Impeachment Thread: Trump retaliating at anyone who wasn't willing to commit criminal obstruction

[DaShuckster]

The whistleblower obviously knew what was going on because his or her claim is accurate.

That's why this whole GOP 'we've gotta know the identity of the whistleblower' defense is so asinine.

It *might* be pertinent if the anonymous whistleblower had fabricated it all for partisan purposes and we need to have that person answer for it. But everything the whistleblower said WAS TRUE and incriminating testimony and documented evidence has come out since the report was filed.

 

[Crazyhole]

I was just watching CNN. Fareed Zakaria confirmed. They'd been working to schedule an interview since Zelensky's election. It had all come together and was scheduled per Taylor's testimony. Zakaria confirmed that Ukraine scuttled the meeting right after the whistleblower report broke and the aid had been released.

This isn't new and was part of Taylor's testimony weeks ago and confirmed in reporting. This was the first time I'd seen Zakaria himself confirm the details of the interview.

Well that does bring a certain level of doubt into the fray. If they were trying to secure an interview since he was elected, this wouldn't appear to be Zelensky following through on Trump's demand. If zelensky had approached them about an interview after the conversation then we have a totally different level of evidence.

 

[Crazyhole]

That's why this whole GOP 'we've gotta know the identity of the whistleblower' defense is so asinine.

It *might* be pertinent if the anonymous whistleblower had fabricated it all for partisan purposes and we need to have that person answer for it. But everything the whistleblower said WAS TRUE and incriminating testimony and documented evidence has come out since the report was filed.

Unless it is pertinent to a different crime, in which case Rand Paul is correct. You are leaning on confirmation bias (Trump bad) and using it to form a linear line of thinking. I heard that the name Alexandra Chalupa was brought up today. That is somewhat of a tell, indicating that the Republicans may actually have evidence of some wrongdoing by the whistleblower and the State Dept.

 

[fried-chicken]

Unless it is pertinent to a different crime, in which case Rand Paul is correct. You are leaning on confirmation bias (Trump bad) and using it to form a linear line of thinking. I heard that the name Alexandra Chalupa was brought up today. That is somewhat of a tell, indicating that the Republicans may actually have evidence of some wrongdoing by the whistleblower and the State Dept.

A Congressional impeachment hearing is not the place to investigate a "different crime." We have other methods for that.

 

[Crazyhole]

Just watched jim Jordan's interaction with Taylor and I have to say that he did poke a couple of pretty big holes in Taylor's value here.

It was Taylor's understanding that this was the agreement but never actually heard that from Zelensky after three meetings and it was 4th hand knowledge from people who spoke to people who spoke to sondland. That isn't convincing testimony.

Maybe sondland will have something a little bit more concrete.

 

[Crazyhole]

A Congressional impeachment hearing is not the place to investigate a "different crime." We have other methods for that.

If they are all connected and the point of the investigation is the pursuit of justice, I beg to differ. If adam schiff is in fact strong arming this, its akin to an inquisition as opposed to a trial. Regardless of whether the whistleblower is called to testify, the Republicans (who are obviously acting as the defense) should be able to call whatever witnesses they want. Mueller took 2 years for his investigation and yet partisan democrats were able to build a case in 6 weeks? That's an amazing level of either efficiency or bias.

 

[DaShuckster]

You are leaning on confirmation bias (Trump bad) and using it to form a linear line of thinking.

I am the one exhibiting bias here?!?!?!

Today, the Committee interviewed William Taylor, the Ukraine Ambassador that Trump appointed. This West Point graduate, Vietnam veteran, and longtime diplomat testified he had a 'clear understanding' that military aid was tied to Zelensky's willingness to publicly announce an investigation of the Bidens. A text message was shared that he made at the time saying it would be crazy to withhold Ukraine military aid for this.

I'm curious, Crazy. What part of this testimony am I exhibiting confirmation bias about?

