• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

The White House releases transcript of Trump call with Ukraine (OP Updated)

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,047
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
"When the President does it, that means it's not illegal, by definition!"

Best defense at this point.
Who are you talking to? Shouting into the empty room again?

Either his actions are illegal or they aren't. If it was such a clear-cut case that he committed an illegal act, what's with the hangup on the prosecution? Cat got the Dem's tongue? Impeach already.

Or have they taken that off the table yet again? I can't keep track of how many times a Dem has threatened impeachment and then backed off.
 

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
515
122
1,025
It's interesting that you claim Trump supporters have cognitive dissonance... You can contort things all you want to try and fit the narrative. However, these facts remain:

1. Those on the phone call, President Trump and President Zelensky, have said repeatedly that there was no pressure, no quid pro quo.
2. The transcript has been released and backs up point 1 (corroboration). As well as many others who were listening in on the phone call (corroboration).
3. Regardless of the reason for holding up aid, Ukraine didn’t know aid was held up during the phone call.
4. The Aid was provided after a delay. However, Ukraine never took any of the allegedly "quid pro quo" actions in order to get the aid.

Regardless of what you think, or others think, or what some second/third hand sources are "concerned" about, this whole impeachment thing is dead in the water. The above facts come awfully close to proving innocence, which isn't even required for what we are talking. This shouldn't need to be said, but I'll say it again since there seems to be an awful lot of confusion. In our country people are innocent until proven guilty. That is the standard. I don't see any way guilt can be proven given the facts of the matter. Sure, a partisan vote can successfully impeach Trump. That may happen regardless of any factual details. However, if the Senate takes action it will be a legal proceeding. The "Orange Man Bad" democrats can impeach in the House due to not liking him, but the buck will stop there unless real proof of wrongdoing comes up.
All of the above facts can be true, and it can still be the case that:

1.) Trump ordered the aid to be withheld until Ukraine opened an investigation into Hunter Biden.
2.) Trump did this in order to gain an advantage in the presidential election

And 1.) should be provable or disprovable based on the testimony of those in the chain of command of the order.
 

Zangiefy360

Member
Aug 30, 2018
1,013
1,795
410
All of the above facts can be true, and it can still be the case that:

1.) Trump ordered the aid to be withheld until Ukraine opened an investigation into Hunter Biden.
2.) Trump did this in order to gain an advantage in the presidential election

And 1.) should be provable or disprovable based on the testimony of those in the chain of command of the order.
Would you support the above in the name of fighting corruption?
 

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
3,482
1,112
920
How 'Whistleblower' May Be Outed: Ties to Biden, Brennan, Schiff's Staff, Etc.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/30/whistleblower_exposed_close_to_biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html

Brennan and company should hang.
That they are trying to hide the identity of whistleblower identity is so suspect. He has to be ideologue. Why the republican don't just leak the name, if the parties were switched the whistleblower would be front page on the New York Times

edit - If I'm reading this correctly they name Eric Ciaramella as the whistleblower?
edit2 - Ciaramella is not the confirmed whistleblower. Just a likely possibility

From the article :

Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.

Further, Ciaramella (pronounced char-a-MEL-ah) left his National Security Council posting in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media. He has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.


“He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” said a former NSC official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.


Also, Ciaramella huddled for “guidance” with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the Obama era whom Schiff’s office had recently recruited from the NSC. (Schiff is the lead prosecutor in the impeachment inquiry.)
 
Last edited:

transformer

Member
Nov 5, 2013
571
260
460
Murderer: "I didn't do it."

Case closed.
Yeah, ignore all evidence that doesn’t fit your narrative. And if a person claims they didn’t commit a crime, has evidence to this effect, they are clearly guilty. Because if they weren’t guilty they would just admit to the crime. Right?
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,327
2,523
1,695
Montreal, Quebec
How 'Whistleblower' May Be Outed: Ties to Biden, Brennan, Schiff's Staff, Etc.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/30/whistleblower_exposed_close_to_biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html

Brennan and company should hang.
There's a lot of dot connecting in that article, Rachel Maddow's probably pounding her fists on a desk knowing she can't cover it without losing her entire audience.

