The Impeachment Thread

[NEVolFan]

If they don't prevail they will re-hash and spin it as a prime reason the corrupt GOP must be voted out and will find something else to investigate to keep the home fires burning.

#Resist

It’s their platform for 2020... empty hatters.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

 

[Stew Cook]

Not true. Sondland's WRITTEN testimony, as amended, confirms first hand acknowledgement of the quid pro quo.

You have to wonder, considering these hearings aren't waiting on the courts to confirm that Trump has no standing to obstruct testimony, what the defense will be if/when more first-handers start confirming the scheme.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

 

[VolStrom]

You have to wonder that since everyone already knows who the whistleblower is, why is Schiff trying to protect him and not allow him to testify? Could there be something to hide in this open and honest protection of the constitution?

 

[C-south]

You have to wonder, considering these hearings aren't waiting on the courts to confirm that Trump has no standing to obstruct testimony, what the defense will be if/when more first-handers start confirming the scheme.

Why aren’t first handers already testifying? Working on their stories?

 

[Stew Cook]

Why aren’t first handers already testifying? Working on their stories?

Some have, although Trump says he has the absolute right to block subpoenas, which he doesn't.

 

[37L1]

Why aren’t first handers already testifying? Working on their stories?

Trump won't let them. He has them chained up in the Whitehouse basement.

 

[RockyTop85]

Why aren’t first handers already testifying? Working on their stories?

They’ve been directed, by the White House, not to cooperate.

 

[MontyPython]

You have to wonder that since everyone already knows who the whistleblower is, why is Schiff trying to protect him and not allow him to testify? Could there be something to hide in this open and honest protection of the constitution?

Oh really? Who precisely is the Whistleblower?

 

[FallCreekVols]

You have to wonder that since everyone already knows who the whistleblower is, why is Schiff trying to protect him and not allow him to testify? Could there be something to hide in this open and honest protection of the constitution?

Yes. This is rather long but it takes awhile to unpack Ciaramella’s dirty involvement in DNC/Ukraine corruption.

 

[Hunerwadel]

You have to wonder that since everyone already knows who the whistleblower is, why is Schiff trying to protect him and not allow him to testify? Could there be something to hide in this open and honest protection of the constitution?

Not everyone knows who the whistleblower is. I may be the only one but I don't know.

 

[hog88]

Not everyone knows who the whistleblower is. I may be the only one but I don't know.

Funny thing is the federal whistle blower act does not guarantee anonymity in any way.

 

[MontyPython]

Funny thing is the federal whistle blower act does not guarantee anonymity in any way.

Well I can guarantee one thing - if any harm befalls him/her, the person(s) that did the outting will be sued. If I were on a jury, 5 second decision.

 

[happy-go_vol]

Maybe a used condom..........then yes.

Dont get evil and LG imaginations going

 

[hog88]

Well I can guarantee one thing - if any harm befalls him/her, the person(s) that did the outting will be sued. If I were on a jury, 5 second decision.

Sued for what?

 

[hUTch2002]

I’m not the one who keeps saying “lalalala I don’t see any evidence here.” Maybe you could try, ya know, actually addressing the proof, like the other grown ups in this thread are doing, rather than being blatantly and unabashedly dishonest. You’re unhinged. It’s sad.

Also, lol. Maybe Lindsey “I’m not going to read the transcripts” Graham and the “libertarian” from Kentucky who outs whistleblowers are substitutes for your moral compass. Not mine.

Just read my post right about this one where I responded to Mick. That’s my response to your so-called “proof”.

It’s the same thing as you saying you saw me rob my neighbor (neighbor A) even though both neighbor A and I say that isn’t what happened and nothing is missing. Despite that you keep on saying I robbed neighbor A because another neighbor (B) heard me telling yet another neighbor (C) that I was going to rob neighbor A. That doesn’t work in any court of law.

 

[1972 Grad]

Sued for what?

For not breaking any law by telling his name.

 

[VolStrom]

Oh really? Who precisely is the Whistleblower?

You don't know? I'm sorry I didn't know you were a special needs poster.

 

[hog88]

For not breaking any law by telling his name.

I guess he thinks there is some right to privacy or something.

 

[hUTch2002]

Not true. Sondland's WRITTEN testimony, as amended, confirms first hand acknowledgement of the quid pro quo.

Thank you for at least providing a mature response, unlike RT85, which is funny because he mentions me not being an adult while hurling childish insults.

With that said, I haven’t seen that at all. Sondland said he “presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.” Maybe you are referencing a different part. If so, what part?

 

[hUTch2002]

That's where the goal is, correct?


Otherwise what's the point, other than try to have an impact on the 2020 elections.