 

[fried-chicken]

If they are all connected and the point of the investigation is the pursuit of justice, I beg to differ. If adam schiff is in fact strong arming this, its akin to an inquisition as opposed to a trial. Regardless of whether the whistleblower is called to testify, the Republicans (who are obviously acting as the defense) should be able to call whatever witnesses they want. Mueller took 2 years for his investigation and yet partisan democrats were able to build a case in 6 weeks? That's an amazing level of either efficiency or bias.

Or simplicity of the charges and the evidence.

 

[fried-chicken]

I am the one exhibiting bias here?!?!?!

Today, the Committee interviewed William Taylor, the Ukraine Ambassador that Trump appointed. This West Point graduate, Vietnam veteran, and longtime diplomat testified he had a 'clear understanding' that military aid was tied to Zelensky's willingness to publicly announce an investigation of the Bidens. A text message was shared that he made at the time saying it would be crazy to withhold Ukraine military aid for this.

I'm curious, Crazy. What part of this testimony am I exhibiting confirmation bias about?

The testimony is clear. Claims of bias aren't backed by anything other than wishful thinking. There is no bias in the many many witnesses all saying the same thing. The greatest piece of evidence is the call summary released by the white house. I suppose the summary has liberal bias too?

 

[fried-chicken]

Just watched jim Jordan's interaction with Taylor and I have to say that he did poke a couple of pretty big holes in Taylor's value here.

It was Taylor's understanding that this was the agreement but never actually heard that from Zelensky after three meetings and it was 4th hand knowledge from people who spoke to people who spoke to sondland. That isn't convincing testimony.

Maybe sondland will have something a little bit more concrete.

Just so you know, you can read sondlands transcript from closed door session.

 

[Crazyhole]

I am the one exhibiting bias here?!?!?!

Today, the Committee interviewed William Taylor, the Ukraine Ambassador that Trump appointed. This West Point graduate, Vietnam veteran, and longtime diplomat testified he had a 'clear understanding' that military aid was tied to Zelensky's willingness to publicly announce an investigation of the Bidens. A text message was shared that he made at the time saying it would be crazy to withhold Ukraine military aid for this.

I'm curious, Crazy. What part of this testimony am I exhibiting confirmation bias about?

He had a clear understanding based not on first hand knowledge, but 4th person accounting. You WANT to believe this whole thing is true so 4th hand accounting of an impression that someone got from overhearing a phone call is good enough for you. I'm going to need something a little more concrete before I'm willing to convict.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Just watched jim Jordan's interaction with Taylor and I have to say that he did poke a couple of pretty big holes in Taylor's value here.

It was Taylor's understanding that this was the agreement but never actually heard that from Zelensky after three meetings and it was 4th hand knowledge from people who spoke to people who spoke to sondland. That isn't convincing testimony.

Maybe sondland will have something a little bit more concrete.

The people with first hand knowledge will testify next week, the others aren't allowed to testify per Trump.

 

[Boosted87]

He had a clear understanding based not on first hand knowledge, but 4th person accounting. You WANT to believe this whole thing is true so 4th hand accounting of an impression that someone got from overhearing a phone call is good enough for you. I'm going to need something a little more concrete before I'm willing to convict.

I mean, if the only testimony against Trump was Taylor's second/third hand knowledge, with no corroborating testimony, then sure it's a weak case. But you have to put his testimony in context with other testimony and the timeline. Recall, it was Sondland who had to update his testimony after reading Taylor's - not vice versa.

But again, the fatal flaw in the argument Jordan and crew are making here is that the "first hand" problem can be remedied immediately by Trump allowing Mulvaney, Bolton, Perry, etc to testify. As of now, Sondland is the only first-hand link to Trump that is going to testify in Public. He's already had to amend his testimony once, and I wouldn't be surprised if he has to ammend it again with Taylor's updated testimony yesterday (aid that overhead Trump on the phone with Sondland).

 

[firm_bizzle]

I mean, if the only testimony against Trump was Taylor's second/third hand knowledge, with no corroborating testimony, then sure it's a weak case. But you have to put his testimony in context with other testimony and the timeline. Recall, it was Sondland who had to update his testimony after reading Taylor's - not vice versa.

