Why wasn't this guy interviewed?

[Crazyhole]

How many times did we hear the name Yermak during the hearings?

https://time.com/5746417/ukraine-andriy-yermak-impeachment-interview/

He didn't have to testify in public, just give the guy a call and get a private statement to verify sondlands story. Obviously he doesn't think that its inappropriate to talk about it publicly, so a statement should have been a no-brainer.

 

[UCFWayne]

but the narrative.

i wonder if the senate will give him a call.

 

[Crazyhole]

but the narrative.

i wonder if the senate will give him a call.

After hearing Lindsey Graham's comments, I am starting to doubt that they call anyone. He just wants an immediate vote. Pretty stupid politically IMO.

 

[UCFWayne]

After hearing Lindsey Graham's comments, I am starting to doubt that they call anyone. He just wants an immediate vote. Pretty stupid politically IMO.

ive been pretty busy these last few weeks. what did he say?

 

[Crazyhole]

ive been pretty busy these last few weeks. what did he say?

Said that he doesnt want to call any witnesses, just go off of what the House revealed. He knows that it will be a down vote and thinks it would be best to get get past it and move toward the 2020 election.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Said that he doesnt want to call any witnesses, just go off of what the House revealed. He knows that it will be a down vote and thinks it would be best to get get past it and move toward the 2020 election.

He'll probably change that stance a bit. Polling is showing that the American people view this Democrat led debacle as a pathetic partisan exercise and Trump is doing very well in battle ground states on head to head basis, and many voters are referencing impeachment as a reason.

The Democrats created this mess, Senate Republicans should make them lay in it. Drag this out as long as they can. They finally get a chance to get this sham inquiry out of the hands of Adam Schiff, they might as well spend that time showing what a joke Schiff is and how many holes exist in their findings.

 

[Crazyhole]

He'll probably change that stance a bit. Polling is showing that the American people view this Democrat led debacle as a pathetic partisan exercise and Trump is doing very well in battle ground states on head to head basis, and many voters are referencing impeachment as a reason.

The Democrats created this mess, Senate Republicans should make them lay in it. Drag this out as long as they can. They finally get a chance to get this sham inquiry out of the hands of Adam Schiff, they might as well spend that time showing what a joke Schiff is and how many holes exist in their findings.

99% of the country doesn't care about Schiff, but it wouldn't surprise me if Graham and McConnell frame the whole issue around him and Pelosi.

 

[Boosted87]

How many times did we hear the name Yermak during the hearings?

https://time.com/5746417/ukraine-andriy-yermak-impeachment-interview/

He didn't have to testify in public, just give the guy a call and get a private statement to verify sondlands story. Obviously he doesn't think that its inappropriate to talk about it publicly, so a statement should have been a no-brainer.

I think that interview is great evidence the Republicans should use to undercut Sondland's testimony. These are exactly the kinds of nuggets of information vulnerable Republicans in the senate will lean on to give a nuanced analysis of why they ultimately voted to acquit. I think this is far more useful than blanket statements by Zelensky denying anything nefarious was going on.

 

[Boosted87]

He'll probably change that stance a bit. Polling is showing that the American people view this Democrat led debacle as a pathetic partisan exercise and Trump is doing very well in battle ground states on head to head basis, and many voters are referencing impeachment as a reason.

The Democrats created this mess, Senate Republicans should make them lay in it. Drag this out as long as they can. They finally get a chance to get this sham inquiry out of the hands of Adam Schiff, they might as well spend that time showing what a joke Schiff is and how many holes exist in their findings.

Yea so 59% polled said that Democrats were more interested in taking down Trump than finding the facts. At the same time 61% said Republicans only wanted to protect Trump, rather than pursue facts. So the "partisan debacle" cuts equally both ways here.

 

[Sir Galahad]

This is more of an intelligence check. If you believe the democrats are doing this for anything more than a political hit to hurt Trump in the 2020 election you’re just not that smart.

Their two articles of impeachment are made up and would have been laughed at during the Nixon impeachment. Think about it, first the Russian hoax that candidate Clinton 100% actually did, then obstruction an investigation that was 100% fabricated then the Ukraine thing that candidate Biden 100% did. Democrats, you know when they accuse you of something it’s because they are guilty of doing it.

