• 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)

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,322
8,707
880
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...
to press the Ukrainian president to investigate Trump’s political rivals

Biden is Trumps political rival, RIVALS implies at least to me more than one.

Probably just shitty job by the editor, but a nice subconscious dig by CNN where readers will now think its RIVALS as in multiple people, not just Biden alone.

Maybe CNN knows Hillary's going to run so they are getting ahead of it LOL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
1,262
1,497
430
to press the Ukrainian president to investigate Trump’s political rivals

Biden is Trumps political rival, RIVALS implies at least to me more than one.

Probably just shitty job by the editor, but a nice subconscious dig by CNN where readers will now think its RIVALS as in multiple people, not just Biden alone.

Maybe CNN knows Hillary's going to run so they are getting ahead of it LOL.
Maybe shifting the narrative to rival(s) now that Biden's campaign is financially imploding.
 

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
5,454
6,174
1,560
I am expecting the narrative to change now to focus purely on the 2016 election investigation with the new quid pro quo accusation of a WH visit. There was only so long that Democrats could keep Biden's corruption in the spotlight before it backfired, after all.

"Rivals" is going to be expanded to mean any Democrat, especially ones involved with Ukraine. They all are Speed o' Sound Sonics to Trump's Saitama, after all.
 

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
714
861
380
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.
The call is not impeachable, it's just evidence.

I don't support hiding any information from the public. Republicans were allowed to attend the hearings. They just started releasing the transcripts. Are they not being transparent enough?

So far all I see is multiple stories corroborating Trump trying to orchestrate what looks like an abuse of power for personal gain. They have a relatively strong case that suggests Ukraine aid was tied to his personal interest in collecting incriminating information on the Bidens (because people here get triggered by "dirt", so I made it a little more bearable).

Why are you making stuff up about me now? I know you guys don't like me repeating the facts over and over. I'm really not giving my opinion here. I really don't care about impeachment, because he would almost certainly run again. His supporters would expect him too. I am just curious to find out if he did something wrong and the democrats are justified in seeking to punish him - which to me, with a high probability, they are, whether they will be successful is another question. There are a few resources detailing that further investigations into Biden/Burisma have been carried out after the new prosecutor was put in place, it's up to you whether you accept those or not. As for do I think that Hunter Biden got to receive a lot of money due to his father - sure. Just like the Trump kids are amassing millions of dollars due to Trump being president. If Hunter Biden and Joe did something corrupt or unethical, they should be investigated, but to me it's pretty clear Trump didn't care about corruption, he cared about getting as much incriminating evidence so that he could sink Biden in the elections. This is based on the timing, his mentioning of Bidens on call, asking for investigation even though Burisma was already being investigated, using unconventional channels by sending his lawyer covertly, etc.. Anyone who knows that Trump is a complete bullshitter (confirmed by many of your colleagues), this falls well in line with what he would do. I expect they will find whatever proof they need in the coming weeks to make this story relatively air tight, given how everything has been falling into place lately.

As for the quid pro quo - I don't know why so much emphasis is being put on Taylor - he's not the big scoop on this. The big one is Sondland, who had first party knowledge, admits that aid was contingent on an investigation. Rudy on live television, confirmed he was out collecting dirt (sorry) on Bidens. Trump explicitly told Zelensky that is what he wanted Rudy to do. Morrison, Taylor and Sondland all have basically the same story. Is it REALLY that hard to connect the dots or is this just too complicated?
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,144
31,475
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
As for the quid pro quo - I don't know why so much emphasis is being put on Taylor - he's not the big scoop on this. The big one is Sondland, who had first party knowledge, admits that aid was contingent on an investigation. Rudy on live television, confirmed he was out collecting dirt (sorry) on Bidens. Trump explicitly told Zelensky that is what he wanted Rudy to do. Morrison, Taylor and Sondland all have basically the same story. Is it REALLY that hard to connect the dots or is this just too complicated?
Yeah I mean who on earth would put so much emphasis on Taylor....? We should be listening to "the big one" Sondland, right?

Sondlands and Taylor's accounts are in direct conflict. It's a fact.