But again, the fatal flaw in the argument Jordan and crew are making here is that the "first hand" problem can be remedied immediately by Trump allowing Mulvaney, Bolton, Perry, etc to testify. As of now, Sondland is the only first-hand link to Trump that is going to testify in Public. He's already had to amend his testimony once, and I wouldn't be surprised if he has to ammend it again with Taylor's updated testimony yesterday (aid that overhead Trump on the phone with Sondland).

Sondland left out the phone call with Trump.

 

[DaShuckster]

He had a clear understanding based not on first hand knowledge, but 4th person accounting. You WANT to believe this whole thing is true so 4th hand accounting of an impression that someone got from overhearing a phone call is good enough for you.

Then let's hear from someone with a 1st hand accounting and clear this thing up! Oh wait!

Most of the people directed by Trump to carry out this attempted extortion have been directed by Trump not to comply with their Congressional subpoenas (which is, itself, an abuse of power.)
​

Next week Gordon Sondland who spoke directly with Trump is set to testify. He's the Trump appointee who revised his earlier testimony (apparently his memory improved), acknowledging that American aid to Ukraine was linked to the Ukrainians making a public statement promising to investigate corruption in their country.

Tell us again who are the ones here who WANT TO BELIEVE something about Trump.

 

[Boosted87]

Well that does bring a certain level of doubt into the fray. If they were trying to secure an interview since he was elected, this wouldn't appear to be Zelensky following through on Trump's demand. If zelensky had approached them about an interview after the conversation then we have a totally different level of evidence.

Maybe I wasn't clear - Zelensky wasn't trying to secure an interview since he was elected - Zakaria was trying to secure the interview since the election. So the timing of both taking the interview and scuttling it are supportive of Taylor's retelling.

I don't think that is a smoking gun at all. I think it just corroborates that Taylor is dead on accurate on his testimony.

 

[Boosted87]

Sondland left out the phone call with Trump.

Taylor's testimony pegs that call on July 26th. That is the day after the call between Trump and Zelensky. If that boils down to Trump confirming that Zelensky got the message, and Sondland suddenly "remembers" these events thanks to testimony of others who overhead, it could be the most damaging single data point yet.

 

[Crazyhole]

Then let's hear from someone with a 1st hand accounting and clear this thing up! Oh wait!

Most of the people directed by Trump to carry out this attempted extortion have been directed by Trump not to comply with their Congressional subpoenas (which is, itself, an abuse of power.)
​

Next week Gordon Sondland who spoke directly with Trump is set to testify. He's the Trump appointee who revised his earlier testimony (apparently his memory improved), acknowledging that American aid to Ukraine was linked to the Ukrainians making a public statement promising to investigate corruption in their country.

Tell us again who are the ones here who WANT TO BELIEVE something about Trump.

We HAVE heard from a first hand witness- Zelensky.

 

[Crazyhole]

Taylor's testimony pegs that call on July 26th. That is the day after the call between Trump and Zelensky. If that boils down to Trump confirming that Zelensky got the message, and Sondland suddenly "remembers" these events thanks to testimony of others who overhead, it could be the most damaging single data point yet.

It's odd that Sondland at first didn't recall something of that magnitude. He was only a few weeks removed from it.

 

[Ace of Knights]

I truly believe we will hear Bolton testify eventually.

 

[Ace of Knights]

It's odd that Sondland at first didn't recall something of that magnitude. He was only a few weeks removed from it.

You’re right. It’s odd how the thought of perjury can jog someone’s memory.

 

[Crazyhole]

I truly believe we will hear Bolton testify eventually.

In the house?

 

[UCFWayne]

Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct, as we have learned in painful instances and it's certainly valid in this instance.

 

[Crazyhole]

You’re right. It’s odd how the thought of perjury can jog someone’s memory.

That would be a pretty tough case to make. If Trump, Zelensky, and Sondland all made the same point about the phone call it would be hard to say he perjured himself because 3rd parties gave a different account. Short of the release of the audio or unredacted memo on the call, it seems like the prosecution wouldn't have had much to work with.

 

[Crazyhole]

Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct, as we have learned in painful instances and it's certainly valid in this instance.

That was a bad moment for a lot of reasons.