I saw Ciaramella's name come up and make the rounds on Twitter about a month ago, but it seemed like little more than unsubstantiated gossip at the time. If this turns out to be true I'll have to go back and follow a few of those people.
 

ramuh

Member
Jun 7, 2013
4,950
95
485
Well Well Well. If this is really who it is, you can bet they won't let him ever testify, he wouldn't survive cross-examination.
 

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
757
894
380
It's interesting that you claim Trump supporters have cognitive dissonance... You can contort things all you want to try and fit the narrative. However, these facts remain:

1. Those on the phone call, President Trump and President Zelensky, have said repeatedly that there was no pressure, no quid pro quo.
2. The transcript has been released and backs up point 1 (corroboration). As well as many others who were listening in on the phone call (corroboration).
3. Regardless of the reason for holding up aid, Ukraine didn’t know aid was held up during the phone call.
4. The Aid was provided after a delay. However, Ukraine never took any of the allegedly "quid pro quo" actions in order to get the aid.

Regardless of what you think, or others think, or what some second/third hand sources are "concerned" about, this whole impeachment thing is dead in the water. The above facts come awfully close to proving innocence, which isn't even required for what we are talking. This shouldn't need to be said, but I'll say it again since there seems to be an awful lot of confusion. In our country people are innocent until proven guilty. That is the standard. I don't see any way guilt can be proven given the facts of the matter. Sure, a partisan vote can successfully impeach Trump. That may happen regardless of any factual details. However, if the Senate takes action it will be a legal proceeding. The "Orange Man Bad" democrats can impeach in the House due to not liking him, but the buck will stop there unless real proof of wrongdoing comes up.
To your points:

1. Does a defendant saying "i'm not guilty" considered "proof" that they are not guilty? I just want to be clear that you think Trump's input here is valid.
2. The transcript confirmed the whistleblower concerns that Trump was potentially abusing his power for personal gain. Are you willing to say there was nothing suspicious of him asking to investigate Biden? With all that's going on in the country, would that really be his top priority? Is he responsible to "root out corruption" at this level?
3. The fact that Ukraine found out after meant they felt the pressure of the aid being withheld, and they did, as it came as a great surprise to them. There is plenty of reason to suspect this was done to exert pressure, given no valid reason was given that could be corroborated by anyone.
4. You seem to be confused. If Democrats has proof that Ukraine gave Trump something in exchange for aid this would be an open and shut case. The goal of the Democrats is to show that Trump abused his power in an attempt at a quid pro quo, and this is enough to impeach. This is not a legal thing that goes through courts.

People seem to be incredibly confused what this is about. All Dems have to do is convince enough people that Trump abused power to pressure Ukraine, and then all the dominoes will come down. The transcript is irrefutable evidence of such an attempt, they just need to dig a bit deeper to flesh out the story (which to anyone paying attention reeks of corrupt conduct).
 

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,504
2,233
600
To your points:

1. Does a defendant saying "i'm not guilty" considered "proof" that they are not guilty? I just want to be clear that you think Trump's input here is valid.
2. The transcript confirmed the whistleblower concerns that Trump was potentially abusing his power for personal gain. Are you willing to say there was nothing suspicious of him asking to investigate Biden? With all that's going on in the country, would that really be his top priority? Is he responsible to "root out corruption" at this level?
3. The fact that Ukraine found out after meant they felt the pressure of the aid being withheld, and they did, as it came as a great surprise to them. There is plenty of reason to suspect this was done to exert pressure, given no valid reason was given that could be corroborated by anyone.
4. You seem to be confused. If Democrats has proof that Ukraine gave Trump something in exchange for aid this would be an open and shut case. The goal of the Democrats is to show that Trump abused his power in an attempt at a quid pro quo, and this is enough to impeach. This is not a legal thing that goes through courts.

People seem to be incredibly confused what this is about. All Dems have to do is convince enough people that Trump abused power to pressure Ukraine, and then all the dominoes will come down. The transcript is irrefutable evidence of such an attempt, they just need to dig a bit deeper to flesh out the story (which to anyone paying attention reeks of corrupt conduct).
Again throwing opinion around as fact.

