• 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
16,144
31,475
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Except that Burisma was already being investigated before the call (they re-opened certain investigations). So Trump was asking Ukraine to investigate corruption they were already investigating? He needed to withhold aid specifically to target the Bidens. Keep digging that hole my friend.
Hang on.

If the investigation is already in progress and Trump -- according to you -- withheld aid to ensure that the investigation continued, how does that qualify as quid pro quo?

Ukraine is known for its corruption. It might pass as a quid pro quo if Trump withheld aid to stop the investigation -- which is what Biden is guilty of doing -- but how could it be quid pro quo if he threatened to withhold aid if their corrupt government stopped the investigation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam

transformer

Member
Nov 5, 2013
565
231
425
Except that Burisma was already being investigated before the call (they re-opened certain investigations). So Trump was asking Ukraine to investigate corruption they were already investigating? He needed to withhold aid specifically to target the Bidens. Keep digging that hole my friend.
Was Ukraine already investigating? Source? That’s huge. Quid pro quo by definition not possible then. Another reason why we have no real evidence of the quid pro quo. Didn’t happen!
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,304
2,482
1,695
Montreal, Quebec
He's got other tweets that aren't doing him or his client any favors, too. I went digging through his Twitter history when his name as the whistleblower's lawyer was revealed and I stopped right after I saw him posting anti-Trump comics.

I've never seen conspirators trip over themselves as frequently as the Dems. Imagine being the idiot responsible for cooking up these ideas. I'll let senator John Kennedy say it for me (starts at 40 second mark):

 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,144
31,475
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Trump is guilty of quid pro quo because he threatened to withhold aid from a corrupt government unless they agreed to continue an investigation into their own corruption?

I'm not even agreeing that's what Trump did, I just want to make sure I understand the logic behind the current version of the quid pro quo accusation. It seems to change with each passing week. If that's the logic, that's not quid pro quo, not even by the stretchiest of definitions.

If Trump's threat was the impetus for a fresh investigation, or worse, if there was not enough evidence to begin an investigation yet Ukraine went ahead anyway because of Trump's threat, that would be a scandal. That isn't what happened.

"Ukraine, allow your current investigation into corruption continue or I'm going to withhold aid from your government" is not quid pro quo.

Quid pro quo would be "stop investigating my son and fire the prosecutor or I'm going to withhold aid from your government".

The act of starting investigations when there isn't enough evidence and piggybacking off said investigations is what the Democrats just did for three years (Russiagate hoax). Democrats even went as far as to "experiment" with Russia-style Facebook propaganda in the campaign against Roy Moore, whom they smeared as a conspiracy nut.

Yet amidst all this scandal, somehow we are meant to believe that Trump strong-arming a corrupt foreign government (involved in those same hoaxed accusations mentioned above) to ensure they continue investigating their corruption is the crime. Once again, I'm not sure this is what Trump did (after all, how could the Idiot In Chief accidentally do something good for a change?) but I want to understand the accusation against him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
714
861
380
We attacking the whistleblowers lawyer now? Putting on your conspiracy hats again?

Regardless of who the whistleblower or lawyer are, it doesn't change any of the facts. Trump knows how to herd his sheep, I'll give him that.
 

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,414
612
1,650
Never mind all the people in the admin raising issues with it, never mind the shadow diplomacy with Giuliani, never mind the republicans admitting it was a quid pro quo but now pivoting to defending it as not a big deal, never mind John fucking Bolton of all people calling it a drug deal and bailing the fuck out of his dream job over it...it just didn't happen! Quit assuming intent! Trump derangement syndrome!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkMage619

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,144
31,475
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Never mind all the people in the admin raising issues with it, never mind the shadow diplomacy with Giuliani, never mind the republicans admitting it was a quid pro quo but now pivoting to defending it as not a big deal, never mind John fucking Bolton of all people calling it a drug deal and bailing the fuck out of his dream job over it...it just didn't happen! Quit assuming intent! Trump derangement syndrome!
It's hard to tell if you lot are willfully ignoring the posts above that address these very things or if you just have most people on ignore can can't see it.

In either case, my apologies for butting into the echo chamber. 🤷‍♀️
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe T.
Dec 15, 2011
5,153
11,923
1,010
We attacking the whistleblowers lawyer now? Putting on your conspiracy hats again?

