(01-29-2020, 12:01 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 11:56 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Here, I'll help.
"The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.
President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.. That I can assure you.
The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all, I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.
The President: Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It's a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible people."
My god, the horror. It's almost like Trump is the President or something. 
Oh, I guess I should have just read that then, right? When did that call take place again? When was the aid withheld? When was the aid released?
The call was in July. The aid was formally held the same day. The aid was released before it was required to be released on the last day of FY2019. Oh noes!!!!
(01-29-2020, 11:44 AM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 11:39 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think that the aid was tied to immediate results, it delayed while Trump verified that the new President would be/was addressing it. Evidently Trump was satisfied with his response. Great big slab of Nothingburger cooked up by the lunatics of the left who know they cannot win the election in 9 months.
Given everything that's come to light since, it'd be nice to know what qualified said satisfaction other than 25+ "READ THE TRANSCRIPTS" tweets
In other words: documentation, witness testimony.
(01-29-2020, 12:24 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 12:01 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]Oh, I guess I should have just read that then, right? When did that call take place again? When was the aid withheld? When was the aid released?
The call was in July. The aid was formally held the same day. The aid was released before it was required to be released on the last day of FY2019. Oh noes!!!!
Forgive me, FSG, I like having more information than not. Hence why I would like to know what qualified said satisfaction. You gave me a very accurate quoting of the call memorandum as a justification of that satisfaction, but aid was held up the same day regardless. See where I'm going?
(01-29-2020, 12:24 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 12:01 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]Oh, I guess I should have just read that then, right? When did that call take place again? When was the aid withheld? When was the aid released?
The call was in July. The aid was formally held the same day. The aid was released before it was required to be released on the last day of FY2019. Oh noes!!!!
Was anyone in congress notified in July?
It wasn't quite the last day before FY 2019 was it? It was kind of a random day a couple of weeks before, right? Was there anything else going on the day it was released?
So what I'm seeing from our Democrat posters... they would have removed Clinton from office
(01-29-2020, 11:54 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 09:51 AM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]and....Trump stated to the press that he'd happily "allow" the sought-after witness testimony when it turned to the Senate, which he and others deemed to be more "fair" - which I can only interpret that to mean, more in his corner (a la GOP majority) or witnesses that have first-hand insight getting a fair shake in a trial. and...GOP reps like Graham absolutely wanted witness testimony during Clinton's impeachment, but have flipped that script now. It's okay to have witnesses in the Senate and no evidence of crimes when it impacts a Dem president who got some oral satisfaction and withheld information from congress, but not now?
You still didn't answer my question: You eloquently note that Dems screwed the pooch on the potential of requesting any witness testimony after the Kavanaugh situation. If that didn't happen, are you honestly telling me that you'd be fine with allowing witnesses now? I'm panning through your approach here and it seems like that's the logical deduction, but forgive me if I'm skeptical.
For your embedded comments:
1. The point is you claimed that the White House prevented them from testifying. They chose not to testify (rightly IMO based on Flynn and Libby). Don't blame the White House. If the White House offered legal support if it went to court that makes sense because the whole impeachment was a sham and a waste of time. Even if Trump did everything he's accused of (and the phone transcripts and Zelensky statements say otherwise) it's not grounds for impeachment, except in the Mikesez world where spitting on the sidewalk is ground for impeachment.
2. "New information"? Wow, just like what happened to Kavanaugh. My point stands.
Whether or not Trump would "allow" the witness testimony in the Senate is immaterial. That's up to the Senate to decide. During the Clinton hearings we didn't have a Senate with a history of the Kavanaugh debacle. That changed everything. Also, the Clinton impeachment was not about Monica giving Bill a Mugabe, so that part of your comment is at best a red herring.
If the Kavanaugh hearings were above board then there would be no reason to oppose witness testimony, as my previous response implies. But the Kavanaugh debacle did happen. The political Left has moved on from any semblance of decorum, willing to create lie after lie in order to save screw the country, and because of that it would be foolish for the Pub majority to allow witnesses in the Senate trial. Of course enough of them are clueless or gutless so they probably will.
1. You're absolutely correct. My assertion should have stated that they were "directed" not to testify. Kavanaugh aside, Trump stated he'd be happy to have those previously-directed witnesses testify in the senate. If OM says it, then why not? It's a pub majority with a conservative judge overseeing things. Of course, this was pre-stroke (my logical guess), so his thought processes may have
become impaired changed.
2. My point about new information - It's my position that a smoking gun should be fully vetted before it's assumed to be a false positive. That point doesn't really fit with either democratic or republican perspectives, depending on who's gun it is. Take, for example, this situation: Dems have been accused of rushing an impeachment through the house. Now Pubs are accused of rushing the process in the Senate. I'd wager Trump wanted it to be over & done with before his SOTU address, but that aint happening.
3. I wouldn't call it a red herring as much as a slight overstatement of why he was impeached. Lying under oath about what happened with ML and others and corrupt handling of federal witnesses.
