Mar-A-Lago Raid

[tstorm823]

I encourage you to actually listen/read the transcript of the interview, because you're missing the key part.
"After the call, I spoke to the Ukrainian Defence Minister and he told me, 'We have a problem. Those funds have been blocked'."

Your quote is incorrect, he did not say that. The subtitles say:
"After [the call], I spoke to [the Ukrainian] defense minister and he told me, "we have a problem, those funds have been blocked."

Those brackets are journalistic interpretation. He did not say "after the call". He said something in Ukrainian that at least roughly translates to "after", but he could have been saying things like "later" or "down the line", or any number of things that could be roughly synonymous with "after". Additionally, you are personally interpreting that as "immediately after the call", which is a reasonable colloquial interpretation of the phrase "after the call" in English, but that isn't what he literally said. He also says much less ambiguously "When I did find out, I raised it with Pence at a meeting in Warsaw." That meeting in Warsaw was September 1st, which is certainly "after" the call in the general sense of "after", but not immediately after the way you believe. Your interpretation requires Zelensky to have contradicted himself within the same press conference. Mine does not.

all you have here is incredulity. You don't believe her. But that's based on.... the fact she didn't produce documentation (which... she wasn't asked to do, and wouldn't really be expected?) as well as your misapprehension that what she said was somehow at odds with other accounts. But it wasn't.

Oh my God. You want an argument based only on incredulity? Look at yourself. "How could they not know? That's ridiculous to think they wouldn't know" is one of your arguments. "Why would she be expected to have evidence?" is one of your arguments. Like, holy crap.

 

[Agema]

1) The White House didn't tell the budget office to hold the money until July 25th. How do you think a hold placed July 25th prevented the money from being transferred in mid-July?

Check your facts.

There was an email sent by a White House official to the budget office on the 12th July reporting that Trump had blocked the release of funds: (implicitly, the block had potentially been in place earlier). What you mean occurring on the 25th is an formal, written document that the funds were on hold - but it's evident that the funds were ordered withheld earlier irrespective of it officially being in writing.

2) The money wasn't being transferred to Ukraine, it was being released to the Department of Defense, so even if the budget office expected to release it in mid-July, the money wasn't going to Ukraine, it was going to the Department of Defense, to be spent on military supplies, weaponry, and support, specifically sourced from the US, and available to the DoD until the end of September.

So what? The DoD would be certain to inform Ukraine that the money was released and ready to be spent.

 

[Agema]

Those brackets are journalistic interpretation.

This is the sort of godawful, semantic argument that only ever comes from people who don't actually have a substantial case. And it's not even a good semantic argument.

 

[Silvanus]

Your quote is incorrect, he did not say that. The subtitles say:
"After [the call], I spoke to [the Ukrainian] defense minister and he told me, "we have a problem, those funds have been blocked."

Those brackets are journalistic interpretation. He did not say "after the call". He said something in Ukrainian that at least roughly translates to "after", but he could have been saying things like "later" or "down the line", or any number of things that could be roughly synonymous with "after". Additionally, you are personally interpreting that as "immediately after the call", which is a reasonable colloquial interpretation of the phrase "after the call" in English, but that isn't what he literally said. He also says much less ambiguously "When I did find out, I raised it with Pence at a meeting in Warsaw." That meeting in Warsaw was September 1st, which is certainly "after" the call in the general sense of "after", but not immediately after the way you believe. Your interpretation requires Zelensky to have contradicted himself within the same press conference. Mine does not.

Pure speculation that they mistranslated it, then.

If someone says they did something "after", immediately after a lengthy discussion about a specific event (the call), its so ridiculous to assume they meant months and months later than the event they were just talking about. Nobody in their right mind would hear those words and intetpret it that way, and the only reason you're doing so is to vindicate your favoured political party.

And no, saying he talked to the defence minister after the call, and also saying he asked Pence about it when he was aware, are not contradictions. You're again stretching interpretation into the realms of absurdity to justify a convenient reading.

Oh my God. You want an argument based only on incredulity? Look at yourself. "How could they not know? That's ridiculous to think they wouldn't know" is one of your arguments. "Why would she be expected to have evidence?" is one of your arguments. Like, holy crap.

If that was all I had. But it's not, is it? We have numerous credible statements from involved parties.