Regardless of who the whistleblower or lawyer are, it doesn't change any of the facts. Trump knows how to herd his sheep, I'll give him that.
I'm not sure that "Hey, attacking someone's character is bad, you're all sheep!" is an especially well thought-out argument to be making in this particular topic.
 
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,719
4,706
765
We attacking the whistleblowers lawyer now? Putting on your conspiracy hats again?

Regardless of who the whistleblower or lawyer are, it doesn't change any of the facts. Trump knows how to herd his sheep, I'll give him that.
Dude, there is no statement by Trump proving he ordered anything along the lines of what the Dems claimed. But there are tweets up and down about coups starting from the guy who represents the whistleblower. When you are making a case based on thoughts and opinions, and differed gets interpretations of things, the outright claim by the point mans lawyer that a coup is underway are highly relevant and probative. Deny it all you want while you tell us we are blind Sir Ray Charles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: autoduelist

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
714
861
380
Dude, there is no statement by Trump proving he ordered anything along the lines of what the Dems claimed. But there are tweets up and down about coups starting from the guy who represents the whistleblower. When you are making a case based on thoughts and opinions, and differed gets interpretations of things, the outright claim by the point mans lawyer that a coup is underway are highly relevant and probative. Deny it all you want while you tell us we are blind Sir Ray Charles.
Tell me exactly how the lawyer's tweets change anything?

Do they discredit the call transcript, the multiple bipartisan government official accounts, clear evidence that Rudy met with Ukrainian officials to specifically ask for dirt as being directed by Trump, that on multiple counts it has been shown that based on interactions with Trump and circumstances in government, everyone understood the aid was dependent on specifically a Biden investigation.

How does the lawyer and whistleblower identity have any bearing on that? The whistleblower could be a Russian hacker at this point and it wouldn't matter, the information has been exposed.
 

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,414
612
1,650
It's hard to tell if you lot are willfully ignoring the posts above that address these very things or if you just have most people on ignore can can't see it.

In either case, my apologies for butting into the echo chamber. 🤷‍♀️
It’s the former. It takes like 3x as long to refute bullshit as it does to throw it out there, and I work full time and have a family and keep up a house and vehicles and find some time to actually play video games or practice instruments, etc. So it’s a failing on my part to not address all the nonsense but I think I have a decent excuse for not taking the time to reply to what I see as willful ignorance on others’ part.
 

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
714
861
380
It’s the former. It takes like 3x as long to refute bullshit as it does to throw it out there, and I work full time and have a family and keep up a house and vehicles and find some time to actually play video games or practice instruments, etc. So it’s a failing on my part to not address all the nonsense but I think I have a decent excuse for not taking the time to reply to what I see as willful ignorance on others’ part.
Do not encourage him. When he gets properly debated he usually gets too butthurt and tells you that he isn't going to spend anymore time discussing things and that you should go read a book on the subject. Then he feels the need to scout out all your posts and give an opinion on them. It's like a really irritating ex girlfriend that won't leave you alone because she didn't get enough closure.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,144
31,475
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Do not encourage him. When he gets properly debated he usually gets too butthurt and tells you that he isn't going to spend anymore time discussing things and that you should go read a book on the subject. Then he feels the need to scout out all your posts and give an opinion on them. It's like a really irritating ex girlfriend that won't leave you alone because she didn't get enough closure.
Wow, all of this attention and concern for someone you put on ignore. I'm flattered, as usual.
 

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,414
612
1,650
Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty. Right out of the playbook.
It’s not a playbook, it’s what I see happening here. But you’re right, Trump does this all the time. It’s a way to just throw out flak and muddy the waters. But I struggle to understand how Republicans are admitting there was a quid pro quo, admin officials were the ones raising alarms, Bolton resigns calling it a drug deal, and people here are still pretending it’s a hoax or there’s no evidence. It’s retarded
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,144
31,475
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
  • Like
Reactions: DeepEnigma

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,322
8,707
880
I still haven't gotten a reply about this from our resident quid pro quo experts (formerly Mueller / Russiagate experts):

Dems did exactly what they accused Trump of. And lets remember this was during the election not 1.5 years before hand and before Trump was the nominee.

