impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

34 minutes ago, Red Five said:

“look this isn’t a robbery, I’m just going to point this gun at your face until you open that safe, and if you don’t I’ll shoot you.”

The Trump defense seems to be that there was no quid pro quo because those exact words were never uttered. This is basically Mulvaney's latest argument from this weekend.  I'm sure that in the history of political corruption no one has ever said those words while making the illegal deal.

Taylor's account seems very detailed about the timeline. The one big unknown that seems to be out there is why did Trump ultimately release the funds without Ukraine announcing an investigation in Burisma.  Did someone (Pompeo, Perry) high up convince him, or threaten to quit?   My understanding is that if the funds were upheld past Sept 30, they would automatically disappear back into the US accounts and would need to be reauthorized but Trump released them on Sept 11th. He had several weeks left to pressure Ukraine.  Something is still unknown.

[jimmyjazz 45955]

WaPo article spoilered, I gave in and subscribed, I think everyone should:

Spoiler

U.S. envoy says he was told release of Ukraine aid was contingent on public declaration to investigate Bidens, 2016 election

 

Add to list

 

William Taylor arrives to testify in impeachment probe

 

 

 

William B. Taylor Jr., the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, arrived for his Oct. 22 closed-door deposition as Democrats build their impeachment inquiry case. (Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post)

By 

Rachael Bade, 

Anne Gearan, 

Karoun Demirjian and 

John Wagner 

Oct. 22, 2019 at 3:13 p.m. CDT

The senior U.S. diplomat in Ukraine told lawmakers Tuesday that President Trump made the release of military aid contingent on public declarations from Ukraine that it would investigate the Bidens and the 2016 election, contradicting Trump’s denial that he used the money as leverage for political gain.

The explosive, closed-door testimony from acting ambassador William B. Taylor Jr. undermined the repeated statements of the president and the depositions of other administration officials, with the potential to reset the House impeachment probe of Trump.

Taylor, a seasoned diplomat, Army veteran and meticulous note taker, provided an expansive description of a series of events at the heart of an investigation that poses the most serious threat to the Trump presidency. One Democrat described the testimony as “damning.”

AD

 

In a 15-page opening statement, obtained by The Washington Post, Taylor stood by his characterization that it was “crazy” to make the assistance contingent on investigations he found troubling.

 

He described how officials from the Pentagon, State Department, CIA and former National Security Adviser John Bolton tried unsuccessfully to get a meeting with Trump to release the aid. He testified that Ukrainian officials were blindsided by the White House’s decision to release a rough transcript of Trump’s July 25 call with President Volodymyr Zelensky in which the president asked for a favor with “virtually no notice of the release and they were livid.”

Upon arriving in Kyiv last spring Taylor became alarmed by secondary diplomatic channels involving U.S. officials that he called “weird,” he said.

AD

 

Taylor walked lawmakers through a series of conversations he had with other U.S. diplomats who were trying to obtain what one had called the “deliverable” of Ukrainian help investigating Trump’s political rivals.

 

How Trump's attempt to force a Biden-Ukraine investigation backfired to an impeachment inquiry

 

 

The Fact Checker unravels what happened when Trump tried to force an investigation into the false rumor about then-Vice President Joe Biden and Ukraine. (Meg Kelly, Sarah Cahlan/The Washington Post)

“In August and September of this year, I became increasingly concerned that our relationship with Ukraine was being fundamentally undermined by an irregular informal channel of U.S. policy-making and by the withholding of vital security assistance for domestic political reasons,” Taylor said.

Taylor’s testimony filled in some blanks about the activities of U.S. officials who appear to have sought Ukrainian help at the behest of Trump and his personal attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani.

 

At issue is whether the White House conditioned military aid and a meeting between the two presidents on Zelensky’s cooperation, and whether that constitutes an abuse of Trump’s office.

AD

Taylor contradicted earlier testimony from Gordon Sondland, Trump’s ambassador to the European Union, a key player in the effort to draw Ukraine into the election-related investigations.

Sondland told House investigators last week that he recalls “no discussions” with anyone at the State Department or White House about investigating former vice president and 2020 president candidate Joe Biden or his son, Hunter.