You're asking us not only to disregard all of those statements, from numerous Ukrainian and American figures who were directly involved, and the DOD, and the Ukrainian President, and the independent watchdog etc etc etc, all based on.... well, personal disbelief.

Whereas I'm asking us to believe that governments are generally aware of matters of national security.

 

[Hades]

Yes, and if you actually think about it, you know that makes it the most likely explanation. You understand generally that Trump is personally irresponsible and says whatever pops into his head, and that a lot of people over the course of his administration ran around desperately trying to keep him within at least the error bars of normal procedure. But for some reason, for this one event, you are willing to mock that understanding of events and instead maintain that Donald Trump is a slick mafioso commanding a mob of loyal stooges using only sly insinuations, leaving no explicit evidence he had ordered anything.

For the most part I don't think Trump is a smooth operator. His misdeeds surrounding Ukraine and January 6 are all fairly in the open. He's just lucky enough to have a base that's endlessly forgiving, and a party that's so corrupt and so scared of the aforementioned base that they refuse to take responsibility and punish him.

If there was a functioning Republican party Trump would have been removed from office ages ago.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

This is likely the internet system version of a typo, but I very badly want it to be true

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

This is likely the internet system version of a typo, but I very badly want it to be true

Alas, to the dismay of comedians the world over, there appear to be three lawyers attached to the case- two of whom are out-of-state and not allowed to practice in Florida.

 

[Agema]

For the most part I don't think Trump is a smooth operator. His misdeeds surrounding Ukraine and January 6 are all fairly in the open. He's just lucky enough to have a base that's endlessly forgiving, and a party that's so corrupt and so scared of the aforementioned base that they refuse to take responsibility and punish him.

If there was a functioning Republican party Trump would have been removed from office ages ago.

Much of what Trump got away with can be put down to one, simple fact: he was the president.

We see the same things again, and again, and again. Power grants people the ability to get away with things. We can ask how Harvey Weinstein got away with abusing women for decades, and it's much the same answer: he was the boss. That's what power allows. The person in power appoints underlings who are dependent on them, who want to curry favour, can be pressured, will compromise, protect the boss. The network of power thus revolves around the boss, and in this sort of atmosphere corruption and abuse flourishes. People in their network will become complicit in any misconduct, and even in acting to protect themselves tend to protect the boss. Even if they finally hit the point they are caught for their part, many will still protect the boss, because that power still offers advantages (pardons, future job offers, etc.) In contrast, we might note that the people who took action to report Trump were civil servants outside Trump's power network and they paid the price for voicing their concerns, because they were subsequently removed from post in revenge as a blunt warning to anyone else who would speak up. There's no power to protect them, and that is what happens. With impeachment ultimately then dependent on a political decision, the Republicans were not going to sink their own president when he was still so popular with their voters. Again, that's power.

These guys don't need to be super-slick operators. Basic use of raw power can ensure that they get away with a lot of it.

 

[tstorm823]

This is the sort of godawful, semantic argument that only ever comes from people who don't actually have a substantial case. And it's not even a good semantic argument.

It's the correct argument. There's a reason nobody reported that as "Zelensky found out the day of the phone call". There's a reason that every other statement he made always insisted that he didn't know until later and the aid was never dependent on anything. Silvanus wants to use words inferred by the subtitle person to establish a fact at odds with every other statement Zelensky made on the subject.

Pure speculation that they mistranslated it, then.

I'm not saying that they mistranslated it. I'm saying that translations are imperfect, and you are reading it as though he said those precise words in English. Like, there is a controversy right now out of the world of one piece (hopefully without being to spoilery), because a good character is shown saying "[family name] is born to burn" (and it's phrased that way cause there's a pun involved and a parallel to an event from the past and Oda likes both puns and throwbacks). The english speaking audience is up in arms, because saying someone's family is meant to burn sounds very much like advocating for genocide. In Japanese, it's perfectly common to refer to an individual by their family name, and the comment was targeted at just the one (terrible) individual, making the meaning totally different even if the translation is as accurate as they could possibly make it.

If in English speaking person said the sentence "after the call, the defense minister told me there was a problem", your interpretation is perfectly reasonable, because that usage generally implies immediacy, one event following right behind the other. But this is a translation with additional interpretation, "after" could just mean subsequent in the timeline of events.

