• 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)

zeorhymer

Gold Member
Nov 9, 2013
1,792
1,313
715
San Francisco, CA
So is this guy a journalist or does he just give his opinion on things?
He's a field journalist as well as an analyst.

I sometimes call him Tim "It's complicated" Cook, since at times he keeps saying the subject is "complicated" but it really isn't.

He also goes by Tim "Milquetoast/Fence-Sitter" Cook. He likes to not say what's on his mind unless it's against his Libertarian views.

Most of the time he's fine, but he has a left bias on his reporting. A couple of time he's as blind as a bat. A recent example would be the Deadspin staff and G/O Media going at each other.
 

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,504
2,233
600
He's a field journalist as well as an analyst.

I sometimes call him Tim "It's complicated" Pool, since at times he keeps saying the subject is "complicated" but it really isn't.

He also goes by Tim "Milquetoast/Fence-Sitter" Pool. He likes to not say what's on his mind unless it's against his Libertarian views.

Most of the time he's fine, but he has a left bias on his reporting. A couple of time he's as blind as a bat. A recent example would be the Deadspin staff and G/O Media going at each other.
Fixed for you, he definitely isn't the CEO of Apple lol.

Also yea, his take on the Deadspin story was one of the ones that I just totally disagreed with him on. He didn't even mention that the journalists didn't just quit after being told to focus on sports. They threw a fit and made a bunch of articles about how they wouldn't. They only quit after their editor was fired for not following management directive.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: zeorhymer
Dec 15, 2011
5,164
11,956
1,010
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?
These are a lot of words to show you didn't read the second sentence in my two sentence comment.
 

Foxbat

is on their last warning for console warring
May 30, 2018
657
717
425
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?
Fair enough I suppose. So let's look at the general evidence uncovered so far.

1) Looking to corroborate the Trump crime fighter aspect should be easy enough. Does Trump have a defendable reason to investigate? If so, his defense is solid. However, if there's really no reason for him to investigate, then he was likely just trying to "dig up dirt" as you say.

So to answer this... Was there ample evidence that Biden and corruption deserved to be investigated? The easy answer here is yes. It doesn't take much in the way of detective skills to see that Biden's actions warranted investigating.

2) To look for evidence corroborating the second angle, we need to determine if Trump was doing this in order to simply get dirt on a political rival. It's also important that we find evidence that he used his political position to do so. Looking at what's available, the simple answer would appear to be no. The transcript of the call shows no evidence of Trump using his position in an unlawful or improper way. He asks for Ukraine to investigate the matter sure, but he doesn't ask for "dirt". The other fact that hurts this claim is the fact that the Ukrainian President has clearly stated that he felt in no way "pressured".

In summary, if we take the advice in your post, logic and evidence still leads to a conclusion that differs from where you'd like it to. Should the whole Stormy Daniels thing have been investigated? Yes, of course. If Trump involves himself in something that is potentially nefarious, then he should be investigated. Of course the same also applies to Biden as well. If Biden didn't want this sort of investigation, maybe he shouldn't have withheld money from the Ukraine until they did as he asked. Even more so when it involved possible investigations into his son's dealings there. Biden's apparent misbehavior here absolves Trump, because it gives Trump a valid reason for doing what he did. If Trump had done this to Bernie, or Warren with no supporting evidence.... It would be different. If there was no evidence or reason to investigate Biden.... It would be different.

But it's not. There's plenty of reasons to think that Biden's actions warranted investigating. Attempting to charge Trump for actually investigating is simply a bucket that doesn't hold water.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
756
893
380
Do people really believe he was this worried about Biden winning? It's seems easier to me to believe he was indeed investigating corruption.
My friend, do not underestimate the how petty our president can be.

Fair enough I suppose. So let's look at the general evidence uncovered so far.

1) Looking to corroborate the Trump crime fighter aspect should be easy enough. Does Trump have a defendable reason to investigate? If so, his defense is solid. However, if there's really no reason for him to investigate, then he was likely just trying to "dig up dirt" as you say.

So to answer this... Was there ample evidence that Biden and corruption deserved to be investigated? The easy answer here is yes. It doesn't take much in the way of detective skills to see that Biden's actions warranted investigating.

2) To look for evidence corroborating the second angle, we need to determine if Trump was doing this in order to simply get dirt on a political rival. It's also important that we find evidence that he used his political position to do so. Looking at what's available, the simple answer would appear to be no. The transcript of the call shows no evidence of Trump using his position in an unlawful or improper way. He asks for Ukraine to investigate the matter sure, but he doesn't ask for "dirt". The other fact that hurts this claim is the fact that the Ukrainian President has clearly stated that he felt in no way "pressured".

In summary, if we take the advice in your post, logic and evidence still leads to a conclusion that differs from where you'd like it to. Should the whole Stormy Daniels thing have been investigated? Yes, of course. If Trump involves himself in something that is potentially nefarious, then he should be investigated. Of course the same also applies to Biden as well. If Biden didn't want this sort of investigation, maybe he shouldn't have withheld money from the Ukraine until they did as he asked. Even more so when it involved possible investigations into his son's dealings there. Biden's apparent misbehavior here absolves Trump, because it gives Trump a valid reason for doing what he did. If Trump had done this to Bernie, or Warren with no supporting evidence.... It would be different. If there was no evidence or reason to investigate Biden.... It would be different.