1. Nope Trump's input isn't really that important. But if you asked a guy if his house was robbed and he said no, would you still call the police?
2. Yes, he is responsible. It is actually one of his jobs as cheif law enforcement official according to Article 2 clause 5 of the constitution. As President George Washington observed, "it is my duty to see the Laws executed: to permit them to be trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to [that duty.]"
3. Hard to exert pressure on someone that didn't know you were exerting pressure on them until a month after the fact.
4. It wouldn't be an open and shut case. He was asking for information. Information has zero value to campaigns, as far as the government is concerned.
 
Last edited:

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
757
894
380
Again throwing opinion around as fact.

1. Nope Trump's input isn't really that important. But if you asked a guy if his house was robbed and he said no, would you still call the police?
2. Yes, he is responsible. It is actually one of his jobs as cheif law enforcement official according to Article 2 clause 5 of the constitution. As President George Washington observed, "it is my duty to see the Laws executed: to permit them to be trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to [that duty.]"
3. Hard to exert pressure on someone that didn't know you were exerting pressure on them until a month after the fact.
4. It wouldn't be an open and shut case. He was asking for information. Information has zero value to campaigns, as far as the government is concerned.
Glad we agree that Zelensky is the only potential credible piece here, and even then, to some limited capacity given what Ukraine is going through, and he is an actor/comedian, after all.

If Trump is so concerned with corruption, perhaps he should open a few investigations into his charity dealings, his "university", saudi money funneling into his hotels. Trump pretends he's anti establishment and some savior, but he exactly uses the establishment like any other politician to further his interests. This presidency has already netted him and his kids millions of dollars - talk about a legacy.

It's pretty easy to exert pressure on someone when you ask them for something, then you send your goons over to work with them, and then you hold something over their head. What is this obsession with the Ukraine needing to know exactly at the time of the call - it's irrelevant. You have a scenario where Ukraine was already asked by the president to investigate, and then they got additional pressure by aid getting withheld for no good reason. Just think, a little, please.

It's not a legal case. This is an impeachment case. Getting or trying to get information on a political opponent by using government power is enough to impeach. You can scream and pound your fists all you want but no technicalities will save you here. With each passing day there is mounting evidence of corrupt conduct, sorry, it's just the reality, 55% of Americans see it that way and that's been growing in recent weeks. Sometimes we can't change the world, and the best we can do is lie to ourselves, religious folks do it all the time to grapple with reality, Trump may not be a god, but he is to some, so I can see why they need him to succeed. He certainly thinks so...
 

Patriots7

Member
Jul 15, 2008
2,849
94
890
Who are you even talking to?
Typically one quotes someone if they are directly responding to them, no?

Jeez, stop being so tense! I'm just brainstorming how they will argue their case out loud! I'm sure they'll craft a great defense that will prohibit 218 congressmen from voting for his impeachment.

Y'all need to smile more, we're about to witness history!
 

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
515
122
1,025
Would you support the above in the name of fighting corruption?
I am in principle in favour of an investigation into Hunter Biden.

I don't think the president should be able to secretly influence other countries to open investigations into his political opponents, if that was your question.

If aid needs to be withheld, because the president doesn't believe it will be used appropriately, then the solution is to write a letter to Congress with an explanation of this, and also to withdraw the relevant "certification".

If the president believes it is in the public interest for an investigation to be progressed, the solution is get the DoJ to make a request through the State Department.
 

DarkMage619

Member
Jun 19, 2004
590
66
1,450
Murder Victim: "I'm still alive and he didn't try to kill me."

Case closed.
What would be the incentive for Zelensky to come out and accuse the president of the US of extortion? If the military aid was delayed because Trump wanted dirt on Biden what would be the consequence if he corroborated the quid pro quo allegations? Has there every been a case where someone agreed with a scenario under duress?
 