Taylor testified that Trump told Sondland himself in a September 7 phone call that Zelensky must “go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelensky should want to do this himself.”

 

The contents of this conversation were given to Taylor by the White House official in charge of Europe, Tim Morrison, who after hearing that call notified Bolton and National Security Council lawyers, Taylor said.

AD

In a crucial Sept. 8 telephone call, Taylor testified, Sondland “tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman. When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check.”

Sondland’s lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Opening statement of Ambassador William B. Taylor

House Democrats are expected to use Taylor’s account of his conversations with Sondland to show that Trump had issued clear orders about what he wanted from Zelensky.

 

“During that phone call, Amb. Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election,” Taylor testified.

Hunter Biden had been a board member of Burisma, a large Ukrainian gas company. Joe Biden is a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate.

AD

“Amb. Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting with President Zelensky was dependent on a public announcement of investigations — in fact, Amb. Sondland said, ‘everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance,’” Taylor told House investigators.

 

“He said that President Trump wanted President Zelensky ‘in a public box’ by making a public statement about ordering such investigations.’”

Graphic: Who’s who in the impeachment inquiry

An official working on the impeachment inquiry said Tuesday that Taylor is testifying under subpoena after the State Department attempted to block his appearance.

“The House Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena to compel his testimony this morning,” said the official, who requested anonymity to discuss the arrangements. “As is required of him, Ambassador Taylor is now complying with the subpoena and answering questions from both Democratic and Republican Members and staff.”

AD

“It was just the most damning testimony I’ve heard,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said in an interview partway into Taylor’s testimony.

 

“He drew a very specific direct line from President Trump to the withholding of foreign aid and the refusal of a meeting,” between Trump and the new Ukrainian leader, Wasserman Schultz said.

Taylor testified that he first learned about U.S. military aid being leveraged on a promise by Ukraine to investigate Trump’s political foes in an early September phone call with Morrison. The top National Security Council official described how Sondland had told a Ukrainian official that “the security assistance money would not come until President Zelensky committed to pursue the Burisma investigation,” Taylor testified.

Taylor told lawmaker he was “alarmed” by the news. “This was the first time I had heard that security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was conditioned on the investigations,” he told lawmakers.

AD

 

The same day he texted Sondland to ask if this was correct, a message that is now already public: “We [are] now saying that security assistance and [a] WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” he wrote.

Sondland responded telling Taylor to call him instead of texting.

A few days later, on Sept. 7, Taylor testified that Morrison related to him another conversation that Trump had with Sondland that gave him a “sinking feeling.” He told Taylor that Trump “did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelensky should want to do this himself,” Taylor said, summarizing what he heard for lawmakers.

Taylor also told lawmakers that Sondland had explained that Trump is a “businessman” and that when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone he asks for what he is owed. Taylor scoffed at the notion that Ukraine “owed” anything to Trump.

AD

After they hung up, Taylor sent Sondland a series of text messages saying lay out his concerns about holding up the military aide. That’s when he wrote that “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Sondland responded five hours later after he spoke with Trump, saying there was “no quid pro quo’s of any kind.”

Taylor took the job on temporary assignment earlier this year after the sitting ambassador was removed, in what she told the committees was political retaliation by the Trump administration.

Taylor, a retired former ambassador to Ukraine and a foreign policy elder statesman, had exchanged text messages with two other diplomats in which he called it “crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign” and a “nightmare scenario.”

“It’s like if you have a 1,000 piece puzzle, which is what this is,” Wasserman Schultz said. “This filled in a ton of that puzzle.”

She and other Democratic lawmakers said Taylor’s morning testimony stood in contrast to the appearance last week of Sondland, a Trump donor and a key player in efforts to secure a statement from Zelensky committing to investigations.

“There were many things that Ambassador Sondland didn’t remember that Ambassador Taylor remembered in excruciating detail,” Wasserman Schultz said.

Hours before Taylor arrived, Trump called the impeachment inquiry a “lynching,” drawing swift condemnation from Democrats. Some accused the president of using race to attempt to distract from what Taylor may say.

Taylor said he agreed to go to Kyiv in June as a placeholder ambassador because he thought the U.S.-Ukraine relationship was at a critical moment following Zelensky’s election last spring.

