc) a leader doing something that completely undermines the countries relationships and foreign policy direction would be unthinkable, unless they had specifically run on a manifesto of doing so, and even then they'd still be expected to do so with extreme care to the effects.

Are you sure you want a democracy where one vote hands one person complete and ultimate power for four years with no oversight or room for objection?

hislegacy said:

no, there was no quid pro quo because there wasn’t one.

the Primary people with FIRST hand knowledge from both sides say so. The FACT that the funds were released (Ukraine didn’t even know they were held up), without them doing anything additional

and that is the plain truth.

Click to expand...

In sondland’s amended statement he makes it clear there was a quid pro quo, and he even says it was probably illegal. He spells it out pretty clearly.

“I now do recall a conversation on September 1, 2019, in Warsaw with” Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to the president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Sondland said in his updated evidence. “I said that resumption of the US aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.” And if you read the statement there is more.

If your whole dispute with the case against Trump is that the evidence presented thus far is heresay, what are you going to do when Sondland and other witnesses with first hand knowledge testify? What happens when Mulvaney and Giuliani testify? The biggest impediment to getting first hand accounts has been the White House preventing witnesses from testifying.

ChristianForCats said:

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.

Later:

I will ask him (Rudy Guiliani) 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.

I highlighed the elliipses to point out this is clearly a phone call summary, not the full transcript, and how close they are to what Trump said that many people are upset about.

Click to expand...

You know what is missing?

Anything that says I will with hold funding until you do. That missing part is what would make the conversation a quid pro quo - with out that there is no quid pro quo.