If he was saying, specifically, that he was told later that day, do you not think that article would have reported it as such? They only specify that he didn't know before the call, and the quote they chose to put in the article itself was "I had no idea the military aid was held up. When I did find out, I raised it with [Vice President Mike] Pence at a meeting in Warsaw". If he had indicated in that press conference, for the first time ever, that he found out the same day as the phone call, why would the article not even make mention of that in writing? You are inferring things that aren't being said.

If that was all I had. But it's not, is it? We have numerous credible statements from involved parties.

You're asking us not only to disregard all of those statements, from numerous Ukrainian and American figures who were directly involved, and the DOD, and the Ukrainian President, and the independent watchdog etc etc etc, all based on.... well, personal disbelief.

Whereas I'm asking us to believe that governments are generally aware of matters of national security.

You do not have the statement that you claim you do. The Ukrainian President did not say what you claim he did. The DoD has not said anything about Ukraine knowing earlier than reported. Precisely two people from either Ukraine or the US have indicated that Ukraine may have known before the news broke, and one of them was just a vague suggestion that the Ukrainian embassy seemed concerned. And the one singular person who says concretely that Ukrainian leadership was informed in July was not directly involved, she was someone who just happened to work in a Ukrainian embassy who allegedly read a wire intended for someone else as it passed through. That is the one source that supports your claim outside of the "how could they not know" argument. A person just working the wires insisting she casually saw one to Zelensky sometime in July saying aid had been blocked.

You understand that you're accusing the rest of the Ukrainian embassy and all of the Ukrainian leadership of conspiracy to lie about this, right? It is a genuine conspiracy theory to say the Ukrainian leadership knew, and then when the news broke they put on a big performance about how they didn't know anything at the time. Not only do you believe they were informed with literally no written record of it, you believe they all lied about it and continue to lie about it in both the Trump and Zelensky administrations. That is a big claim.

Check your facts.

There was an email sent by a White House official to the budget office on the 12th July reporting that Trump had blocked the release of funds: (implicitly, the block had potentially been in place earlier). What you mean occurring on the 25th is an formal, written document that the funds were on hold - but it's evident that the funds were ordered withheld earlier irrespective of it officially being in writing.

I'm not really concerned about this specific thing, and totally willing to assume you're correct without double checking.

So what? The DoD would be certain to inform Ukraine that the money was released and ready to be spent.

That is fair, but that is a totally different scenario logistically. If it was all just a money transfer, there's not excuse for a logistical delay. Since they had to plan out all the spending and relay that plan to Congress, there is a ton of work to be done before the money was released, and no reason to be suspicious. If someone owes you money and delays a couple weeks, you worry they aren't going to pay you. If someone is rebuilding your car engine and delays a couple weeks, you're not going to worry they ran off with your car never to give it back, you assume they're having difficulty fixing it. It's a big difference.

For the most part I don't think Trump is a smooth operator. His misdeeds surrounding Ukraine and January 6 are all fairly in the open. He's just lucky enough to have a base that's endlessly forgiving, and a party that's so corrupt and so scared of the aforementioned base that they refuse to take responsibility and punish him.

If there was a functioning Republican party Trump would have been removed from office ages ago.

If Trump wasn't Trump, there would not have been any push to remove him in the first place. If John McCain had literally the exact same interaction with Ukraine and Zelensky, nobody would have cared, there would have been no whistleblower, you'd never have known the conversation even happened. The context that Trump was being investigated for 2.5 years straight prior to this phone call is important. Neither investigation ever established the wrongdoing they set out to prove.

Trump's not a good person, but Democrats legitimately went insane about him. Just completely bonkers. Absolutely nuts. No truth that didn't torpedo Donald Trump specifically could be suffered to exist.

 

[Agema]

It's the correct argument.

It's a) nothing but weak speculation, and b) it's also trivial. The call with Trump was 25th July, and the Politico article reveal 28th August, and the meeting with Pence early September. Whenever "after" the call represents Zelenskyy being informed by his defence minister of the hold, 5 minutes, 5 hours or 5 days, it was implicitly before the Politico article came out. Nor do I see a good reason why you think Silvanus' interpretation means Zelenskyy contradicted himself.