Taylor said he wanted to reinforce U.S. support for Zelensky’s anti-corruption agenda and his independence from Russia, and that he worried that the relationship would drift after the forced recall of former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. He made it clear within the State Department that he objected to her treatment, and that he worried that the same external political “machinations” involving Giuliani that led to her ouster were still present, Taylor said.

Taylor said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asked him to take the job with the assurance that “the policy of string support for Ukraine would continue and that he would support me in defending that policy.”

Ousted ambassador Marie Yovanovitch tells Congress Trump pressured State Dept. to remove her

His testimony, much of it relaying on what appear to be detailed chronological notes, laid out how what he called the official and unofficial channels dealing with the Zelensky government began to diverge over the summer.

On July 21, four days before Trump and Zelensky had a phone call in which Trump asked Zelensky to conduct those investigations, Taylor exchanged text messages with Sondland.

Zelensky wants Ukraine to be “taken seriously” and not just serve as “an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics,” Taylor told Sondland.

And on Sept. 1, the day Vice President Pence was set to meet with Zelensky, Taylor again texted Sondland.

“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Taylor asked.

“Call me,” Sondland replied, in what Democrats have said is probably an effort to prevent a paper trail.

On Sept. 8, Taylor and Sondland tried to get on the phone with Kurt Volker, then the special U.S. envoy for Ukraine, but Volker couldn’t hear the conversation.

“Gordon and I just spoke,” Taylor texted Volker. “I can brief you if you and Gordon don’t connect.” Taylor continued: “The nightmare is they give the interview and don’t get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.)”

Taylor probably was referring to a potential statement to the press from the Zelensky government committing to the investigations. He was apparently worried that Zelensky would give in, but still not receive his promised aid, and that Russia would then use that opening to portray the new Ukrainian leader as a patsy.

Read the documents: House Democrats’ summary of State Department text messages

Volker turned over copies of the text messages when he testified voluntarily earlier this month.

“The message to the Ukrainians (and Russians) we send with the decision on security assistance is key,” Taylor texted the next day. “With the hold, we have already shaken their faith in us. Thus my nightmare scenario.”

Sondland replied, saying that “we have identified the best pathway forward.”

“As I said on the phone,” Taylor replied, “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Five hours went by before Sondland replied. Sondland later testified that he was relaying only what Trump had told him in an intervening phone call.

“Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions,” he wrote. “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.”

Democrats have pointed to that message, which differs in tone and detail from the chatty earlier exchanges, as an effort to establish a cover story.

Taylor is a former Army officer and Vietnam War veteran who has served in government posts in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. He is expected to return to his senior position at the U.S. Institute for Peace sometime next year.

His is the first of two planned closed-door depositions this week.

Laura Cooper, deputy assistant secretary of defense whose portfolio includes Russia and Ukraine, will testify in a closed session Wednesday, according to an official working on the process.

 

[Doc Sam Beckett 5793]

4 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

 

Taylor's account seems very detailed about the timeline. The one big unknown that seems to be out there is why did Trump ultimately release the funds without Ukraine announcing an investigation in Burisma.  Did someone (Pompeo, Perry) high up convince him, or threaten to quit?   My understanding is that if the funds were upheld past Sept 30, they would automatically disappear back into the US accounts and would need to be reauthorized but Trump released them on Sept 11th. He had several weeks left to pressure Ukraine.  Something is still unknown.

 

Well, the shit hit the fan. The whistleblower filed in early August, and on September 9th Atkinson alerts the House Intelligence Committee, since Maguire wouldn't. The House announces it will be investigating Donald and Rudy and two days later the funds are released. 

[Lagunamadre 1975]

8 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

 

Well, the shit hit the fan. The whistleblower filed in early August, and on September 9th Atkinson alerts the House Intelligence Committee, since Maguire wouldn't. The House announces it will be investigating Donald and Rudy and two days later the funds are released. 

That timeline tho! 

[sachick 1189]

53 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

full opening statement

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/542ee36f-eafc-4f2b-a075-b3b492d981a5/note/75965f57-6561-42f8-af40-a9e984a85660.pdf

tldr

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Trump wanted a press conference of Ukraine prosecutors opening an investigation into the Bidens and our military aid, which is allocated to defend against Russian aggression, was held hostage for that presser. 