 

[Boosted87]

This is more of an intelligence check. If you believe the democrats are doing this for anything more than a political hit to hurt Trump in the 2020 election you’re just not that smart.

Their two articles of impeachment are made up and would have been laughed at during the Nixon impeachment. Think about it, first the Russian hoax that candidate Clinton 100% actually did, then obstruction an investigation that was 100% fabricated then the Ukraine thing that candidate Biden 100% did. Democrats, you know when they accuse you of something it’s because they are guilty of doing it.

Three Articles were adopted in Nixon and were to be voted on by the full house. One of them was titled Abuse of Power, another was Contempt of Congress which has similar allegations to the Obstruction of Congress article this time. So I'm not sure how your statement makes any sense.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Three Articles were adopted in Nixon and were to be voted on by the full house. One of them was titled Abuse of Power, another was Contempt of Congress which has similar allegations to the Obstruction of Congress article this time. So I'm not sure how your statement makes any sense.

Of course they used the same titles, this is all for show. The difference is what comes after the titles. I understand most liberals don’t read the specifics but there are NO CRIMES committed by Trump where there was under Nixon. This is why there will be no republican that will vote for impeachment unlike what was going to happen to Nixon.

 

[UCFWayne]

This is more of an intelligence check. If you believe the democrats are doing this for anything more than a political hit to hurt Trump in the 2020 election you’re just not that smart.

Their two articles of impeachment are made up and would have been laughed at during the Nixon impeachment. Think about it, first the Russian hoax that candidate Clinton 100% actually did, then obstruction an investigation that was 100% fabricated then the Ukraine thing that candidate Biden 100% did. Democrats, you know when they accuse you of something it’s because they are guilty of doing it.

honestly, this sets the bar really low for future impeachments. its dangerous for both parties. but lets be real, democrats are far more likely to try and impeach. theyve had articles of impeachment for 5 out of the last 6 republican presidents. they are the definition of sore losers.

 

[Boosted87]

Of course they used the same titles, this is all for show. The difference is what comes after the titles. I understand most liberals don’t read the specifics but there are NO CRIMES committed by Trump where there was under Nixon. This is why there will be no republican that will vote for impeachment unlike what was going to happen to Nixon.

The difference in this impeachment and Nixon is media.

If Fox News had a DNA test, it would trace its origins to the Nixon administration. In 1970, political consultant Roger Ailes and other Nixon aides came up with a plan to create a new TV network that would circumvent existing media and provide "pro-administration" coverage to millions. "People are lazy," the aides explained in a memo. "With television you just sit — watch — listen. The thinking is done for you." Nixon embraced the idea, saying he and his supporters needed "our own news" from a network that would lead "a brutal, vicious attack on the opposition."
https://theweek.com/articles/880107/why-fox-news-created
https://gawker.com/5814150/roger-ailes-secret-nixon-era-blueprint-for-fox-news

​

You can read up on the history of it, but one of Roger Ailes visions with Fox News was to prevent what happened to Nixon from happening again. He's succeeded, and people living in insulated social media bubbles of information makes it worse. Ask yourself - is there anything Trump could do that would cause enough erosion in his base to turn the tables against him like what happened with Nixon? The answer is NO as long as his media trumpets defend him. As long they spin narratives arguing it's a deep state coup, they can defend any action he takes.

And don't pretend that if Trump committed actual crimes people would turn on him. He's an unindicted co-conspirator in the Cohen case. Meuller presented 10 instances that conformed to the federal Obstruction of Justice Statute, 3 of which are broadly considered slam dunk cases. Didn't even cause a dent in his base.

​

 

[Boosted87]

honestly, this sets the bar really low for future impeachments. its dangerous for both parties. but lets be real, democrats are far more likely to try and impeach. theyve had articles of impeachment for 5 out of the last 6 republican presidents. they are the definition of sore losers.