* * *

And then to tie into other areas of discussion, such as Trump as mafioso. This is absolutely elementary stuff: create anxiety / uncertainty (withhold an expected delivery), then have a conversation about favours and mutual benefit. They'll put two and two together. Literally all our notional capo here needs to do for minimal plausible deniability is not outright blab "You don't get your money until you investigate my political opponent". It does need not slickness or elite skills, it's absolutely basic.

 

[Silvanus]

I'm not saying that they mistranslated it. I'm saying that translations are imperfect, and you are reading it as though he said those precise words in English. Like, there is a controversy right now out of the world of one piece (hopefully without being to spoilery), because a good character is shown saying "[family name] is born to burn" (and it's phrased that way cause there's a pun involved and a parallel to an event from the past and Oda likes both puns and throwbacks). The english speaking audience is up in arms, because saying someone's family is meant to burn sounds very much like advocating for genocide. In Japanese, it's perfectly common to refer to an individual by their family name, and the comment was targeted at just the one (terrible) individual, making the meaning totally different even if the translation is as accurate as they could possibly make it.

If in English speaking person said the sentence "after the call, the defense minister told me there was a problem", your interpretation is perfectly reasonable, because that usage generally implies immediacy, one event following right behind the other. But this is a translation with additional interpretation, "after" could just mean subsequent in the timeline of events.

If he was saying, specifically, that he was told later that day, do you not think that article would have reported it as such? They only specify that he didn't know before the call, and the quote they chose to put in the article itself was "I had no idea the military aid was held up. When I did find out, I raised it with [Vice President Mike] Pence at a meeting in Warsaw". If he had indicated in that press conference, for the first time ever, that he found out the same day as the phone call, why would the article not even make mention of that in writing? You are inferring things that aren't being said.

This is still pure speculation that the Ukrainian language features this extraordinarily bizarre characteristic. That in this language, someone might talk about a specific incident, and then in the same sentence say they did something after.... and the listener isn't supposed to infer anything about when the latter thing actually occurred.

((God, imagine how difficult it must be to plan an evening! "Do you want to go to lunch after bowling?" "Sure!" ---> Three months later ---> "Oh, I didn't know you meant 'after' as in 'shortly after'! I thought you meant at an arbitrary time later that happened to fit with my own plans!"))

It's just such an incredibly odd assumption. And you're not even basing it on any particular knowledge-- the assumption merely comes from the fact it would be really really convenient for your own reading of events if it were true.

You do not have the statement that you claim you do. The Ukrainian President did not say what you claim he did.

....If we accept your extraordinarily bizarre assumptions about the Ukrainian language, on which you have no expertise.

The DoD has not said anything about Ukraine knowing earlier than reported.

Correct. But the DOD did say they wanted it in writing that the hold endangered the legal apportionment of funds by the deadline. Which directly contradicts your statement that the funds were aaaaaalways going to make it by the same deadline anyway.

Precisely two people from either Ukraine or the US have indicated that Ukraine may have known before the news broke, and one of them was just a vague suggestion that the Ukrainian embassy seemed concerned. And the one singular person who says concretely that Ukrainian leadership was informed in July was not directly involved, she was someone who just happened to work in a Ukrainian embassy who allegedly read a wire intended for someone else as it passed through. That is the one source that supports your claim outside of the "how could they not know" argument. A person just working the wires insisting she casually saw one to Zelensky sometime in July saying aid had been blocked.

No, this is bollocks.

Olena Zerkal, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, is not "someone who just happened to work in a Ukrainian embassy", for starters. She was a government minister. Then Laura Cooper, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence. Then we also have the fact that under any sane reading, the President's own statement would mean he asked about it after the call.

You understand that you're accusing the rest of the Ukrainian embassy and all of the Ukrainian leadership of conspiracy to lie about this, right? It is a genuine conspiracy theory to say the Ukrainian leadership knew, and then when the news broke they put on a big performance about how they didn't know anything at the time. Not only do you believe they were informed with literally no written record of it, you believe they all lied about it and continue to lie about it in both the Trump and Zelensky administrations. That is a big claim.

No, dude, nothing I've said requires any of this. You're just inventing more and more and more fanciful shite, pretending I'm saying it, and then acting as if my position is mega-unrealistic because of it.