  • Fire
Reactions: Hotspurr
Dec 15, 2011
5,164
11,957
1,010
What would be the incentive for Zelensky to come out and accuse the president of the US of extortion? If the military aid was delayed because Trump wanted dirt on Biden what would be the consequence if he corroborated the quid pro quo allegations? Has there every been a case where someone agreed with a scenario under duress?
So "What would she have to gain from lying?" has become "What would he have to gain from telling the truth?"

Any argument that relies on assuming intent will not stand up to scrutiny.
 

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
757
894
380
So "What would she have to gain from lying?" has become "What would he have to gain from telling the truth?"

Any argument that relies on assuming intent will not stand up to scrutiny.
This is the same scenario no? Right wing folks are also screaming what would he gain from lying. Did you confuse yourself? So both the left and the right can be hypocrites? Impossible. It's almost as though people assume someone is lying or telling the truth depending on their agenda. Say it ain't so!

At the end of the day, we just got the facts:
1) Trump asks for dirt on Biden and sends over his personal goon lawyer (for the uninformed).
2) Aid is withheld during the time this is going on (after the call, before the aid is released).

What remains to be seen is which version of the story gets corroborated more:
1) Trump is a crime fighter and was just clamping down on corruption

OR

2) Trump was using his political position to put pressure on Ukraine to dig up dirt on his top potential political rival

Hmmmmm.....HMMMM....orange man still good?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gamerMan

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,504
2,233
600
This is the same scenario no? Right wing folks are also screaming what would he gain from lying. Did you confuse yourself? So both the left and the right can be hypocrites? Impossible. It's almost as though people assume someone is lying or telling the truth depending on their agenda. Say it ain't so!

At the end of the day, we just got the facts:
1) Trump asks for dirt on Biden and sends over his personal goon lawyer (for the uninformed).
2) Aid is withheld during the time this is going on (after the call, before the aid is released).

What remains to be seen is which version of the story gets corroborated more:
1) Trump is a crime fighter and was just clamping down on corruption

OR

2) Trump was using his political position to put pressure on Ukraine to dig up dirt on his top potential political rival

Hmmmmm.....HMMMM....orange man still good?
Again with the spin, while calling it facts.

1. Trump asked the President of the Ukraine to investigate the firing of a prosecutor, which Biden himself said he got fired by holding $1B in loans.
2. Aid was withheld, unbeknownst to the Ukrainians during the call.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Hotspurr

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,047
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
This is the same scenario no? Right wing folks are also screaming what would he gain from lying. Did you confuse yourself? So both the left and the right can be hypocrites? Impossible. It's almost as though people assume someone is lying or telling the truth depending on their agenda. Say it ain't so!

At the end of the day, we just got the facts:
1) Trump asks for dirt on Biden and sends over his personal goon lawyer (for the uninformed).
2) Aid is withheld during the time this is going on (after the call, before the aid is released).

What remains to be seen is which version of the story gets corroborated more:
1) Trump is a crime fighter and was just clamping down on corruption

OR

2) Trump was using his political position to put pressure on Ukraine to dig up dirt on his top potential political rival

Hmmmmm.....HMMMM....orange man still good?
What's your opinion on the DOJ team's ruling on the phone call?

You repeat the same empty nonsense every page, yet you can't be bothered to answer for the inconsistencies with your own accusations.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Schrödinger's cat

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,342
8,748
880

Tim Morrison, the outgoing top White House Russia expert, testified behind closed doors that he doesn't believe anything illegal was discussed during President Trump’s July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, according to a copy of his prepared remarks.

I guess Trump is clear right. Since we are taking Vindmans testimony as fact, why not Tim Morrisons?

Everyone can give their opinion, but we read the transcripts and Zelensky and DOJ said there is nothing there.

But keep protecting Biden, DNC and Ukraine for their corruption and interference in the 2016 election.
 

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,504
2,233
600

Tim Morrison, the outgoing top White House Russia expert, testified behind closed doors that he doesn't believe anything illegal was discussed during President Trump’s July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, according to a copy of his prepared remarks.

I guess Trump is clear right. Since we are taking Vindmans testimony as fact, why not Tim Morrisons?

