Trump’s Loose Lips with Ukraine

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Did he do what he did as quid pro quo for the good of the US as between one government and another, or did he ask for a personal favor to help him defeat a rival?

That gets down to motive, essentially, and would require reading the man's mind.  The real question is, was he within the scope of his duties to say what he did to the Ukranian official and the answer there is an unqualified yes.  He is not responsible in any way for the assumptions of his enemies.  If any proof of his intentions mattered to those working to bring him down, his release of the aid without receiving anything should prove his innocence.  I haven't heard anyone acknowledge that for there to be a "something for something" we would have had to have evidence that a new investigation was opened or an old one reopened prior to the aid release and that simply did not happen.  Whether his enemies acknowledge this or not makes no difference while the truth gets out.  If anything it may strengthen his run in 2020.  The downside to the never ending assault that the administrative state is pushing is the chance that too many people will realize what they are up to and punish them for it at the ballot box.

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Did Putin wait?

His troops did not attempt to enter that territory before U.S. troops had evacuated and blown the bases they had used so yeah, I'd say it's pretty clear that he did wait.

[Farmer77]

12 minutes ago, and then said:

I haven't heard anyone acknowledge that for there to be a "something for something" we would have had to have evidence that a new investigation was opened or an old one reopened prior to the aid release and that simply did not happen.  

Here is an undeniable "something for something" in addition to the "something for something" youre denying.

Officials’ texts reveal belief that Trump wanted probes as condition of Ukraine meeting

Quote

The texts, which former special U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker provided investigators during a nearly 10-hour deposition Thursday, reveal that officials felt Trump would not agree to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky unless Zelensky promised to launch the investigations — and did so publicly. Although the texts do not mention Biden by name, congressional Democrats leading an impeachment inquiry are pointing to them as clear evidence that Trump conditioned normal bilateral relations with Ukraine on that country first agreeing “to launch politically motivated investigations,” top Democrats said in statement Thursday night.

 

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by Farmer77

[RAyMO]

4 minutes ago, and then said:

That gets down to motive, essentially, and would require reading the man's mind.

Or knowing that such is impossible we could look as surrounding evidence - to see if anything supported acting in the best interest of the country.

Like asking did any of the US government agencies come to Trump and say look we have an issue concerning Biden and Crowdstrike in Ukraine it would be useful for you Mr President to raise it.

Or like Trump going to the government agencies and saying - look I have insight here I think it is an issue of importance to the US how should we proceed with this?

Or look I am planning in bringing this up with the Ukraine President - given that its a issue of national importance can I be sure doing so won't impact on your ongoing investigations.

 

[Tatetopa]

49 minutes ago, and then said:

That gets down to motive, essentially, and would require reading the man's mind. 

Well, I think if he said he did it in the interest of the country, it would be hard to disprove.  Seems like a pretty solid defense. 

[Tatetopa]

44 minutes ago, and then said:

His troops did not attempt to enter that territory before U.S. troops had evacuated and blown the bases they had used so yeah, I'd say it's pretty clear that he did wait.

He waited for his turn to make that  move, but I don't think he was just sitting around waiting for something to happen.  He has been working hard in the Middle East for the last year or longer.  in Turkey, in Syria, in Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and seemingly Iran, so he has not been idle.  I don't really believe that Trump withdrew to please Putin, but the Russians pushed the situation.  Will the Kurds now be a Russian asset?  Maybe.

Once you throw the ball you have to wait while it rolls down the alley to see how many pins you knocked over.

[Farmer77]

Just now, Tatetopa said:

Will the Kurds now be a Russian asset? 

I have that same concern about ISIS

[Tatetopa]

47 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

Or knowing that such is impossible we could look as surrounding evidence - to see if anything supported acting in the best interest of the country.

Like asking did any of the US government agencies come to Trump and say look we have an issue concerning Biden and Crowdstrike in Ukraine it would be useful for you Mr President to raise it.

Or like Trump going to the government agencies and saying - look I have insight here I think it is an issue of importance to the US how should we proceed with this?

Or look I am planning in bringing this up with the Ukraine President - given that its a issue of national importance can I be sure doing so won't impact on your ongoing investigations.

As his supporters will tell you, that is not the way he operates,  Basically, he does not trust the US government.  He will ask an insider friend like Rudy to do the leg work for him.  He doesn't ask for advice or accept advice.  He does not have a long term policy, only gut feeling.  I don't think that is an impeachable offense, but voters better think about .whether on not they want the government to be run like a small family business.

[Farmer77]

This is a good op-ed from foxnews that can only be summed up by saying HOLY ****!!!

Mary Anne Marsh: Thanks to Trump, Christmas has come early to the Kremlin

Quote

Last, but not least, it was also announced the United States and Russia will hold joint cyber exercises. Just in time for the 2020 election and only 105 days until the Iowa caucuses. After blatantly interfering in our elections in 2016, and with apparently nothing to stop them in 2020, what could possibly go wrong? Help Trump? Hurt Trump’s opponents or potential Democratic nominee? Sound familiar?