Then you try to figure out where interest lie, if Sondland donated $1 million to Trump it's relevant as it's not unheard of people lying for political means before.

The key is figuring out who is bullshitting and who is telling the truth. 55% of surveyed Americans seem to be on the right track.
Bill Taylor (former ambassador to Ukraine) has documented accounts of interactions with Sondland before the whistleblowing event. He also has a text to Sondland where he is alarmed that quid pro quo may be going on. Sondland denies quid pro quo in a reply and says that any further conversation would have to be in person. Bill Taylor's accounts, if true, clearly imply quid pro quo and are in direct opposition to Sondlands account. At the very least, one of the two is lying and there are likely to be further inquiries.
If you believe Bill Taylor and Morrison, then there definitely was quid pro quo -
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.
3) A first hand account of the call directly refutes parts of Sondland's deposition. Various other accounts are in direct support of that as well (eg. Bill Taylor). These are reputable impartial sources, compared to Trump and Sondland. Your only credible reference is the Ukrainian president, who else?
Sondland is actually in a position to know the dealings of the White House and has said there was no Quid Pro Quo. Vindman is a dude who thinks "feels" is an impeachable offense and tried to alter White House documents along with being coached by Schiff during his "disposition." Bill Taylor who has a connection to Burisma Holdings by way of the Atlantic Council literally met with Schiff's staff who also has ties to the Atlantic Council in Ukraine, and a couple days later was trying to get Sondland to admit impropriety. He was swiftly denied this, and thus his only contribution to this clown show was third hand hearsay.
In other news, William Taylor seems to have been appointed by Trump and does not have strong party affiliations either way having worked for either side (in case you know, people just want to paint him as a leftist shill): https://www.foxnews.com/media/why-ambassador-charging-quid-pro-quo-cant-be-dismissed
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,322
8,707
880
but to me it's pretty clear Trump didn't care about corruption, he cared about getting as much incriminating evidence so that he could sink Biden in the elections

I don't think thats clear at all and is just your opinon on the issue. For someone bringing facts you sure sprinkle a lot of mind reading in there.

If Hunter Biden and Joe did something corrupt or unethical, they should be investigated,


Then why do you have an issue with Trump asking the Ukraine to investigate it? I think you have said this multiple times, but then you keep doubling back down on well Trump just did it because he is a liar, narcissist and wanted dirt on Biden.

So you want the Bidens investigated, but Trump can't ask for that investigation? Whats the difference?
 

Kittehkraken

Member
Jan 14, 2017
938
1,677
400
The call is not impeachable, it's just evidence.

I don't support hiding any information from the public. Republicans were allowed to attend the hearings. They just started releasing the transcripts. Are they not being transparent enough?

So far all I see is multiple stories corroborating Trump trying to orchestrate what looks like an abuse of power for personal gain. They have a relatively strong case that suggests Ukraine aid was tied to his personal interest in collecting incriminating information on the Bidens (because people here get triggered by "dirt", so I made it a little more bearable).

Why are you making stuff up about me now? I know you guys don't like me repeating the facts over and over. I'm really not giving my opinion here. I really don't care about impeachment, because he would almost certainly run again. His supporters would expect him too. I am just curious to find out if he did something wrong and the democrats are justified in seeking to punish him - which to me, with a high probability, they are, whether they will be successful is another question. There are a few resources detailing that further investigations into Biden/Burisma have been carried out after the new prosecutor was put in place, it's up to you whether you accept those or not. As for do I think that Hunter Biden got to receive a lot of money due to his father - sure. Just like the Trump kids are amassing millions of dollars due to Trump being president. If Hunter Biden and Joe did something corrupt or unethical, they should be investigated, but to me it's pretty clear Trump didn't care about corruption, he cared about getting as much incriminating evidence so that he could sink Biden in the elections. This is based on the timing, his mentioning of Bidens on call, asking for investigation even though Burisma was already being investigated, using unconventional channels by sending his lawyer covertly, etc.. Anyone who knows that Trump is a complete bullshitter (confirmed by many of your colleagues), this falls well in line with what he would do. I expect they will find whatever proof they need in the coming weeks to make this story relatively air tight, given how everything has been falling into place lately.