This is really awful stuff. 

[Lurch 5930]

The real hero is whoever transcribes this thing into a readable doc

[Pasken 1309]

So Sondland is now looking at potential perjury? 

[Lurch 5930]

That’d be a shame

[Pig Bellmont 8718]

9 minutes ago, Pasken said:

So Sondland is now looking at potential perjury? 

I don’t know. I think he testified “trump said no quid pro quo” which is technically accurate. I think his testimony about his own understanding was different 

[Biff Tannen 45685]

27 minutes ago, sachick said:

tldr

 

Goat rodeo.

[Pasken 1309]

2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I don’t know. I think he testified “trump said no quid pro quo” which is technically accurate. I think his testimony about his own understanding was different 

This is from wapo "Sondland told House investigators last week that he recalls “no discussions” with anyone at the State Department or White House about investigating former vice president and 2020 president candidate Joe Biden or his son, Hunter."

[WhatTheBuck 28781]

53 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The Trump defense seems to be that there was no quid pro quo because those exact words were never uttered. This is basically Mulvaney's latest argument from this weekend.  I'm sure that in the history of political corruption no one has ever said those words while making the illegal deal.

Taylor's account seems very detailed about the timeline. The one big unknown that seems to be out there is why did Trump ultimately release the funds without Ukraine announcing an investigation in Burisma.  Did someone (Pompeo, Perry) high up convince him, or threaten to quit?   My understanding is that if the funds were upheld past Sept 30, they would automatically disappear back into the US accounts and would need to be reauthorized but Trump released them on Sept 11th. He had several weeks left to pressure Ukraine.  Something is still unknown.

John Bolton announced his resignation on Sept 10. 

[sachick 1189]

5 minutes ago, Pasken said:

This is from wapo "Sondland told House investigators last week that he recalls “no discussions” with anyone at the State Department or White House about investigating former vice president and 2020 president candidate Joe Biden or his son, Hunter."

Can you be guilty of perjury for not recalling?

[Pig Bellmont 8718]

Funny how he just couldn’t recall. 

[Junior Miller 1502]

24 minutes ago, Pasken said:

So Sondland is now looking at potential perjury? 

I hope so. I know in Texas the law says conversations in person or over the phone can be recorded as long as one party to the conversation knows it's recorded. What is the law in DC? Hopefully someone has the trump fucks on tape. The law needs to allow for anyone party to a conversation to be allowed to record it without anyone else's knowledge across the US. We have the technology to force honesty through fear of recorded proof and we need to use it. 

[Dnaguy 11964]

1 hour ago, Michael Knight said:

full opening statement

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/542ee36f-eafc-4f2b-a075-b3b492d981a5/note/75965f57-6561-42f8-af40-a9e984a85660.pdf

Ho Ree Fuk

[RPM 26321]

29 minutes ago, sachick said:

Can you be guilty of perjury for not recalling?

See: Ronald Reagan

[triplehorn 2664]

Page 11 and 12 and to the end have the meat.

🚨Page 11 gasp inducer-->  Taylor on Sondland: "He said President Trump wanted President Zelensky "in a public box" by making a public statement about ordering such investigations."

Extortion.  Blackmail.  Trump only cares that a PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT is made by Z into Bidens and 2016 election interference, and to specifically state he "will leave no stone unturned."  It's the public announcement that was so desired to use to manipulate the American public, not the outcome of any investigation occurring out of the public eye until conclusion.

Trump is orchestrating 'black propaganda', a serious crime, by extorting Z to make a public announcement without disclosing Trump has anything to do with initiating it.  Taylor goes into significant detail on several occasions to explain how he came to know hoe "investigations" meant Burisma, Bidens, and 2016 Ukraine election intereference.

This treasonous corrupt fuckery by Trump is everything I already understood, just with proof.  Get the fuck out you fucking piece of shit.

[RPM 26321]

3 hours ago, Junior Miller said:

What is the law in DC? Hopefully someone has the trump fucks on tape.

Aren't all WH calls recorded and archived?

Edited October 23, 2019 by RPM

[Neonmoon 38129]

Everyone all board. Impeach the cocksucker please 

[Mo Horn 8842]

Great thread that summarizes everything. 