They didn't lie about not knowing. No conspiracy; entirely fabricated.

 

[tstorm823]

Whenever "after" the call represents Zelenskyy being informed by his defence minister of the hold, 5 minutes, 5 hours or 5 days, it was implicitly before the Politico article came out.

Why?

And then to tie into other areas of discussion, such as Trump as mafioso. This is absolutely elementary stuff: create anxiety / uncertainty (withhold an expected delivery), then have a conversation about favours and mutual benefit. They'll put two and two together. Literally all our notional capo here needs to do for minimal plausible deniability is not outright blab "You don't get your money until you investigate my political opponent". It does need not slickness or elite skills, it's absolutely basic.

And then somehow get nearly the entire government of Ukraine to play along. Real simple stuff. Shurr.

This is still pure speculation that the Ukrainian language features this extraordinarily bizarre characteristic. That in this language, someone might talk about a specific incident, and then in the same sentence say they did something after.... and the listener isn't supposed to infer anything about when the latter thing actually occurred.

((God, imagine how difficult it must be to plan an evening! "Do you want to go to lunch after bowling?" "Sure!" ---> Three months later ---> "Oh, I didn't know you meant 'after' as in 'shortly after'! I thought you meant at an arbitrary time later that happened to fit with my own plans!"))

It's just such an incredibly odd assumption. And you're not even basing it on any particular knowledge-- the assumption merely comes from the fact it would be really really convenient for your own reading of events if it were true.

How about this: I don't speak Ukrainian, but I can do a small test here. The Ukranian word for "after", according to google, is "pislya". It does not sound like he says "pislya" anywhere in the statement they translated. Feel free to check the tape yourself. Whatever word he actually said, I'm sure the translator was doing their best picking "after", but there is at minimum a different word that means "after" than whatever he actually said. So no, it would not be difficult to plan an evening.

You are reading it to be really convenient for your interpretation of events. That is what you are doing. Why did the article not transcribe it that way? Why did nobody else report on that statement in that way? You found the only record of the statement that you can even infer what you want to, and you are running with it.

Correct. But the DOD did say they wanted it in writing that the hold endangered the legal apportionment of funds by the deadline. Which directly contradicts your statement that the funds were aaaaaalways going to make it by the same deadline anyway.

That's not my statement. That's the Office of Management and Budget's statement. They almost certainly wanted it in writing so that they could take the proper steps and inform the relevant parties (including Congress or Ukraine) that plans might need be altered.

Olena Zerkal, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, is not "someone who just happened to work in a Ukrainian embassy", for starters.

Who was, in her own words, reviewing cables being sent to other people. My point is that she's not a directly involved party. Her account is third-party hearsay, and she never specified any individuals who that communication was to or from specifically. "I read a wire from the embassy in the US to Zelensky's administration that said Trump froze the aid to Ukraine" is dramatically vague and unfalsifiable.

Then Laura Cooper, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence.

Who did not at any point indicate the Ukrainians were informed of a freeze.

 

[Hades]

If Trump wasn't Trump, there would not have been any push to remove him in the first place. If John McCain had literally the exact same interaction with Ukraine and Zelensky, nobody would have cared, there would have been no whistleblower, you'd never have known the conversation even happened. The context that Trump was being investigated for 2.5 years straight prior to this phone call is important. Neither investigation ever established the wrongdoing they set out to prove.

If Trump wasn't Trump there'd be no need for a push to remove him in the first place. That's the problem with electing openly corrupt demagogues, their first instinct on gaining power is to abuse it for fun and profit. Speculating what the reaction would have been if McCain did strikes me as pointless because we can be pretty sure that McCain would not have done it to begin with. Very few legitimate people in the electoral arena would have.

Donald being investigated for most of his time in office isn't useful context. Its just the natural outgrowth from putting Trump in office.

Much of what Trump got away with can be put down to one, simple fact: he was the president.

The counter example to that would be Nixon who as president lost control of his party and resigned before he could be impeached. Though Nixon being pardoned and being somewhat rehabilitated afterwards is some variant of him getting away with crimes because he was president. The Republican party not threatening or even thinking about impeaching Trump like they might have done with Nixon indicates that somewhere along the line both the Republican party and its voters became completely corrupted.