WTF? But no seriously WTF? 

 

[RAyMO]

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

As his supporters will tell you, that is not the way he operates,  Basically, he does not trust the US government.  He will ask an insider friend like Rudy to do the leg work for him.  He doesn't ask for advice or accept advice.  He does not have a long term policy, only gut feeling.  I don't think that is an impeachable offense, but voters better think about .whether on not they want the government to be run like a small family business.

Then he shouldn't be surprised if his actions end up impeachable. He has responsibilities as President - one of which is to act within the constraints of the Office. That he personally feels he shouldn't have any restraints is neither here nor there.

I don't know about the USA but if a UK leader had done what Trump had done I would have expected him to resign - right away. 

Personally I think it is clearly impeachable.

[RAyMO]

46 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

This is a good op-ed from foxnews that can only be summed up by saying HOLY ****!!!

Mary Anne Marsh: Thanks to Trump, Christmas has come early to the Kremlin

WTF? But no seriously WTF? 

 

I know that Fox news is pro Trump - I know that this article is anti Trump and seemingly supports impeachment. But is it really a big deal that Fox publish this - serious question. 

What about the author is she purely Fox News or an independent? Does she normally back trump?

[Farmer77]

4 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

I know that Fox news is pro Trump - I know that this article is anti Trump and seemingly supports impeachment. But is it really a big deal that Fox publish this - serious question. 

What about the author is she purely Fox News or an independent? Does she normally back trump?

No IMO its not really a big deal that fox published it because its an opinion piece. I would argue that where they chose to put it on their site is kinda telling though. Its front and center on their site which is pretty unusual.

I actually dont know anything about the author.

[Harte]

59 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

This is a good op-ed from foxnews that can only be summed up by saying HOLY ****!!!

Mary Anne Marsh: Thanks to Trump, Christmas has come early to the Kremlin

WTF? But no seriously WTF? 

 

Been doing this since 2013.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26326340?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Harte

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, Harte said:

Been doing this since 2013.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26326340?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Harte

Im not sure its entirely accurate to say whats happening now is no different than then but you may be right.

Regardless thats like saying ive been spraying my 40 acres with Roundup while naked for 40 years so im just gonna keep on doing it.

New evidences requires new thought processes and new actions.

 

[Harte]

We mustn't fail to realize that any benefit flows in two directions.

In other words, you don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

Harte

[+DieChecker]

On 10/19/2019 at 11:33 PM, Farmer77 said:

It wouldnt be its just not in any way a believable story.

 

So because the Trump Administration didnt hold Israeli money, we can know that the Ukrainian money was held for nefarious reasons?

That is a good example of Tu quoque, an appeal to hypocrisy. Claiming an action of hypocrisy indicates something, when there's no evidence at all any such thing happenef.

[+DieChecker]

17 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Im not sure its entirely accurate to say whats happening now is no different than then but you may be right.

Regardless thats like saying ive been spraying my 40 acres with Roundup while naked for 40 years so im just gonna keep on doing it.

New evidences requires new thought processes and new actions.

I'd tend to agree. Legislation should be created.banning "roundup". Since using it was legal till now, and actually still is, there's been no crime. 

Rather then try to punish something for entirely political reasons, let's move forward and create laws that ban actions that are harmful, or corrupt.

[Farmer77]

Just now, DieChecker said:

So because the Trump Administration didnt hold Israeli money, we can know that the Ukrainian money was held for nefarious reasons?

That is a good example of Tu quoque, an appeal to hypocrisy. Claiming an action of hypocrisy indicates something, when there's no evidence at all any such thing happenef.

I could see why you would think that but really its called examining context.  The context around Trump clearly shows he gives absolutely zero ****s about corruption. For ****s sake he just called the clause in the constitution that deals with it "phony" and of course we can go back for decades and show the same character in his private business. Remember his company got busted for intentionally swindling old people and the financially vulnerable right about the time you guys voted for him?

Surely its not concrete evidence of guilt , the context of Donald J. Trump however makes taking him seriously when discussing corruption very difficult, once you start talking about national security and even the security of the Constitution itself you simply can no longer lend the benefit of the doubt with such context surrounding the decision maker.

[+DieChecker]

18 hours ago, RAyMO said:

He has responsibilities as President - one of which is to act within the constraints of the Office. That he personally feels he shouldn't have any restraints is neither here nor there.

I think one issue is actually his constraints are NOT clear. There may be moral outrage, and there may be the appearance of corruption, but the office of President has very loose language on what CAN'T be allowed.

[+DieChecker]

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

I could see why you would think that but really its called examining context.  The context around Trump clearly shows he gives absolutely zero ****s about corruption. For ****s sake he just called the clause in the constitution that deals with it "phony" and of course we can go back for decades and show the same character in his private business. Remember his company got busted for intentionally swindling old people and the financially vulnerable right about the time you guys voted for him?

