Mar-A-Lago Raid

[tstorm823]

Because it fits with an enormous pile of established behaviour.

"I know he walked back those claims, but it matches my personal biases, so it must be true."

I love that you think this makes a difference.

It's like if a man was charged for soliciting a prostitute, but then you find out the prostitute approached him and also didn't charge him anything.

Like, you can say all you want that it's still a poor decision and arguably distasteful, but you're not gonna get the charge to stick.

 

[Agema]

No, you're being a bit vague.

I am not being vague: the crime was abuse of power. It's what's on the article of impeachment. What you perhaps mean is what were the charges.

Even then, you talk about Parnas like it means a shit: I simply refer you back to #181 and a few subsequent posts, because you are doing nothing but repeating a triviality. POTUS can carry out an investigation as his personal affair, in which case he needs to keep it thoroughly firewalled from government business. Otherwise, POTUS can hand it over to the appropriate law enforcement agencies. What he absolutely should not do is pursue a private investigation for personal gain using government resources, because that is corruption 101. And, unsurprisingly, why when he did so a load of government employees started ringing alarm bells and informing various oversight systems.

 

[Agema]

That guy claimed it was definitely a precondition, months after Zelensky cut him off, and shortly before he recanted the claim.

There is a substantial and consistent body of evidence from multiple sources that Trump and team were attempting to get Ukraine to investigate Biden. This faintly weak quibble about one official's statement is pretty much neither here nor there.

This is what I meant back earlier with the 80:20 analogy. Let's say there are five sources suggesting undue pressure to get Ukraine to investigate Biden, each 80% likely to indicate misconduct. Here, you pick one of these and go "but what about the 20%?" And then you'll do that on all the others as if they all exist in perfect isolation, and claim therefore Trump is vindicated. But in reality, 20%^5 = 0.032%. That's how unlikely it is all your improbabilities are true.

It's just a disinformation tactic.

 

[Silvanus]

It's like if a man was charged for soliciting a prostitute, but then you find out the prostitute approached him and also didn't charge him anything.

Like, you can say all you want that it's still a poor decision and arguably distasteful, but you're not gonna get the charge to stick.

The problem is that your chain of events-- Yermak promising an investigation into Burisma apropos of nothing, as if the Ukrainian government would care at all about this bullshit investigation-- simply isn't credible. Why would they care? What was said during the numerous telephone conversations, in-between text messages, to rocket the Burisma nonsense to the top of the agenda?

* 25 July, Kurt Volker: "Assuming President Z convinces Trump he will investigate/ 'get to the bottom of what happened' in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington".

((So it's your assumption this investigation has nothing to do with Biden or Burisma. Fine, that's perfectly possible at this point; it's very vague and there's no mention))

* 9 August, Gordon Sondland: "POTUS really wants the deliverable. [...] To avoid misunderstandings, might be helpful to ask Andrey for a draft statement so we can see exactly what they propose to cover".

((So the visit is reliant on the Ukrainians giving something in return, and there's a lot of interest in the precise wording of a statement Zelensky will make.... certainly sounding a lot more transactional))

ALSO ON 8th & 9th AUGUST: Rudy Giuliani calls Andrey Yermak; Kurt Volker and Gordon Sondland then call Rudy Giuliani, to (in Volker's words) "make sure I advise Zelensky correctly on what he should be saying". So there's a flurry of phone discussion about what "the deliverable" will involve, and they're talking about telling the Ukrainians what they should be saying, not just proof-reading a brief.

* 10 August, Andrey Yermak: "I think it's possible to make this declaration and mention all these things which we discussed yesterday. [....] Once we have a date we will call for a press briefing, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of US-Ukraine relationship, including among other things Burisma".

--------------

((So the US team talk about having a call to "advise Zelensky on what he should be saying". Then they have a 3-way call. Then the next day Yermak refers to how they can make a statement on "what we discussed", "including Burisma". Nobody else expresses any surprise that Burisma has come up. The reply is "that's great!"))

-------------

It's really fucking obvious what happened here. The only other halfway credible scenario is that Giuliani was organising this on his own, running Volker and Sondland without the President's knowledge or express go-ahead. But even that looks less likely with statements such as "the POTUS really wants the deliverable".

 

[thebobmaster]

Something I just found out about today. Might have been covered earlier, but I can't tell because of all the Ukraine talk. My stepfather, while a civilian, works closely with the government in some capacity through electronics contracts. I don't know details, I just know he works on a computer and needs security clearance. According to him, it doesn't matter if the documents were declassified or not. Even if they were declassified, Trump is still in violation by taking government property without permission. I'm sure Trump would claim that as President, he didn't need permission, but I'm pretty sure there's a procedure for transferring ownership of documents that Trump didn't follow.

