Thoughts - Day one of the Impeachment hearings

[Always in His Presence]

It is in the phone call transcript.

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

 

[FreeinChrist]

and every bit of that is based on hearsay.

Ukrainian President didn’t even know the funding was held up

Ukrainian President has already stated he felt no pressure to do anything

Sondland stated specifically that the President made it crystal clear that there would be no quid pro quo

The finances were released with the Ukraine doing nothing further to get them.

And that is all first hand knowledge. Not hearsay.

The Ukrainian president still has to kow-tow to Trump to prevent future issues with funding which may still happen. The thumb is still on him.

It does not matter whether they initially knew it was held or not. It was held back. And the case can be made that a law was broken which is 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA), which says the money can only be delayed 45 days, if I understand that correctly.
The OMB's upcoming testimony should be interesting related to this.

And whether Sondland said no quid pro quo does not matter if the actual conditions of it was met - as in withholding critical military aid until Zelensky makes that public announcement on TV and starts an investigation.

And a quid pro quo is not even necessary as just asking a foreign government for personal political help is against the law.


And again, it does not matter that the finances were released, as it was only done AFTER the complaint was made to the IG who then investigated, so Trump then had to do it.
Just because a person can't complete the crime does not mean they are innocent.

 

[GodLovesCats]

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]

...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

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

 

[Bobber]

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.

 

[Bobber]

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.

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?

 

[KCfromNC]

Have we seen any first hand facts as of yet?

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.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

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

Whereas Schiff’s questions seemed framed to establish that Trump and his allies spent years chasing rumors, Nunes and the other Republicans on the Intelligence Committee staked much of their time on nonsense yanked from conservative Facebook groups and hyperpartisan news sites.

...

The exchange ended in confusion on every side — Taylor seemingly dumbfounded, Republicans incensed that they couldn’t confirm their now–deep-seated belief that Ukraine and the Democrats hijacked the 2016 election, and those watching the hearing utterly lost.

“Whatever the GOP counsel is doing, it's not working,” former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer tweeted. “I don't understand where he's going.”
​

 

[KCfromNC]

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

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.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

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.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

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.

 

[KCfromNC]

The public can think for themselves.

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

 

[KCfromNC]

Incorrect.

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

 

[KCfromNC]

and every bit of that is based on hearsay.

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

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

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

 

[KCfromNC]

.

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

Today, three House Committees launched a wide-ranging investigation into reported efforts by President Trump, the President’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and possibly others to pressure the government of Ukraine to assist the President’s reelection campaign.​

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

 

[NightHawkeye]

My favorite part of all of yesterday.

their star witness. LOL

LOL ...

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

 

[Kentonio]

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.

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?

 

[Sparagmos]

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.

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.

 

[Always in His Presence]

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.

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.