But it's not. There's plenty of reasons to think that Biden's actions warranted investigating. Attempting to charge Trump for actually investigating is simply a bucket that doesn't hold water.
First of all, Biden was already investigated, and not found guilty of anything. I could present that as "evidence" of my "logic" and play the same game of ignorance that you are playing.

Trump recently had to settle for defrauding people through his university, misusing charity funds forcing him to have his charity liquidated by government, and having Saudi Arabia funnel money through his hotel. Let's not forget he was surrounded by an extremely corrupt lawyer who was basically his right hand man for many many years. I don't know who in the right mind would think Trump is concerned about corruption, you would have to be pretty damn partisan to think so.

So no, I don't think he was trying to investigate corruption for the sake of the united states or Ukraine. There may be reason to investigate Biden, but Trump wasn't using it for actually rooting out corruption.

Secondly, the transcript is not the only piece of evidence in all this. It is just a piece of the puzzle that explicitly mentions Biden and his son. You conveniently ignored (or maybe you read news selectively) that recently a fellow with first hand account of the call stated that things were omitted from the call, such as Trump mentioning tapes of Biden. Vindman also felt the call was deeply troubling and mentioned it to his superiors. The transcript of the conversation was later moved to secure location and Vindman was told not to talk about it to anyone (about the call, not that the transcript was moved). Burisma was also replaced with "the company" in the transcript, according to Vindman.

Sondland spoke to Trump directly with regards to Ukraine. In a deposition he mentioned that the Ukraine aid was in no way tied to digging up dirt on Burisma/Bidens.

Bill Taylor who had many conversations with Sondland, in a deposition opposed Sondland's account and stated that Ukraine aid was tied to investigation of Burisma (though he stated that Sondland mentioned that Zelensky would have to make the announcement). At any rate, one of the two men would have to be lying as they cannot both be honest.

Morrison, who is a top national security council member, advised that the transcript was problematic if it was to leak out, but that he did not feel there was anything "illegal". He corroborated a key point in Bill Taylor's deposition that aid was indeed tied to Burisma investigation, but that it would be sufficient if the prosecutor general of Ukraine made the announcement of the investigation. Morrison was also told to stay away from Rudy G. who was carrying out some covert operation in Ukraine at the time by Fiona Hill (his superior).

Fiona Hill testified, but details are scarce. Multiple sources seem to confirm that she spoke on the covert operation that Sondland and Guiliani were carrying out outside of standard government channels.

Rudy Giuliani admitted to asking Ukrainian officials to look into Joe Biden on live television, because he's an idiot, though with the nuance that it had to do with Burisma, because we are supposed to believe that he was acting as a private citizen with no official affiliation with government. For the uninformed, Rudy is now Trump's personal attorney.

At this point I could recap it, but I figure it's more fun if people try to piece it all together. Don't forget, there is more depositions and information on the way, and we don't even know some of the closed door testimony material yet. Folks, you better buckle the f* up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,342
8,748
880
So all that to say there was no quid pro quo and Trump wanted Biden and the 2016 election to be investigated.

Big deal. Burisma should be investigated, where did the 1.8 billion go? And since the guy that Obama had put in charge of his anticorruption bureau was convicted by a Ukranian court for interfering in the election then Ukraine should be investigated for their role in the Russian hoax.

I guess the Dems and house were just asleep when Ukraine interfered for Hillary, and Obama's ambasador was telling Ukraines prosecutor who to investigate.

The best thing about this is that the Dems can finally see how ridicolouse the Russian witch hunt was which was based on a lot less actual evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner and pramod

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
756
893
380
So all that to say there was no quid pro quo and Trump wanted Biden and the 2016 election to be investigated.

Big deal. Burisma should be investigated, where did the 1.8 billion go? And since the guy that Obama had put in charge of his anticorruption bureau was convicted by a Ukranian court for interfering in the election then Ukraine should be investigated for their role in the Russian hoax.

I guess the Dems and house were just asleep when Ukraine interfered for Hillary, and Obama's ambasador was telling Ukraines prosecutor who to investigate.

The best thing about this is that the Dems can finally see how ridicolouse the Russian witch hunt was which was based on a lot less actual evidence.
If you believe Bill Taylor and Morrison, then there definitely was quid pro quo - the expectation of something in return for a favor. In other words, Ukraine was told that the aid that was held would be released if an investigation into Biden/Burisma (very explicitly Biden) was opened. That is literally quid pro quo. Unless we have different definitions.

Let's say in the legal sense quid pro quo meant something else - does none of this convince anyone that the democrats (for once) actually have a decent case in showing Trump acted unethically and abused his power? I noticed this thread got a lot quieter, likely some people have managed to digest some of this, but maybe the stragglers can explain their thought process in continuing to defend Trump on this (I mean, I know you defend him on basically anything, but in this case, how do you justify it?).
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

Kittehkraken

Member
Jan 14, 2017
943
1,690
400
If you believe Bill Taylor and Morrison, then there definitely was quid pro quo - the expectation of something in return for a favor. In other words, Ukraine was told that the aid that was held would be released if an investigation into Biden/Burisma (very explicitly Biden) was opened. That is literally quid pro quo. Unless we have different definitions.

Let's say in the legal sense quid pro quo meant something else - does none of this convince anyone that the democrats (for once) actually have a decent case in showing Trump acted unethically and abused his power? I noticed this thread got a lot quieter, likely some people have managed to digest some of this, but maybe the stragglers can explain their thought process in continuing to defend Trump on this (I mean, I know you defend him on basically anything, but in this case, how do you justify it?).
Nothing has indicated Ukraine was ever aware the aid was being withheld until after the conversations took place. Morrison himself said he believes Ukraine wasn't aware the aid was being withheld until late August. Which falls in line with what we knew before his testimony.
 