The response they will say is that it was important to investigate Trump to make sure he wasn't a Russian puppet. But investigating Burisma/Biden/Ukraine interference doesn't matter because Dem Man Good and Orange Man Bad.

posted on the other page


A consulting firm representing Burisma Holdings used the Biden name to leverage a meeting between the gas company and State Department officials, according to documents released this week.

The firm, Washington-based Blue Star Strategies, mentioned the name of Hunter Biden, who then sat on Burisma’s board, in a request for the Ukrainian natural gas company executives to meet with State Department officials, according to internal State Department email exchanges obtained by journalist John Solomon and later reported by the Wall Street Journal.

Blue Star representatives also mentioned Biden’s name during the resulting meeting, which they claim was scheduled as part of an effort to rehabilitate Burisma’s reputation in Washington following a corruption investigation.



The email exchanges between State Department staffers show that Karen Tramontano, chief executive of Blue Star, cited Mr. Biden’s position in trying to secure a meeting with a senior official at the State Department.

She noted that two high profile U.S. citizens are affiliated with the company (including Hunter Biden as a board member),” the special assistant at the Office of the Undersecretary for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment wrote in the Feb. 24, 2016, email.

Ms. Tramontano met with the undersecretary, Catherine Novelli, on March 1, 2016, the documents show. During the meeting, Ms. Tramontano mentioned Mr. Biden served on the company’s board, according to a former State Department official familiar with the discussion.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,144
31,475
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Dems did exactly what they accused Trump of. And lets remember this was during the election not 1.5 years before hand and before Trump was the nominee.

The response they will say is that it was important to investigate Trump to make sure he wasn't a Russian puppet. But investigating Burisma/Biden/Ukraine interference doesn't matter because Dem Man Good and Orange Man Bad.

posted on the other page


A consulting firm representing Burisma Holdings used the Biden name to leverage a meeting between the gas company and State Department officials, according to documents released this week.

The firm, Washington-based Blue Star Strategies, mentioned the name of Hunter Biden, who then sat on Burisma’s board, in a request for the Ukrainian natural gas company executives to meet with State Department officials, according to internal State Department email exchanges obtained by journalist John Solomon and later reported by the Wall Street Journal.

Blue Star representatives also mentioned Biden’s name during the resulting meeting, which they claim was scheduled as part of an effort to rehabilitate Burisma’s reputation in Washington following a corruption investigation.



The email exchanges between State Department staffers show that Karen Tramontano, chief executive of Blue Star, cited Mr. Biden’s position in trying to secure a meeting with a senior official at the State Department.

She noted that two high profile U.S. citizens are affiliated with the company (including Hunter Biden as a board member),” the special assistant at the Office of the Undersecretary for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment wrote in the Feb. 24, 2016, email.

Ms. Tramontano met with the undersecretary, Catherine Novelli, on March 1, 2016, the documents show. During the meeting, Ms. Tramontano mentioned Mr. Biden served on the company’s board, according to a former State Department official familiar with the discussion.
Very well said and thank you for putting together some of those pieces.

Democrats have now been caught soliciting dirt on Trump from at least two sources: Crowdstrike and Ukraine. Arguably, they leaned on a third source of "dirt" as an insurance policy against Trump: friends within the FBI.

Joe Biden is on camera admitting he strong-armed Ukraine to stop investigating his son or else aid would be withheld.

Trump mentions this to Ukraine and Democrats fly into a furor, insisting that Trump is abusing his presidential power and engaging in "quid pro quo" for an investigation that is already in progress.

What's especially telling is how passionately and how aggressively the Trump quid pro quo narrative is being pushed, while the same people have been ignoring the other stories for months/years without any curiosity. Remember, this is all based on a now-debunked whistleblower report from a third-hand source. Democrats jumped into impeachment before the report was even released.

Methinks they doth protest too much. It seems pretty obvious that Dems and friends within the media have locked themselves into a narrative and cannot steer away from it. When these public hearings come out, I am going to laugh when Democrats pivot (yet again...) to "but but they didn't say Trump didn't commit quid pro quo" when no factual evidence is produced, just like they said with the Mueller probe ("but but he didn't exonerate Trump!")

The only way to take these claims at face value would be to ignore the Democrats' behavior for the last 3 years and to ignore their embarrassing failure with Russiagate. Those who willfully choose to ignore the Democrat's history and then go further to browbeat and insult those who don't also put on horse-blinders are not arguing in good faith, nor are they arguing based on the facts.