[Brisketexan 105140]

4 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

Great thread that summarizes everything. 

Yep.

But....see the wall of GOP, not breaking at all.  So, I'll stick with my usual....

[henrygandorf 29191]

1 hour ago, Pasken said:

So Sondland is now looking at potential perjury? 

they'll definitely call him back in.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5793]

3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

they'll definitely call him back in.

Will it be like calling Hope Hicks back to clear up her testimony that was proven to be false? Think her response was fuck off... 

[henrygandorf 29191]

12 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

Great thread that summarizes everything. 

for anyone looking for a more straightforward acct:

1/ As a historian of US Foreign Policy, a few quick thoughts on Amb. Taylor's opening statement to Congress: washingtonpost.com/context/openin… 

2/ Amb. Taylor says (p3) he met with Pompeo on May 28 when he was asked to become acting Ambassador after Yovanovich was sacked, and made clear that he understood why she was sacked, and that he wasn't going to come in unless Pompeo could assure Giuliani would have no role. 

3/ Taylor says (p. 4) that upon arriving in Kiev he found two policy making channels, "one regular," ie the normal embassy chain of command, and one highly irregular" consisting of Volker, Sondland, Perry and Giuliani, a "shadow" policy group making its own decisions. 

4/ Taylor realizes by June (p. 5) that this second, irregular channel is underminin existing US policy around the conditions of a Zelensky visit. Notes with alarm that Sondland "Did not want to include most of the regular interagency participants" in a 6/28 call planned with Z. 

5/ Taylor is now alarmed, as any good bureaucrat would be. Sondland (p. 5) says wants to make sure "no one is transcribing or monitoring" the June 28 call with Zelensnky. Volker says he will meet Z next day and "planned to be explicit" about Trump's conditions for a WH visit. 

6/ Taylor says the irregular policy channel is now in charge, with Giuliani - who has no policymaking authority and no clearance - running things. For an Ambassador, this must have been setting off multiple alarms. By mid-July, Taylor himself is being excluded from meetings. 

7/ On July 18, Taylor learns OMB has suspended security assistance at direction of President Trump. Embassy Taylor has *meticulously* documented every exchange. This is both bc of training and because he is alarmed and making sure he leaves a paper trail. 

8/ Taylor says irregular policy channel "running contrary to long standing goals of US policy." Taylor notes that at multiple meetings all cabinet level secretaries support releasing military aid. It is being held up solely bc of Trump. There are records of all these meetings. 

9/ Talor gets readout of July 10 meeting with Sondland and Ukranian officials at WH in which Sondland pressed for Ukrainian investigations, which so outraged Bolton he called it a "drug deal" and told NSC official Fiona Hill to contact WH lawyers. 

10/ The tell here is Taylor's description of Ukrainian officials confusion in the July 10 meeting. They are essentially being told about two contradictory US policies. Ukrainian officials later say Zelensky "Does not want to be used as a pawn in a US re-lection campaign." 

11/ This is the damning part: the Acting US Ambassador to the Ukraine does not receive a full read out of the July 25 Trump-Zelensky call, only a "cryptic summary." Just crazy. the White House won't tell an Ambassador to the Ukraine about a call with the Ukrainian Pres. 

12/ Taylor doesn't see an official read out of the call til its publicly released on September 25. Let's repeat. The US Amb to Ukraine has to wait two months to find out contents of a call between Trump and the Ukrainian President. This is extraordinary and without precedent. 

13/ Taylor (p. 10) relays to Bolton his concern about Trump withholding aid to Ukraine and writes Pompeo a letter. Congress will get this letter, you can be certain. Pompeo uses this letter in WH meeting on Ukraine aid. Taylor kept receipts, made copies, left a paper trail. 

14/ Taylor learns during Pence's Warsaw visit that Sondland told his Ukrainian counterpart that US security assistance would not be released until Zelensky agreed to an investigation of Burisma. NSC aid Tim Morrison says Trump insisted that Zelensky "go a microphone" and say... 

15/ That Zelensky is opening an investigation into Biden and the 2016 election. Sondland Sept 9 says Trump insistent that Zelensky had to "clear things up and do it in public." Note that Ukrainians still getting conflicting policy signals from two opposing currents. 