4. I'd go so far as to say the political environment has moved on from any sense of decorum, no matter what color lenses you've got on. That's a bipartisan effort.
(01-29-2020, 11:54 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]Whether or not Trump would "allow" the witness testimony in the Senate is immaterial. That's up to the Senate to decide. During the Clinton hearings we didn't have a Senate with a history of the Kavanaugh debacle. That changed everything. Also, the Clinton impeachment was not about Monica giving Bill a Mugabe, so that part of your comment is at best a red herring.
If the Kavanaugh hearings were above board then there would be no reason to oppose witness testimony, as my previous response implies. But the Kavanaugh debacle did happen. The political Left has moved on from any semblance of decorum, willing to create lie after lie in order to save screw the country, and because of that it would be foolish for the Pub majority to allow witnesses in the Senate trial. Of course enough of them are clueless or gutless so they probably will.
The Kavanaugh hearings were a debacle, and it was 100% the Democrats' fault.
They brought in a witness with vague memories of having a bad time with Kavanaugh when they were teenagers. These allegations were not relevant to the question of if Kavanaugh the adult was the right person to be a judge.
They were allowed to call whatever witness they wanted, and they called an irrelevant witness.
I don't think the Democrats should be allowed to call any irrelevant witness here, or ever again.
But is John Bolton an irrelevant witness?
What about Mulvaney?
(01-29-2020, 01:19 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]So what I'm seeing from our Democrat posters... they would have removed Clinton from office
Not a Democrat, but I would have voted to remove.
Think about how actual Democrats must feel about that question.
Letting Bill leave office as a hero set them up to have Hillary 2008 and Hillary 2016.
Hindsight's 20/20 though.
(01-29-2020, 03:58 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]This is an interesting take that I'd like to discuss.
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1222600255369359362
Dershowitz is basically correct, but each senator should make up his own mind about whether what Trump did was in the public interest or not.
If it was only about corruption in general, and didn't affect things on Ukraine's front lines, maybe it was in the US public interest.
But if it was just specific to the Bidens and crowdstrike, that's not in the US public interest at all. That's partisan.
(01-29-2020, 05:52 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 01:52 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The Kavanaugh hearings were a debacle, and it was 100% the Democrats' fault.
They brought in a witness with vague memories of having a bad time with Kavanaugh when they were teenagers. These allegations were not relevant to the question of if Kavanaugh the adult was the right person to be a judge.
They were allowed to call whatever witness they wanted, and they called an irrelevant witness.
I don't think the Democrats should be allowed to call any irrelevant witness here, or ever again.
But is John Bolton an irrelevant witness?
What about Mulvaney?
We don't know whether or not Bolton is an irrelevant witness. Even if not, it's easy to spin something in his testimony to open the path for the new Julie Swetnick.
Sorry Dems, you had your chance. You wasted it with Kavanaugh. No second chances for purveyors of false information. No "I'll only call credible witnesses this time," especially after the numerous lies Schiff has been putting forth.
The Republicans aren't being asked to just "allow witnesses". Chuck Schumer has a specific list of four witnesses, and Mitch McConnell could allow a separate vote on each one.
In fact I think the judiciary committee worked the same way. The only reason you saw a blasey-ford on the stand was because a couple of Republican senators voted to allow her specifically as a witness, after the Democrats begged and moaned.
Swetnik was not brought to the stand.
(01-29-2020, 05:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 03:58 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]This is an interesting take that I'd like to discuss.
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1222600255369359362
Dershowitz is basically correct, but each senator should make up his own mind about whether what Trump did was in the public interest or not.
If it was only about corruption in general, and didn't affect things on Ukraine's front lines, maybe it was in the US public interest.
But if it was just specific to the Bidens and crowdstrike, that's not in the US public interest at all. That's partisan.
I didn't take it to mean that at all.
If the claim is that the president's re-election is in the national interest, therefore doing whatever necessary to achieve said re-election (inferring that includes the solicitation of foreign assistance in doing so) isn't impeachable...that's a hell of a slippery slope.
Am I not hearing the Dershword Salad with ranch correctly?
It's starting to lean more towards this whole thing being over (finally). The last I saw, many democrats have admitted that they "couldn't prove the charges" or "couldn't get it done". It was reported that perhaps a vote will come as soon as Friday.
In very simple terms. "Abuse of Power" can not be proven. All of the "evidence" presented in The House was second-hand information and opinion. The "Abuse of Power" so-called charge is not a crime. Remember, this charge was based on a "whistle blower" with second-hand information regarding a phone call. The transcript of the phone call was declassified and released. While digging more the democrats brought up the withholding of funds. This was a precaution taken because Ukraine had a newly elected president and it was necessary to see how thy would address the clear corruption in their country (including former Vice-President Joe Biden doing a quid-pro-quo).
On the charge of "Obstructing Congress". Again, this is not a crime and advising members of the current Administration not to testify unless it went to the Supreme Court is not a crime. Supposedly, the democrats couldn't wait for the court process and had to push it through because The President presented a "danger to The Constitution". Never mind due process.
It was so "urgent" that Nancy Pelosi waited over a week (2 weeks?) to send it to The Senate.
The bottom line is this. They have wanted to get rid of President Trump ever since he was elected. They wanted to get rid of him because he beat the "heir apparent" Hillary Clinton. It's pretty much backfiring on them since most of the country approves of what he has accomplished. The democrat party also has no clear candidate to oppose him.
(01-29-2020, 06:46 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 05:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Dershowitz is basically correct, but each senator should make up his own mind about whether what Trump did was in the public interest or not.
If it was only about corruption in general, and didn't affect things on Ukraine's front lines, maybe it was in the US public interest.
But if it was just specific to the Bidens and crowdstrike, that's not in the US public interest at all. That's partisan.
I didn't take it to mean that at all.
If the claim is that the president's re-election is in the national interest, therefore doing whatever necessary to achieve said re-election (inferring that includes the solicitation of foreign assistance in doing so) isn't impeachable...that's a hell of a slippery slope.
Am I not hearing the Dershword Salad with ranch correctly?
I can't say if I read it correctly. But I did read it to mean something like, "voters like actions that are in the public interest. If the action is in the public interest, but the president only cares about his election chances, and only did it to help his election chances, he can't be impeached for that. even though you could say his motives were bad."
If that's what he meant, he's making a logically valid argument. But he is taking it as a given that the president acted in the public interest. Senators should look not just at the transcripts, but all of the text messages and overheard phone calls and decide if the president was trying to reduce corruption in Ukraine, or only hurt Democrats.
If, on the other hand, he meant it the way you read it, then he is completely wrong. assuming that one party's success is in the public interest and the other party's is not, that is begging the question that the elections themselves are meant to resolve.
(01-29-2020, 01:10 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 12:24 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]The call was in July. The aid was formally held the same day. The aid was released before it was required to be released on the last day of FY2019. Oh noes!!!!
Was anyone in congress notified in July?
It wasn't quite the last day before FY 2019 was it? It was kind of a random day a couple of weeks before, right? Was there anything else going on the day it was released?
1st question, I don't know, does the OMB count? I'm not the expert on government bureaucracy that you appear to be.
2nd, it was released September 11th, so I imagine there were many things going on that day.
(01-29-2020, 01:06 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 11:44 AM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]Given everything that's come to light since, it'd be nice to know what qualified said satisfaction other than 25+ "READ THE TRANSCRIPTS" tweets
In other words: documentation, witness testimony.
(01-29-2020, 12:24 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]The call was in July. The aid was formally held the same day. The aid was released before it was required to be released on the last day of FY2019. Oh noes!!!!
Forgive me, FSG, I like having more information than not. Hence why I would like to know what qualified said satisfaction. You gave me a very accurate quoting of the call memorandum as a justification of that satisfaction, but aid was held up the same day regardless. See where I'm going?
Sure, I see. Was the aid ordered held before or after the call on the 25th?
(01-29-2020, 06:51 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]It's starting to lean more towards this whole thing being over (finally). The last I saw, many democrats have admitted that they "couldn't prove the charges" or "couldn't get it done". It was reported that perhaps a vote will come as soon as Friday.
In very simple terms. "Abuse of Power" can not be proven. All of the "evidence" presented in The House was second-hand information and opinion. The "Abuse of Power" so-called charge is not a crime. Remember, this charge was based on a "whistle blower" with second-hand information regarding a phone call. The transcript of the phone call was declassified and released. While digging more the democrats brought up the withholding of funds. This was a precaution taken because Ukraine had a newly elected president and it was necessary to see how thy would address the clear corruption in their country (including former Vice-President Joe Biden doing a quid-pro-quo).
On the charge of "Obstructing Congress". Again, this is not a crime and advising members of the current Administration not to testify unless it went to the Supreme Court is not a crime. Supposedly, the democrats couldn't wait for the court process and had to push it through because The President presented a "danger to The Constitution". Never mind due process.
It was so "urgent" that Nancy Pelosi waited over a week (2 weeks?) to send it to The Senate.
The bottom line is this. They have wanted to get rid of President Trump ever since he was elected. They wanted to get rid of him because he beat the "heir apparent" Hillary Clinton. It's pretty much backfiring on them since most of the country approves of what he has accomplished. The democrat party also has no clear candidate to oppose him.
The worst thing that could happen for the dems at this point is if witnesses and documents are admitted. Seeking the truth is not the objective of their nebulous case. It's to draw out the proceedings into a months long protracted litigation leading up to the election. But the fact of the matter is people are becoming weary of the whole process. Yeah, yeah, the polls say blah, blah, blah. We all know how those work. In my opinion, the Democrats are beginning to erode their voter base. Dianne Feinstein briefly agreed until the party machine corrected her.
![[Image: WKsGnvH.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/WKsGnvH.jpg)