Politics: The Trump Impeachment Thread

[92tide]

pretty soon the gop will be stroking their chins with concern about the spectacle democrats are causing by holding these hearings in public

 

[CharminTide]

You are telling me that no members of the party of "law and order" that were only complaining about the Democrat's impeachment hearings because they were being done in SECRET, didn't vote to place some official rules around said hearings?

I'm shocked I tell you.

Yes, I am aghast.

The law and order types have now pivoted to complaining about how corrupt the Dems are for following whistleblower protections.

 

[chanson78]

Yes, I am aghast.

The law and order types have now pivoted to complaining about how corrupt the Dems are for following whistleblower protections.

Well we should figure out who wrote the whistleblower protections. Because if it was republicans, then it would be 2 for 2 that the law and order types were protesting something their own party put in place.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

On the contrary, I believe it is like the MacArthur case. Policy and strategy are nested, one inside the other. MacArthur publicly questioned Truman's decision not tallow aircraft to bomb tagets within Red China (that is a theater strategy question). Truman worried that this would bring the Soviets into the war, and that that war would be a catastrophe for the United States, even if the U.S. "won." That is a national policy or grand strategy question. Theater strategy is subordinate to national policy or grand strategy, otherwise they work at cross-purposes. When the president made his decision on policy or grand strategy matter, and MacArthur contradicted him publicly, Truman had to relieve MacArthur.

When additional information comes to light that unequivocally indicated an explicit quid pro quo ("give me dirt on Biden and in exchange for that, I will release U.S. tax-payer funded military aid to your "), I will re-evaluate my position.

Sure, if that is indeed what happened.
From what I have read (the transcript of the conversation) and from Vindman's statement, the conversation with Zelenskyy did not rise to the level of constitutional or legal transgression. He just believed that U.S. national security would be advance more effectively by immediately releasing the U.S. military aid money, rather than waiting for developments on the corruption fights by the Ukrainian government. In this Vindman differed from the president. When a subordinate disagrees with his superiors, that has to be voiced behind closed doors.

I'm not sure what additional information should be required beyond "But first, you need to do us a favor." There will be more, but to say that's not enough is disingenuous...

 

[Ratal]

2 democrats voted against, one abstained

A. Donald McEachin - Va. 4 - NV
Collin C. Peterson Minn. 7 - No
Jeff Van Drew N.J. 2 - No

McEachin has been dealing with health issues and was apparently not in DC. He has already tweeted that he fully supports the resolution. The other 2 had fairly close elections last cycle.

 

[92tide]

I'm not sure what additional information should be required beyond "But first, you need to do us a favor." There will be more, but to say that's not enough is disingenuous...

i imagine when that additional information comes to light, the goalposts will move once again.

 

[bobstod]

On the contrary, I believe it is like the MacArthur case. Policy and strategy are nested, one inside the other. MacArthur publicly questioned Truman's decision not tallow aircraft to bomb tagets within Red China (that is a theater strategy question). Truman worried that this would bring the Soviets into the war, and that that war would be a catastrophe for the United States, even if the U.S. "won." That is a national policy or grand strategy question. Theater strategy is subordinate to national policy or grand strategy, otherwise they work at cross-purposes. When the president made his decision on policy or grand strategy matter, and MacArthur contradicted him publicly, Truman had to relieve MacArthur.

When additional information comes to light that unequivocally indicated an explicit quid pro quo ("give me dirt on Biden and in exchange for that, I will release U.S. tax-payer funded military aid to your "), I will re-evaluate my position.

Sure, if that is indeed what happened.
From what I have read (the transcript of the conversation) and from Vindman's statement, the conversation with Zelenskyy did not rise to the level of constitutional or legal transgression. He just believed that U.S. national security would be advance more effectively by immediately releasing the U.S. military aid money, rather than waiting for developments on the corruption fights by the Ukrainian government. In this Vindman differed from the president. When a subordinate disagrees with his superiors, that has to be voiced behind closed doors.

Testimony has since come forward that leads me to believe (but without public testimony I reserve final judgement) that the president, through his chief of staff, ordered the stoppage of military aid contingent upon President Zelensky agreeing to issue a public statement that Ukraine would investigate Burisma and the Bidens, as well as the conspiracy theory about the 2016 election. (1) If that testimony is corroborated to your satisfaction, will you then agree that such an effort rises to the level of an impeachable offense? (2) If evidence presented in the trial phase establishes that this is factual, would you then agree with a Senate vote to convict? (3) And aside from the entire impeachment debate, do you think it proper US foreign policy that a sitting president should ask a foreign government to provide information that will be helpful to him in an upcoming US election?