Last edited:

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
756
893
380
Nothing has indicated Ukraine was ever aware the aid was being withheld until after the conversations took place. Morrison himself said he believes Ukraine wasn't aware the aid was being withheld until late August. Which falls in line with what we knew before his testimony.
No one is disputing this. It's irrelevant that Ukraine didn't know during the call, given that Trump's goons were running around afterwards interacting with Ukraine officials until the word got out the aid was withheld and was still being withheld. Like why is this so hard to grasp?


There was already an investigation open into Burisma before the phone call happened. Also, Biden was not already investigated and cleared.

Lots of myths being propagated by the corporate media.

https://johnsolomonreports.com/debunking-some-of-the-ukraine-scandal-myths-about-biden-and-election-interference/
I'm pretty sure the former Ukraine prosecutor said there was no wrong doing found with regards to the Bidens. It is very well possible that Ukraine had an investigation into Burisma, but then again Burisma potentially did a lot of shady things, they had multiple investigations previously, even before Biden joined. The fact that Burisma was already being investigated does in no way absolve Trump of asking them to specifically investigate the Bidens - how are the two connected? I don't even understand the point you are making... I read the link you posted and the related fox news article but it's a giant nothing burger. Even they don't make a strong point aside from "the timeline is a little screwy". I'm really not defending Burisma or Bidens, I don't care. My point is that none of this validate's Trumps actions in any substantial way.

As for the Bidens, they are very likely corrupt, as far as most Americans are concerned, many government officials are. The point is that people think Trump is some white fluffy rabbit that wants the best for hte citizens - he's not, he did this (presidency) for himself, to put his family in a position of great wealth. You should go look at how many millions his kids made during this presidency. He has a well documented history of corruption, and yet people continue to support him. I get it, SJW culture sucks, progressives are evil, OK. Trump is taking is gullible supporters for a ride and he's going to retire a wealthy man having accomplished very little during his presidency besides dividing the nation unlike any other president in recent history.

The great irony in all this is that Trump impulsively tried to dig dirt on Biden because he was getting upset that Biden could potentially blow him out of the water. Well, turns out you don't need dirt on Biden to make him, loose, Biden is the best person to get in Biden's way. He's clearly senile and often delusional, and can barely keep his teeth from falling out. His latest fundraising was abysmal and he likely won't make it anywhere close to winning the primary. Trump stuck his nose into a pile of shit for no good reason and now instead of spending time bolstering his base with more hurricane cartoons and rallies amped up on sudafed, he has to deal with all this. It's the definition of poetic justice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

Foxbat

is on their last warning for console warring
May 30, 2018
657
717
425
First of all, Biden was already investigated, and not found guilty of anything. I could present that as "evidence" of my "logic" and play the same game of ignorance that you are playing.
Who and when was Biden investigated regarding this matter? Who exonerated him? Do you have a source for that?

Trump recently had to settle for defrauding people through his university, misusing charity funds forcing him to have his charity liquidated by government, and having Saudi Arabia funnel money through his hotel. Let's not forget he was surrounded by an extremely corrupt lawyer who was basically his right hand man for many many years. I don't know who in the right mind would think Trump is concerned about corruption, you would have to be pretty damn partisan to think so.
This is irrelevant. You're straying off topic. None of this has to do with what we're discussing here.

So no, I don't think he was trying to investigate corruption for the sake of the united states or Ukraine. There may be reason to investigate Biden, but Trump wasn't using it for actually rooting out corruption.
Well taking this bit, along with the one before it... At least we now know why you've come to the conclusion you have. You think Trump is guilty here not because of proof. Not because of evidence. Not due to logical, or rational reasons... But rather, because of totally unrelated issues involving Trump. You admit that there may be a reason to investigate Biden here, but in your first paragraph claimed that he had already been investigated and cleared. Which is it?

Secondly, the transcript is not the only piece of evidence in all this. It is just a piece of the puzzle that explicitly mentions Biden and his son. You conveniently ignored (or maybe you read news selectively) that recently a fellow with first hand account of the call stated that things were omitted from the call, such as Trump mentioning tapes of Biden. Vindman also felt the call was deeply troubling and mentioned it to his superiors. The transcript of the conversation was later moved to secure location and Vindman was told not to talk about it to anyone (about the call, not that the transcript was moved). Burisma was also replaced with "the company" in the transcript, according to Vindman.
You accuse me of conveniently ignoring things, and then immediately talk about this "fellow" with supposed first hand knowledge. Really? Did you conveniently forget what happened to the first "fellow"? How he supposedly worked for Biden, was a Democrat that had an axe to grind against Trump, wasn't a first hand witness to begin with? The transcript is overall biggest and most important piece of evidence so far. To suggest otherwise shows obvious bias.

Sondland spoke to Trump directly with regards to Ukraine. In a deposition he mentioned that the Ukraine aid was in no way tied to digging up dirt on Burisma/Bidens.

Bill Taylor who had many conversations with Sondland, in a deposition opposed Sondland's account and stated that Ukraine aid was tied to investigation of Burisma (though he stated that Sondland mentioned that Zelensky would have to make the announcement). At any rate, one of the two men would have to be lying as they cannot both be honest.
Their text conversation shows that Taylor had concerns regarding aid being withheld for political campaign reasons. Sondland also immediately cleared that up with the very next text, and stated that Trump clearly wanted no quid pro quo.