This is sounding much like the fall out from the Mueller investigation. There's crime but no conviction? So we move on to the final act, impeachment, where there's crime but no removal from office? How about articles of impeachment that include the crimes uncovered by Mueller and the crimes uncovered by Schiff?

This is all about the Dems trying to influence the 2020 elections and nothing else.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Not true. Sondland's WRITTEN testimony, as amended, confirms first hand acknowledgement of the quid pro quo.

Can you link? The only documents I've read say that he claims to have told the Ukraine that the money was "likely" to be withheld. And nothing I've seen indicates that he got that impression from Trump.

Since this got bypassed, I'll quote from that written testimony:

In these meetings in Brussels and Odessa, as in nearly every meeting in which Ukraine issues were discussed, corruption and rule of law were central topics of conversation. Corruption poses challenges to the legitimacy and stability of government; corruption is also an economic issue. Successive Ukrainian governments have sought to attract Western investors as a counterbalance to Russian interference and oligarch control of key Ukrainian companies. Western investment is fully in the strategic interests of the United States and our EU partners. However, efforts to access private markets have been made extremely difficult by the longstanding corruption. As one example, we frequently had conversations with Ukrainian leaders about transparency and corporate governance issues involving Naftogaz. In my experience, these issues have been the consistent context in which both my team and our Ukraine counterparts have raised corruption problems for many years. We have received very positive feedback from the NSC regarding our joint efforts to address these challenges in Ukraine.

On May 23, 2019, three days after the Zelensky inauguration, we in the U.S. delegation debriefed President Trump and key aides at the White House. We emphasized the strategic importance of Ukraine and the strengthening relationship with President Zelensky, a reformer who received a strong mandate from the Ukrainian people to fight corruption and pursue greater economic prosperity. We asked the White House to arrange a working phone call from President Trump and a working Oval Office visit. However, President Trump was skeptical that Ukraine was serious about reforms and anti-corruption, and he directed those of us present at the meeting to talk to Mr. Giuliani, his personal attorney, about his concerns. It was apparent to all of us that the key to changing the President's mind on Ukraine was Mr. Giuliani. It is my understanding that Energy Secretary Perry and Special Envoy Volker took the lead on reaching out to Mr. Giuliani, as the President had directed.

So, we see that there is an agreement that corruption in the Ukraine is and was a serious foreign policy concern, and that Trump had reservations about whether the new president would actually do anything about the Ukrainian corruption. Note that he wrote that Trump's concerns/reservations were about corruption, and not specifically a Biden investigation.

So, it would appear that the context of all of this is a valid foreign policy issue.

After a paragraph detailing his disagreement per having to deal with Trump's personal lawyer about foreign policy in Ukraine, he wrote:

We chose the latter path, which seemed to all of us – Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, and myself – to be the better alternative. But I did not understand, until much later, that Mr. Giuliani's agenda might have also included an effort to prompt the Ukrainians to investigate Vice President Biden or his son or to involve Ukrainians, directly or indirectly, in the President's 2020 reelection campaign.

So, he didn't get the idea from Trump that there was a quid pro quo per Bidens. He didn't even get that idea from Giuliani. He formulated after the fact that Guiliani's motives MIGHT have INCLUDED such.

He tells us his opinion after the fact, what GUILIANI MAY have had in mind.

Then, about the call in question:

But let me emphasize: I was not on that July 25, 2019 call and I did not see a transcript of that call until September 25, 2019, when the White House publicly released it. None of the brief and general call summaries I received contained any mention of Burisma or former Vice President Biden, nor even suggested that President Trump had made any kind of request of President Zelensky. I had heard afterwards that the July 25, 2019 call went well in solidifying a relationship between the two leaders.

He didn't head nuttin, see nuttin, or get the impression from those affected that sump'n happened.

About Trump's foreign policy stance, he wrote due to misrepresentation from the press:

First, I knew that a public embrace of anti-corruption reforms by Ukraine was one of the pre-conditions for securing a White House meeting with President Zelensky. My view was, and has always been, that such Western reforms are consistent with U.S. support for rule of law in Ukraine going back decades, under both Republican and Democrat administrations. Nothing about that request raised any red flags for me, Ambassador Volker, or Ambassador Taylor.

Per his dealings with Guiliani (whom he now wonders if he had ulterior motives:

Second, there has been much press speculation about my own interactions with Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani. To the best of my recollection, I met Mr. Giuliani in person only once at a reception when I briefly shook his hand in 2016. This was before I became Ambassador to the EU. In contrast, during my time as Ambassador, I do not recall having ever met with Mr. Giuliani in person, and I only spoke with him a few times.


Ambassador Volker introduced me to Mr. Giuliani electronically. My best recollection is that I spoke with Mr. Giuliani for the first time in early August 2019, after the congratulatory phone call from President Trump on July 25, 2019 and after the bilateral meeting with President Zelensky on July 26, 2019 in Kiev. My recollection is that Mr. Giuliani and I actually spoke no more than two or three times by phone, for about a few minutes each time.

As I stated earlier, I understood from President Trump, at the May 23, 2019 White House debriefing, that he wanted the Inaugural Delegation to talk with Mr. Giuliani concerning our efforts to arrange a White House meeting for President Zelensky. Taking direction from the President, as I must, I spoke with Mr. Giuliani for that limited purpose. In these short conversations, Mr. Giuliani emphasized that the President wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing Ukraine to look into anticorruption issues. Mr. Giuliani specifically mentioned the 2016 election (including the DNC server) and Burisma as two anticorruption investigatory topics of importance for the President.


Let me be clear: Mr. Giuliani does not work for me or my Mission and I do not know what official or unofficial role, if any, he has with the State Department. To my knowledge, he is one of the President's personal lawyers. However, my understanding was that the President directed Mr. Giuliani's participation, that Mr. Giuliani was expressing the concerns of the President, and that Mr. Giuliani had already spoken with Secretary Perry and Ambassador Volker.


Ten weeks after the President on May 23, 2019 directed the Inaugural Delegation to talk with Mr. Giuliani, I had my first phone conversation with him in early August 2019. I listened to Mr. Giuliani's concerns. My goal was the keep the focus on Ukraine and the strengthened relationship with the United States.


Please know that I would not have recommended that Mr. Giuliani or any private citizen be involved in these foreign policy matters. However, given the President's explicit direction, as well as the importance we attached to arranging a White House meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, we agreed to do as President Trump directed.

Third, given many inaccurate press reports, let me be clear about the following: I do not recall that Mr. Giuliani discussed Former Vice President Biden or his son Hunter Biden with me. Like many of you, I read the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky call for the first time when it was released publicly by the White House on September 25, 2019.


Although Mr. Giuliani did mention the name "Burisma" in August 2019, I understood that Burisma was one of many examples of Ukrainian companies run by oligarchs and lacking the type of corporate governance structures found in Western companies. I did not know until more recent press reports that Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma.


Again, I recall no discussions with any State Department or White House official about Former Vice President Biden or his son, nor do I recall taking part in any effort to encourage an investigation into the Bidens.

Per the QPQ specifically:

Sixth,to the best of my recollection, I do not recall any discussions with the White House on withholding U.S. security assistance from Ukraine in return for assistance with the President's 2020 re-election campaign. I recall that, in late July 2019, Ambassadors Volker and Taylor and I exchanged emails in which we all agreed that President Zelensky should have no involvement in 2020 U.S. Presidential election politics. At the same time, we all believed strongly that U.S.Security Assistance should not be withheld.


On September 9, 2019, Acting Charge de Affairs/Ambassador William Taylor raised concerns about the possibility that Ukrainians could perceive a linkage between U.S. security assistance and the President's 2020 reelection campaign.


Taking the issue seriously, and given the many versions of speculation that had been circulating about the security aid, I called President Trump directly. I asked the President: "What do you want from Ukraine?" The President responded, "Nothing. There is no quid pro quo." The President repeated: "no quid pro quo" multiple times. This was a very short call. And I recall the President was in a bad mood.


I tried hard to address Ambassador Taylor's concerns because he is a valuable and effective diplomat and I took very seriously the issues he raised. I did not want Ambassador Taylor to leave his post and generate even more turnover in the Ukraine mission. I further encouraged Ambassador Taylor to contact Secretary Pompeo, as I followed up as far as I could go. As you have seen in the press, my contemporaneous messages support my recollection.


Let me state clearly: Inviting a foreign government to undertake investigations for the purpose of influencing an upcoming U.S. election would be wrong. Withholding foreign aid in order to pressure a foreign government to take such steps would be wrong. I did not and would not ever participate in such undertakings. In my opinion, security aid to Ukraine was in our vital national interest and should not have been delayed for any reason.

@MontyPython , you want to point out where there is more than assumption and hearsay?

I'll go as far as to say that the claimed assumptions have been vastly exaggerated, and he reads as someone clearing the president.

 

[evillawyer]

Deep state RINO

From David French: Building the Idiocracy, One Word Salad at a Time

 

[MontyPython]

Sued for what?

I'm sure WB's attorney would figure what applies. While the anonymity isn't guaranteed, retaliation is prohibited. Obviously, anything negative that befell the WB could be pinned on the outing. Any competent attorney could likely prove that the person outting the WB would have reasonable expectation that such action *could* result in negative consequences - namely retaliation- for the WB.

There's a reason Trump hasn't outed the WB already. He's smart enough to know the potential ramifications. It's untested law, I suspect. And jury members like me - we'd be sure justice is served.