Everyone can give their opinion, but we read the transcripts and Zelensky and DOJ said there is nothing there.

But keep protecting Biden, DNC and Ukraine for their corruption and interference in the 2016 election.
All I see is the word Russia. Impeach Impeach Impeach.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: JORMBO

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,047
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
For those harping on the importance of not soliciting Ukraine's assistance, I'm wondering what your read is on this confirmation that the DNC sought Trump dirt in 2016, confirmed by their ambassador:

 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

DarkMage619

Member
Jun 19, 2004
590
66
1,450
What's your opinion on the DOJ team's ruling on the phone call?

You repeat the same empty nonsense every page, yet you can't be bothered to answer for the inconsistencies with your own accusations.
Is this the same DOJ that ostensibly works for Trump? The same DOJ whoes head Trump personally nominated? The same DOJ that says they cannot indict a sitting president? Why do you think that they are giving an objective determination?
 

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,504
2,233
600
Is this the same DOJ that ostensibly works for Trump? The same DOJ whoes head Trump personally nominated? The same DOJ that says they cannot indict a sitting president? Why do you think that they are giving an objective determination?
The DOJ saying it can't indict a sitting president goes back way before Trump.

The U.S. Justice Department has a decades-old policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, indicating that criminal charges against Trump would be unlikely, according to legal experts.
Its also the reason Bill Clinton was not charged with perjury.

The head was also confirmed by the Senate, and it is his second stint as AG. Many within the DOJ, and probably many on the team that reviewed the call were there before Trump, since most are not appointed.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,047
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Is this the same DOJ that ostensibly works for Trump? The same DOJ whoes head Trump personally nominated? The same DOJ that says they cannot indict a sitting president? Why do you think that they are giving an objective determination?
Oh it's tinfoil hat time.

And yet, Democrats are incredulous when accused of doing these things for ulterior motives. The idea of a deep state was laughed off.

And yet...

Trump has the DOJ in his pocket :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

DarkMage619

Member
Jun 19, 2004
590
66
1,450
The DOJ saying it can't indict a sitting president goes back way before Trump.



Its also the reason Bill Clinton was not charged with perjury.

The head was also confirmed by the Senate, and it is his second stint as AG. Many within the DOJ, and probably many on the team that reviewed the call were there before Trump, since most are not appointed.
So you are saying that the DOJ didn't indict Clinton but the house impeached just like the possibility here. I don't think the DOJ that works for the president is the objective arbiter of whether or not the president did something wrong.
 

DarkMage619

Member
Jun 19, 2004
590
66
1,450
Oh it's tinfoil hat time.

And yet, Democrats are incredulous when accused of doing these things for ulterior motives. The idea of a deep state was laughed off.

And yet...

Trump has the DOJ in his pocket :messenger_tears_of_joy:
Yes if the deep state wrote the policy that states a sitting president can't be indicted. As was mentioned earlier this policy is not new.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,047
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
So you are saying that the DOJ didn't indict Clinton but the house impeached just like the possibility here. I don't think the DOJ that works for the president is the objective arbiter of whether or not the president did something wrong.
It's literally their job. What you think on the topic is irrelevant.

The DOJ is also from the same pool of internal ministries like the FBI.

So if it's okay for the FBI to open up "insurance plans" against a presidential candidate and investigate them, it's certainly within the purview of the DOJ to review whether or not the president broke the law during a phone call to a diplomat.

It's really funny, though, that you would toss aside the DOJ and yet put so much more weight on individuals who have even less authority to speak on this topic, like "whistleblowers" who didn't even have first-hand knowledge of the call.

Second-hand rumors? Need to be investigated! A review of the call itself by a team at the DOJ? Nah, they're Trump's puppet.

How simplistic the world of a zealot is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

Foxbat

is on their last warning for console warring
May 30, 2018
657
717
425
Glad we agree that Zelensky is the only potential credible piece here, and even then, to some limited capacity given what Ukraine is going through, and he is an actor/comedian, after all.