16/ On September 11, aid is released, after this blows up. So what can we learn, from the perspective of a historian of US foreign policy? First, the friction between the 'regular' and 'irregular' policy tracks leaves a thick documentary trail that Congress can track down. 

17/ Taylor notes at how US policymakers who are frozen out of the regular policy loop, as well as Ukrainians, are confused because of conversations in the Giuliani led track. In bureaucratic terms this is damning. High level policymakers frozen out of their own policy tracks. 

18/ Taylor also notes how many people are aware that a highly irregular policy group is running things, that they are undermining established US policy, that they are making corrupt domestic political demands, and - crucially - that they are trying to cover their tracks. 

19/ This is as damning as it gets, and Taylor recorded everything, as a good bureaucrat does. I don't see any possible wriggle room for Trump defenders here. This is a highly persuasive, exhaustively documented account of abuse of power from an unimpeachably credible source. 

20/ If I were reading this years later, as a historian poring through the archives, this would read like a textbook conspiracy to undermine existing US policy in the service of a covert domestic political agenda, undertaken on a shadow policy track. Wow. Wow. Wow. END

[RomaVicta 29907]

2 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

 

 

These are people with no concept of honor. They never served in a line unit, but feel comfortable slandering those who do. And they get the military vote.

Idiot World.

[WhatTheBuck 28781]

56 minutes ago, sachick said:

Can you be guilty of perjury for not recalling?

No. Reagan out front should've told ya. 

Ah, RPM beat me to it. 

Edited October 22, 2019 by WhatTheBuck

[jimmyjazz 45955]

Everyone should read Taylor's opening remarks.  Everyone.  Not just every surly . . . every American.

I have no faith that the True Believers will have their viewpoints changed, but anyone with a fully-functioning cerebrum coupled with an ethical compass will be, if not surprised, mortified. 

This cake is baked and this impeachment needs to proceed post haste.

[henrygandorf 29191]

22 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

Great thread that summarizes everything. 

once you read that, you can see why people are yelling about "a coup" it's just not the coup you think.

[RomaVicta 29907]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Trump wanted a press conference of Ukraine prosecutors opening an investigation into the Bidens and our military aid, which is allocated to defend against Russian aggression, was held hostage for that presser. 

This is really awful stuff. 

There's not telling what happens next. How low can you go.

[Bruh Man 3160]

Martha Maccallum whining about process on Fox News, they barely mentioned the substance of his statement. That network is poisoning this country. 

[yoladu 4094]

3 hours ago, sachick said:

It's not "quid pro quo" but if you don't do what I want you to do, you're not getting your money.

 

i want to be clear, I am not going to murder you , i am just going to put this gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.

 

hey, you can't accuse me of murder, i never told him i was going to murder him.

Edited October 22, 2019 by yoladu

[WhatTheBuck 28781]

10 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

Martha Maccallum whining about process on Fox News, they barely mentioned the substance of his statement. That network is poisoning this country. 

Just like the Party they serve. 

[RPM 26321]

20 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

Martha Maccallum whining about process on Fox News, they barely mentioned the substance of his statement. That network is poisoning this country. 

Wrong tense

[JimmyJames 12271]

The Mulvaney admission of corruption last Thursday was simply a trial balloon to see if their absolute corruption, which is easily provable, will simply be ignored.

Of course the lawyers “walked it back” and of course “trump was disappointed” by the admission, but that’s all it was.

It was basically a Fuck you pay me. Yeah we’re corrupt as shit. What are you gonna do about it? 

Its really the only play they got. And maybe, it will work. 

[Ted Lange 16085]

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

What are the republicans in these committees saying publicly?

[henrygandorf 29191]

22 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

What are the republicans in these committees saying publicly?

the backs of their heads are weirdly silent as they sprint towards the elevator.

[Bookman 4639]

I’m convinced Trump is gone. House will impeach, Senate will convict. Then the criminal prosecutions will begin.

[Tuco 5076]

This is from wapo "Sondland told House investigators last week that he recalls “no discussions” with anyone at the State Department or White House about investigating former vice president and 2020 president candidate Joe Biden or his son, Hunter."