 

[Chukker Veteran]

I'm not sure what additional information should be required beyond "But first, you need to do us a favor." There will be more, but to say that's not enough is disingenuous...

His chief of staff confirmed there was a quid pro quo when questioned about it at a press conference, as we all know. "Get over it" was his best advice.

 

[92tide]

His chief of staff confirmed there was a quid pro quo when questioned about it at a press conference, as we all know. "Get over it" was his best advice.

that's not what he meant. that's just libtards hearing what they want to hear.

 

[Tidewater]

Testimony has since come forward that leads me to believe (but without public testimony I reserve final judgement) that the president, through his chief of staff, ordered the stoppage of military aid contingent upon President Zelensky agreeing to issue a public statement that Ukraine would investigate Burisma and the Bidens, as well as the conspiracy theory about the 2016 election. (1) If that testimony is corroborated to your satisfaction, will you then agree that such an effort rises to the level of an impeachable offense? (2) If evidence presented in the trial phase establishes that this is factual, would you then agree with a Senate vote to convict? (3) And aside from the entire impeachment debate, do you think it proper US foreign policy that a sitting president should ask a foreign government to provide information that will be helpful to him in an upcoming US election?

1. Sure. If I was member of the House, I would probably vote to impeach. And, for the record, I believe an "impeachable offense" is whatever the House of Representatives says it is. They could impeach a president for wearing ugly neckties, but then they'll have to answer to the voters within two years. If a representative voted to impeach for frivolous reasons, the voters might not return that representative to office.
2. If I was in the Senate (given what we now know), I would probably not vote remove. Not yet, anyway.
3. No, but I think that kind of thing is improper regardless of the party.
Politico: Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

 

[Tidewater]

The quid pro quo has been established, it's not in dispute.

Has it?

 

[Tidewater]

I'm not sure what additional information should be required beyond "But first, you need to do us a favor." There will be more, but to say that's not enough is disingenuous...

I'm not trying to be obstreperous. I think the bolded part implies that the extorter is going to give some benefit (the "quid") if the extorted does something (the "quo") in exchange, (or will inflict some evil if the extorted does not provide the "quo").
The Ukrainian government was unaware that the military aid money was being been withheld.
It is difficult to establish a quid pro quo when the extorted actor is unaware that the extorter is withholding the quid.
Of course, it could also be that one or both administrations (Trump's and Zelenskyy's) are so inept at corruption that they are unable consummate the corrupt bargain.

 

[92tide]

I'm not trying to be obstreperous. I think the bolded part implies that the extorter is going to give some benefit (the "quid") if the extorted does something (the "quo") in exchange, (or will inflict some evil if the extorted does not provide the "quo").
The Ukrainian government was unaware that the military aid money was being been withheld.
It is difficult to establish a quid pro quo when the extorted actor is unaware that the extorter is withholding the quid.
Of course, it could also be that one or both administrations (Trump's and Zelenskyy's) are so inept at corruption that they are unable consummate the corrupt bargain.

that was the spin the wsj was pushing a few days ago

 

[Tidewater]

that was the spin the wsj was pushing a few days ago

Honestly, it could be true.

 

[92tide]

Honestly, it could be true.

i think it is probably true. trump's razor

When seeking an explanation for the behavior of [President] Donald J. Trump, always choose the stupidest possible explanation.

but being too stupid to actually pull off the criminal act(s) doesn't absolve him.

 

[CharminTide]

I'm not trying to be obstreperous. I think the bolded part implies that the extorter is going to give some benefit (the "quid") if the extorted does something (the "quo") in exchange, (or will inflict some evil if the extorted does not provide the "quo").
The Ukrainian government was unaware that the military aid money was being been withheld.
It is difficult to establish a quid pro quo when the extorted actor is unaware that the extorter is withholding the quid.
Of course, it could also be that one or both administrations (Trump's and Zelenskyy's) are so inept at corruption that they are unable consummate the corrupt bargain.

This appears to be incorrect.

