“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
So this is the leak..."If I were an enterprising reporter, I would spend a little time on "Javelin Missiles"..."
It appears that the Javelin Missile subject was first an issue in 2017 and that the Trump people first brought this subject up 2 years ago.
Trump and company led by Giuliani in the background pulled the same kind of quid pro quo deal with the now ousted Ukrainian government in 2017. This phone call that they are investigating is the SECOND time they did it, but with the new government in 2018. Apparently dems in the House have impeachable information on the first instance too!
In Ukraine, the quid pro quo may have started long before the phone call
A standard theme in detective thrillers is that the perpetrator feels compelled to return to the scene of the crime. It’s an irrational urge, and readers of such potboilers are often left wondering whether the protagonist secretly wants to get caught.
Perhaps we’re living a real-life version of this fictional plot in President Trump’s alleged solicitation of political help from Ukraine, which this week spawned a full-blown impeachment probe. Republicans question whether the Ukraine events have the weight of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” But when seen as part of a pattern of behavior, the gravity becomes clearer.
Trump survived his first effort to solicit foreign political help in his appeals to Russia for damaging information about Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. But soon after Trump was cleared of “collusion” by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, he seemingly went at it again — this time demanding political dirt from Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as a condition of delivering military assistance to Kyiv.
Trump evidently thought he’d been exonerated, too, of obstructing Mueller’s investigation (though Mueller’s report is ambiguous on that question). Perhaps emboldened, the president has since appeared to deepen his obstructive behavior, trying to block witnesses from testifying before Congress about Ukraine or any other questionable presidential and personal behavior.
If this were a thriller, we’d suspect that the central character has a compulsion that he doesn’t understand or control — and keeps repeating the actions that get him in trouble.
But this is reality, not bedtime reading. And now it’s an impeachment investigation, as of Thursday, that requires evidence of wrongdoing rather than psychological speculation about motives. House investigators have been conducting a rapid, well-focused inquiry. But here are two nagging questions that I hope investigators can answer.
What led to Trump’s first meeting on June 20, 2017, with Ukraine’s then-President Petro Poroshenko? Ukraine had hired the lobbying firm BGR Group in January 2017 to foster contact with Trump, but nothing had happened . . . and then the door opened. Why?
On June 7, less than two weeks before Poroshenko’s White House meeting, Trump’s lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, had visited Kyiv to give a speech for the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, headed by a prominent Ukrainian oligarch. While Giuliani was there, he also met with Poroshenko and his prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, according a news release issued by the foundation.
Just after Giuliani’s visit, Ukraine’s investigation of the so-called black ledger that listed alleged illicit payments to former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was transferred from an anti-corruption bureau, known as NABU , to Poroshenko’s prosecutor general, according to a June 15, 2017, report in the Kyiv Post. The paper quoted Viktor Trepak, former deputy head of the country’s security service, saying: “It is clear for me that somebody gave an order to bury the black ledger.”
The New York Times reported in May 2018 that Ukraine had “halted cooperation” with Mueller’s investigation. The paper quoted Volodymyr Ariev, a parliament ally of Poroshenko, explaining: “In every possible way, we will avoid irritating the top American officials.”
Was there any implicit understanding that Poroshenko’s government would curb its cooperation with the U.S. Justice Department’s investigation of Manafort, who would later be indicted by Mueller?
Why was Marie Yovanovitch , the U.S. ambassador to Kyiv, fired in May? Trump, Giuliani and their allies had been attacking her since early 2018, but for what reason? Lutsenko, the Ukrainian prosecutor, told the Hill in March that she had given him a “do not prosecute” order, an incendiary charge that Donald Trump Jr. promptly echoed on Twitter. But Lutsenko later recanted, and the State Department said the story was a fabrication.
So why were Trump and Giuliani so eager to dump the ambassador? Here’s what Yovanovitch said during her Oct. 11 testimony to House investigators: “Individuals who have been named in the press as contacts of Mr. Giuliani may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine.”
The former ambassador may have been referring to Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas , two Giuliani clients who were indicted last month on suspicion of arranging secret contributions to help foreign governments. (Fruman and Parnas have pleaded not guilty.) Their biggest project, according to an Associated Press Oct. 7 story, was a plan to sell U.S. natural gas to Ukraine, aided by Giuliani and Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s lobbying of Naftogaz, the Ukrainian gas company.
Trump’s effort to play politics in Ukraine is described in an ever-widening stream of documents and testimony. The House must now assess whether Trump’s behavior makes him unfit to continue in office.
Hey 40 lets start with the basics, can you answer this question?
Did Trump withhold payments to Ukraine?
two possible answers Yes or No?