My recollection is that Sondland knew Trump was pushing for an investigation of Burisma, but that Sondland did not connect that to Biden. Do I believe him? Nope. But I think that’s the line he will hold.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

5 minutes ago, Bookman said:

I’m convinced Trump is gone. House will impeach, Senate will convict. Then the criminal prosecutions will begin.

Which do you think is worse for Senate Republicans?

At this point, I'm not really sure.  I think it would be catastrophic for them to vote to convict.  They'll have a revolt from their base on their hands.  

But their base isn't going to win them enough seats to hold the majority.  And if they lose independents, then what's the point?

[Jack Straw 2954]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

anyone with a fully-functioning cerebrum coupled with an ethical compass will be, if not surprised, mortified. 

meaning, zero Republicans.  watch every single one of them defend, excuse, and support the treason.  

[horncyclist 1387]

Marc Thiessen, former GWB speechwriter, allowed to spew whatever Bullshit he wants in the Washington post.

September 26 - Democrats Sprint Ahead of Evidence

 

What about Biden? Multiple news reports suggested Trump “repeatedly pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden’s son.” Turns out Trump only mentions Biden by name toward the end of the call. He tells Zelensky, “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.”

Should Trump have done this? Absolutely not. But the reality of this call is a far cry from overheated charges that Trump used U.S. aid to repeatedly pressure Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden. At a news conference with Trump at the United Nations, Zelensky said the call was “normal” and “nobody pushed me.” Career public integrity prosecutors at the Justice Department also reviewed the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky call and found there was no campaign finance crime to pursue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/26/democrats-sprint-ahead-evidence/

Today, after testimony that Trump explictly tied up U.S. aid to pressure Zelensky to investigate Biden - There is Nothing Wrong with Quid Pro Quos

 

But let’s say Trump had in fact withheld U.S. aid to get Ukraine to cooperate with the Durham probe. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with that. The president, as the country’s chief law enforcement officer, would be entirely within his rights to use aid as leverage to get Ukraine cooperate with an official Justice Department investigation. If it turns out that the quo was “investigate my 2020 opponent,” as acting ambassador William Taylor reportedly alleged during testimony on Capitol Hill Tuesday, then Trump is in big trouble; but if the quo is “cooperate with the Justice Department,” that’s perfectly fine.

So, while Democrats may be insisting that Trump delenda est — “Trump must be destroyed” — they will need something more than this quid pro quo to do it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/22/there-is-nothing-wrong-with-quid-pro-quos-it-just-depends-what-quo-is/

This is what we're dealing with. 

[henrygandorf 29191]

4 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

If it turns out that the quo was “investigate my 2020 opponent,” as acting ambassador William Taylor reportedly alleged during testimony on Capitol Hill Tuesday, then Trump is in big trouble

so all the other terrible shit is ok, but this ^^ crosses the line.

guess it's convenient that he actually did this ^^.

moving goalposts and shit.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

1 hour ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

What are the republicans in these committees saying publicly?

Anyone? 

it seems like this would be the time for them to try and get out in front of this and spin testimony in favor of Trump. 

are any Rs that are in these committees doing that?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

37 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Which do you think is worse for Senate Republicans?

At this point, I'm not really sure.  I think it would be catastrophic for them to vote to convict.  They'll have a revolt from their base on their hands.  

But their base isn't going to win them enough seats to hold the majority.  And if they lose independents, then what's the point?

Once again, the Senate will never vote to convict when they can work out a deal to force resignation. Regardless of the President or circumstances, the Senate should never vote to convict a sitting president.  They don’t want an acquittal vote on their record if the evidence is overwhelming or even potentially politically untenable.  They will avoid voting at all costs unless the case is weak.  

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

10 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Anyone? 

it seems like this would be the time for them to try and get out in front of this and spin testimony in favor of Trump. 

are any Rs that are in these committees doing that?

They don’t know what to do.  They gleefully pissed in their own well in public, on any camera that would film them.  Now they have the choice of also drinking that foul piss water in public, or die of thirst.   Personally I’d like to water board them with it.

[Bookman 4639]

I doubt Trump will resign, and the public will support conviction and many of the Republican Senators will subjectively want to convict. If they fail to do so, they will break the impeachment process, show the country their true colors, and harm, perhaps irreparably, the Republican Party.