It's true that Trump decided to withhold aid in late July. It's not clear whether that was ever communicated to Ukraine before the news went public in late August (LINK). At that point -- August 28/29th -- we know that Ukraine is aware, as that article is referenced by official text messages contained in the whistleblower report.

Bill Taylor testified that Sondland met with Ukrainian officials and informed them that no military aid would arrive until Ukraine promised to pursue the Biden "corruption" investigation (LINK). I am not 100% certain when this meeting took place, but it occurred on or prior to September 1st, which is when Taylor spoke to Morrison.

During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at [a meeting in] Warsaw. Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation.

We also know that Pence met with the president of Ukraine on September 1st (or 2nd) and suggested, albeit with more coy, that military aid was conditioned on Ukraine pursuing the "corruption" investigation that Trump desired (LINK).

We, as I said yesterday, especially since Russian aggression — the illegal occupation of Crimea and Russian aggression in Eastern Ukraine — the United States has stood strong with Ukraine and we will continue to stand strong with Ukraine for its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

But as President Trump had me make clear, we have great concerns about issues of corruption. And, fortunately, President Zelensky was elected decisively on an anti-corruption message. And he and I discussed yesterday that as he’s assembled his cabinet, and as his parliament has convened, that even in the early days, he informed me that there have been more than 250 bills filed for — that address the issue of public corruption and really restoring integrity to the public process.

I mean, to invest additional taxpayer in Ukraine, the President wants to be assured that those resources are truly making their way to the kind of investments that will contribute to security and stability in Ukraine. And that’s an expectation the American people have and the President has expressed very clearly.

Thus, we do know that Ukraine was notified of the suspension of military aid (although we're not yet sure whether this happened before news broke publicly), and it seems that the connection between military aid and Ukraine pursuing a political favor was communicated by multiple actors, including the Vice President. Since the Trump administration continued to pursue this transaction even after the Politico story became public, there very clearly was a quid pro quo in play and I do not think your bedrock statement above is accurate.

 

[92tide]

This appears to be incorrect.

It's true that Trump decided to withhold aid in late July. It's not clear whether that was ever communicated to Ukraine before the news went public in late August (LINK). At that point -- August 28/29th -- we know that Ukraine is aware, as that article is referenced by official text messages contained in the whistleblower report.

Bill Taylor testified that Sondland met with Ukrainian officials and informed them that no military aid would arrive until Ukraine promised to pursue the Biden "corruption" investigation (LINK). I am not 100% certain when this meeting took place, but it occurred on or prior to September 1st, which is when Taylor spoke to Morrison.



We also know that Pence met with the president of Ukraine on September 1st (or 2nd) and suggested, albeit with more coy, that military aid was conditioned on Ukraine pursuing the "corruption" investigation that Trump desired (LINK).



Thus, we do know that Ukraine was notified of the suspension of military aid (although we're not yet sure whether this happened before news broke publicly), and it seems that the connection between military aid and Ukraine pursuing a political favor was communicated by multiple actors, including the Vice President. Since the Trump administration continued to pursue this transaction even after the Politico story became public, there very clearly was a quid pro quo in play and I do not think your bedrock statement above is accurate.

there was also this

The Mystery of Rudy Giuliani’s Vienna Trip...
President Trump’s personal lawyer told me he was planning to fly to Vienna roughly 24 hours after his business associates were arrested as they prepared to do the same.

 

[92tide]

it will be interesting to see if there is a tipping point. but this doesn't bode well for the gop if this is a trend

https://twitter.com/abc/status/1190241124885114880

https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/1190241124885114880?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

[Tidewater]

This appears to be incorrect.

It's true that Trump decided to withhold aid in late July. It's not clear whether that was ever communicated to Ukraine before the news went public in late August (LINK). At that point -- August 28/29th -- we know that Ukraine is aware, as that article is referenced by official text messages contained in the whistleblower report.

I meant at the time of the "quid pro quo" telephone call. When was that call made? 25 July, was it not?

 

[CharminTide]

I meant at the time of the "quid pro quo" telephone call. When was that call made? 25 July, was it not?

Not sure whether Ukraine was aware at that time, correct. They were certainly aware when the vice president spoke to the president of Ukraine in person, which is an aspect of this story that isn't gaining much traction right now.

Should Trump decide that his best play is to throw Mike Pence under the bus, I've been holding onto a 50-year port for such an occasion of delicious schadenfreude.