But hey, it's easier to take the shortcut of mocking all opposing viewpoints as "Trumpists" and "sheep".



His source is reading a NYT article on the subject. One that anyone could have read.
Oh goodness, can someone ping Hotspurr Hotspurr to see if they're okay? They have me on Ignore and I can't reach out to them.

I can't wait for us to pivot away from "But Ambassador Taylor said..." to "but some Republicans said..." after "But the whistleblower said..." also failed.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,322
8,707
880
Here’s the summary timeline of Biden-Burisma by Solomons’ reckoning:

• Burima Holdings hired Biden and Archer in spring 2014, just about the time Britain began looking into Burisma for activities dating back to 2010. Money began pouring into an outfit called Rosemont Seneca Bohai in May 2014. “Hunter Biden received payments from it.”

In the summer of 2015, Hunter Biden contacted a top State Department official.

• “In September 2015, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt gave a speech imploring Ukrainian prosecutors to do more to bring Zlochevsky to justice.”

By early 2016, Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin “authorized a court-ordered seizure of Zlochevsky’s home and other valuables, including a luxury car. That seizure occurred on Feb. 2, 2016.”

Also in February 2016, Burisma reps contacted the State Department to end Shokin’s probe.

In early March, Hunter Biden’s pal Devon Archer met with Kerry.

• “Within a few weeks of Tramontano’s overture to Novelli and of Archer’s overture to Kerry, Vice President Joe Biden took a stunning action, one that has enveloped his 2020 campaign for president in controversy.”

That action is now well known. Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees if then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko didn’t fire Shokin, a move that Biden bragged about publicly.

Shokin told Solomon and ABC News, and swore in a deposition, that he was fired because he would not stop the Burisma probe. “In fact, Shokin alleges, he was making plans to interview Hunter Biden about his Burisma work and payments when he got the axe.”


 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,322
8,707
880

Ciaramella’s name comes up in six Obama-era government emails that were released by the State Department as part of two previous Freedom of Information Act requests. At the time of the exchanges, Ciaramella served as the Director for Baltic and Eastern European Affairs for the Obama-era National Security Council, where he worked on Ukraine policy. He is now an analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency.

One email, titled, “Loan Guarantee,” involved Nuland, who was reportedly a key champion of the Ukraine loan guarantee policy.

“Hurray,” a celebratory Nuland wrote in response to a translated Ukrainian government announcement about the signing of the $1 billion loan guarantee. The announcement singles out Joe Biden as being present for the conclusion of an agreement leading to the loan guarantee.

Ciaramella was one of several people CC’d in the email, which was sent from the U.S. ambassador at the time, Geoffrey Pyatt, who was another key champion of the loan guarantee to Ukraine along with Nuland.

The email is one of several that shows Ciaramella in the loop with top officials such as Nuland working on Ukraine policy under the Obama administration.

The loan guarantee was pushed through after Ukraine agreed to several reforms, especially the firing of the nation’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. This at a time that Shokin was reportedly investigating Burisma, the Ukranian natural gas company paying Hunter Biden. Joe Biden infamously boasted on video about personally threatening to withhold loan guarantees from Ukraine unless Shokin was removed.

Another released email shows Ciaramella himself sending a message to Nuland and others. Most of the contents are blocked out, including the email’s subject line. One non-classified section of that email shows a reply stating, “Embassy Kyiv — coordinated with our USAID mission folks — will have detailed input tomorrow.”


The State Department was pissed that Trump was going to overturn all their policies in the Ukraine thats the bottom line. Obama and the Dems set themselves up in the Ukraine and didn't lie that Trump was thinking about over turning the apple cart. This whole Biden BS is just that BS. Notice how they completely ignore the investigating what happened in 2016 and Ukraines role and focus just on the Biden stuff.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,719
4,706
765
Tell me exactly how the lawyer's tweets change anything?

Do they discredit the call transcript, the multiple bipartisan government official accounts, clear evidence that Rudy met with Ukrainian officials to specifically ask for dirt as being directed by Trump, that on multiple counts it has been shown that based on interactions with Trump and circumstances in government, everyone understood the aid was dependent on specifically a Biden investigation.