As for the quid pro quo - I don't know why so much emphasis is being put on Taylor - he's not the big scoop on this. The big one is Sondland, who had first party knowledge, admits that aid was contingent on an investigation. Rudy on live television, confirmed he was out collecting dirt (sorry) on Bidens. Trump explicitly told Zelensky that is what he wanted Rudy to do. Morrison, Taylor and Sondland all have basically the same story. Is it REALLY that hard to connect the dots or is this just too complicated?
I would love to know more about Sondland's phone call, thankfully he just remembered he actually had it so perhaps we'll learn more.
 

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
714
861
380
but to me it's pretty clear Trump didn't care about corruption, he cared about getting as much incriminating evidence so that he could sink Biden in the elections

I don't think thats clear at all and is just your opinon on the issue. For someone bringing facts you sure sprinkle a lot of mind reading in there.

If Hunter Biden and Joe did something corrupt or unethical, they should be investigated,

Then why do you have an issue with Trump asking the Ukraine to investigate it? I think you have said this multiple times, but then you keep doubling back down on well Trump just did it because he is a liar, narcissist and wanted dirt on Biden.

So you want the Bidens investigated, but Trump can't ask for that investigation? Whats the difference?
It's my opinion, but it's also an opinion that is based on a few facts, namely:
- Burisma was already being investigated by Ukraine, Trump needed to stress that he specifically needed the Bidens investigated
- The matter had been public information, and it had already been resolved once with no issues surrounding the Bidens. Biden faced scrutiny since 2015 on this issue.
- Biden confirmed he pressured Ukraine to remove the (who he claims, corroborated by other European nations) corrupt prosecutor in 2018, giving Trump over a year to launch an investigation
- Trump conveniently began a covert operation using Rudy (who had no business being part of this) at a time when polls started showing he was being beaten by Biden. Trump moaned about it repeatedly on Twitter about how he was being treated unfairly by Fox News.

I believe there is an issue if Trump uses his position of power to pressure a foreign nation to investigate a political rival for personal gain. This is what they are trying to show. Many people believe, based on a lot of evidence that is lining up in a very consistent story, that Trump was not pursuing corruption, but he was pursuing his own personal goals of digging up damaging information about Biden and his son, and using foreign aid to a struggling nation as leverage.



I would love to know more about Sondland's phone call, thankfully he just remembered he actually had it so perhaps we'll learn more.
Remember this:
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.
You certainly got revitalized with energy quickly, despite being proven on multiple occasions to be ignorant forcing you to give up.
Not a good time to be smug my friend.

Edit: Also thanks for the LOLs. I'm glad my posts offer some comedic relief. When you've run out of the capacity to think, laughing is a good way to pass the time.
 
Last edited:

Kittehkraken

Member
Jan 14, 2017
938
1,677
400
Remember this:

You certainly got revitalized with energy quickly, despite being proven on multiple occasions to be ignorant forcing you to give up.
Not a good time to be smug my friend.

Edit: Also thanks for the LOLs. I'm glad my posts offer some comedic relief. When you've run out of the capacity to think, laughing is a good way to pass the time.
My original reply was up for a few hours, i took it down because I didn't feel like getting into a back and fourth with you. Sometimes you simply don't feel like getting into a debate with certain people.

I have no problem being proven wrong or being corrected. I admitted the mistake and edited the original post. Feel free anytime.

Personally, i welcome Sondland's sudden recovery from his brief case of amnesia. We'll hopefully hear something from Yermak as well.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,144
31,475
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com

Burisma invoked Biden's name when they approached the State dept asking for the investigations to be dropped back in 2016.

Seems like a blatant example of quid pro quo, yet the media would like to pretend Trump pointing a finger at this corruption is the real quid pro quo. Huh.
 

pramod

Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,305
2,413
655
I think in the end the main problem for the Democrats is that they still cannot pin down exactly what law did Trump break.