If Trump is so concerned with corruption, perhaps he should open a few investigations into his charity dealings, his "university", saudi money funneling into his hotels. Trump pretends he's anti establishment and some savior, but he exactly uses the establishment like any other politician to further his interests. This presidency has already netted him and his kids millions of dollars - talk about a legacy.

It's pretty easy to exert pressure on someone when you ask them for something, then you send your goons over to work with them, and then you hold something over their head. What is this obsession with the Ukraine needing to know exactly at the time of the call - it's irrelevant. You have a scenario where Ukraine was already asked by the president to investigate, and then they got additional pressure by aid getting withheld for no good reason. Just think, a little, please.

It's not a legal case. This is an impeachment case. Getting or trying to get information on a political opponent by using government power is enough to impeach. religious folks do it all the time to grapple with reality, Trump may not be a god, but he is to some, so I can see why they need him to succeed. He certainly thinks so...
Ahhh, you were doing so well up until this post. You were bringing up valid points and objections, and then.... This post. While I spare you the deep dive into all the breakdowns of this post, the occurrence isn't isolated so you're not the only one.

What I mean is, that there are two sides to every story, and the Trump impeachment is no different. The logical way to reach a conclusion on what actually happened is to put both accounts through the grinder, and see what comes out. The post I quoted here is the result of that. Your (Dem) side of the story has reached it's peak of believability. The trail of logic you chose to follow has come up short. With no further proof, or substantial retorts, you're forced to conjure up Whataboutisms, and hand-waving. Thinking that perhaps those alone won't be enough to fool anyone, you resort to puffing out your chest, and putting your best arrogant face on with your last paragraph.

"You can scream and pound your fists all you want but no technicalities will save you here."

"With each passing day there is mounting evidence of corrupt conduct, sorry, it's just the reality, 55% of Americans see it that way and that's been growing in recent weeks."

"Sometimes we can't change the world, and the best we can do is lie to ourselves"

All these^ in your last paragraph alone is impressive. Denial in full display.

1. Pretend to be the one that is endowed with rationale, sense, and logic by falsely claiming the other is losing their cool.

2. Attempt to add credibility by suggesting that those who disagree with you are a minority. By aligning yourself with the greater population at large, perhaps you can convince a few dimwits to agree with you... All while making yourself feel better.

3. This one's a goodie. You allowed yourself to be a bit too exposed with this as it's evident that at the end of your post, you finalized it with a self reflective statement. Which you thinly placed over your opponent. In your attempt to feign confidence, you tried to portray your opponent as feeling how you actually do. Indeed we sometimes can't change the world, and indeed sometimes the best we can do is lie to ourselves.... Such as you obviously do thinking that this whole ordeal will end the way you wish it would. But much like the world, you can't change the present Senate, so you just lie to yourself that Trump will be removed from office, and that this whole thing is anything more than a show.

Nice try though champ.
 

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
757
894
380
Ahhh, you were doing so well up until this post. You were bringing up valid points and objections, and then.... This post. While I spare you the deep dive into all the breakdowns of this post, the occurrence isn't isolated so you're not the only one.

What I mean is, that there are two sides to every story, and the Trump impeachment is no different. The logical way to reach a conclusion on what actually happened is to put both accounts through the grinder, and see what comes out. The post I quoted here is the result of that. Your (Dem) side of the story has reached it's peak of believability. The trail of logic you chose to follow has come up short. With no further proof, or substantial retorts, you're forced to conjure up Whataboutisms, and hand-waving. Thinking that perhaps those alone won't be enough to fool anyone, you resort to puffing out your chest, and putting your best arrogant face on with your last paragraph.

"You can scream and pound your fists all you want but no technicalities will save you here."

"With each passing day there is mounting evidence of corrupt conduct, sorry, it's just the reality, 55% of Americans see it that way and that's been growing in recent weeks."

"Sometimes we can't change the world, and the best we can do is lie to ourselves"

All these^ in your last paragraph alone is impressive. Denial in full display.

1. Pretend to be the one that is endowed with rationale, sense, and logic by falsely claiming the other is losing their cool.

2. Attempt to add credibility by suggesting that those who disagree with you are a minority. By aligning yourself with the greater population at large, perhaps you can convince a few dimwits to agree with you... All while making yourself feel better.