Surely its not concrete evidence of guilt , the context of Donald J. Trump however makes taking him seriously when discussing corruption very difficult, once you start talking about national security and even the security of the Constitution itself you simply can no longer lend the benefit of the doubt with such context surrounding the decision maker.

Vote for the other guy next time. Maybe we'd not elect a dick, if the other option wasn't pure crap. 

You just said "not concrete"... he's going to get off... Its extremely likely.

You do realize that MANY voted for him because he's a dick, right?

You are calling for LOGIC in American politics? 

[Farmer77]

4 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

You are calling for LOGIC in American politics? 

Honestly I think my biggest hope from all of this is the reinjection of logic into our politics. I know its happened for many independents and democrats already and with the worse yet to come, assuming we make it out the other side (i say only using mild hyperbole) , hopefully it will continue with them and cross the aisle. For me its been wholly sobering regarding how I look at and discuss politics and national issues and even how I vote. I refused to vote for either party previously.

I get it you have no idea why I would say this, or think its TDS from the MSM but this whole episode has been terrifying to watch.  Just a quick for instance we have a POTUS obstructing congress during an impeachment inquiry for possible constitutional violations who just called a clause in the Constitution phony because he didnt get his way on something. (thats just whats happened in the last month)

Here I admit im getting a little nutty with it but pre 9/11 a think tank put out a paper saying it would take a new pearl harbor to unite our nation. I think its possible history may one day view what Trump is about to do as that very thing for this generation. 

 

[Farmer77]

The next House impeachment witness is the most important so far

Quote

Back to the text messages!

Bill Taylor, currently the top official at the US Embassy in Ukraine, will get his moment before congressional investigators Tuesday. Taylor was one of the officials whose text messages were released by House Democrats earlier this month. His explanation for why he said he felt the US was trading foreign aid to Ukraine for political favors to the President could be a key piece of evidence for House investigators.

 

[+and-then]

17 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

The next House impeachment witness is the most important so far

 

Secret testimony that is hidden from the minority party and selectively leaked.  That's what you feel will work to change his support?  Even you should no better than that.  Americans don't like those behind the back whispering sort of accusations.  Any information that comes from such a process is tainted before it's even considered.  Why not have the hearings up front with minority input?  What is the perceived danger in the openness?  Why do they feel the need to hide and not allow cross examination by Republicans?  Smacks of an awful lot of no confidence in their ability to convince people of wrongdoing.  If he's so obviously guilty of a crime then why hide the investigation?

[Kismit]

8 minutes ago, and then said:

Secret testimony that is hidden from the minority party and selectively leaked.  That's what you feel will work to change his support?  Even you should no better than that.  Americans don't like those behind the back whispering sort of accusations.  Any information that comes from such a process is tainted before it's even considered.  Why not have the hearings up front with minority input?  What is the perceived danger in the openness?  Why do they feel the need to hide and not allow cross examination by Republicans?  Smacks of an awful lot of no confidence in their ability to convince people of wrongdoing.  If he's so obviously guilty of a crime then why hide the investigation?

I thought that the opposing party gets to view the witness testimony and evidence when it is presented for impeachment trial? If I remember that particular process takes a lot of time to allow for the opposing groups defence, which is not really the Republican parties job. It is not the Republican party on trial. It is Donald trump and anyone who was involved in matters. Donald Trump and Ruddy Gulliani know who was involved. They can surely provide witness' that can provide evidence of innocence, or that it was a worldwide project aimed at corruption across the board, or wether it was aimed at finding a missing server for national security reasons , or wether it was a case of withholding Government funding for personal gain against an opponent.

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, and then said:

Secret testimony that is hidden from the minority party and selectively leaked.  That's what you feel will work to change his support? 

I dont really care about whether this changes his support or not. I care about the nation not the cult of personality.

I know you probably dont believe me but it was only a few short years ago I thought the GOP felt the same way. That right and wrong mattered and werent things to be judged based on the political winds.

4 minutes ago, and then said:

Even you should no better than that.  Americans don't like those behind the back whispering sort of accusations.  Any information that comes from such a process is tainted before it's even considered

Ahhh this is the new tactic huh? So every case that ever went to court after a grand jury is tainted huh? Of course not the evidences are later presented in public before trial.

 

5 minutes ago, and then said:

Why not have the hearings up front with minority input?  What is the perceived danger in the openness?  Why do they feel the need to hide and not allow cross examination by Republicans?  Smacks of an awful lot of no confidence in their ability to convince people of wrongdoing.  If he's so obviously guilty of a crime then why hide the investigation?

Because of the massive misunderstanding that not only the elected officials but their supporters have of congresses role in the impeachment process. The GOP reps job isnt to be a defense attorney for the POTUS its to defend the Constitution.

Through their actions folks like Gaetz, Nunes and Jordan have proven they are not to be trusted. They are putting party over nation at every turn. This appeal to fairness, particularly when the rules are the way they are because of your party, is pretty lame.