I mean, there is no law that specifically says "you cannot pressure a foreign government via withholding of aid to ask for assistance with investigating possible corruption of a possible political opponent."

Yeah, I know there is a campaign finance law but it doesn't really apply here. Ukraine wasn't giving Trump money.


I mean they can push the narrative that what Trump did was a sleazy abuse of power...But it's still not like Clinton where he clearly committed a perjury which was a criminal violation.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,322
8,707
880
MR. RATCLIFFE: I just want to be real clear that, again, as of July 25th, you have no knowledge of a quid pro quo involving military aid.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: July 25th is a week after the hold was put on the security assistance. And July 25th, they had a conversation between the two Presidents, where it was not discussed.

MR. RATCLIFFE: And to your knowledge, nobody in the Ukrainian Government was aware of the hold?

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: That is correct.
Ukraine never knew about any aid being witheld according to Taylor on the July 25th call

The draft statement that President Zelensky had reportedly been asked to issue but never did reads as follows:

"Special attention should be paid to the problem of interference in the political processes of the United States, especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians. I want to declare that this is unacceptable. We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, including those involving Burisma and the 2016 elections, which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in the future." (p.202)
The statement Zelensky was asked to make. Noting out of the ordinary here, asking to look into corruption, no mention of Biden only Bursima. No Joe or Hunter.

Mr. Taylor acknowledged that President Zelensky did not give an interview to CNN or make some other public statement committing to conduct the investigations that President Trump wanted before the military aid was released to Ukraine. When he was asked to confirm that no announcement was ever made and the aid was still released, Mr. Taylor replied, “That' s correct.” (p. 185)
Aid was released even though no statement was ever made.

So no quid pro quo on the call, Ukraine never knew about the military aid being withheld on the call, and even though no statement was ever made the aid was released.

Mr. Taylor had no first hand knowledge to substantiate his sources’ negative interpretations and admitted in his testimony that “Ambassador Sondland told me many times that President Trump said it was not a quid pro quo.” (p. 152).
It was made clear that this was not a quid pro quo by Sondland straight from Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: autoduelist

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
7,210
5,123
1,435
Ukraine never knew about any aid being witheld according to Taylor on the July 25th call



The statement Zelensky was asked to make. Noting out of the ordinary here, asking to look into corruption, no mention of Biden only Bursima. No Joe or Hunter.



Aid was released even though no statement was ever made.

So no quid pro quo on the call, Ukraine never knew about the military aid being withheld on the call, and even though no statement was ever made the aid was released.



It was made clear that this was not a quid pro quo by Sondland straight from Trump.
The fact that this is something hardly anyone cares about (taxpayer money to Ukraine), they can’t really point to any clear evidence of guilt and Democrats look fishy too (Biden) makes me think this is going to be a really hard sell to the public. Pelosi overshot with this one, tried to fill in the blanks afterwards and fell on her face.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam

pramod

Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,305
2,413
655
Is it a quid pro quo if ultimately Trump has no control over the money? He could have delayed it for a few months at most before it would have to be released anyway and it was.
 

transformer

Member
Nov 5, 2013
565
231
425
Is it a quid pro quo if ultimately Trump has no control over the money? He could have delayed it for a few months at most before it would have to be released anyway and it was.
It was released and Ukraine didn’t have to fire a lawyer investigating a prominent politician’s son to get it. Or do anything else for that matter. So yeah, no quid pro quo because it literally didn’t happen. Just like Russian collusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pramod

pramod

Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,305
2,413
655
It was released and Ukraine didn’t have to fire a lawyer investigating a prominent politician’s son to get it. Or do anything else for that matter. So yeah, no quid pro quo because it literally didn’t happen. Just like Russian collusion.
Yeah that's why this whole thing doesn't really make sense. Congress already made the decision to help Ukraine. Trump really had no final say in this manner, and there was no way he could get away with delaying such a well publicized aid package indefinitely, and unless the Ukrainians were complete morons, they should have know this too.

In the end maybe the most obvious answer is the correct one...Trump had no idea what he was doing. Which wouldn't be all that surprising.
 
Last edited: