Impeachment hearings

[_Morley]

Then all of the witnesses Volker et. al. agreed that not a peep until the politico article end of August.

Yeah, Volker was so honest and 'in the loop' that he had to revise his testimony after others contradicted him.

mikwut, do you really not know this stuff or are you just pretending ignorance to make your case?

[_mikwut]

Morley,

Yeah, Volker was so honest and 'in the loop' that he had to revise his testimony after others contradicted him.

mikwut, do you really not know this stuff or are you just pretending ignorance to make your case?

Volker is supported by all the others in this instance. His clarifying or adding to his testimony doesn't nullify anything I have said. Can you directly address my points?

mikwut

[_mikwut]

Again, I'm not sure how this argument here takes into account the fact that Ukraine did ultimately relent and was going to make the prepared announcement the Trump admin was pushing for. Suppose there was no pressure in the form of funds being withheld. Why did Ukraine buckle then? For the meeting? For mere fear of the soft power of the US? Any of these are also a gross abuse of power. Illegally withholding Congressionally appropriated funds to to get campaign assistance is just criminal extra credit. US foreign policy was manipulated to become a tool of Donald Trump to pressure foreign countries into laundering propaganda about his political opponents to give it an air of legitimacy.

Because the cnn interview was blurred with house democrats announcing its investigation on Sept. 9. The only reason for Zelensky at that point to pull out doesn't have to be the aid connected to announcements. It was just too messy at that point and simply wisdom by Zelensky was the better part. it would have been politics either way.

We have to get into more weeds with your other statements. That is where i have some affinity for when Republcans complain it a big part just being foreign policy disagreements. I wouldn't use the term buckle if defending the President. Ukraine is in a relationship that it understands is possibly tenuous politically and simply wants to keep the relationship strong. Those kind of interactions are common in any relationship and don't have to be referred to as pressure and buckling, but deciding on how to proceed given wants and desires on both sides.

To me the only impeachable issue is Biden. If that was the sole purpose for Trump's (which I lean towards being the fact of the matter but accept we don't know for sure) "shakedown" if it was one, and I mean just to get a leg up in the electability context, that is impeachable.

mikwut

[_Morley]

Morley,

Yeah, Volker was so honest and 'in the loop' that he had to revise his testimony after others contradicted him.

mikwut, do you really not know this stuff or are you just pretending ignorance to make your case?

Volker is supported by all the others in this instance. His clarifying or adding to his testimony doesn't nullify anything I have said.

Of course it does. You asked if anyone thought Volker was lying. It's apparent he wasn't the best of friends with the truth.

Volker is not supported by all others. Let's start with Laura Cooper.

Can you directly address my points?

When I do, you shift the target.

I'm just listening to the Defense team. It was an obvious point I had somehow missed the importance of. If President Trump is "shaking down" as they say, President Zelensky why is there no peep from who is being shaken down until immediately after the politico article in late August.

The NYTimes debunked this last October. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/ukraine-aid-freeze-impeachment.html


CNN's article on the defense argument you're listening, Top takeaways from the start of the Trump team's impeachment defense:

Purpura did not include the testimony of Laura Cooper, the Pentagon official who mentioned emails her office received from Ukrainians about the aid on the same day as Trump's phone call with the Ukrainian President.

Nor did he mention documents that show Ukrainians concerned about the holdup in early August, reported on by The New York Times.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/25/politics/impeachment-watch-january-25/index.html

Yes, I am now asking the question of why the House Manager's failed to mention any of that and allowed for the complete open door the defense took today?

Without really acknowledging the reply, you now rephrase your question to something different. I'm not sure it's worth the effort to chase down answers for you.

[_Morley]

To me the only impeachable issue is Biden. If that was the sole purpose for Trump's (which I lean towards being the fact of the matter but accept we don't know for sure) "shakedown" if it was one, and I mean just to get a leg up in the electability context, that is impeachable.

Indeed. It doesn't even have to be the 'sole' purpose. If it was one of the reasons, that's enough.

If I burn down your house mainly to rid the neighborhood of blight--and, secondarily, with intent to kill you, it's still murder.

[_mikwut]

Morley,

I apologize if I have been assuming all my replies are to be considered. As I did reply in this thread to others respecting Laura Cooper, The Times, and the Post articles they all do not relay any kind of linkage between the aid and announcements, just that the aid is being held. All the witnesses (including Volker, but he can be shelved if you don't trust him because all the others say the same) say nothing else was brought up until the Aug 28, politico article. The responses Ukraine gave to the politico article also show their state of mind. They didn't inquire into what exactly they need to do to get the aid and they will do it, rather they were questioning if the previous process responses they got (respecting Laura Cooper) a month previously are still the same. All of that is out of place and unnecessary if a shakedown is the known answer that they have all along.

You have to believe all the Ukrainian inquiry to the proper channels Kent et al. was mere theatre and a ruse to even Kent et al. or Kent et al. were in on it. But that doesn't make any sense.

I think a narrative of Guiliani mucking crap up, the president wanting affirmation that corruption in general is being seriously addressed in the Ukraine and desiring a look into Ukraine's possible meddling in the 16 elections and Burisma being investigated, which wasn't and shouldn't have been in his mind as merely an opposing candidate, is a compelling narrative.

Indeed. It doesn't even have to be the 'sole' purpose. If it was one of the reasons, that's enough.

That's where I do disagree, defense perception or just pesonally, I just don't see any other possible impeachment rationale.

mikwut

[_Morley]

The responses Ukraine gave to the politico article also show their state of mind. They didn't inquire into what exactly they need to do to get the aid and they will do it, rather they were questioning if the previous process responses they got (respecting Laura Cooper) a month previously are still the same. All of that is out of place and unnecessary if a shakedown is the known answer that they have all along.

If the police chief is shaking me down, I'm not going to complain for fear of even worse retribution.

[_Morley]

I apologize if I have been assuming all my replies are to be considered. As I did reply in this thread to others respecting Laura Cooper, The Times, and the Post articles they all do not relay any kind of linkage between the aid and announcements, just that the aid is being held.

My own apologies for coming so late to the conversation.

[_Morley]

Indeed. It doesn't even have to be the 'sole' purpose. If it was one of the reasons, that's enough.

That's where I do disagree, defense perception or just pesonally, I just don't see any other possible impeachment rationale.

Why does it have to be the only purpose?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

... and desiring a look into Ukraine's possible meddling in the 16 elections...

Mikut is “80 to 85 percent of the way there” gaiz. See? Super open-minded to the facts. For sure.

The facts are clear:

Trump only wanted Ukraine to announce an investigation in order to impugn Biden's character to gain an electoral advantage.

Trump conditioned congressional mandated military aid to Ukraine, during wartime, on the investigation announcement.

This conditioned request was a contradiction of official U.S. - Ukrainian foreign policy.

In order to carry out this counter-policy, Trump ran a back-channel through Giuliani, a private citizen with criminal ties to corrupt Ukrainians.

Trump used the power of the Office of the President of the U.S. to conspire with criminal elements to compel the Ukrainian government to manufacture an announcement about a non-warranted investigation into his political rival in order to gain an electoral advantage.

The president has subsequently obstructed investigation into his quid pro quo extortion.

This is not the first time that Trump has conspired with criminal foreign actors for electoral advantage.

- Doc