Morrison, who is a top national security council member, advised that the transcript was problematic if it was to leak out, but that he did not feel there was anything "illegal". He corroborated a key point in Bill Taylor's deposition that aid was indeed tied to Burisma investigation, but that it would be sufficient if the prosecutor general of Ukraine made the announcement of the investigation. Morrison was also told to stay away from Rudy G. who was carrying out some covert operation in Ukraine at the time by Fiona Hill (his superior).

Fiona Hill testified, but details are scarce. Multiple sources seem to confirm that she spoke on the covert operation that Sondland and Guiliani were carrying out outside of standard government channels.
When you use phrases like "details are scarce" and "multiple sources seem to..." you're going too far into the weeds.

Rudy Giuliani admitted to asking Ukrainian officials to look into Joe Biden on live television, because he's an idiot, though with the nuance that it had to do with Burisma, because we are supposed to believe that he was acting as a private citizen with no official affiliation with government. For the uninformed, Rudy is now Trump's personal attorney.
The whole Rudy Rudy Rudy spiel works if this wasn't an impeachment of Trump. Perhaps the Dems should've dug deeper into Rudy before going all in on trying to hang Trump.

At this point I could recap it, but I figure it's more fun if people try to piece it all together. Don't forget, there is more depositions and information on the way, and we don't even know some of the closed door testimony material yet. Folks, you better buckle the f* up.
What should we buckle up for exactly? Democrats trying to prove something and failing yet again? We've already seen that show. Are we buckling up for Mitch and the Senate to get a hold of this juicy info, because we already know what happens then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,504
2,233
600
Who and when was Biden investigated regarding this matter? Who exonerated him? Do you have a source for that?
He was exonerated by the guy that replaced the guy Biden held $1B in loan guarantees to get fired. Though that investigation was only covering 2010-12, which was before Hunter Biden joined Burisma.

Though I would like to point to a part of that article:

President Donald Trump has repeatedly, without evidence, claimed that Biden as vice president threatened to withhold “billions of dollars to Ukraine” unless it removed prosecutor general Viktor Shokin, who was investigating the oligarch behind Burisma Group. Hunter had served on Burisma's board of directors.
Funny they say without evidence when there is a video of Biden saying just that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
756
893
380
Who and when was Biden investigated regarding this matter? Who exonerated him? Do you have a source for that?


This is irrelevant. You're straying off topic. None of this has to do with what we're discussing here.


Well taking this bit, along with the one before it... At least we now know why you've come to the conclusion you have. You think Trump is guilty here not because of proof. Not because of evidence. Not due to logical, or rational reasons... But rather, because of totally unrelated issues involving Trump. You admit that there may be a reason to investigate Biden here, but in your first paragraph claimed that he had already been investigated and cleared. Which is it?


You accuse me of conveniently ignoring things, and then immediately talk about this "fellow" with supposed first hand knowledge. Really? Did you conveniently forget what happened to the first "fellow"? How he supposedly worked for Biden, was a Democrat that had an axe to grind against Trump, wasn't a first hand witness to begin with? The transcript is overall biggest and most important piece of evidence so far. To suggest otherwise shows obvious bias.


Their text conversation shows that Taylor had concerns regarding aid being withheld for political campaign reasons. Sondland also immediately cleared that up with the very next text, and stated that Trump clearly wanted no quid pro quo.


When you use phrases like "details are scarce" and "multiple sources seem to..." you're going too far into the weeds.


The whole Rudy Rudy Rudy spiel works if this wasn't an impeachment of Trump. Perhaps the Dems should've dug deeper into Rudy before going all in on trying to hang Trump.



What should we buckle up for exactly? Democrats trying to prove something and failing yet again? We've already seen that show. Are we buckling up for Mitch and the Senate to get a hold of this juicy info, because we already know what happens then.
The Ukraine prosecutor that replaced the old one, who was internationally confirmed to be corrupt and it was later confirmed by all parties involved to replace him, anyway the new one stated that he saw no issues with the Bidens. Feel free to use googlez you can do that much.

Trumps character has everything to do with it. If you as a citizen are trying to figure out who is lying and who is telling the truth, you know, to support one side or another, the character is important. Or maybe not, maybe you just care about issues along party lines and it wouldn't matter if Hilter was running for office.

There being a reason to investigate Biden and Biden being previously exonerated are not mutually exclusive. For example, Hillary was previously exonerated but there is plenty of reason to investigate her further.

Both Tyler and Morisson confirm.ed a similar account of quid pro quo. It wasn't to do with campaign finance laws. It was literally Trump abusing power to get information on a political opponent. I suggest you read a little bit.

As for the whistleblower, does he or she really matter at this point? No one is using the whistleblower account to argue anything. They just called attention to the situation which has since been corroborated much more strongly than "my phone call was perfect".

If you're going to reply to someone, at the very least try to do some reading. Thinking might also be a plus, but lately that's asking for too much.
 

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,504
2,233
600
The Ukraine prosecutor that replaced the old one, who was internationally allegedly to be corrupt and it was later confirmed by all parties involved to replace him, anyway the new one stated that he saw no issues with the Bidens. Feel free to use googlez you can do that much.
Fixed that for you
Shokin was never prosecuted on corruption. Lutsenko was actually convicted of embezzlement, though his trial was considered suspect by many.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
41,624
18,914
1,395
The Pentagon
The Ukraine prosecutor that replaced the old one, who was internationally confirmed to be corrupt and it was later confirmed by all parties involved to replace him, anyway the new one stated that he saw no issues with the Bidens. Feel free to use googlez you can do that much.

Trumps character has everything to do with it. If you as a citizen are trying to figure out who is lying and who is telling the truth, you know, to support one side or another, the character is important. Or maybe not, maybe you just care about issues along party lines and it wouldn't matter if Hilter was running for office.

There being a reason to investigate Biden and Biden being previously exonerated are not mutually exclusive. For example, Hillary was previously exonerated but there is plenty of reason to investigate her further.

Both Tyler and Morisson confirm.ed a similar account of quid pro quo. It wasn't to do with campaign finance laws. It was literally Trump abusing power to get information on a political opponent. I suggest you read a little bit.

As for the whistleblower, does he or she really matter at this point? No one is using the whistleblower account to argue anything. They just called attention to the situation which has since been corroborated much more strongly than "my phone call was perfect".

If you're going to reply to someone, at the very least try to do some reading. Thinking might also be a plus, but lately that's asking for too much.
gibberish
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner and Foxbat

Kittehkraken

Member
Jan 14, 2017
943
1,690
400
No one is disputing this. It's irrelevant that Ukraine didn't know during the call, given that Trump's goons were running around afterwards interacting with Ukraine officials until the word got out the aid was withheld and was still being withheld. Like why is this so hard to grasp?
Ukraine found out the aid was being withheld and why AFTER Trump had released it for them. Any pressure Trump and his "goons" may have put on them, didn't come from an understanding that the aid was being withheld. Its entirely possible Ukraine may have never found out why the aid was being delayed if the whistleblower never came forward.

edit: i fudged my timeline a bit. See below.
 
Last edited:

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
756
893
380
Ukraine found out the aid was being withheld and why AFTER Trump had released it for them. Any pressure Trump and his "goons" may have put on them, didn't come from an understanding that the aid was being withheld. Its entirely possible Ukraine may have never found out why the aid was being delayed if the whistleblower never came forward.
The aid was released in Sept. They found out in August. This is fully corroborated by many outlets, but you can Google it if you don't believe me. Sounds to me like this could change your stance on the issue?

Quick source: Link
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: DeafTourette

Kittehkraken

Member
Jan 14, 2017
943
1,690
400
The aid was released in Sept. They found out in August. This is fully corroborated by many outlets, but you can Google it if you don't believe me. Sounds to me like this could change your stance on the issue?

Quick source: Link
My mistake, i got the timeline wrong when the aid was released.

But it doesn't change my stance in the slightest because Ukraine still wasn't aware of why the aid was being held up. If it wasn't for the story blowing up, they might have never been given a reason. Ukraine still being completely in the dark in late August should be a pretty good indication that Trump and his goons weren't using the withheld money as leverage. And when the White House finally did clue them in, they gave no reason.
 
Last edited:

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
756
893
380
My mistake, i got the timeline wrong when the aid was released.

But it doesn't change my stance in the slightest because Ukraine still wasn't aware of why the aid was being held up. If it wasn't for the story blowing up, they might have never been given a reason.
I hate to be that guy again...but Ukraine did know why aid was being held up. Bill Taylor gave the initial deposition that Yermak (top advisor to Zelensky) was told that aid was being held up contingent on a Biden/Burisma investigation. This is in contradiction to Sondlands account. So one of the two men was lying. Morrison later corroborated Bill Taylor's account (though formally he suggested that it didn't necessarily need to be Zelensky to announce the renewed investigation effort before aid was released, it could also be the prosecutor general).

Does it change your stance now, or still no? I suppose you could pretend both Taylor and Morisson are lying, and Sondland is telling the truth. That's one way to get out of this without too much embarrassment.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: n64coder

Sign

Member
Jun 4, 2012
253
183
520
I hate to be that guy again...but Ukraine did know why aid was being held up. Bill Taylor gave the initial deposition that Yermak (top advisor to Zelensky) was told that aid was being held up contingent on a Biden/Burisma investigation. This is in contradiction to Sondlands account. So one of the two men was lying. Morrison later corroborated Bill Taylor's account (though formally he suggested that it didn't necessarily need to be Zelensky to announce the renewed investigation effort before aid was released, it could also be the prosecutor general).

Does it change your stance now, or still no? I suppose you could pretend both Taylor and Morisson are lying, and Sondland is telling the truth. That's one way to get out of this without too much embarrassment.
-Ukraine was already investigating Burisma Holdings before the phone call.
-Ukraine agreed to help with the 2016 investigation before the end of the phone call.
-Bill Taylor has only given third-hand hearsay.
-Morrison: "“I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed.”
-DOJ said there was nothing wrong with the phone call.
-Sondland said there was nothing wrong with the phone call.
-President Zelensky said there was nothing wrong with the phone call.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Hotspurr

Foxbat

is on their last warning for console warring
May 30, 2018
657
717
425
The Ukraine prosecutor that replaced the old one, who was internationally confirmed to be corrupt and it was later confirmed by all parties involved to replace him, anyway the new one stated that he saw no issues with the Bidens. Feel free to use googlez you can do that much.

Trumps character has everything to do with it. If you as a citizen are trying to figure out who is lying and who is telling the truth, you know, to support one side or another, the character is important. Or maybe not, maybe you just care about issues along party lines and it wouldn't matter if Hilter was running for office.

There being a reason to investigate Biden and Biden being previously exonerated are not mutually exclusive. For example, Hillary was previously exonerated but there is plenty of reason to investigate her further.

Both Tyler and Morisson confirm.ed a similar account of quid pro quo. It wasn't to do with campaign finance laws. It was literally Trump abusing power to get information on a political opponent. I suggest you read a little bit.

As for the whistleblower, does he or she really matter at this point? No one is using the whistleblower account to argue anything. They just called attention to the situation which has since been corroborated much more strongly than "my phone call was perfect".

If you're going to reply to someone, at the very least try to do some reading. Thinking might also be a plus, but lately that's asking for too much.
Lutsenko said that he wouldn't conduct an investigation into Biden for American political interests. He also said that to his knowledge the Biden's had done nothing wrong.
That's quite a bit different than "investigated and exonerated". It also comes from the guy who directly got his job due to Biden sacking his predecessor.

While Trump's character might be significant, everyone in Washington is corrupt to some extent. Politicians in general tend to be corrupt, especially at the federal level. Your quip about party lines and Hitler is ironic. If you believe one side is generally corrupt, while the other not well....

The rest of your post is mostly gibberish with a bit of "bu bu bu but Tyler and Morrison said", as if they're statements are the be all end all. You also state that "As for the whistleblower, does he or she really matter at this point?"

So you have now basically dismissed not only the transcript itself, as I quoted you in my previous reply, but now you're attempting to dismiss the whistleblower as well. The two most important aspects of this whole story, and you've just dismissd them. Along with the DoJ apparently, and that's not even mentioning the Ukrainian President, Sondland, Volker, or anyone else who's testimony doesn't fit your narrative. No.... Tyler and Morrison is all that matters. Right?

That is why your whole premise is flawed. You're ignoring factual evidence. You're not seeing what's clearly been laid out before you. You're not using logic or rational thought to reach the conclusion you have. It's been spelled out to you clear as day, but yet you still fail to grasp it. But I'm the one who needs to read. Yeah, sure buddy. Your ignorance will surely be remedied if I just read more.
 
  • Triggered
Reactions: Hotspurr

Kittehkraken

Member
Jan 14, 2017
943
1,690
400
Edit: Honestly, can't be bothered. I've grown tired of this back and fourth shit about Trump.

If Trump is guilty, it'll come out in the wash.
 
Last edited:

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,772
2,014
755
Trump's goons were running around afterwards interacting with Ukraine officials until the word got out the aid was withheld and was still being withheld.
Citation needed.

From a Trump rally in Mississippi:


That election interference claim by Pelosi and co. was ridiculous, so got a laugh out of that bit tonight.
I love the first comment on the tweet, "So many people live rent free in his head.." I think ya got that backwards, bub. "Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty" or something along those lines..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Joe T.

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,045
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
It's all a nothingburger, yet another example of Democrats trying to pin Trump for the most tenuous example of a crime they've already been caught committing:


Of course, this didn't make waves because no one cared about Ukraine and quid pro quo back in May. That wasn't relevant.

Thankfully, all the quid pro quo experts immediately stepped up and shouted at us when Trump supposedly did it.

Suuuuuure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oagboghi2 and Oner

Patriots7

Member
Jul 15, 2008
2,849
94
890
From a Trump rally in Mississippi:


That election interference claim by Pelosi and co. was ridiculous, so got a laugh out of that bit tonight.
So... Why'd he attempt to pressure an investigation into Biden?

The funny thing is, if he had let Biden implode he wouldn't have been impeached. Now the DOJ needs to open an investigation on Warren's native American history.
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,327
2,523
1,695
Montreal, Quebec
So... Why'd he attempt to pressure an investigation into Biden?

The funny thing is, if he had let Biden implode he wouldn't have been impeached. Now the DOJ needs to open an investigation on Warren's native American history.
"Pressure":



Even if Trump ignored the potential corruption the Dems would have kept coming after him with one allegation of wrongdoing or another. They've been playing this stupid game for three years now. She's trying to make the case that the call was interference in the US election. Do you not see that as an incredible stretch?

Everyone's been so caught up over that popular Latin phrase, few are asking themselves if it even matters. It doesn't and even BSer extraordinaire Pelosi let that slip last night in Philadelphia. "You don't need a quid pro quo" at the 18:45 timestamp:



If you suspect a former VP did something shady, that even some of Trump's detractors admit smells of corruption, and you're suggesting the POTUS should have ignored it, what does that say about you?
 

Patriots7

Member
Jul 15, 2008
2,849
94
890
"Pressure":



Even if Trump ignored the potential corruption the Dems would have kept coming after him with one allegation of wrongdoing or another. They've been playing this stupid game for three years now. She's trying to make the case that the call was interference in the US election. Do you not see that as an incredible stretch?

Everyone's been so caught up over that popular Latin phrase, few are asking themselves if it even matters. It doesn't and even BSer extraordinaire Pelosi let that slip last night in Philadelphia. "You don't need a quid pro quo" at the 18:45 timestamp:



If you suspect a former VP did something shady, that even some of Trump's detractors admit smells of corruption, and you're suggesting the POTUS should have ignored it, what does that say about you?
I'm sorry, are you actually going to tell me that a newly established President of a country at war and dependent on aid from a country, is not going to wade into potentially damning the President of said country they are dependent on?
Like please explain to me that rationale.

Please do not insult either of our intelligence and imply that Trump was truly concerned about corruption and it was so coincidental!!! GeOTUS would never do anything that was in his interests!
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,327
2,523
1,695
Montreal, Quebec
I'm sorry, are you actually going to tell me that a newly established President of a country at war and dependent on aid from a country, is not going to wade into potentially damning the President of said country they are dependent on?
Like please explain to me that rationale.

Please do not insult either of our intelligence and imply that Trump was truly concerned about corruption and it was so coincidental!!! GeOTUS would never do anything that was in his interests!
You ignored the questions. Silence speaks louder than words.

Your questionable wording aside, Zelensky's not in a position of weakness, as you suggest. He was in a position of power, he held Trump's presidency in his hands. Bringing up Biden's name in the call wasn't some crazy coincidence, it's a consequence of the sequence of events the Dems set in motion. "Play stupid games..."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

Patriots7

Member
Jul 15, 2008
2,849
94
890
You ignored the questions. Silence speaks louder than words.

Your questionable wording aside, Zelensky's not in a position of weakness, as you suggest. He was in a position of power, he held Trump's presidency in his hands. Bringing up Biden's name in the call wasn't some crazy coincidence, it's a consequence of the sequence of events the Dems set in motion. "Play stupid games..."
This is asinine. What if he said that Trump threatened him and Trump isn't removed? What if Trump is re-elected?

Lord.
 

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
5,522
6,289
1,560
So... Why'd he attempt to pressure an investigation into Biden?
What pressure? No one has any quote that actually shows there was pressure put on Ukraine, only "feelings".

Any interest in Biden was because he was the most obvious link to show Democrats were involved in criminal activities in Ukraine, consider how public he was in his coercion.

I'm sorry, are you actually going to tell me that a newly established President of a country at war and dependent on aid from a country, is not going to wade into potentially damning the President of said country they are dependent on?
You all keep saying that Biden being cleared of wrongdoing by the (now disgraced) prosecutor he put into power means he is innocent while also saying that the DOJ clearing the call as legal means nothing. You clearly lack the rational faculties to read foreign affairs.
 

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
756
893
380
For anyone still paying attention, the latest in this saga is that apparently Sondland is changing his story in line with quid pro quo:

So far things are unfolding just as how I expected. Can't wait for the Trump Defense Force to move the goalposts again.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,045
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
For anyone still paying attention, the latest in this saga is that apparently Sondland is changing his story in line with quid pro quo:

So far things are unfolding just as how I expected. Can't wait for the Trump Defense Force to move the goalposts again.
Just to be clear, we are no longer talking about the phone call itself, do I have that right?

Now we are retroactively presuming quid pro quo for prior engagements?

Yeah, the walls really seem like they're closing in. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,740
4,731
765
For anyone still paying attention, the latest in this saga is that apparently Sondland is changing his story in line with quid pro quo:

So far things are unfolding just as how I expected. Can't wait for the Trump Defense Force to move the goalposts again.
He admits that he believes there was, after already saying the President told him there was not. His shifting opinion is just his shifting opinion. It does not prove anything. And honestly, with few exceptions no one gives a crap anyway, except for the people who wanted to impeach since before he was inaugurated. The people who agree with most of his agenda are not kicking him out for wanting Biden's corruption brought to light, regardless of what his motives for doing that were. Drain the swamp does not mean fire the guy who pulls the plug.
 

Kittehkraken

Member
Jan 14, 2017
943
1,690
400
For anyone still paying attention, the latest in this saga is that apparently Sondland is changing his story in line with quid pro quo:

So far things are unfolding just as how I expected. Can't wait for the Trump Defense Force to move the goalposts again.
The goalpost for a lot of posters has always been evidence. If Trump did in fact do something improper that is supported by evidence he should face whatever appropriate consequences fit the violation.

Wanting facts over sensationalism shouldn't make you part of Trumps Defense Force. It should be looked at as common sense.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,342
8,748
880
The goalpost for a lot of posters has always been evidence. If Trump did in fact do something improper that is supported by evidence he should face whatever appropriate consequences fit the violation.

Wanting facts over sensationalism shouldn't make you part of Trumps Defense Force. It should be looked at as common sense.
But what is the violation? It was already ruled there was no campaign finance violation. With holding military aid is not some sort of violation or crime. Obama threatened Israel with it many times and congress did the exact same threat to Ukraine in regards to the Mueller investigation.

So I don't get the violation here. Unless the stretch here is that investigating Biden was going to help Trump win 2020, but then the Dems did the whole Russian investigation which clearly could of hurt Trump as well, so what tree are they barking up.
 

transformer

Member
Nov 5, 2013
571
260
460
For anyone still paying attention, the latest in this saga is that apparently Sondland is changing his story in line with quid pro quo:

So far things are unfolding just as how I expected. Can't wait for the Trump Defense Force to move the goalposts again.
The goal posts have been moving alright, but not by Trump. Is the standard to impeach on opinion now and ignore facts? We started at a phone call and transcript that would show guilt (evidence). Now we are where?
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Oner

Kittehkraken

Member
Jan 14, 2017
943
1,690
400
But what is the violation? It was already ruled there was no campaign finance violation. With holding military aid is not some sort of violation or crime. Obama threatened Israel with it many times and congress did the exact same threat to Ukraine in regards to the Mueller investigation.