 

[firm_bizzle]

I truly believe we will hear Bolton testify eventually.

Bolton wants to sell a book and can't piss off Republicans that will buy it.

 

[firm_bizzle]

We HAVE heard from a first hand witness- Zelensky.

He's dependent on Trump for military aid, he'll never say a bad word about Trump.

 

[Boosted87]

It's odd that Sondland at first didn't recall something of that magnitude. He was only a few weeks removed from it.

It's pretty obvious Sondland was trying to walk a fine line between not throwing Trump under the bus and playing CYA. His updated testimony is an effort to further CYA after his first testimony. It's incredibly weak and I suspect he's going to twisted into pretzels when he testifies publicly. If the Taylor aid forces him to update his testimony again, it's going to look really bad for him.

"However, although I have no specific recollection of phone calls during this period with Ambassador Taylor or Mr. Morrison, I have no reason to question the substance of their recollection about my September 1 conversation with Mr. Yermak."
​

 

[DaShuckster]

It's odd that Sondland at first didn't recall something of that magnitude. He was only a few weeks removed from it.

Once Sondland heard what his colleagues who testified after him had to say, he 'remembered' things he had forgotten before.

Fear of a felony conviction for lying to Congress has a way of jogging the ol' memory.

We HAVE heard from a first hand witness- Zelensky.

 

[Boosted87]

We HAVE heard from a first hand witness- Zelensky.

Zelensky is not a first-hand witness to the charge. The "phone call" is the only direct communication between the two of them. Zelensky himself would have mostly third hand information. He would have heard the specifics of the demand via his aids, who would have heard it via Sondland/Volker/Rudy.

If Zelenskey's aids completely shielded him from all the backchannelling, that would in no way impact what's Trump's intentions were.

Sondland is really the only person in communication with Trump that we've heard from. Absent we hear from Mulvaney/Rudy, we're forced with connecting the circumstantial dots.

 

[DaShuckster]

Zelensky is not a first-hand witness to the charge. The "phone call" is the only direct communication between the two of them. Zelensky himself would have mostly third hand information. He would have heard the specifics of the demand via his aids, who would have heard it via Sondland/Volker/Rudy.

Yep. The very notion that Ukraine was aware of the hold up and 'okay' with it is laughable. It was reported yesterday by Ambassador Taylor that Zelensky's people were literally freaking out that their military aid was being held up.

 

[UCFWayne]

Zelensky is not a first-hand witness to the charge. The "phone call" is the only direct communication between the two of them. Zelensky himself would have mostly third hand information. He would have heard the specifics of the demand via his aids, who would have heard it via Sondland/Volker/Rudy.

If Zelenskey's aids completely shielded him from all the backchannelling, that would in no way impact what's Trump's intentions were.

Sondland is really the only person in communication with Trump that we've heard from. Absent we hear from Mulvaney/Rudy, we're forced with connecting the circumstantial dots.

lol

 

[UCFKnight85]

Zelensky is not a first-hand witness to the charge. The "phone call" is the only direct communication between the two of them. Zelensky himself would have mostly third hand information. He would have heard the specifics of the demand via his aids, who would have heard it via Sondland/Volker/Rudy.

If Zelenskey's aids completely shielded him from all the backchannelling, that would in no way impact what's Trump's intentions were.

Sondland is really the only person in communication with Trump that we've heard from. Absent we hear from Mulvaney/Rudy, we're forced with connecting the circumstantial dots.

So somehow the guy at the top in Ukraine has no idea what's going on? Is this due to the fact that he 1) said he never felt pressured to do anything by Trump and 2) didn't even discuss any meaningful QPQ on the call?

 

[DaShuckster]

lol

What's truly hilarious is the naivete of posters who believe that Zelensky and his associates want, in any way, shape, or form to get in the middle of partisan U.S. politics when their country's very existence is at risk from Russia.

They wanted their military aid from the U.S. so desperately that their President was willing to go on CNN and announce a fake investigation of the Bidens in order to get it.

But let's believe Zelensky when he says no pressure was applied.