Question - If the Democrat narrative on impeachment was proven beyond a reasonable doubt - that POTUS used the unique power of his office to strong-arm a foreign leader into announcing a baseless investigation into his political rival, elevating his own political needs over US National Security - what would your opinion be?

I ask this to see how serious you think the charges are here. You think this sets the bar low for future impeachments, but I have an opposite concern. If there is no effort to hold a POTUS accountable who engages in such conduct, then you are normalizing that kind of behavior going forward.

Obviously we can disagree whether or not the evidence proves the narrative. But I'm curious if we disagree on the seriousness of the charge?

 

[UCFWayne]

Question - If the Democrat narrative on impeachment was proven beyond a reasonable doubt - that POTUS used the unique power of his office to strong-arm a foreign leader into announcing a baseless investigation into his political rival, elevating his own political needs over US National Security - what would your opinion be?

I ask this to see how serious you think the charges are here. You think this sets the bar low for future impeachments, but I have an opposite concern. If there is no effort to hold a POTUS accountable who engages in such conduct, then you are normalizing that kind of behavior going forward.

Obviously we can disagree whether or not the evidence proves the narrative. But I'm curious if we disagree on the seriousness of the charge?

if they had evidence, then impeach him and make pence the new potus. but they dont. this is jsut the latest effort to undermine his presidency, the plans for which started on november 9th 2016.

i would take you seriously about holding the potus accountable for such conduct if you had held obama accountable. but you didnt.

voters in swing states are staring to shift away from impeachment. the economy is doing well. black and hispanic voters continue to warm up to trump. get used to trump.

 

[goodknightfl]

but the narrative.

i wonder if the senate will give him a call.

I think the Senate is going to do a 30 second trial than vote. Don't look for much there.

 

[Crazyhole]

Question - If the Democrat narrative on impeachment was proven beyond a reasonable doubt - that POTUS used the unique power of his office to strong-arm a foreign leader into announcing a baseless investigation into his political rival, elevating his own political needs over US National Security - what would your opinion be?

I ask this to see how serious you think the charges are here. You think this sets the bar low for future impeachments, but I have an opposite concern. If there is no effort to hold a POTUS accountable who engages in such conduct, then you are normalizing that kind of behavior going forward.

Obviously we can disagree whether or not the evidence proves the narrative. But I'm curious if we disagree on the seriousness of the charge?

If the narrative was true, absolutely he should be removed from office. Unfortunately the dems were more interested in public perception than doing a sincere investigation. I'm of the opinion that in order to find out whether there are national security reasons for trumps requests we need to look into his accusations, not just rely on a Bloomberg OP-ed that claimed the Burisma investigation was dormant.

 

[Boosted87]

If the narrative was true, absolutely he should be removed from office. Unfortunately the dems were more interested in public perception than doing a sincere investigation. I'm of the opinion that in order to find out whether there are national security reasons for trumps requests we need to look into his accusations, not just rely on a Bloomberg OP-ed that claimed the Burisma investigation was dormant.

If this was a matter of national security, and not a "domestic political errand", is Rudy blabbing his mouth all over cable news? Is your own National Security Advisor calling it a drug deal? Come on - that's just not credible. If Trump had a valid national security concern, he has the entire national security apparatus of the United States to evaluate and take action as appropriate.

This walks and talks like a duck. Call it what it is.

That said, it all would be legit if Trump walled it off. Let Rudy do his own thing. Don't get diplomats involved. Don't tell Zelensky to talk to Rudy. Don't let the political errand mingle with official policy and Trump would be fine here.

 

[Crazyhole]

If this was a matter of national security, and not a "domestic political errand", is Rudy blabbing his mouth all over cable news? Is your own National Security Advisor calling it a drug deal? Come on - that's just not credible. If Trump had a valid national security concern, he has the entire national security apparatus of the United States to evaluate and take action as appropriate.

This walks and talks like a duck. Call it what it is.

That said, it all would be legit if Trump walled it off. Let Rudy do his own thing. Don't get diplomats involved. Don't tell Zelensky to talk to Rudy. Don't let the political errand mingle with official policy and Trump would be fine here.