 

[SilentPony]

Something I just found out about today. Might have been covered earlier, but I can't tell because of all the Ukraine talk. My stepfather, while a civilian, works closely with the government in some capacity through electronics contracts. I don't know details, I just know he works on a computer and needs security clearance. According to him, it doesn't matter if the documents were declassified or not. Even if they were declassified, Trump is still in violation by taking government property without permission. I'm sure Trump would claim that as President, he didn't need permission, but I'm pretty sure there's a procedure for transferring ownership of documents that Trump didn't follow.

100%. Its been said a few times, but yes it doesn't matter if Trump claims he unclassified the documents. The laws cited in the affidavit don't require the documents to be classified, its bad enough he had them. That they were super max top secret and were not well protected just makes it even worse.
Were it anybody else in the world, they would never seen the light a day from their black site prison cell that makes Guantanamo Bay look like a 5-star resort.
But because its Trump and the US government openly admits he's above the law and they're afraid of a civil war if they try to touch him, he'll walk.

 

[Agema]

The problem is that your chain of events-- Yermak promising an investigation into Burisma apropos of nothing, as if the Ukrainian government would care at all about this bullshit investigation-- simply isn't credible.

It's even more than that.

The Ukrainian government wanted nothing to do it. The Ukrainian government thought that there was nothing to see (nor did the US government, outside of Trump's immediate circle). Secondly, it knew perfectly well it could be hugely damaging to get involved in US politics. It is stretching credibility heavily to believe Ukrainian officials would dangle this on their own initiative with the risk it posed.

The Ukrainian offering supposed information to Trump was a dodgy, out-of-favour prosecutor whose days were numbered, and almost certainly was looking for some leverage to protect his job, which he thought he might be able to get with US influence. This is even without getting into others involved, including a Ukrainian oligarch heavily associated with the Russian government (and, as widely believed, also Russian organised crime). They would have got nowhere near the ear of a US president who was remotely competent and ethical.

 

[Agema]

100%. Its been said a few times, but yes it doesn't matter if Trump claims he unclassified the documents. The laws cited in the affidavit don't require the documents to be classified, its bad enough he had them. That they were super max top secret and were not well protected just makes it even worse.
Were it anybody else in the world, they would never seen the light a day from their black site prison cell that makes Guantanamo Bay look like a 5-star resort.
But because its Trump and the US government openly admits he's above the law and they're afraid of a civil war if they try to touch him, he'll walk.

Whilst we're also dwelling on Trump's legal woes, I would also note that the State of Georgia is still pursuing Trump over interference in their election.

I am possibly a little surprised (Republican state and all): but they seem to be quite tenacious about it, even if they're not generating anything like as many headlines. And if any of those charges stick, they're probably going to be the ones with the highest penalities.

 

[SilentPony]

Whilst we're also dwelling on Trump's legal woes, I would also note that the State of Georgia is still pursuing Trump over interference in their election.

I am possibly a little surprised (Republican state and all): but they seem to be quite tenacious about it, even if they're not generating anything like as many headlines. And if any of those charges stick, they're probably going to be the ones with the highest penalities.

I am kinda amazed Governor Kemp hasn't ordered the investigation to be closed. I wonder if he wants to run for president some day and he's laying the groundwork for being anti-Trump.

 

[Agema]

I am kinda amazed Governor Kemp hasn't ordered the investigation to be closed. I wonder if he wants to run for president some day and he's laying the groundwork for being anti-Trump.

Well, Trump basically pissed on Kemp, other Republican officials, and kind of Georgia generally. I can imagine Kemp might decide for himself and his state "Fuck you, bud" and take Trump down.

 

[tstorm823]

Why would they care? What was said during the numerous telephone conversations, in-between text messages, to rocket the Burisma nonsense to the top of the agenda?

It's really fucking obvious what happened here. The only other halfway credible scenario is that Giuliani was organising this on his own, running Volker and Sondland without the President's knowledge or express go-ahead. But even that looks less likely with statements such as "the POTUS really wants the deliverable".

You've answered your own questions. Giuliani had been working that angle for months, at the behest of Lutsenko, who was still prosecutor general of Ukraine. The various diplomats from both countries were talking to both Giuliani and Lutsenko. The evidence strongly suggests the "deliverable" Trump was interested in was Ukraine's cooperation with regards to the 2016 US election at a time when people were still futilely (it took me way too many tries to spell that word right) trying to prove Trump cheated with Russia's help in 2016. Which makes a lot more sense then Trump trying to preemptively tank Joe Biden just in case he happened to run in 2020.

This is what I meant back earlier with the 80:20 analogy.

Yeah, your analogy was bad when you presented it, and then I showed you how, and now you're ignoring that happened.

