Here is the quote I found:


I read that as a political concern, rather than an claim of wrongdoing.

The text of the call that was released (and it was detailed enough that I don't expect the actual call to have been different in spite of your skepticism) never demanded (or even asked for) Ukraine to investigate Biden, those words are just a lie being propagated by those opposed to Trump. What was requested was to contact Barr with any information. Note also that, although there was no follow through on the request, Ukraine still received their requested military aid. At most you could claim it was an empty threat, but Ukraine did not take it as a threat, and Trump claims he didn't intend it as a threat. If both parties in the conversation both agree to that then the investigation is a meaningless waste of time.

If what a president might ask for is wrong because requesting foreign information about a possible crime is off limits if the criminal is related to a political opponent, that amounts to a "get out of jail free" card for criminals. Of course most of the prominent Dems are above the law anyway.

This is about more than a phone call.  The abuse of power could have taken place in any number of communication channels.
It could have been indirect.  If any US official testifies, "the president told us to say X to Ukraine," that's the same as the President himself saying it on the phone for the purpose of this conversation.
The question is, was X something in our national interest, or was it only in private or partisan interest?  If the latter, that is naked abuse of power that must be remedied by removal from office.  However, that question is not easy to answer.

The original comment from Gabe was about Vindman, not about other hypothetical communication channels, since Vindman's public statement was only about the phone call.

Here is a commentator discussing it. Pretty much what I said three days ago, but he goes into more detail about the shameful spectacle Vindman made.

Link

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

A little info on Vindman from his former C.O.:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/11900...34368.html

---

---

Now Rudy Giuliani says all his work in the Ukraine was in his role as Trump's personal attorney.

Now, the obvious question is, why is this significant. And the answer is, if he's not working for the government, but rather he is working for Trump, then whatever he was asking Ukraine to do was for Trump personally. And that means, Trump was asking for a personal favor from a foreign government. And that is completely illegal.

---

A little info on Vindman from his former C.O.:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/11900...34368.html

When the facts are unassailable, attack the source(s).

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Now Rudy Giuliani says all his work in the Ukraine was in his role as Trump's personal attorney.  

Now, the obvious question is, why is this significant.  And the answer is, if he's not working for the government, but rather he is working for Trump, then whatever he was asking Ukraine to do was for Trump personally.   And that means, Trump was asking for a personal favor from a foreign government.   And that is completely illegal.

And when this flames out, the Dems have a dozen other plots to "get" the President.  The Resolution they passed has no time limit.  I don't believe they will ever send Articles Of Impeachment to the Senate - why should they?  It would expose THEM to a trial controlled by Republicans.  The House Resolution actually establishes a new form of government, one which circumvents the Constitution and which will remain in effect until the Dems lose their House majority.  The Resolution places Speaker Pelosi as the Legislative Branch of this new government.  Intel Committee chair Schiff is the Executive Branch; he alone controls the agenda, and Judiciary chair Nadler is the Judicial Branch in all disputed matters of "law" between the Pelosi government and the White House (in each decision, Nadler will place Pelosi above the White House).  They intend to "impeach" Trump for the next 5 years.

---

A little info on Vindman from his former C.O.:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/11900...34368.html

When the facts are unassailable, attack the source(s).

What are Vindman's "facts"?  That he was butt-hurt the person elected to set foreign policy was actually doing it? 

Vindman was giggling with Russians about destroying America.  In my opinion, he is a disgrace to the uniform.

---

When the facts are unassailable, attack the source(s).

What are Vindman's "facts"?  That he was butt-hurt the person elected to set foreign policy was actually doing it? 

Vindman was giggling with Russians about destroying America.  In my opinion, he is a disgrace to the uniform.

Setting foreign policy?  Giuliani says he was acting solely in his role as Trump's personal attorney.  That means Giuliani wasn't working for the United States; he was working for Trump.  Which means that whatever Giuliani was asking Ukraine to do was not for the United States; it was for Trump.  Which means, Giuliani was soliciting a foreign government to do a favor for Trump.  That's soliciting a bribe.

---

What are Vindman's "facts"?  That he was butt-hurt the person elected to set foreign policy was actually doing it? 

Vindman was giggling with Russians about destroying America.  In my opinion, he is a disgrace to the uniform.

Setting foreign policy?  Giuliani says he was acting solely in his role as Trump's personal attorney.  That means Giuliani wasn't working for the United States; he was working for Trump.  Which means that whatever Giuliani was asking Ukraine to do was not for the United States; it was for Trump.  Which means, Giuliani was soliciting a foreign government to do a favor for Trump.  That's soliciting a bribe.