3. This one's a goodie. You allowed yourself to be a bit too exposed with this as it's evident that at the end of your post, you finalized it with a self reflective statement. Which you thinly placed over your opponent. In your attempt to feign confidence, you tried to portray your opponent as feeling how you actually do. Indeed we sometimes can't change the world, and indeed sometimes the best we can do is lie to ourselves.... Such as you obviously do thinking that this whole ordeal will end the way you wish it would. But much like the world, you can't change the present Senate, so you just lie to yourself that Trump will be removed from office, and that this whole thing is anything more than a show.

Nice try though champ.
Thanks for the analysis. Did you just finish psych 101? Sounds to me like you were so triggered you needed to write a book attacking my slight jabs and literally adding nothing to bolster your point of view.

Nice try, chump ;)
 

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
757
894
380
From hearing today:

.


In preparation for my appearance today, I reviewed the statement Ambassador Taylor provided this inquiry on October 22, 2019. I can confirm that the substance of his statement, as it relates to conversations he and I had, is accurate. My recollections differ on two of the details, however. I have a slightly different recollection of my September 1, 2019 conversation with Ambassador Sondland. On page 10 of Ambassador Taylor's statement, he recounts a conversation I relayed to him regarding Ambassador Sondland's conversation with Ukrainian Presidential Advisor Yermak. Ambassador Taylor wrote: "Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that security assistance money would not come until President Zelensky committed to pursue the Burisma investigation." My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland's proposal to Mr. Yermak was that it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian prosecutor general—not President Zelensky—would commit to pursue the Burisma investigation. I also would like to clarify that I did not meet with the Ukrainian National Security Advisor in his hotel room, as Ambassador Taylor indicated on page 11 of his statement. Instead, an NSC aide and I met with Mr. Danyliuk in the hotel's business center.
So basically Bill Taylor's account is confirmed, except that it "would be sufficient" to release the aid of the prosecutor general opened the investigation into Burisma and not Zelensky. The other thing he says is that he did not believe anything illegal was being done by Trump but that he found the call very troublesome given the content.

So, Sonland's account show to be misleading by 2 people now. Aid being tied to Burisma investigation confirmed. Trump explicitly telling Zelensky he wants Biden and son investigated for Burisma connection. Rudy met with top Ukrainian official in Madrid to push for investigation into Biden and son (this was in August, around the time Ukraine found out aid was withheld). Rudy stated that he was acting as a "private citizen". Yeah.

Trump Defense Force, where you guys at. I want to see the Cirque du Soleil you're going to defend your orange superhero for this one. Feel free to use as many sharpies as you'd like.
 
Last edited:

Kittehkraken

Member
Jan 14, 2017
943
1,690
400
Few more tidbits from Morrison:

“I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,” Morrison said in the remarks.

“To the best of my recollection, the MemCon [memorandum of conversation] accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call,” said Morrison, a conservative political appointee and former counsel to Republicans on the Armed Services Committee.

Before that conversation, Morrison recalled that he and Taylor were concerned Ukraine would start asking questions about the aid holdup, though he expressed confidence that the administration’s national security principals “were genuinely invested in their anti-corruption agenda.”

He added that he did not have reason to believe Ukrainians knew the aid was withheld until late August.

The meat of this sandwich is Trump applying pressure by withholding US aid over Ukraine until they did his political bidding. That doesn't seem to be the case at all considering Ukraine was not aware the aid was ever being withheld until after these conversations. It seems like Trump was riding a pretty fine line, but it doesn't sound like he crossed into any serious campaign finance violation territory. That could change if the context of any conversations hints otherwise.

edit: didn't like my original reply :messenger_kissing_smiling:
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,541
14,658
840
So is this guy a journalist or does he just give his opinion on things?
Both, depends on the channel, etc. His main gig right now is political commentary and he runs subverse, which is independent journalists [he does not have editorial control]. He also just crowd funded 1 mil to expand the journalism side.

He used to work for vice and other companies [i think he founded vice news]. Left when all those companies went woke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner