the 45th is The Fourth US President to officially Face Impeachment.

[tstorm823]

First, I'm going to go back to that post I missed, and I'm going to compare Agema's descriptions to the graphs in the source links.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A006RL1Q225SBEA
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/united-states/investment--nominal-gdp

By historical standards, investment is low-modest

These are the closest to a true claim, but they're both charts of relative measures, one to gdp which trends upwards so the flatness is misleading, and the other is percent change from previous time period, so even though it looks low, any positive number is an increase. I said investment is up, and you can look at both those points and actually see the inflection point where Trump was elected at the end of 2016 and investment rose. But maybe I'll give this one thing, investment has been increasing modestly. Still up though.

Wages increases are disappointing, especially given the low unemployment should (theoretically) increase labour demand.
https://www.epi.org/nominal-wage-tracker/

I like the sneaky concession that unemployment is way down, but are you kidding me? Wage increases are pretty much literally on target for the first time since the recession, and you call that disappointing? And like, what's more ridiculous is where the growth is, that 4% is overall. That's getting dragged down by high-paid boomers retiring and being replaced by millenials. The place we should care most about wage growth is the low paid jobs, and they're way, way above that target. I know you know this. It was in my sources earlier, it would have been mentioned wherever you found the suggestion that minimum wage hikes were partially responsible, here it is from the same site as your graph [https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-growth-for-low-wage-workers-has-been-strongest-in-states-with-minimum-wage-increases/]. The bottom 10% over the current economic upturn has seen 8.4% wage increase in just the states without minimum wage increases. Disappointing? How about palpable. We can feel that around these parts.

Take a look at the USA's long-term growth over a 10 or 25 year period, and tell me why anyone should be excited by its performance under Trump.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=eUmi

Why should anyone be excited by that? Because we haven't seen single 0-growth month in his presidency. Drag out those charts as far as you can, the only time you'll see that trend is in the most famously prosperous times. And it's consistently up. And these are still relative changes, so it's compound interest. Even if you have two periods with identical average growth, the period that is consistently the average actually grows faster than the period that alternates highs and lows. 2.5% every time is factually better growth than alternating 5% and 0%. And as far as market confidence, it's not even comparable between how you feel when there's reliable growth to how it feels when you have those huge palpitations.

It's thus mediocrity: he's nothing but a president that inherited an already healthy economy.

You're going so far out of your way to ignore the positives, it's ridiculous.

Unfortunately, you've chosen a poor example of something allegedly inaccurate, because a Ukrainian ex-official says they did know in late July:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/top-ukrainian-official-claims-government-knew-of-military-aid-freeze-in-july-we-had-this-information/

You're taking a single Ukrainian ex-official over the entire rest of the government of Ukraine, every US official that testified under oath, and the primary source text messages where Yermak was surprised by the news? Let's back up a second to where you were accusing me of only respecting sketchy sources. Geez.

Both of very low repute, which the most cursory check would reveal...

They're two consecutive prosecutors general. It doesn't matter what repute they're in, they're of great consequence.

You're misrepresenting here. See above - Ukraine knew the aid was frozen earlier, as the whistleblower notes. Later, Yermak contacts I think Volker demanding to talk after a press article - presumably this article might have given them details they did not earlier know, or maybe they were forced to act because of the issue being made public.

Your source saying they knew calims there was a wire, why didn't any US diplomats know they knew then? You think that official wire happened, but none of the witnesses knew about it?

You thought Volker was setting up a meeting with Yermak on behalf of Giuliani,

[citation needed]

Sworn testimony of Kurt Volker, p. 18 [https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D007.pdf]

"In May of this year, I became concerned about a negative narrative about Ukraine, fueled by assertions made by Ukraine's departing prosecutor general, reaching the President of the United States and impeding our ability to support the new Ukrainian government as robustly as I believed we should.
After sharing my concerns with the Ukrainian leadership, an advisor to President Zelensky asked me to connect him to the President's personal lawyer, Mayor Rudy Giuliani. I did so. I did so solely because I understood that the new Ukrainian leadership wanted to convince those, like Mayor Giuliani, who believed such a negative narrative about Ukraine, that times have changed and that, under President Zelensky, Ukraine is worthy of U.S. support."

And I believe later in there, he testifies to having dinner with Giuliani sometime in August, and having Giuliani agree that Zelesnkyy was trustworthy and Lutsenko wasn't. Though that might have been Sondland. Those stupid pdfs are really irritating to dig through, and trying to get all the details perfect without digging again is like memorizing War and Peace.

1) Giuliani has been working with/for Trump in various capacities since 2016, even though he was specifically hired as a personal attorney in April 2018. He's known to have been active fishing around Ukraine since 2017.

Citation needed. I've let this one go a few times because you might know something I don't, but the only thing I've found Giuliani doing in Ukraine in 2017 seems completely unrelated, so I'm going to need to see a source on this.

2) Pompeo's fears are hearsay at the worst, and it is doubly speculation for you to think it means Parnas (Dmitry Firtash is a more likely choice, not least as Parnas seems to have had significant money problems).

a) What's the difference?
b) You've already acknowledged Parnas was paying Giuliani, you swept it under the rug as unrelated.

3) I don't deny that Parnas and Giuliani likely have other business interests than each other's, which may have overlapped with their mutual task aiding Trump get dirt on his political opponents. Such wheeler-dealers usually have lots of irons in the fire.

Just stop. You have nothing to show Parnas was a tool of Trump. The only indication of this is Parnas's word, and Parnas's only evidence is him making deals with Lutsenko and trying to tell Trump what to do at parties. If Trump was ordering Parnas around, and Parnas was recording Trump, why is there no recording of it? Dangit, Bobby!

What you do is fill the uncertainty in any issue with a convenient fantasy, and claim that fantasy is the truth, in fact just like you've done now claiming Parnas was hiring Giuliani. An argument based on the evidence you can see is better than one based on the holes where the evidence is incomplete.

You already admitted Parnas hired Giuliani! Don't gaslight me! Seriously!?

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Senate votes for no Witnesses and Documents in Impeachment Trial.

 

[bluegate]

Senate votes for no Witnesses and Documents in Impeachment Trial.

The United States of Bananas.

 

[Agema]

These are the closest to a true claim...

They are true claims, and I'm not trying to be sneaky.

The point is not to say the economy is doing badly under Trump - it isn't. It's to point out that under virtually any measure, it's not doing especially well either. If the economy grows at 2% GDP a year, it's going up and in isolation, that's good. But you then need to apply context: if long-term growth trend is 2.5% a year, then 2% is actually not so good. If we add more context, such as that the president passed tax cuts that were supposed to cause an investment boom and 4% GDP growth, that 2% GDP growth and no apparent investment boom is poor. Either a) the tax cut policy was a failure or b) the president lied about what it would achieve or c) the economy did much worse than expected, and the tax cut merely mitigated the damage.

So, the economy is decent. Not great, but decent.

Next, how much credit do we give the president? The president does not run the economy, really. The economy is mostly the sum total of decisions by employees, employers, investors; plus influence from all manner of events. If the president were to do nothing at all, the economy (assuming no major problems) should grow all on its own: in this respect, we might note that the Federal Reserve has more day-to-day influence on the economy than the president, as the Fed controls interest rates.

The president affects the economy through various laws and policies which change the behaviour of economic actors. The tax cuts and trade deals, for instance, are great examples. So then we ask ourselves: what has Trump achieved? He's renegotiated NAFTA, to apparently little or no effect. His trade negotiations with China remain to be completed. After that, there are the tax cuts which have failed to move economic performance beyond decent, and certainly missed by a huge margin the targets the president claimed they'd achieve. I struggle to think of any other meaningful thing he's done economically. So, three major policies, and all economic indicators have merely trundled all along in much the same way they have been since about 2012.

Why should anyone be excited by that? Because we haven't seen single 0-growth month in his presidency.

Single months in isolation don't make much difference. For instance, salaries are overwhelmingly recalculated annually, based on economic performance and inflation, so they look at the annual figures.

You're going so far out of your way to ignore the positives, it's ridiculous.

Okay, so tell me and provide evidence to justify your answer: in what way has Trump run the economy really well? I mean specifically linking economic performance to economic policy changes from Trump, not just saying the economy is doing okay generally.

Next, please tell me: check Trump's claims for what he'd do for the US economy. Has Trump met his own claims for what he'd do for the economy? And I don't count something as pointlessly vague as "The stockmarket will go up", because (as above) generally of course it will, and it's not necessarily anything to do with him anyway.

 

[tstorm823]

Okay, so tell me and provide evidence to justify your answer: in what way has Trump run the economy really well? I mean specifically linking economic performance to economic policy changes from Trump, not just saying the economy is doing okay generally.

Why would I waste my time trying to tie good economic performance to specific Trump policies when you don't even except the premise that the economy is good in the first place? Like oil prices are a huge factor in the economy, Trump has pushed for more oil production, and the gas prices here have survived sanctions on some oil producing countries and disasters in others because of regulatory policy that encourages rather than discourages domestic energy production. You're gonna say Obama did it first, or you're gonna say gas prices are actually terrible, or you're gonna sidestep the question entirely. I gave you like 8 rebuttals, and you ignored them and made useless blanket statements, so why bother?

Edit: Remember when you said Pelosi wasn't going to impeach Trump and I told you she was just waiting for it to overlap with elections?

 

[Agema]

You're taking a single Ukrainian ex-official over the entire rest of the government of Ukraine, every US official that testified under oath...

But the comment from the Ukrainian ex-official is consistent with the whistleblower; the official says that the Ukrainians did not mention it because they thought it would go down badly with the USA.

They're two consecutive prosecutors general. It doesn't matter what repute they're in, they're of great consequence.

They're dodgy, widely believed to be corrupt, unreliable.

Your source saying they knew calims there was a wire, why didn't any US diplomats know they knew then? You think that official wire happened, but none of the witnesses knew about it?

No they might not know about the wire, as it depends who sent it.

[citation needed]

"In May of this year..."

I mean citation needed about what I allegedly claimed. And never mind that, how it particularly matters.

Citation needed. I've let this one go a few times because you might know something I don't, but the only thing I've found Giuliani doing in Ukraine in 2017 seems completely unrelated, so I'm going to need to see a source on this.

a) What's the difference?
b) You've already acknowledged Parnas was paying Giuliani, you swept it under the rug as unrelated.

Parnas and Giuliani have plenty of links. Giuliani is Parnas's son's godfather, or vice versa, or something very similar, which indicates more than a simple business relationship. Giuliani is a big name that Parnas can leverage for reputation, Parnas has connections through which Giuliani can earn money and get shit done in Ukraine. Incidentally Parnas did not pay Giuliani himself, some other guy did although with a connection to Parnas' company - as I've already said, there's a whole wider web of people involved. Parnas appears to have been in contact with Devin Nunes and Pete Sessions, too, for instance. I'm arguing that Parnas and Giuliani have a relationship of mutual advantage, together with a much more complex set of affairs involving other Americans and Ukrainians. The evidence, however, points at Parnas doing things for Giuliani certainly by 2019. Parnas and Giuliani were doing a lot of talking around meetings, travel expenses for both were being paid for by a Trump donor, etc.

I note that Parnas is releasing documents and stuff. I suspect if he's telling this story and offering to testify, he's got documentation to verify quite a lot of it.

You already admitted Parnas hired Giuliani! Don't gaslight me! Seriously!?

When I note Giuliani was doing stuff in Ukraine in 2017, you said "I've let this one go a few times because you might know something I don't, but the only thing I've found Giuliani doing in Ukraine in 2017 seems completely unrelated, so I'm going to need to see a source on this." Well it's no different here: you prove to me that Giuliani's payment was to put him in Parnas's pocket in return.

Parnas's real interest and intended payday seems to have been something to do with liquified gas contracts.

* * *

I mean, "Drain the swamp", ha ha! Seems to me, yet again, Trump and a lot of the people around him are as deep and damp a sump as it gets.

 

[Bedinsis]

Senate votes for no Witnesses and Documents in Impeachment Trial.

How do they reason?

 

[Kwak]

Senate votes for no Witnesses and Documents in Impeachment Trial.

How do they reason?

At least one (Rubio I think) said they don't need more evidence because they know he did it, but it doesn't change his decision to let him off.

 

[Agema]

At least one (Rubio I think) said they don't need more evidence because they know he did it, but it doesn't change his decision to let him off.

Yep.

It's already pretty obvious (except to tstorm) that he did it, the Republicans know there's no point trying to deny it any more. This is particularly because the Republicans know that the shit that's going to end up coming out - Parnas' evidence, Bolton's book, etc. are just going to leave less and less room for anyone to pretend otherwise, never mind revealing the mass of corruption around Republicans involved. It's clear vindication of the whistleblower and the House Democrats, at least.

If the Republicans allow the most damning evidence to come to trial, it puts them under extreme pressure to take some action. So instead they stop everything, and the damning evidence can arrive as media stories, with less damaging impact doubly as the right-wing media can just ignore it all. They've reckoned enough potential voters will buy the argument it isn't serious enough. Some of the argument along these lines is just incredible, though, take Marco Rubio: "Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a president from office," Think about that. It's an argument to forgive a president any crime or corruption whatsoever just so long as the Senate can't be arsed doing anything about it. To me, it suggests a gaping hole in the rule of law in the USA, although it was in evidence from the Clinton impeachment too: the Senate cannot meaningfully hold the president to account, because there is too much benefit in parties protecting their own.