Right. Back when he was claiming to be doing everything with the permission and supervision of the state department, it was a little more difficult to prove that what Rudy and Trump were up to was wrong.
You would have to prove that they were not actually pursuing national interest, but personal or partisan interest, first.
But now that they're admitting this was all personal and partisan, it's much easier to show that what they did is wrong.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Setting foreign policy?  Giuliani says he was acting solely in his role as Trump's personal attorney.  That means Giuliani wasn't working for the United States; he was working for Trump.  Which means that whatever Giuliani was asking Ukraine to do was not for the United States; it was for Trump.  Which means, Giuliani was soliciting a foreign government to do a favor for Trump.  That's soliciting a bribe.

Right. Back when he was claiming to be doing everything with the permission and supervision of the state department, it was a little more difficult to prove that what Rudy and Trump were up to was wrong.
You would have to prove that they were not actually pursuing national interest, but personal or partisan interest, first.
But now that they're admitting this was all personal and partisan, it's much easier to show that what they did is wrong.

Yes, I agree. Please bring this public with open hearings under oath so we can get clarity on this massive pile of bull [BLEEP].

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

What are Vindman's "facts"?  That he was butt-hurt the person elected to set foreign policy was actually doing it? 

Vindman was giggling with Russians about destroying America.  In my opinion, he is a disgrace to the uniform.

Setting foreign policy?  Giuliani says he was acting solely in his role as Trump's personal attorney.  That means Giuliani wasn't working for the United States; he was working for Trump.  Which means that whatever Giuliani was asking Ukraine to do was not for the United States; it was for Trump.  Which means, Giuliani was soliciting a foreign government to do a favor for Trump.  That's soliciting a bribe.

No it's not.  Gathering evidence to defend his client isn't bribing anyone or soliciting a bribe.   Presenting that evidence to the state department IG is 100% appropriate.  If the president asked him to act as an informal back channel then that's completely up to the president.

---

Setting foreign policy?  Giuliani says he was acting solely in his role as Trump's personal attorney.  That means Giuliani wasn't working for the United States; he was working for Trump.  Which means that whatever Giuliani was asking Ukraine to do was not for the United States; it was for Trump.  Which means, Giuliani was soliciting a foreign government to do a favor for Trump.  That's soliciting a bribe.

No it's not.  Gathering evidence to defend his client isn't bribing anyone or soliciting a bribe.   Presenting that evidence to the state department IG is 100% appropriate.  If the president asked him to act as an informal back channel then that's completely up to the president.

Defend his client against what? The Mueller investigation was over. The 2016 election was over.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

No it's not.  Gathering evidence to defend his client isn't bribing anyone or soliciting a bribe.   Presenting that evidence to the state department IG is 100% appropriate.  If the president asked him to act as an informal back channel then that's completely up to the president.

Defend his client against what? The Mueller investigation was over. The 2016 election was over.

Against the continuing deep state assault on his presidency and administration. And prepare for more of the same bull [BLEEP] in 2020. The Dems have one playbook now as shown by their attempts to use the same failed hoax-based strategy in 2019 that they've been using since 2015.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

No it's not.  Gathering evidence to defend his client isn't bribing anyone or soliciting a bribe.   Presenting that evidence to the state department IG is 100% appropriate.  If the president asked him to act as an informal back channel then that's completely up to the president.

Defend his client against what? The Mueller investigation was over. The 2016 election was over.

Let's start again.  Rudy Giuliani's involvement investigating Ukrainian efforts against POTUS started towards the end of the Mueller investigation.  Why?  Because Ukrain played an expansive role in the origins of the probe, and members of their parliament leaked information about Trump's campaign manager that eventually lead to him being placed under investigation and later imprisoned.   

As for the probe being "over" the probe did immeasurable harm to the president, his family, close associates, and his overall brand.  Continuing to pursue its origins and clear highs clients name in the eye of the public is an appropriate function of private council.   

Moreover, he and the president have a responsibility to share evidence of and root out corruption in dealings with an allie, especially those that deal with billions of dollars in tax payer money.   We now know from witness testimony that even elements in the Obama administration had to block certain projects dealing with burisma because the oligarch was under suspicion of misappropriating funds.  We lost some seven billion dollars in aid money in Ukraine.   

In short, cultivating evidence of a crime and asking that if be investigated is not an illicit act.

---

Defend his client against what? The Mueller investigation was over. The 2016 election was over.

Let's start again.  Rudy Giuliani's involvement investigating Ukrainian efforts against POTUS started towards the end of the Mueller investigation.  Why?  Because Ukrain played an expansive role in the origins of the probe, and members of their parliament leaked information about Trump's campaign manager that eventually lead to him being placed under investigation and later imprisoned.   

As for the probe being "over" the probe did immeasurable harm to the president, his family, close associates, and his overall brand.  Continuing to pursue its origins and clear highs clients name in the eye of the public is an appropriate function of private council.   

Moreover, he and the president have a responsibility to share evidence of and root out corruption in dealings with an allie, especially those that deal with billions of dollars in tax payer money.   We now know from witness testimony that even elements in the Obama administration had to block certain projects dealing with burisma because the oligarch was under suspicion of misappropriating funds.  We lost some seven billion dollars in aid money in Ukraine.   

In short, cultivating evidence of a crime and asking that if be investigated is not an illicit act.

You keep missing what I'm throwing down.
Everyone has a right to privately investigate whatever they feel like investigating, I agree.
But no one has the right to involve US prosecutors or US foreign policy or offers of face time with the US president in that, unless the US national interest is also at stake.
Ukraine was going through a change of administration.
Let me explain how that typically works.
When Bush 43 replaced Clinton, he did not pursue any charges of perjury or espionage against Clinton and his associates, although he could have.
When Obama replaced Bush, he did not pursue any charges of war crimes or banking fraud against Bush and his associates and donors, although he could have.
a new administration is supposed to be looking forward, not backwards at the mistakes of the previous administration. And this is about more than just good feelings. This is one of the many unwritten norms that we have that helps us keep having peaceful transfers of power every 4 years. A president who feels like he might end up in jail if he ever loses power is a guy who doesn't give up power peacefully.
Trump was demanding that Ukraine's new administration look backwards, not just to their immediate predecessor but to the guy before that.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Let's start again.  Rudy Giuliani's involvement investigating Ukrainian efforts against POTUS started towards the end of the Mueller investigation.  Why?  Because Ukrain played an expansive role in the origins of the probe, and members of their parliament leaked information about Trump's campaign manager that eventually lead to him being placed under investigation and later imprisoned.   

As for the probe being "over" the probe did immeasurable harm to the president, his family, close associates, and his overall brand.  Continuing to pursue its origins and clear highs clients name in the eye of the public is an appropriate function of private council.   

Moreover, he and the president have a responsibility to share evidence of and root out corruption in dealings with an allie, especially those that deal with billions of dollars in tax payer money.   We now know from witness testimony that even elements in the Obama administration had to block certain projects dealing with burisma because the oligarch was under suspicion of misappropriating funds.  We lost some seven billion dollars in aid money in Ukraine.   

In short, cultivating evidence of a crime and asking that if be investigated is not an illicit act.

You keep missing what I'm throwing down.
Everyone has a right to privately investigate whatever they feel like investigating, I agree.
But no one has the right to involve US prosecutors or US foreign policy or offers of face time with the US president in that, unless the US national interest is also at stake.
Ukraine was going through a change of administration.
Let me explain how that typically works.
When Bush 43 replaced Clinton, he did not pursue any charges of perjury or espionage against Clinton and his associates, although he could have.
When Obama replaced Bush, he did not pursue any charges of war crimes or banking fraud against Bush and his associates and donors, although he could have.
a new administration is supposed to be looking forward, not backwards at the mistakes of the previous administration. And this is about more than just good feelings. This is one of the many unwritten norms that we have that helps us keep having peaceful transfers of power every 4 years. A president who feels like he might end up in jail if he ever loses power is a guy who doesn't give up power peacefully.
Trump was demanding that Ukraine's new administration look backwards, not just to their immediate predecessor but to the guy before that.

1.) Unwritten norms is not a criminal statute.
2.) Clinton reached a deal on his misconduct and did face consequences.
3.) Obama & Ukraine fabricated the russia investigation against potus.
4.) What part of billions of dollars lost and election interference are u missing?

---

Let's start again.  Rudy Giuliani's involvement investigating Ukrainian efforts against POTUS started towards the end of the Mueller investigation.  Why?  Because Ukrain played an expansive role in the origins of the probe, and members of their parliament leaked information about Trump's campaign manager that eventually lead to him being placed under investigation and later imprisoned.   

As for the probe being "over" the probe did immeasurable harm to the president, his family, close associates, and his overall brand.  Continuing to pursue its origins and clear highs clients name in the eye of the public is an appropriate function of private council.   

Moreover, he and the president have a responsibility to share evidence of and root out corruption in dealings with an allie, especially those that deal with billions of dollars in tax payer money.   We now know from witness testimony that even elements in the Obama administration had to block certain projects dealing with burisma because the oligarch was under suspicion of misappropriating funds.  We lost some seven billion dollars in aid money in Ukraine.   

In short, cultivating evidence of a crime and asking that if be investigated is not an illicit act.

You keep missing what I'm throwing down.
Everyone has a right to privately investigate whatever they feel like investigating, I agree.
But no one has the right to involve US prosecutors or US foreign policy or offers of face time with the US president in that, unless the US national interest is also at stake.