So I don't get the violation here. Unless the stretch here is that investigating Biden was going to help Trump win 2020, but then the Dems did the whole Russian investigation which clearly could of hurt Trump as well, so what tree are they barking up.


The US Government appears to run on a rules for thee, but not for me ideology. The impeachment train thus far has been fueled on pure sensationalism.

We see politicians get away with absurd shit almost every week. What sticks depends on the team you play for and who's in power.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Oner and cryptoadam

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
756
893
380
He admits that he believes there was, after already saying the President told him there was not. His shifting opinion is just his shifting opinion. It does not prove anything. And honestly, with few exceptions no one gives a crap anyway, except for the people who wanted to impeach since before he was inaugurated. The people who agree with most of his agenda are not kicking him out for wanting Biden's corruption brought to light, regardless of what his motives for doing that were. Drain the swamp does not mean fire the guy who pulls the plug.
The goalpost for a lot of posters has always been evidence. If Trump did in fact do something improper that is supported by evidence he should face whatever appropriate consequences fit the violation.

Wanting facts over sensationalism shouldn't make you part of Trumps Defense Force. It should be looked at as common sense.
But what is the violation? It was already ruled there was no campaign finance violation. With holding military aid is not some sort of violation or crime. Obama threatened Israel with it many times and congress did the exact same threat to Ukraine in regards to the Mueller investigation.

So I don't get the violation here. Unless the stretch here is that investigating Biden was going to help Trump win 2020, but then the Dems did the whole Russian investigation which clearly could of hurt Trump as well, so what tree are they barking up.
The goal posts have been moving alright, but not by Trump. Is the standard to impeach on opinion now and ignore facts? We started at a phone call and transcript that would show guilt (evidence). Now we are where?


The US Government appears to run on a rules for thee, but not for me ideology. The impeachment train thus far has been fueled on pure sensationalism.

We see politicians get away with absurd shit almost every week. What sticks depends on the team you play for and who's in power.
Whew. Are you guys sweating yet?
We went from "He didn't ask dirt on Biden" to "He didn't withhold aid" to "Ukraine didn't know" to "It wasn't REALLY quid pro quo because the president says so" to "Does it really matter?".

Amazing. Simply amazing. Top marks to everyone.

Edit: "orange man still good!!!"
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,045
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Whew. Are you guys sweating yet?
We went from "He didn't ask dirt on Biden" to "He didn't withhold aid" to "Ukraine didn't know" to "It wasn't REALLY quid pro quo because the president says so" to "Does it really matter?".

Amazing. Simply amazing. Top marks to everyone.

Edit: "orange man still good!!!"
Even when the chance to argue in good faith is delivered to you on a silver platter, you choose petulance. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
7,229
5,160
1,435
Whew. Are you guys sweating yet?
We went from "He didn't ask dirt on Biden" to "He didn't withhold aid" to "Ukraine didn't know" to "It wasn't REALLY quid pro quo because the president says so" to "Does it really matter?".

Amazing. Simply amazing. Top marks to everyone.

Edit: "orange man still good!!!"
Eh. I don't think any of this Ukraine stuff is going to change much one way or the other. The Senate is not going to remove him. If Trump still has a hot economy rolling when it comes time to vote in 2020 and the Democrats run a candidate like Warren that wants to burn everything down I don't think they will stand a chance. And if they run Biden anything with the Ukraine story won't help much because of Hunter Biden. I doubt aid to the Ukraine is going to factor in much with your everyday voter.
 

transformer

Member
Nov 5, 2013
571
260
460
Whew. Are you guys sweating yet?
We went from "He didn't ask dirt on Biden" to "He didn't withhold aid" to "Ukraine didn't know" to "It wasn't REALLY quid pro quo because the president says so" to "Does it really matter?".

Amazing. Simply amazing. Top marks to everyone.

Edit: "orange man still good!!!"
Nope. According to the constitution the president can be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.We are all waiting for someone to:

1. Name the treasonous offense, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. Has not happened yet.
2. Provide proof of item 1.

We are still waiting. That’s the way this works.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Oner and cryptoadam

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
3,482
1,112
920
For anyone still paying attention, the latest in this saga is that apparently Sondland is changing his story in line with quid pro quo:

So far things are unfolding just as how I expected. Can't wait for the Trump Defense Force to move the goalposts again.
So Trump gave The Ukraine money after they started a public investigation into the Bidens; is that what you believe?
 
Last edited:

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
756
893
380
Eh. I don't think any of this Ukraine stuff is going to change much one way or the other. The Senate is not going to remove him. If Trump still has a hot economy rolling when it comes time to vote in 2020 and the Democrats run a candidate like Warren that wants to burn everything down I don't think they will stand a chance. And if they run Biden anything with the Ukraine story won't help much because of Hunter Biden. I doubt aid to the Ukraine is going to factor in much with your everyday voter.
Yes I agree to some extent. Even though I'd prefer Trump removed so this country can calm down. My interest in the topic was more to see the partisanship of some people. Even when presented with fairly clear evidence they still don't want to admit he did anything wrong or isn't playing the same shady game all politicians play.

Just goes to show you people don't really care about truth. Just seeing their own personal agendas being supported and some archaic form of tribalism. Then again some people believe in an invisible sky fairy who they pray to - so why should anyone even be surprised at this point. Millions of years of evolution, and we have adults effectively running around believing in santa claus.

This impeachment thing will be fun to watch. Reminds me of when the podesta emails started dropping.