The payment was made apparently. But really that isn't the point. Just like obstruction of justice ... the ATTEMPT to obstruct makes you guilty, not succeeding.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
But it was withheld for a period of time and delayed .... and Ukraine was pressured to investigate an opponent of Trump's in order to receive the payment. It was done at Trump's instruction and the payment was delayed despite protest from several. That's illegal and unethical.
But - you don't care. Apparently you don't think it's un-American to coerce foreign powers to dig dirt on politicians by threatening to withhold funds. Welcome to the dictator state, you'll love it (until the shoes on the other foot).
As I said - it wasn't the withholding of the funds - it was how the threat of withholding them was used to coerce and blackmail Ukraine.
Last edited by mgh888; 11/02/1905:01 PM.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
The point you are so willing to ignore is that the payment was withheld. THAT was the act that has his pasty, flabbyass mantit in the wringer now.
Congress approved the bill, appropriated the funds, and gave the go-ahead for disbursement. The POTUS then snatched the money away, and made disbursement contingent upon Ukraine committing acts that personally benefit him, instead of America. "Dig up dirt on my opponent, and the money's yours." That is illegal. The Constitution doesn't authorize him to do such a thing. It is using the power of the office for personal gain. Public servants are not allowed to do that. We have laws (based on the Constitution) that say so. Slm Fkng Dnk.
And just to be clear, the act he was requesting was this: Ukraine's Prez/High-ranking Official goes on CNN, to publicly make the claim that Ukraine was investigating the Biden family for suspected improprieties- a conspiracy theory that had already been blown up before Team Orange ever took its first step. Didn't matter to Trump. The myth had already been blowed out, but HE STILL BELIEVED IT. And so, he ordered it to become manifest. He wanted it done, and he wanted it done in the public sphere whether true or not, because having it out there was his goal the entire time.
It's all in the testimony of these people who are lining up/stacking up to drop truthbombs all over this inquiry.
They have facts. They took contemporaneous notes. And now, they are speaking out.
There is no "but" to this. And to quote Donald Trump, "There is no quid pro quo." Of that fact, he is absolutely correct.
This was never a case of "You scratch me, I'll scratch you," the way American international politics has always operated. This was something very different.
This was a case of "You scratch me, and I'll finally give you what you should have already had."
"Nice sovereign country ya got dere. Be a shame if sumtin' more should happ'n to its borders. Borders dat happ'n to keep a guy I know (and respeck) from settin his turf further inside your newly-shrunk boundaries. Now... to fuel ya boys and help keep ya turf safe, I'm gonna needja to do a li'l sumpn' f'me..."
Which is illegal in NYC, as well as on the international front... and especially in regards to The Constitution of The United States of America.
This 'man' used the highest office in our government to execute a mob-style shakedown on an imperiled, vulnerable country. A country allied to us through the EU that is under direct threat from one of America's longest (and strongest) foes. An EU that Russia has wanted to dissemble since its creation.
Donald Trump used the office of the President of the United States in a NYC/Queens-style protection racket shakedown.
With your taxpayer money, as well as mine. And this doesn't bother you at all.
In fact, you actively defend him against facts like this at every single opportunity, when they are presented by people like me.
It's almost as if the infopool you use to establish your entire world view is 180° out-of-phase from that which establishes my reality. Which is the reason I posted the "Sobering" thread in the first place.
Senate Republicans want President Trump to focus more on his agenda and not let himself become personally consumed by the House impeachment inquiry, which is likely to hit a dead end in the Senate.
Senate Republicans have urged the president on multiple occasions to key his eye on top policy priorities and let his allies on Capitol Hill handle more of the day-to-day skirmishing over impeachment, according to GOP sources familiar with communications with the president.
One instance came late last month during a meeting between Trump and Republican senators at the White House, when Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) urged the president to follow the model of how President Bill Clinton handled impeachment in 1998 and 1999.
The GOP senator, who is an adviser to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), urged Trump at the Oct. 24 meeting to keep his focus on the agenda and let Republican lawmakers do more of the heavy lifting in fighting back against the Democratic impeachment push.
The senator’s comments reflected the belief among many Senate Republicans that the public cares more about issues such as the strength of the economy, health care and national security than impeachment.
“The dual-track strategy would be a better strategy. He’s been told this a number of times. Let us worry about impeachment, that’s our job. You worry about your job,” said a person familiar with communications between Senate Republicans and the president.
In 1998, Clinton made it a priority to compartmentalize his impeachment defense and his policy agenda, which sent a clear message to voters that he was continuing to pursue the nation’s business despite the partisan fighting in Congress.
Trump, by contrast, has declared on multiple occasions that the House Democrats’ pursuit of impeachment makes it all but impossible to pass bipartisan legislation.
“Then they all wonder why they don't get gun legislation done, then they wonder why they don’t get drug prices lowered,” Trump said in September. “Because all they do is talk nonsense. No more infrastructure bills, no more anything.”