 
It's not hard to miss what you're throwing down, the smell of feces is overwhelming. That you don't see the admitted extortion of a foreign country by a previous administration for personal benefit, a member of that administration who is attempting to regain power being the central guilty party, and the same country at the center of foreign and domestic election interference, as a "national interest" perfectly underscores how much your hate for Trump clouds your self proclaimed critical thinking prowess. It also perfectly aligns you with the Democrat mainstream, exactly where we've known you've been from Day 1.

---

You keep missing what I'm throwing down.
Everyone has a right to privately investigate whatever they feel like investigating, I agree.
But no one has the right to involve US prosecutors or US foreign policy or offers of face time with the US president in that, unless the US national interest is also at stake.
Ukraine was going through a change of administration.
Let me explain how that typically works.
When Bush 43 replaced Clinton, he did not pursue any charges of perjury or espionage against Clinton and his associates, although he could have.
When Obama replaced Bush, he did not pursue any charges of war crimes or banking fraud against Bush and his associates and donors, although he could have.
a new administration is supposed to be looking forward, not backwards at the mistakes of the previous administration. And this is about more than just good feelings. This is one of the many unwritten norms that we have that helps us keep having peaceful transfers of power every 4 years. A president who feels like he might end up in jail if he ever loses power is a guy who doesn't give up power peacefully.
Trump was demanding that Ukraine's new administration look backwards, not just to their immediate predecessor but to the guy before that.

1.) Unwritten norms is not a criminal statute.
2.) Clinton reached a deal on his misconduct and did face consequences.
3.) Obama & Ukraine fabricated the russia investigation against potus.
4.) What part of billions of dollars lost and election interference are u missing?

Waste of time JJ, he's a Democratic house organ, nothing more.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You keep missing what I'm throwing down.
Everyone has a right to privately investigate whatever they feel like investigating, I agree.
But no one has the right to involve US prosecutors or US foreign policy or offers of face time with the US president in that, unless the US national interest is also at stake.

 
It's not hard to miss what you're throwing down, the smell of feces is overwhelming. That you don't see the admitted extortion of a foreign country by a previous administration for personal benefit, a member of that administration who is attempting to regain power being the central guilty party, and the same country at the center of foreign and domestic election interference, as a "national interest" perfectly underscores how much your hate for Trump clouds your self proclaimed critical thinking prowess. It also perfectly aligns you with the Democrat mainstream, exactly where we've known you've been from Day 1.

Trump and Biden have this in common:
They both used the tools of foreign policy to interfere with Ukraine's internal affairs. They both did so proudly. They both stood in front of cameras and said what they had done.  Little attempt to hide it.

But one difference is that Biden did what he did in 2015, not 2019. Why is this significant? Well, the people defending Trump today in the House of Representatives and in the Senate were in the majority in both houses in 2015. 

And they made absolutely zero complaint about what Biden chose to do. John Kerry was in on it too, just as deep. No complaint about him either. Why? Obviously these Republicans agreed that it was the right thing to do at the time.

What could have made them change their minds about this 4 years later? If they thought that what biden did was worth " looking into" they could have looked into it right when it happened.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

---

1.) Unwritten norms is not a criminal statute.
2.) Clinton reached a deal on his misconduct and did face consequences.
3.) Obama & Ukraine fabricated the russia investigation against potus.
4.) What part of billions of dollars lost and election interference are u missing?

Waste of time JJ, he's a Democratic house organ, nothing more.

I'm defending the Republican party as it existed in 2015.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

 
It's not hard to miss what you're throwing down, the smell of feces is overwhelming. That you don't see the admitted extortion of a foreign country by a previous administration for personal benefit, a member of that administration who is attempting to regain power being the central guilty party, and the same country at the center of foreign and domestic election interference, as a "national interest" perfectly underscores how much your hate for Trump clouds your self proclaimed critical thinking prowess. It also perfectly aligns you with the Democrat mainstream, exactly where we've known you've been from Day 1.

Trump and Biden have this in common:
They both used the tools of foreign policy to interfere with Ukraine's internal affairs. They both did so proudly. They both stood in front of cameras and said what they had done.  Little attempt to hide it.

But one difference is that Biden did what he did in 2015, not 2019. Why is this significant? Well, the people defending Trump today in the House of Representatives and in the Senate were in the majority in both houses in 2015. 

And they made absolutely zero complaint about what Biden chose to do. John Kerry was in on it too, just as deep. No complaint about him either. Why? Obviously these Republicans agreed that it was the right thing to do at the time.

What could have made them change their minds about this 4 years later? If they thought that what biden did was worth " looking into" they could have looked into it right when it happened.

What?  My gosh.  So let me get this straight; because the establishment bought the Russua hoax and went along with the narrative for three years, agreed to the appointment of mueller, sat back and watched Trumps team go nearly bankrupt on legal fees, etc. we are supposed to ignore the clear evidence of wrongdoing that we now have access to and instead play "you believed me then."  How do u type this stuff?

---