And while I'm thinking about, you know what's 80:20? The chances Trump just wanted Ukraine to undermine Democratic efforts to tie him to Russia vs the chances Trump was personally pushing to try and hurt specifically Joe Biden.

 

[Silvanus]

You've answered your own questions. Giuliani had been working that angle for months, at the behest of Lutsenko, who was still prosecutor general of Ukraine. The various diplomats from both countries were talking to both Giuliani and Lutsenko. The evidence strongly suggests the "deliverable" Trump was interested in was Ukraine's cooperation with regards to the 2016 US election at a time when people were still futilely (it took me way too many tries to spell that word right) trying to prove Trump cheated with Russia's help in 2016. Which makes a lot more sense then Trump trying to preemptively tank Joe Biden just in case he happened to run in 2020.

OK. So they were discussing what they should advise Zelensky to say in exchange for the White House visit, with direct reference to how much POTUS wants certain things from the Ukrainians. Then they had a call with Yermak, and the very next day Yermak is referring to "what we discussed", and how they can work a Burisma investigation into the speech. And you believe that during this call, Giuliani... worked in his own requests, which the Ukrainians then acquiesced to. That essentially they shifted to trying to impress Giuliani instead, for no apparent reason, and then made no reference to it afterwards.

Even though Giuliani works on Trump's behalf.

Even though they were referring earlier only to what Trump wanted, not Giuliani.

Even though they didn't need to impress Giuliani. Only his boss.

Even though the Prosecutor General of Ukraine obviously wouldn't need to convince US diplomats to pressure Ukrainian aids to get content into Zelensky's speech. I mean, this part is extra bizarre. You believe he was.... manipulating American diplomatic staff in order to pressure people within his own government, to start an investigation which he could have just started anyway. He chose to add twelve extra unnecessary steps, and clandestinely work through a foreign country, to start an investigation into a company under his own jurisdiction.

You're a patsy, buddy.

 

[tstorm823]

Even though Giuliani works on Trump's behalf.

Even though they were referring earlier only to what Trump wanted, not Giuliani.

Even though they didn't need to impress Giuliani. Only his boss.

Giuliani is the person they were talking to, not Trump.

 

[Avnger]

Giuliani is the person they were talking to, not Trump.

You're so close now.

• Who was Giuliani acting as the personal attorney for it the time of these events?
• Who was paying the bills and was the client being represented by Giuliani's actions?
• Who used their position of authority within the US government to ensure Giuliani was treated as an official representative worthy of the Ukrainian government's time rather than being relegated to 'just another lobbyist'?

Hint: The answer for all three questions begins with 'D' and ends with 'onald Trump'

 

[Silvanus]

Giuliani is the person they were talking to, not Trump.

This is correct. They were talking to Trump's employee and personal attorney, Rudolph Giuliani.

 

[tstorm823]

Who was paying the bills and was the client being represented by Giuliani's actions?

Yuriy Lutsenko. Seriously. Yuriy Lutsenko

This is correct. They were talking to Trump's employee and personal attorney, Rudolph Giuliani.

Trump is known for being unreliable about paying his lawyers. Giuliani was likely more loyal to the client that actually pays.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

 

[Gordon_4]

Jumping before he’d pushed, that way he can keep his pension.

 

[Bedinsis]

Yuriy Lutsenko. Seriously. Yuriy Lutsenko

I don't get why you source a Vanity Fair article that more or less parrots a Washington Post article, when you can look at the Washington Post article itself. That article has the following, quite telling, quote:

The agreements were never executed, and there is no indication that Giuliani was ultimately paid by Lutsenko or other Ukrainian officials.

 

[tstorm823]

I don't get why you source a Vanity Fair article that more or less parrots a Washington Post article, when you can look at the Washington Post article itself. That article has the following, quite telling, quote:

In this case, it was just to save people to extra few clicks of dodging WaPo's paywall.

I mean, I could also go with the Seattle Times version of the same article that says "Giuliani has said he doesn’t charge Trump for legal services". And also:

Federal prosecutors in New York have been investigating Giuliani and two associates he tapped to help him conduct investigations in Ukraine for a wide range of possible crimes, including wire fraud and failure to register as a foreign agent, people familiar with the matter have said. The two associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, were charged this year in a campaign finance case.

Prosecutors alleged Parnas and Fruman used foreign money to buy political influence in the United States, directing large donations to American politicians as they “sought to advance their personal and financial interests and the political interests of at least one Ukrainian government official with whom they were working.”

In particular, the indictment alleged the pair tried to force the ouster of then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch “at the request of one or more Ukrainian government officials.” Though no Ukrainian government official is named in the indictment, people familiar with the matter say the references refer to Lutsenko.