The president’s frequent expressions of anger and frustration, to the press and over Twitter, has caused some GOP lawmakers to worry that impeachment is consuming too much of the president’s focus.
Trump’s latest idea of reading the transcript of his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a fireside chat on live television — something the president thinks would quash public support for the impeachment inquiry — strikes some Republicans as a bad idea. They think the president would be better off to devote his national television addresses to his policy goals, such as a new round of tax cuts before the 2020 election.
Trump discussed impeachment once again with a small group of GOP senators he invited to the White House for lunch this past Thursday, where he reiterated many of the same arguments against the House Democratic inquiry that he has made in public.
He extolled on several occasions the reconstructed transcript of his call with Zelensky, which Trump believes makes it clear that he didn’t do anything wrong.
“He said a number of times he was really glad there was a transcript and that he was really glad he released it,” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who attended the meeting.
“In terms of the transcript, what the president said over and over is he was delighted there was a transcript, glad that there was one and he was glad that he released it,” he added.
Democrats, by contrast, view the partial transcript as evidence that Trump tried to inappropriately pressure Ukraine to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
The senators at Thursday’s meeting mostly listened to Trump and when they spoke, they were eager to put policy issues on his radar that have gotten lost in recent weeks amidst the uproar over impeachment.
“I talked about prescription drugs, prescription drug pricing, and said I think we got to take action,” Hawley said. “Sen. [John] Barrasso [R-Wyo.] brought up infrastructure.”
Some Republican senators are frustrated that major issues, in particular the National Defense Authorization Act and the annual spending bills, have become stalled while the capital is consumed by the impeachment fight.
The defense authorization bill and the spending bills are being held up in large measure because of the lack of a resolution on how to fund the U.S.-Mexico border wall, one of Trump’s top priorities. Democrats don’t want to move defense legislation without a guarantee the president won’t redirect military funds to build the border wall.
One Republican senator expressed frustration to The Hill that Trump is not giving negotiators a clear sense of how he wants to handle the stalled defense bill.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) says he is prepared to move a skinny defense authorization bill — which would be stripped down to the bare essentials — just to avoid the embarrassing prospect of not passing one for the first time in 59 years.
Senate Republicans think Trump would boost his approval numbers, which have dipped in recent weeks, by focusing more on policy and spending less time lashing out at the Democrats impeachment inquiry.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said focusing on policy is a smart idea.
“He just needs to keep working. We need to keep working and that’s what it’s all about,” she said.
That strategy helped Clinton win the public relations battle with Republicans before the 1998 midterm election, when the president’s party uncharacteristically picked up seats in the House.
“Clinton came out of impeachment more popular than he did going in and he did that in part because he made a concerted effort to show the country he was still working on their behalf on various issues,” said a Senate GOP aide.
A White House spokesman said Democrats have become consumed by impeachment and lost focus on governing, not Trump.
"The President has never lost focus on his promises to the American people unlike the Speaker and her caucus,” Judd Deere, the White House spokesman, wrote in a response emailed to The Hill.
“While the Do Nothing Democrats continue with their kangaroo court, President Trump and his Administration keep working on behalf of the American people, delivering on lower drug prices, border security, USMCA, greater choice in healthcare, infrastructure, and more,” he added. “This President is going to continue to build on his record-setting success, and keep fighting for the forgotten men and women of this country.”
An Emerson Polling survey of voters in Iowa, a key battleground state, last month showed that even Democratic voters don’t rate impeachment as highly as other issues. They rated the economy and health care as the top two issues. Impeachment ranked in seventh on the list of their priorities.
At the same time, GOP lawmakers realize that Trump is extremely frustrated with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democrats.
“I think he’s just offended. The Democrats have been after him since Day One,” said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa).
They also realize that Trump is going to be Trump and that past efforts to tamp down on his Twitter habit haven’t gone anywhere.
“He’s not Bill Clinton. He’s unique,” observed Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.).
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Monday that it is up to the whistleblower at the center of the impeachment inquiry to decide whether or not to come forward after President Trump urged the media to reveal the individual's identity.
"That's strictly up to the whistleblower," Grassley told reporters.
When asked if Trump's remarks on Sunday were appropriate, the Iowa Republican demurred.
"All I want to do is make sure the law is followed," he said. "A person like me that has advocated for whistleblowers for a long period of time, including this whistleblower, I want maximum protection for whistleblowers."
Trump and some of his GOP allies on Capitol Hill have been publicly calling for the whistleblower to be unmasked, arguing that the president should be able to confront the individual, whose complaint helped spur the House inquiry.
Trump told reporters on Sunday that they "would be doing the public a service" if they disclosed the individual's identity.