Suggesting to Zelensky that he talk to Rudy isn't a bad thing IMO. The conversation was about prosecuting corruption and Rudy is an expert in that field from his pre-mayoral days. Prosecuting corruption in Ukraine is a national security issue because we provide them with financial and military aid. I just don't see why Rudy's involvement is that big of a deal.

 

[Boosted87]

Suggesting to Zelensky that he talk to Rudy isn't a bad thing IMO. The conversation was about prosecuting corruption and Rudy is an expert in that field from his pre-mayoral days. Prosecuting corruption in Ukraine is a national security issue because we provide them with financial and military aid. I just don't see why Rudy's involvement is that big of a deal.

Rudy has stated publicly what his goals are. He's Trump's personal attorney acting in Trump's personal (political) interests. If Trump were to confess a crime to Rudy that endangers National Security, it would be Rudy's ethical duty to protect that information and defend Trump's personal interests right? There is no scenario where POTUS personal attorney should be meeting with foreign heads of state in that capacity. Rudy's experience is irrelevant to the underlying conflict.

 

[Crazyhole]

Rudy has stated publicly what his goals are. He's Trump's personal attorney acting in Trump's personal (political) interests. If Trump were to confess a crime to Rudy that endangers National Security, it would be Rudy's ethical duty to protect that information and defend Trump's personal interests right? There is no scenario where POTUS personal attorney should be meeting with foreign heads of state in that capacity. Rudy's experience is irrelevant to the underlying conflict.

The same would be true even if he doesnt meet with a foreign government. Giuliani would be compelled by attorney-client privilege to not disclose what Trump says but would be subject to subpoena on things that Giuliani did, regardless of whether it was at the direction of his client. Trump's last attorney is currently spending time for what he did because he was compelled to admit to it.

 

[Boosted87]

The same would be true even if he doesnt meet with a foreign government. Giuliani would be compelled by attorney-client privilege to not disclose what Trump says but would be subject to subpoena on things that Giuliani did, regardless of whether it was at the direction of his client. Trump's last attorney is currently spending time for what he did because he was compelled to admit to it.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the question at hand. Trump is specifically requesting a foreign President to meet with his personal attorney. Said personal attorney is clearly working with the persona interests of his client as his first priority. You think that's OK cause Rudy used to run anti-corruptions cases.

I think Rudy's past accomplishment are blurring your view of his role. If this was Roy Cohn or Micheal Cohen in Rudy's place, would you give that same leash?

 

[Crazyhole]

I'm not sure what that has to do with the question at hand. Trump is specifically requesting a foreign President to meet with his personal attorney. Said personal attorney is clearly working with the persona interests of his client as his first priority. You think that's OK cause Rudy used to run anti-corruptions cases.

I think Rudy's past accomplishment are blurring your view of his role. If this was Roy Cohn or Micheal Cohen in Rudy's place, would you give that same leash?

Cohn and Cohen dont have an impressive resume of prosecuting criminal activity so yeah it would be way different.

 

[Boosted87]

Cohn and Cohen dont have an impressive resume of prosecuting criminal activity so yeah it would be way different.

OK so that's where we disagree then. Rudy's resume is irrelevant to conflict this creates.

Any reasonable person can acknowledge that Hunter Biden's role at Burisma created - at minimum - the appearance of a conflict of interest. Rudy's role as Trump's personal attorney creates, at minimum, an equivalent appearance here. How can we possibly be certain that Trump's official actions intermingled with Rudy's are for the benefit of the United States and not for himself? It's the same question that you'd ask to show how Hunter's position on the board was problematic for Joe. Corrupt or not, the appearance is bad - right?

Now, you can give Trump and Rudy the benefit of the doubt, just as you can Hunter and Joe. If you do, then you judge them on behavior going forward after the issue is exposed publicly. Well Rudy and Trump are doubling down. Rudy was back in Ukraine last week. This is the equivalent of Hunter Biden saying he's going to re-join the board of Burisma after his Dad becomes POTUS and Joe being totally OK with that.

 

[sk8knight]

OK so that's where we disagree then. Rudy's resume is irrelevant to conflict this creates.