How does the lawyer and whistleblower identity have any bearing on that? The whistleblower could be a Russian hacker at this point and it wouldn't matter, the information has been exposed.
The phone call transcript says what it says, and is not impeachable.

The motives of the people arguing for an interpretation of possible evidence, and the motives for deciding what information to release (Shifty too) in a political process, are highly relevant. That you support hiding any information from the public related to what Trump wanted looked at, why people did what they did in starting this crusade, etc., is pretty shocking to be honest.

Imagine if you were accused of something by people that hate you, who were demanding that you be punished. They offer little sound bytes or cherry picked facts that could suggest what they say is true. And then you are prohibited from showing why they might lie, omit things, or spin things to make you look bad. You'd be pissed, rightfully so, because you would no justice was being denied.

Snark back all you want. I'm done debating with someone who argues to accept that we should accept a narrative and don't deserve to know the full story before making a decision. If you man up and just admit you support impeachment even if he's innocent then we can engage again. I've already made it clear I am not only at peace with him asking to investigate Biden's kid, but outright support it. Why millions come back to the guy's kid, who delivers a billion to the payor, is the most relevant part of this story when voting in 2020 if Biden is on the ticket. Sure smells like corruption, and for some reason media and Dems just claim its already been investigated and cleared without any detail given about when, where, how, and by whom.
 

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
3,025
2,403
1,055
Pelosi got backed into a corner on impeachment and procedure; it is going to blow up in Schiffs face.

Get the popcorn, ready.
 

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
5,454
6,174
1,560


His source is reading a NYT article on the subject. One that anyone could have read.
It is basically circlejerk journalism at this point. . .

Like Gamergate, actually. "News" quotes someone saying something they read from the "news" and pretend it means something. Articles quoted someone reading from Kotaku about how horrible those mean mean misogynists were to Zoe Quinn. Articles quote someone reading from the NYT how how Drumpf is a dictator by investigating Democrat ties to Ukrainian corruption. That is how absurd the whole situation has got - the NYT and WaPo are acting like Kotaku and The Mary Sue.

At some point, we need to conclude that the news media is not inherently reliable enough for their reports to be considered evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nymphae

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,144
31,475
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
How do these people function? They have testimony that point-blank refutes quid pro quo and they just sling "evidence" around without ever actually saying what the evidence is.
Their constituents not only put up with it, they cheer!

Remember this professional liar's claim that he had direct evidence of Russian collusion?



Well surprise surprise, he's behind this investigation too! Wow, what a trustworthy soul. It must be those stupid Trumpist in flyover country who are just denying reality.

Walls are closing in!
 

Kittehkraken

Member
Jan 14, 2017
938
1,677
400
Incoming narrative change?

I was scrolling through CNN's live updates and found this:
Senior State Department official George Kent said he believes there was a quid pro quo, with President Trump's appointees using a White House invitation to press the Ukrainian president to investigate Trump’s political rivals.

But Kent testified that he didn’t think US military assistance for Ukraine was associated with the quid pro quo.

Kent hedged that this is just his “personal opinion” of the matter. But it is an informed opinion – as a senior official, Kent was privy to many internal details about the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine.

No need to click on the CNN link, i included everything in the source.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: infinitys_7th

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,322
8,707
880
Incoming narrative change?

I was scrolling through CNN's live updates and found this:
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-inquiry-11-07-2019/h_355edf021018bd76508bbd8cd2209672

No need to click on the CNN link, i included everything in the source.
If thats true its really childish. Now the quid pro quo is that Trump won't meet with Zelensky, whats next quid pro quo or he won't give Zelensky McDonalds when he visits the WH LOL. Quid pro Quo or Zelensky doesn't get a MAGA hat LOL.

And interesting that CNN has added the plural now to political rivalS, implying there is more than one person Trump wanted investigated. No Trump wanted Joe's own words investigated that he told them to fire Shokin or they don't get the money. Is CNN implying that Trump wanted Zelensky to investigate Sanders and Warren as well? Is some deep state agent going to come out of the word work now and say that Trump asked Zelensky about Kamala Harris or Yang?
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,144
31,475
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
And interesting that CNN has added the plural now to political rivalS, implying there is more than one person Trump wanted investigated
Rivals, plural?

My guess is they're preemptively framing the situation for when other Democrats (who were also caught up in various Ukraine dealings) get implicated for past behavior...