"They know who it is. You know who it is. You just don't want to report it. CNN knows who it is, but you don't want to report it," Trump said. "You know, you’d be doing the public a service if you did."
Grassley has repeatedly defended the whistleblower, and said last month that the individual deserved to be "heard out and protected."
Lawyers for the whistleblower have said that the individual would be willing to answer questions from both the House and Senate Intelligence Committee in writing and under oath.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), an ally of the president's who is a member of neither committee, said on Monday that Trump "must have full right of confrontation regarding the whistleblower." Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) also told The Hill late last week that the offer, which was also outlined in The Washington Post last month, was "not acceptable."
House Democrats in September launched an impeachment inquiry amid reports that Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate 2020 Democratic presidential front-runner Joe Biden and his son. No evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the Bidens has emerged.
Now we'll see how bad the republicans really wanted to see these. My bet is they just wanted to complain and play victim; soon it will be obvious to tell rather they read them or not.
Trump has been demanding that the whistleblower come forward or be revealed. Hearing that dems are working with WBs attorney to decide what they want to do. If I'm Ivanka, I only come forward when I know the will can't be changed.
The point you are so willing to ignore is that the payment was withheld. THAT was the act that has his pasty, flabbyass mantit in the wringer now.
Congress approved the bill, appropriated the funds, and gave the go-ahead for disbursement. The POTUS then snatched the money away, and made disbursement contingent upon Ukraine committing acts that personally benefit him, instead of America. "Dig up dirt on my opponent, and the money's yours." That is illegal. The Constitution doesn't authorize him to do such a thing. It is using the power of the office for personal gain. Public servants are not allowed to do that. We have laws (based on the Constitution) that say so. Slm Fkng Dnk.
And just to be clear, the act he was requesting was this: Ukraine's Prez/High-ranking Official goes on CNN, to publicly make the claim that Ukraine was investigating the Biden family for suspected improprieties- a conspiracy theory that had already been blown up before Team Orange ever took its first step. Didn't matter to Trump. The myth had already been blowed out, but HE STILL BELIEVED IT. And so, he ordered it to become manifest. He wanted it done, and he wanted it done in the public sphere whether true or not, because having it out there was his goal the entire time.
It's all in the testimony of these people who are lining up/stacking up to drop truthbombs all over this inquiry.
They have facts. They took contemporaneous notes. And now, they are speaking out.
There is no "but" to this. And to quote Donald Trump, "There is no quid pro quo." Of that fact, he is absolutely correct.
This was never a case of "You scratch me, I'll scratch you," the way American international politics has always operated. This was something very different.
This was a case of "You scratch me, and I'll finally give you what you should have already had."
"Nice sovereign country ya got dere. Be a shame if sumtin' more should happ'n to its borders. Borders dat happ'n to keep a guy I know (and respeck) from settin his turf further inside your newly-shrunk boundaries. Now... to fuel ya boys and help keep ya turf safe, I'm gonna needja to do a li'l sumpn' f'me..."
Which is illegal in NYC, as well as on the international front... and especially in regards to The Constitution of The United States of America.
This 'man' used the highest office in our government to execute a mob-style shakedown on an imperiled, vulnerable country. A country allied to us through the EU that is under direct threat from one of America's longest (and strongest) foes. An EU that Russia has wanted to dissemble since its creation.
Donald Trump used the office of the President of the United States in a NYC/Queens-style protection racket shakedown.
With your taxpayer money, as well as mine. And this doesn't bother you at all.
In fact, you actively defend him against facts like this at every single opportunity, when they are presented by people like me.
It's almost as if the infopool you use to establish your entire world view is 180° out-of-phase from that which establishes my reality. Which is the reason I posted the "Sobering" thread in the first place.
Two Separate Realities.
In a nut shell. But Hilary. But process. But Republicans demand access to these investigations (oh - that's right the Republicans ARE in those closed door investigations). But .... anything other than look at what Trump says and does.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
As the State Department becomes engulfed by the House impeachment inquiry, diplomats say they find themselves caught in a "strange parallel universe," where the administration officials they serve accuse them of being part of a "swamp" trying to take the President down.
Officials from the nation's oldest Cabinet agency have been central to the inquiry into Trump's alleged attempts to exchange aid to Ukraine for an investigation into his political foes. As the inquiry unfolds, the department itself and some individual officials have become the target of intensifying White House vitriol.
The State Department has been catapulted into a "strange parallel universe," one Washington-based official previously told CNN, groping for a way to describe the way staff feel about the situation: The administration they serve is attacking them, career diplomats are having to hire lawyers simply for having done their jobs and anger is growing about the silence on the seventh floor, where the secretary's offices are housed.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Rand Paul and Hannity are proud of themselves for knowing who it is as they call for them to come out... I hope they are wrong. Pretty sure it's Ivanka.
Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo
In a substantial update to his initial account, Gordon D. Sondland recounted how he told Ukrainian officials military aid was tied to their commitment to investigations President Trump wanted.
WASHINGTON — A critical witness in the impeachment inquiry offered Congress substantial new testimony this week, revealing that he told a top Ukrainian official that the country likely would not receive American military aid unless it publicly committed to investigations President Trump wanted.
The disclosure from Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, in four new pages of sworn testimony released on Tuesday, confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had previously not acknowledged.
The testimony offered several major new details beyond the account he gave the inquiry in a 10-hour interview last month. Mr. Sondland provided a more robust description of his own role in alerting the Ukrainians that they needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. By early September, Mr. Sondland said, he had become convinced that military aid and a White House meeting were conditioned on Ukraine committing to those investigations.
Mr. Sondland had said in a text message exchange in early September with William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, that the president had been clear there was no quid pro quo between the aid and investigations of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., his son and other Democrats. But Mr. Sondland testified last month that he was only repeating what Mr. Trump had told him, leaving open the question of whether he believed the president. The new account suggested that Mr. Sondland may have not been completely forthcoming with Mr. Taylor, and that he was, in fact, aware that the aid was contingent upon the investigations.
In his updated testimony, Mr. Sondland recounted how he had discussed the linkage with Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, on the sidelines of a Sept. 1 meeting between Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Zelensky in Warsaw. Mr. Zelensky had discussed the suspension of aid with Mr. Pence, Mr. Sondland said.
“I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Mr. Sondland said in the document, which was released by the House committees leading the inquiry, along with the transcript of his original testimony from last month.
The new information surfaced as the House committees also released a transcript of their interview last month with Kurt D. Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine. Rushing to complete their final round of requests for key witnesses before they commence public impeachment hearings, the panels also scheduled testimony on Friday by Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff. And two more administration witnesses who had been scheduled to testify on Tuesday — Michael Duffey, a top official on the White House budget office, and Wells Griffith, a senior aide to Energy Secretary Rick Perry — failed to appear.
In his new testimony, Mr. Sondland said he believed that withholding the aid — a package of $391 million in security assistance that had been approved by Congress — was “ill-advised,” although he did not know “when, why or by whom the aid was suspended.” But he said he came to believe that the aid was tied to the investigations.
“I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anticorruption statement,” Mr. Sondland said.
In his closed-door interview last month, Mr. Sondland portrayed himself as a well-meaning and at times unwitting player who was trying to conduct American foreign policy with Ukraine with the full backing of the State Department while Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s lawyer, repeatedly inserted himself at the behest of the president.
But some Democrats painted him as a lackey of Mr. Trump’s who had been an agent of the shadow foreign policy on Ukraine, eager to go along with what the president wanted. Democrats contended Mr. Sondland, a wealthy hotelier from Oregon, had evaded crucial questions during his testimony, repeatedly claiming not to recall the events under scrutiny.
And other witnesses have pointed to him as a central player in the irregular channel of Ukraine policymaking being run by Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani, and the instigator of the quid pro quo strategy.
In the addendum, Mr. Sondland said he had “refreshed my recollection” after reading the testimony given by Mr. Taylor and Timothy Morrison, the senior director for Europe and Russia at the National Security Council.
Mr. Trump has denied there was a quid pro quo involving the aid and Ukraine’s willingness to launch investigations he was seeking into the Bidens and other Democrats. Mr. Sondland’s clarification is significant because his earlier testimony left it unclear how he viewed the issue, even as three other officials told impeachment investigators under oath that the aid and the investigations were linked. Unlike the others, Mr. Sondland was a donor to Mr. Trump’s campaign and was seen as a personal ally of the president.
Mr. Morrison, the National Security Council official, testified last week that it was Mr. Sondland who first indicated in a conversation with him and Mr. Taylor on Sept. 1 that the release of the military aid for Ukraine might be contingent on the announcement of the investigations, and that he hoped “that Ambassador Sondland’s strategy was exclusively his own.”
The new testimony appeared in part to be an attempt by Mr. Sondland to argue that the quid pro quo was not his idea, and explain why he believed the aid and the investigations were linked. He said it “would have been natural for me to have voiced what I presumed” about what was standing in the way of releasing the military assistance.
Mr. Sondland originally testified that Mr. Trump had essentially delegated American foreign policy on Ukraine to Mr. Giuliani, a directive he disagreed with but still followed. He said that it was Mr. Giuliani who demanded the new Ukrainian president commit to the investigations, and that he did not understand until later that the overarching goal may have been to bolster the president’s 2020 election chances.
Mr. Sondland said that he went along with what Mr. Giuliani wanted in the hope of pacifying him and restoring normal relations between the two countries. Under questioning, he acknowledged believing the statement was linked to a White House visit the new president of Ukraine sought with Mr. Trump.