 

[firm_bizzle]

So somehow the guy at the top in Ukraine has no idea what's going on? Is this due to the fact that he 1) said he never felt pressured to do anything by Trump and 2) didn't even discuss any meaningful QPQ on the call?

That's why he set up the CNN interview, because he just like Zacaria.

 

[firm_bizzle]

What's truly hilarious is the naivete of posters who believe that Zelensky and his associates want, in any way, shape, or form to get in the middle of partisan U.S. politics when their country's very existence is at risk from Russia.

They wanted their military aid from the U.S. so desperately that their President was willing to go on CNN and announce a fake investigation of the Bidens in order to get it.

But let's believe Zelensky when he says no pressure was applied.

Trump never gets mad and retaliates on people who cross him. Never.

 

[Crazyhole]

So somehow the guy at the top in Ukraine has no idea what's going on? Is this due to the fact that he 1) said he never felt pressured to do anything by Trump and 2) didn't even discuss any meaningful QPQ on the call?

Jordan, as annoying and shrill as he is, pretty much undermined any value that Taylor brought to the table. His entire story is based on 4th hand knowledge of the original call, and 2nd hand knowledge of a guy who heard Sondland talking to somebody on the phone (not on speakerphone) and got an impression of the details.

It's weird that he was the lead witness quite honestly. You would think they would have led with sondland and then sought corroboration from others later in the trial, but instead we start out the first day with an argument that heresay is more valuable than first hand witnesses? It's silly and borderline inept.

 

[Boosted87]

So somehow the guy at the top in Ukraine has no idea what's going on? Is this due to the fact that he 1) said he never felt pressured to do anything by Trump and 2) didn't even discuss any meaningful QPQ on the call?

Hold up. I'm contrasting Zelensky's knowledge to someone like Taylor. I didn't say he had no idea what's going on. I said that the majority of his understanding of the situation is going to be formed from 2nd or 3rd hand knowledge. If Trump tells Rudy who tells Sondland who tells Zelensky's aid who tells Zelensky that the aid is contingent on a public statement regarding investigations - are you then telling me that Zelensky has first hand knowledge of Trump's intentions?

He's absolutely first hand to describe how he "felt" about the situation. But he doesn't have first hand knowledge of Trump's intent outside the phone call. He has plenty of knowledge, in the same sense that Taylor has knowledge. Because they all knew exactly what was going on.

 

[Boosted87]

Taylor's testimony pegs that call on July 26th. That is the day after the call between Trump and Zelensky. If that boils down to Trump confirming that Zelensky got the message, and Sondland suddenly "remembers" these events thanks to testimony of others who overhead, it could be the most damaging single data point yet.

So it looks like we now have a 2nd State Dept staffer that overhead the July 26 Trump/Sondland call at the table.

AP Source: 2nd US Official Heard Trump Call With Sondland

 

[Boosted87]

Jordan, as annoying and shrill as he is, pretty much undermined any value that Taylor brought to the table. His entire story is based on 4th hand knowledge of the original call, and 2nd hand knowledge of a guy who heard Sondland talking to somebody on the phone (not on speakerphone) and got an impression of the details.

It's weird that he was the lead witness quite honestly. You would think they would have led with sondland and then sought corroboration from others later in the trial, but instead we start out the first day with an argument that heresay is more valuable than first hand witnesses? It's silly and borderline inept.

I get Jordan's angle - it's insanely weak but it's about all they have - but it just doesn't hold up when the 1st hand witnesses could all show up tomorrow if the administration wasn't claiming a fictitious "blanket immunity" for the entire executive branch.

I'd bring Sondland up last. Why? Because I wouldn't be able to trust him to be truthful if he lead off. He needs everyone else to testify to box him in and help him "remember" details he seems to forget. Look at the new July 26th call we just learned about yesterday. If I'm Schiff, I'd rather force Sondland to remember that now, rather than have that break after he testifies.

So you paint the picture with you highly credible witnesses. They have 1st hand knowledge of everything going on because their dead in the middle of it - but they lack 1st hand knowledge of Trump's specific role. Once that picture is painted, your reluctant witness (Sondland) that does have 1st hand knowledge, can tie the entire thing back directly to Trump.