 

[tstorm823]

The counter example to that would be Nixon who as president lost control of his party and resigned before he could be impeached.

See, the difference here is that in Nixon's case, people were caught red-handed committing a crime and an investigation tied them back to Nixon. In Trump's case, he was caught red-handed being Donald Trump, and the investigations were all attempting to find the crime to tie him to.

 

[Silvanus]

How about this: I don't speak Ukrainian, but I can do a small test here. The Ukranian word for "after", according to google, is "pislya". It does not sound like he says "pislya" anywhere in the statement they translated. Feel free to check the tape yourself. Whatever word he actually said, I'm sure the translator was doing their best picking "after", but there is at minimum a different word that means "after" than whatever he actually said. So no, it would not be difficult to plan an evening.

I must impress how little time I have for your amateur linguistics. I see no reason whatsoever to side with your non-expertise over the professional translator.

You are reading it to be really convenient for your interpretation of events. That is what you are doing. Why did the article not transcribe it that way? Why did nobody else report on that statement in that way? You found the only record of the statement that you can even infer what you want to, and you are running with it.

My "reading" merely requires one to understand contextual language in the way it's universally employed. That when someone is discussing a certain event, and then says something else happened afterwards, you're not meant to randomly infer a stupidly long interim period. Because why the fuck would you.

That's not my statement. That's the Office of Management and Budget's statement. They almost certainly wanted it in writing so that they could take the proper steps and inform the relevant parties (including Congress or Ukraine) that plans might need be altered.

Ah yes-- the OMB which was itself legally implicated by the GAO. The OMB from which two directly-involved figures resigned over their concerns about legality.

Yeah, I'm gonna say that the DOD and GAO are a tad more credible than.... uhrm, one of the bodies that was itself incriminated, and whose own staff were resigning in objection.

Who was, in her own words, reviewing cables being sent to other people. My point is that she's not a directly involved party. Her account is third-party hearsay, and she never specified any individuals who that communication was to or from specifically. "I read a wire from the embassy in the US to Zelensky's administration that said Trump froze the aid to Ukraine" is dramatically vague and unfalsifiable.

It's not "hearsay" to review first-hand sources (the communications). You have no good reason whatsoever to discount what she says.

Who did not at any point indicate the Ukrainians were informed of a freeze.

Categorically false.

 

[Agema]

Why?

Zelenskyy isn't just going to do something as big as have a call with Trump and then sit on it for a month doing nothing, is he? They'll analyse and plan. And as Ukrainian officials were evidently aware there's an issue with the funds release long before Aug 28th, someone's going to tell Zelenskyy as part of that process.

And then somehow get nearly the entire government of Ukraine to play along. Real simple stuff. Shurr.

A country defending its territorial integrity from a more powerful neighbour will be strongly inclined to appear to comply with the crepe paper-thin-skinned narcissist who controls access to its military support. Unsurprisingly.

 

[tstorm823]

I must impress how little time I have for your amateur linguistics. I see no reason whatsoever to side with your non-expertise over the professional translator.

There isn't even a need to pick sides, I'm not accusing the translator of being wrong. You are the person making unwarranted inferences, not the translator.

Ah yes-- the OMB which was itself legally implicated by the GAO. The OMB from which two directly-involved figures resigned over their concerns about legality.

Yeah, I'm gonna say that the DOD and GAO are a tad more credible than.... uhrm, one of the bodies that was itself incriminated, and whose own staff were resigning in objection.

"My theory of the events doesn't require conspiracy theories! Except multiple entire departments of government, those guys are all snakes!"

It's not "hearsay" to review first-hand sources (the communications). You have no good reason whatsoever to discount what she says.

If she had the first-hand source to present, that would be primary sourcing. If she said that she informed Zelensky, that would be a source. But it's neither of those things. It's she remembers reading a wire to Zelensky's administration, that she can't give specifics to the content, the sender, or the intended recipient of the wire.

Categorically false.

You are joking, right? She testified that the Ukrainians asked "what's going on with the security assistance", and the answer given was that they were moving forward with it, and that's your evidence that they were informed about the freeze. Sure.

 

[Silvanus]

There isn't even a need to pick sides, I'm not accusing the translator of being wrong. You are the person making unwarranted inferences, not the translator.