Any reasonable person can acknowledge that Hunter Biden's role at Burisma created - at minimum - the appearance of a conflict of interest. Rudy's role as Trump's personal attorney creates, at minimum, an equivalent appearance here. How can we possibly be certain that Trump's official actions intermingled with Rudy's are for the benefit of the United States and not for himself? It's the same question that you'd ask to show how Hunter's position on the board was problematic for Joe. Corrupt or not, the appearance is bad - right?

Now, you can give Trump and Rudy the benefit of the doubt, just as you can Hunter and Joe. If you do, then you judge them on behavior going forward after the issue is exposed publicly. Well Rudy and Trump are doubling down. Rudy was back in Ukraine last week. This is the equivalent of Hunter Biden saying he's going to re-join the board of Burisma after his Dad becomes POTUS and Joe being totally OK with that.

You're making a false equivalence. Trump didn't go out there and brag about withholding the money to elicit a specific action. So with Biden, it's more than just the appearance of a conflict of interest; he actually admitted to his part of it on the record. Also, Rudy's experience does matter because it creates a legitimate probability that he is, in fact, acting professionally on behalf of the United States of America. Hunter's lack of experience in anything resembling that industry or that position virtually eliminates the probability that he was hired for or working with his expertise in the energy sector or in established above-board business practices in a Ukrainian corporation. Dismissing the context is the only way that you can draw equivalence.

Of course, there's so much spin on both sides of this at this point that it doesn't really matter anymore. People have already formed sides and that was Schiff's goal from the moment he, I mean his "staff," met with the whistleblower in the first place. Impeach or not, the effect has played itself out.

 

[UCFBS]

He'll probably change that stance a bit. Polling is showing that the American people view this Democrat led debacle as a pathetic partisan exercise and Trump is doing very well in battle ground states on head to head basis, and many voters are referencing impeachment as a reason.

Indeed, Trump wants a long, protracted set of impeachment proceedings. The left did everything it could to prevent the right from calling any witnesses during the investigation, so ... Trump wants that.

The Democrats created this mess, Senate Republicans should make them lay in it. Drag this out as long as they can. They finally get a chance to get this sham inquiry out of the hands of Adam Schiff, they might as well spend that time showing what a joke Schiff is and how many holes exist in their findings.

Trump is a gasbag at times, and likes 'yes men' along with a Twitter feed that makes me cringe more than any other politician (although the Squad gives him plenty of competition), but he's also a dramatic reality TV star that could really work this to his advantage.

Frankly, I don't think it matters who wins in 2020. We're already seeing troubling realities with the Fed, as well as the manufacturing sector. Trade wars are deadly if they are not resolved fast enough ... for all sides.

 

[Crazyhole]

Back to the original topic. Glenn Beck lays it out pretty well and explains why it should have been an important part in the impeachment process. This is literally the only person who the supposed "bribery" or quid pro quo went through in Ukraine. Sondland initially said that it never happened then changed his testimony, this guy corroborates sondlands initial testimony.

 

[sk8knight]

View embedded media

Back to the original topic. Glenn Beck lays it out pretty well and explains why it should have been an important part in the impeachment process. This is literally the only person who the supposed "bribery" or quid pro quo went through in Ukraine. Sondland initially said that it never happened then changed his testimony, this guy corroborates sondlands initial testimony.

In before the lefties dismiss Beck as a factless conspiracy nut.

 

[Crazyhole]

In before the lefties dismiss Beck as a factless conspiracy nut.

He was for a while. Now he does a really good job of laying out facts.

 

[UCFKnight85]

View embedded media

Back to the original topic. Glenn Beck lays it out pretty well and explains why it should have been an important part in the impeachment process. This is literally the only person who the supposed "bribery" or quid pro quo went through in Ukraine. Sondland initially said that it never happened then changed his testimony, this guy corroborates sondlands initial testimony.

And yet, Democrats are bitching about not having the right witnesses in the Senate. lol. These people ran an absolute sham process in the House and refused to call people like this guy for partisan reasons.

But the Senate won't give impeachment a fair shake!