I read a pretty good article about a month ago that was in I believe Roll Call. They were talking about trump facing impeachment and how he was going to attack it.
They said that they had spoken to a couple people in the presidents orbit and they thought that he would fight it like hell-in the courts, through the republicans in congress, delay, defer and deny.
BUT, if there ever came a time that he thought he might actually be impeached, he may look for an exit strategy - to because to him it is all about money, his brand and legacy. He would say that he did all he could do, working in Washington is too taxing, and its costing him money.
But, he has also said that he must fight impeachment at all cost, he cannot be impeached. It hurts his resume, his legacy. He cannot be thrown into that pile with Nixon and Bill Clinton.
yall see this? graham was wanting the testimony released, now says he wont read it.
what a scumbag
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Thanks to Rand Paul, Russian Media Are Naming the Alleged Whistleblower Julia Davis,The Daily Beast
Standing beside an approving Donald Trump at a rally in Kentucky on Monday night, Republican Sen. Rand Paul demanded the media unmask the whistleblower whose report about the president’s alleged abuse of power dealing with Ukraine sparked impeachment proceedings.
American news organizations resisted the pressure, but—in a 2019 re-play of “Russia, if you’re listening”—Kremlin-controlled state media promptly jumped on it.
Very quickly after Sen. Paul tweeted out an article that speculated in considerable detail about the identity of the whistleblower—with a photograph, a name, and details about the purported political history of a CIA professional—Russian state media quickly followed suit.
As if on cue, the Kremlin-controlled heavy hitters—TASS, RT, Rossiya-1—disseminated the same information. But unlike Rand Paul, one of the Russian state media outlets didn’t seem to find the source—Real Clear Investigations—to be particularly impressive, and claimed falsely that the material was published originally by The Washington Post.
This was the most egregious, but certainly not the only example of Kremlin-funded media cheerleading for Trump’s fight against impeachment as proceedings against him unfold with growing speed. As a chorus of talking heads on Fox News have picked up on Trump’s talking points, which is predictable—they’ve also been echoed across the pond, albeit with a tinge of irony.
“Have you lost your minds that you want to remove our Donald Ivanovych?” asked Vladimir Soloviev, the host of the television show Evening with Vladimir Soloviev.
Russian experts, government officials, and prominent talking heads often deride the American president for his Twitter clangor, haphazard approach to foreign policy, clownish lack of decorum, and unfiltered stream of verbalized consciousness. But all the reasons they believe Trump “isn’t a very good president” for America are precisely their reasons for thinking he is so great for Russia.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a Russian client whose regime teetered on the brink of collapse only to be saved definitively by Trump’s chaotic approach to the Middle East, recently said that “President Trump is the best type of president for a foe.” The Russians heartily agree. The Trump presidency has been wildly successful for Russia, which is eagerly stepping into every vacuum created by the retreat of the United States on the world stage.
“They say Trump is making Russia great. That’s basically accurate,” pointed out Karen Shakhnazarov, CEO of Mosfilm Studio and a prominent fixture on Russian state television. “The chaos brought by Trump into the American system of government is weakening the United States. America is getting weaker and now Russia is taking its place in the Middle East. Suddenly, Russia is starting to seriously penetrate Africa... So when they say that Trump is weakening the United States—yes, he is. And that’s why we love him... The more problems they have, the better it is for us.”
Since the current administration is proving to be beneficial for the Kremlin, the Russians are openly contemplating various strategies and conspiracy theories, designed to undermine President Trump’s political opponents. Russian state TV host Dmitry Kiselyov named Joe Biden as “Trump’s most dangerous rival" and urged Trump to “keep digging in Ukraine for the sweetest kompromat of all: Proving that Ukraine—not Russia—interfered in the U.S. elections."
Russian conspiracy theories have been reverberating throughout the Trump administration, boosted by Konstantin Kilimnik and Paul Manafort, repeated by President Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani. The Russians anticipated an easy victory and the Kremlin-controlled state media pre-emptively rejoiced back in May 2019 when state TV host Evgeny Popov boisterously declared that “Trump already won” and “Ukraine buried Biden as a candidate.”
But what was contemplated as a winning strategy backfired spectacularly when Trump bought into that Russian theory. Through Giuliani, Trump pressured Ukraine’s newly elected President Volodymyr Zelensky for dirt on Biden, and—thanks to a whistleblower’s initial report on a highly problematic phone call Trump made to Zelensky in July—a formal impeachment inquiry began.
As the evidence of abuse of power continues to mount, the beleaguered commander in chief is reduced to attacking the messenger. Trump repeatedly demanded that lawmakers and the media reveal the identity of the whistleblower, even though congressional testimony from multiple witnesses now being made public repeatedly and consistently supports the original allegations.
Russian experts and analysts are openly hoping that the impeachment proceedings will have a side effect that would greatly benefit the Kremlin: “Impeachment will turn into the hunt for Ukrainians” and cause a serious rift between Kyiv and Washington.
RIA Novosti columnist Ivan Danilov writes:
“Some witnesses and sources of information, on which the charges against Donald Trump are based (and for which he, in fact, faces impeachment) are ‘Americans of Ukrainian descent’... At the same time, supporters of the current president are already demonstrating a clear willingness to use their background as the proof that they are ‘traitors to America.’ It isn’t as evident now, but after several months of actively promoting the thesis ‘Ukrainians are Clinton’s agents and the enemies of the United States, who are trying to overthrow Trump,’ a significant part of American society and the political elite will want nothing to do with Ukraine or the Ukrainian leadership, nor will they harbor any warm feelings toward the Ukrainian diaspora.”
Danilov quotes Fox News, Glenn Beck, and The Federalist to demonstrate that a case against Trump is ultimately going to turn into a case against Ukraine.
The possibility of undermining bipartisan support for Ukraine’s fledgling democracy and its ongoing fight against Russian aggression sounds like a wonderful bonus for the Kremlin, especially since—for a change—anti-Ukrainian agitprop is now being made in America.
Although rattled by the prospect of Trump’s impeachment, Russian state media remains optimistic. Olga Skabeeva, the host of 60 Minutes, the most popular news talk show in Russia, predicted: “A Republican majority in the Senate won’t allow the president whom we elected, wonderful Donald Trump, to be sent off. It’s impossible. He has 90 percent support in the Republican Party.”
Russian news reports are assuring their audiences that while impeachment is likely, it won’t result in Trump’s removal from office and will have no effect on the presidential elections in 2020. Russian media outlets are forecasting that swing states and the Electoral College will assure yet another victory for Donald Trump, which suits the Kremlin to a “T.”
Impeachment investigators announce first public hearings next week
(CNN)House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff on Wednesday announced impeachment hearings will begin next week as Democrats prepare to take their case against President Donald Trump to the public.
Schiff, a California Democrat, said that three witnesses will testify next week: US diplomat Bill Taylor and State Department official George Kent will appear on next Wednesday, and former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch is testifying next Friday.
The open hearings mark a new phase of the Democrats' impeachment inquiry into Trump and Ukraine and will be the first time that the country hears directly from the officials at the center of allegations that Trump pushed Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and the 2016 election in order to help the President politically.
Impeachment investigators have heard from more than a dozen witnesses behind closed doors, piecing together evidence of a months-long campaign spearheaded by the President's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani in Ukraine that included an effort to remove Yovanovitch from her post and then to convince Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens and the 2016 election.
Taylor's testimony is among the most significant for the Democratic case that $400 million in security aid to Ukraine and a one-on-one meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky were conditioned on Ukraine announcing investigations into the 2016 election and Burisma, the company that hired Hunter Biden. In his 15-page opening statement, Taylor explained how he was told that "everything" Ukraine wanted was conditioned on the investigation.
The House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight Committees have conducted the depositions behind closed doors with Trump administration officials who have testified under subpoena over the objections of the White House. The public hearings will be conducted just by the House Intelligence Committee. Under rules passed by the House last week, both Democrats and Republicans will 45-minute blocks to question witnesses in which staff attorneys can participate.
As Democrats begin to shift from the fact-finding depositions toward the public phase of the impeachment probe, the committee began has released four transcripts of the closed-door interviews, which provided additional detail about the freezing of Ukraine aid and the push investigations, as well as the removal of Yovanovitch from her post earlier this year.
Schiff told reporters Taylor's deposition transcript would be released later Wednesday.
The committee on Monday released its transcript of Yovanovitch's closed-door deposition, in which she described how State Department leaders would not issue a public statement of support for her amid the Giuliani attacks, out of concern that the President might undermine their efforts.
Kent, a career State Department official, also testified about Giuliani's efforts to oust Yovanovitch and said he was told to lie low after raising concerns about Giuliani undermining US policy in Ukraine.
well, we all know whats coming next. The trump team will claim that rudy went rogue and that trump didnt wasnt really aware of what was going on.
this obviously wont save trump, but they will try it anyway.
i kinda feel bad for rudy.
kinda.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I know a lot of people aren't fans of Biden, but he said something last week that I loved.
He said he learned two things. One was that Russia wanted Trump to be president and two was that Trump didn't want him to be nominated.
I don't think any of the libs hate Joe, I think he served admirably. But I don't think he or his brand are what we need now. I also think he is slipping a little due to age. And I don't mean that in an ageist way because each of us age differently and our minds are affected by age differently. Bernie is older, but I think he's much sharper than Joe at this point. Trump is too as far as response time and reaction time. Joe seems to get overwhelmed a bit.
Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano says Trump's Ukraine call was both criminal and impeachable William Cummings USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – Fox News' senior judicial analyst, Andrew Napolitano, said Thursday that the summary released by the White House of a July 25 phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky demonstrates "both criminal and impeachable behavior" by Trump.
Though the president has said it was a "perfect call" and that the summary exonerates him, Napolitano said in an opinion piece that the call showed that Trump was guilty of violating campaign finance law, bribery and intimidating witnesses.
The former New Jersey judge's opinion made a social media splash because he works for a cable news network that is home to pro-Trump media figures like Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Jeanine Pirro and the hosts of "Fox & Friends." The article repeated several points Napolitano has made on air since the scandal broke.
Napolitano has bucked his conservative colleagues before, particularly with his view that special counsel Robert Mueller also revealed impeachable offenses.
Perilous times for Trump:By 45%-38%, Americans support impeaching him over Ukraine allegations, poll finds
"The criminal behavior to which Trump has admitted is much more grave than anything alleged or unearthed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and much of what Mueller revealed was impeachable," Napolitano wrote Thursday about Trump's call to Zelensky.
The call is at the center of an impeachment inquiry after a whistleblower complaint accused Trump of "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election." Trump is alleged to have used approved military aid as leverage to demand that Ukraine investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, who has generally led in Democratic primary polling.
Though the president and his defenders have denied evidence of a "quid pro quo" in the phone call, Napolitano said that Trump's request for a "favor" after Zelensky spoke of his need for anti-tank missiles was a "clear unmistakable inference" that approved military aid "would be held up until the favor was delivered."
"The favor he sought was dirt on Biden," Napolitano said.
Impeachment pressure:Trump says China should investigate Joe Biden, family
Napolitano also said the "president need not have committed a crime in order to be impeached, but he needs to have engaged in behavior that threatens the constitutional stability of the United States or the rule of law as we have come to know it."
The judge decried Trump's verbal attacks on the whistleblower and "suggesting that the whistleblower and those who have helped him are spies and ought to be treated as spies were in 'the old days' (Trump’s phrase) – that is, by hanging."
He called Trump's "allusions to violence are palpably dangerous" and said they "will give cover to crazies who crave violence, as other intemperate words of his have done."
And he said that Trump's retweet of a pastor's suggestion that impeachment could lead to civil war was "a dog whistle to the deranged."
Napolitano expressed shock that Trump would try to engage a country to interfere in the 2020 election immediately after Mueller's investigation, which outlined a "sweeping and systematic" Russian campaign to sway the 2016 election.
"Now he has attempted in one phone call to bring the Ukrainian government into the 2020 election! Does he understand the laws he has sworn to uphold?" Napolitano asked. "It was to remedy just such reckless, constitutionally destructive behavior that impeachment was intended."
Napolitano's opinion sparked the ire of many Fox News viewers as well as Fox News contributor and former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova who called Napolitano "a fool" during an appearance on "Tucker Carlson Tonight."
"Nothing that the president said on that call or what we think he said on that call constitutes a crime," DiGenova said. "And even if he had said you're not going to get the money it would not be a crime."
Explainer:Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn't pursue corruption cases
The difference between Jesus and religion Religion mocks you for having dirty feet Jesus gets down on his knees and washes them
As if we needed anymore proof that Fox News is state propaganda.
My bad, TRUMP propaganda.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Roger Stone's trial started this week and he's looking at a lot of time, maybe the rest of his life if convicted. I could see him flipping on Trump if his trial starts to go south on him. That could be interesting with the unredacted Mueller report plus underlying materials now in Congresses hands.
Rudy Giuliani's Ukrainian exploits and backroom dealing for Trump is catching up to him too! This week he decided to reverse his position and hired counsel to represent him. Meanwhile one of his Russia linked ukrainian cohorts is already seeking to strike a deal and seemed to be triggered by Trump saying he didn't know who he was. That could get interesting fast too.
All of that added to the public hearings in the House starting next week and this next few weeks will be one of those times you remember for life. Where were you the day they removed Trump from Office grandpa/grandma/mom/dad? 9/11, The Kennedys and MLK assassinations, Nixon and Clinton impeachments, etc. were all very important days in history that immediately seared into the minds of the observers and those hearing the news for the first time. the next several weeks could hold a day like those. Just saying.
EDIT UPDATE: News now reporting that Trump is saying he doesn't want these public hearings. Last week he wanted a vote, open public hearings, and demanded the transcripts be released. Well now he has had a vote, got the transcripts, and looking at public hearings next week and NOW HE DOESN'T WANT THAT!
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)
