• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

US Politics The trump impeachment thread

alasdairm said:
in sworn testimony released today, gordon sondland (u.s. ambassador to the eu) confirmed that he told a ukrainian official that the country would likely not receive u.s. aid unless it publicly committed to investigations requested by president trump.

quid pro quo.
Click to expand...

I wanted to check if the 'he told a ukrainian' was referring to Sondland saying it or Trump saying it. Sondland saying it means shit, it's his interpretation and he may have misunderstood what he heard and conveyed. If Trump said it, Trump finally found his foot after all these misfires. In searching for that clarification...

"I now recall speaking individually with Mr. (Andriy) Yermak, where I said resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks," Sondland said.
Click to expand...

Sondland said it. Not Trump. Sondland speaking for his view, or on order from Trump?
 
alasdairm said:
the quid pro quo is right there in the original wh account: "I would like you to do us a favor though..."

the sondland testimony simply confirms.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree that "I would like you to do us a favor though" is withholding military aid in trade for information, when the person being told this doesn't know there is military aid being withheld as opposed to asking a foreign country (known for corruption) to share what they know about possible US corruption.

As to Sondland, it confirms what he (Sondland) said:

"I now recall speaking individually with Mr. (Andriy) Yermak, where I said resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.”


From other sources (apologize for lack of link):

Sondland “did not know” — and still does not know — “when, why or by whom the aid was suspended,” he said in the supplemental testimony.

By the beginning of September 2019, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statements,”


He's speaking his own personal assumptions and beliefs. Not of a Trump team strategy, not under direction of Trump, but of his own impressions and thoughts. This does not support the existence of QPQ, only that he believed it to be in play.


cduggles said:
Trump probably thinks you have to actually say “quid pro quo” or it doesn’t count. 😕
Click to expand...

Funny, but no. It would help if there was clearly something of value being held for trade of information and BOTH parties knew what was at stake, and what would complete the deal.
 
alasdairm said:
the quid pro quo is right there in the original wh account: "I would like you to do us a favor though..."

the sondland testimony simply confirms.

alasdair
Click to expand...

You sure that wasn't about the crowdstrike server?

Everyone knows CIA runs AMAZON runs WAPO so when the title says "myth" it's obviously the truth.


The nature of Trump’s reference to CrowdStrike is not obvious from the notes the White House released. At one point, he said, “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people … The server, they say, Ukraine has it.”
Trump added, “I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.” Zelensky appeared to agree to the request, saying his new prosecutor general “will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned.”
Click to expand...

what does sondland testimony say about Crowdstrike bud?
 
TheLoveBandit said:
Funny, but no. It would help if there was clearly something of value being held for trade of information and BOTH parties knew what was at stake, and what would complete the deal.
Click to expand...

“Axios sees a notable development in the transcript for Gordon Sondland, US ambassador to the European Union. Sondland testified on Oct. 17, but the transcript shows that he revised his testimony on Nov. 4. The key change: He said he told an aide to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky that the nation would likely get no US aid until Zelensky committed publicly to investigate Hunter Biden. Initially, Sondland testified that he knew of no pressure tied to financial aid, though he acknowledged leveraging the prospect of a White House visit for Zelensky, reports the Washington Post. Another diplomat, William Taylor, cast doubt on Sondland's claim about that, however. Read Sondland's full transcript here via NPR.“
m.newser.com

Diplomat Revises His Impeachment Testimony

Gordon Sondland now acknowledges threat to hold up aid unless Ukraine did investigation
m.newser.com m.newser.com

“Taylor testified that Sondland told him one of the reasons for the aid delay may have been to push Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation that might help Trump politically, such as a probe into Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that hired Hunter Biden. "In fact, Ambassador Sondland said ‘everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance," Taylor testified.”

m.newser.com

'Sighs and Gasps' as Ukraine Envoy Testifies

William Taylor testifies 'everything' was dependent on Ukraine launching probes
m.newser.com m.newser.com

According to testimony from Taylor and amended, refreshed memory testimony from Sondland, Ukraine was aware.
I wish we had the full telephone call transcript per Vinland’s description, State Department cooperation/documentation, and testimony of those involved from the White House.

The second will likely be compelled through the courts. I heard there are relevant Nixon-era rulings that would support making the State Department fork over their paper trail, but it’s a bit of a toss-up as to how enforceable House subpoenas are.
 
So I was curious about the legality of outing a whistleblower. Apparently, it’s more of a voluntary compliance issue, although a few experts disagree and believe there are potential legal repercussions.

NPR Cookie Consent and Choices

www.npr.org
Why is Rand Paul going on about the whistleblower.

I’m guessing he’s up for re-election?
No, he was re-elected in 2016.

He seems quite keen to out whoever it is. Or to appear that he does. https://www.redstate.com/brandon_mo...ople-telling-cant-whistleblower-constitution/
 
I find it very strange that Trump is openly hostile towards/threatens people and that it doesn’t really seem to be recognized as witness intimidation.

The danger in threats posed by Trump and his base is that witnesses called to testify will not be candid because they fear repercussions, or will not appear at all. And witnesses who have not tripped the public radar have little reason to voluntarily come forward and go through the agony that comes with having the president of the United States publicly trash you to his 67 million Twitter followers, some of whom may target them for revenge.

Attorneys for the Ukraine whistleblower have already received death threats against the whistleblower and themselves. It is the whistleblower’s complaint that will likely lead to Trump’s impeachment. Since far less has led Trump’s rabid supporters to violence, it’s understandable why the whistleblower does not want his or her identity disclosed.
Yet Trump repeatedly attacks the mediafor protecting the whistleblower’s identity. Republican politicians like Rep. Jim Jordan and Sen. Rand Paul, who have called for a public outing of the whistleblower’s identity despite the danger he or she faces, are complicit in Trump’s intimidation efforts.
Click to expand...
www.usatoday.com

Trump impeachment intimidation: Weaponized Twitter feed, die-hard fans who get the 'code'

We have to accept that part of Trump’s base is 'deplorable.'\u00a0No breach of ethics, crime\u00a0or act of moral depravity will shake their blind support.
www.usatoday.com www.usatoday.com
 
Last edited:
This is exactly why I don't understand the idea that the whistleblower's identity should be released. There is a very real concern for this person's safety should their identity be known. If their identity IS released, and something happens to them, or someone tries to do something, it essentially works to silence people from speaking out in the future. People shouldn't have to subject themselves to death threats to inform authorities of wrongdoing by anyone, let alone by elected public servants.

At this point a number of people have risked their professional careers to speak out against the president, and have received death threats and threats of violence as a result of speaking out. To me it is increasingly seeming like you have to have your head in the sand to keep believing there is no basis for this inquiry. It's no longer just 1 or 2 anonymous sources claiming wrongdoing. We would be remiss in our duty to protect against corruption if we DIDN'T investigate these claims.
 
Indeed, simply the fact that Trump suggested that the whistleblower is a traitor and that they should be executed for coming forth is incredibly alarming and authoritarian. In what awful alternate reality is it okay to people that the president should suggest that someone saying that he performed corrupt acts is worthy of being branded a traitor and killed? So now stepping forward with the belief that the leader of your country is committing crimes is traitorous? Only in dictatorships is this true. Honestly why isn't everyone alarmed about the fact that he said this?
 
Xorkoth said:
Honestly why isn't everyone alarmed about the fact that he said this?
Click to expand...

I suspect, because even his supporters recognize he says things that shouldn't be said, that don't actually merit consideration because they are idiotic, and have gotten used to such nonsense out of his mouth as 'normal' and 'acceptable', when it is in fact quite out of the ordinary (not normal) and ought not be acceptable*.


*There could be an argument made for the bar on what is acceptable having been lowered by other parties, or who lowered it when or by how much, but IMO participating in such at all only proves a poor level of decision making.
 
Yeah, remember the guy who sent 13 pipe bombs to Trump critics? I’d be terrified if I had a family to protect.

www.theguardian.com

Florida man charged with sending 13 pipe bombs to Trump critics

Cesar Sayoc, 56, from Aventura, charged with five federal offences, including illegal mailing of explosives
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
video_image-475847.jpg


181026-cesar-sayoc-van-al-1456_89ae7aba47c0b24faecb7a7bdc039e35.fit-760w.jpg
 
cduggles said:
Yeah, remember the guy who sent 13 pipe bombs to Trump critics? I’d be terrified if I had a family to protect.
Click to expand...


Ok, that's one. Here's another

2017 Congressional baseball shooting
maxresdefault.jpg


Remember the guy who shot up a bunch of Congressmen for being Republicans? I'd be terrified if I played baseball.


= = = = = =

Point being, nuts exist everywhere.
 
Exactly! I’m equal opportunity on which “side” has the crazies, but if a Democrat had encouraged violence towards Congress, I’d be just as willing to condemn them.
I’m not sure that’s the case with Republicans anymore, and they just say “he’s joking” or something. I’m not just talking about pro-Trump factions, I mean 99%-plus of Republicans.
While some people don’t need a direct message, others do and they are listening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top