Whatever, sure, you're not disparaging the translator then. I don't care. I still see no reason to credit your amateur linguistics.

"My theory of the events doesn't require conspiracy theories! Except multiple entire departments of government, those guys are all snakes!"

Tstorm, regardless of whose series of events we follow-- yours or mine-- there are going to be government departments whose statements were incorrect. That's unavoidable here.

So sure, you can act as if it's very silly for me to say the OMB got it wrong. But numerous members of the OMB itself resigned over their concerns, and the OMB has been directly accused of illegality by the GAO. So quite a few people share my concern, including the independent watchdog, and some of OMB's own employees.

On the other hand, you're here saying that the GAO, the DOD, and government Ministers from the Ukrainian and American government all got it wrong. Why is that easier to believe?

If she had the first-hand source to present, that would be primary sourcing. If she said that she informed Zelensky, that would be a source. But it's neither of those things. It's she remembers reading a wire to Zelensky's administration, that she can't give specifics to the content, the sender, or the intended recipient of the wire.

So you believe the Secretary is wrong. As well as the Ukrainian gov. Minister, the DOD, the GAO, etc. Fine, whatever, I didn't really expect anything different.

You are joking, right? She testified that the Ukrainians asked "what's going on with the security assistance", and the answer given was that they were moving forward with it, and that's your evidence that they were informed about the freeze. Sure.

It's right there in the interview: she says the Embassy queried it because they knew "something was happening" with it.

The respondent on the call said they were moving on with it... because he hadn't yet been informed of the freeze. He found out later the same day.

So the Embassy queried it because they knew something was amiss. And the respondent said it was going ahead... and later the same day found out that was untrue.

 

[tstorm823]

So sure, you can act as if it's very silly for me to say the OMB got it wrong. But numerous members of the OMB itself resigned over their concerns, and the OMB has been directly accused of illegality by the GAO. So quite a few people share my concern, including the independent watchdog, and some of OMB's own employees.

Quite a few people share concern about the delay of the assistance. Their concerns seem to be well justified by the need for an extension by the end. That's not the point of contention here. Concerns about being behind schedule aren't the same as concerns about international extortion.

It's right there in the interview: she says the Embassy queried it because they knew "something was happening" with it.

That's exceptionally weak. "What's going on with the security aid" is a perfectly reasonable question without any specific knowledge of delay. Particularly on the same day the two presidents spoke, and specifically spoke about the support, and Zelensky thanked Trump for the US's military support, it is a complete reasonable thing to ask "Hey, what is going on with that aid? How's that coming?" Like, of course something was going on with the aid. It being worked on as scheduled is still things going on. She was very specific with the wording, and repeated it for Schiff. They didn't ask what was wrong, they didn't ask why it was frozen, they asked "what's going on?" Which would be a good reason to think they knew there was a problem if everyone else involved wasn't denying they had that knowledge at that time.

 

[Silvanus]

Quite a few people share concern about the delay of the assistance. Their concerns seem to be well justified by the need for an extension by the end. That's not the point of contention here. Concerns about being behind schedule aren't the same as concerns about international extortion.

You're intentionally misrepresenting the nature of their concerns here, and you know it. People didn't resign over "the need for an extention". The GAO didn't censure the OMB for lawbreaking over an "extention".

That's exceptionally weak. "What's going on with the security aid" is a perfectly reasonable question without any specific knowledge of delay. Particularly on the same day the two presidents spoke, and specifically spoke about the support, and Zelensky thanked Trump for the US's military support, it is a complete reasonable thing to ask "Hey, what is going on with that aid? How's that coming?" Like, of course something was going on with the aid. It being worked on as scheduled is still things going on. She was very specific with the wording, and repeated it for Schiff. They didn't ask what was wrong, they didn't ask why it was frozen, they asked "what's going on?" Which would be a good reason to think they knew there was a problem if everyone else involved wasn't denying they had that knowledge at that time.

"It being worked on as scheduled" is "still things going on"? Dude, that's exceptionally weak.

There is no way a reasonable listener could hear Laura Cooper's testimony and come to that conclusion. It stretches credulity far beyond breaking point. Just as your utterly alien reading of Zelensky's interview does; this is all tortuous mental gymnastics, making square pegs fit round holes.