 

[Boosted87]

And yet, Democrats are bitching about not having the right witnesses in the Senate. lol. These people ran an absolute sham process in the House and refused to call people like this guy for partisan reasons.

But the Senate won't give impeachment a fair shake!

Do you guys realize who "this guy" Yermak is? He's an aid to Zelensky. It's diplomatically unreasonable for the US Congress to as for or try to compel the testimony of the aid of a foreign head of state for a domestic political issue. If he were to testify voluntarily, you're essentially offering Ukraine a direct vein into the US political process. Trump could be completely innocent yet a political calculation could be made by Ukraine that they're better off with him removed, and shape testimony accordingly. It's absurd in all directions.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Do you guys realize who "this guy" Yermak is? He's an aid to Zelensky. It's diplomatically unreasonable for the US Congress to as for or try to compel the testimony of the aid of a foreign head of state for a domestic political issue. If he were to testify voluntarily, you're essentially offering Ukraine a direct vein into the US political process. Trump could be completely innocent yet a political calculation could be made by Ukraine that they're better off with him removed, and shape testimony accordingly. It's absurd in all directions.

I see. So people with 2nd hand hearsay are fine but hearing directly from someone that was part of the party supposedly being "bribed" isn't worthwhile. lol k, got it.

 

[Crazyhole]

Do you guys realize who "this guy" Yermak is? He's an aid to Zelensky. It's diplomatically unreasonable for the US Congress to as for or try to compel the testimony of the aid of a foreign head of state for a domestic political issue. If he were to testify voluntarily, you're essentially offering Ukraine a direct vein into the US political process. Trump could be completely innocent yet a political calculation could be made by Ukraine that they're better off with him removed, and shape testimony accordingly. It's absurd in all directions.

He didn't have to testify, just ask him if there is any truth behind the story before we create a political circus around the impeachment hearing. Schiff could have easily made contact with him and if he were acting in good faith, determined that the impeachment proceedings could come to an end based on their narrative. Nadler could have done the same thing and should have. All he would have had to do was verify the testimonies and make a determination on whether the intelligence committee did their due diligence, which they didn't. Amazingly Time Magazine was able to obtain statements on behalf of the accused with no political authority whatsoever. The "victims" of this crime all say that it didn't happen. Imagine this in any other scenario that isn't politically based.

 

[UCFBS]

It's been completely one-sided. And it can be, because impeachments are 100% political, 0% rule-of-law.

The rules adopted for Clinton were far different. But that was to be expected. Because in the case of Trump, one cannot talk about the facts of this case, without bringing up Biden ... repeatedly. Only a few Liberals get that, and the mainstay and controlling Progressive want to avoid that exposure.

 

[Boosted87]

He didn't have to testify, just ask him if there is any truth behind the story before we create a political circus around the impeachment hearing. Schiff could have easily made contact with him and if he were acting in good faith, determined that the impeachment proceedings could come to an end based on their narrative. Nadler could have done the same thing and should have. All he would have had to do was verify the testimonies and make a determination on whether the intelligence committee did their due diligence, which they didn't. Amazingly Time Magazine was able to obtain statements on behalf of the accused with no political authority whatsoever. The "victims" of this crime all say that it didn't happen. Imagine this in any other scenario that isn't politically based.

I mean, it's not like the local grocer who's paying the mob boss "protection money" willingly volunteers that information to the police. It's not like the domestic violence victim is always honest with the cops. It doesn't have to be political at all to have that kind of scenario.

Plus, I think it's laughable to suggest we need to hear from Ukrainian figures when we can't even hear from US figures.

 

[Crazyhole]

I mean, it's not like the local grocer who's paying the mob boss "protection money" willingly volunteers that information to the police. It's not like the domestic violence victim is always honest with the cops. It doesn't have to be political at all to have that kind of scenario.

Plus, I think it's laughable to suggest we need to hear from Ukrainian figures when we can't even hear from US figures.

We can hear from US figures. Separation of powers kind of creates a road block but it isn't totally unattainable. This guy was willing to do an interview on the record with a magazine so I have to think he would have taken a call from Schiff as well. Any investigator acting in good faith would have done so to avoid this exact situation.