 

[tstorm823]

They're dodgy, widely believed to be corrupt, unreliable.

As far as Democrats are concerned, William Barr is corrupt and unreliable. If the US Attorney General told a foreign entity that a politician from there had been breaking laws in the US, would there not still be an obligation to take that seriously?

No they might not know about the wire, as it depends who sent it.

Well, all the diplomats assigned to Ukraine didn't mention it, the guy responsible for filing the hold in aid didn't mention it. Vindman, the whistleblower's source about the phone call didn't mention this. So this Ukrainian official claiming to have received a wire is basically insinuating that the person who sent it had no authority to do so, didn't tell anyone who might need to know that they did so, and then gossiped about it to the whistleblower directly. That's not a confirmation that they were threatened with the aid freeze, that's basically an accusation of espionage.

I mean citation needed about what I allegedly claimed. And never mind that, how it particularly matters.

1) Giuliani is trying to get to someone close to Zelenskyy, not vice versa.

It matters because we've both been speculating for months about what actually happened here, and the overwhelming majority of the time, my speculation is getting confirmed. My speculation was that Ukrainians were bringing offers of investigating the Bidens to Trump. The call transcript had Zelesnkyy bringing up Giuliani. The texts had Yermak meering with Giuliani voluntarily, and being the one to tie the White House meeting to investigations in the texts. The testimonies confirmed the Yermak requested that meeting, as well as indicating that Trump's hold on aid was largely based on what he read in the news. Parnas's evidence now shows a conspiracy between him and Lutsenko to generate that news in an effort to get the US ambassador removed, as well as recording Parnas personally trying to convince Trump to remove her, demonstrating that Trump was the target of those actions, not the client.

You're running out of wiggle room fast. Your belief that Trump was the one who made these things happen has always rested on the assumption that Trump or someone close to him had communicated a desire to exchange favors for Biden investigations before the records we have started. At this point, you're hoping that Giuliani was sneaking off to orchestrate that, at Trump's request, during unrelated business trips before Trump even hired him. That's basically the only way I could be made wrong at this point.

The evidence, however, points at Parnas doing things for Giuliani certainly by 2019. Parnas and Giuliani were doing a lot of talking around meetings, travel expenses for both were being paid for by a Trump donor, etc.

I note that Parnas is releasing documents and stuff. I suspect if he's telling this story and offering to testify, he's got documentation to verify quite a lot of it.

I suggest you look at the evidence Parnas has released. He's released texts where Giuliani helped Parnas with getting a visa approved, and texts that seemingly asked for Parnas' approval on public statements. He's released texts demonstrating that he was working for Lutsenko. Those texts show him agreeing to get Yovanovich out for Lutsenko. Then he released a recording of him personally trying to convince Trump to do so.

Well it's no different here: you prove to me that Giuliani's payment was to put him in Parnas's pocket in return.

Parnas is, in fact, releasing documents and stuff. Those documents show Giuliani doing things for Parnas. There aren't equivalent documents showing Parnas doing the same for Giuliani.

Edit: just to point out the media being jerks, Parnas released documents that showed Giuliani working for Parnas's benefit, so they sidestepped that issue entirely and framed it as a Giuliani associate having the ambassador followed as if Giuliani told him to.

 

[Agema]

As far as Democrats are concerned, William Barr is corrupt and unreliable. If the US Attorney General told a foreign entity that a politician from there had been breaking laws in the US, would there not still be an obligation to take that seriously?

There's a world of difference between the USA and Ukraine in terms of probity in public office. Not as big as there should be as Trump and team are illustrating, but still one nonetheless. Barr seems unreliable with respect to Trump, as his blatant misreporting on the Mueller probe would suggest. It doesn't mean he's taking bribes from every Tom, Dick and Harry to ditch legal action against them.

So this Ukrainian official claiming to have received a wire is basically insinuating that the person who sent it had no authority to do so, didn't tell anyone who might need to know that they did so, and then gossiped about it to the whistleblower directly. That's not a confirmation that they were threatened with the aid freeze, that's basically an accusation of espionage.

One Laura K. Cooper (the American deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia) testified, and confirmed that the Ukrainians knew about the aid hold by 25th July. Just because no-one who testified was in the room when the Ukrainians found out doesn't mean it was espionage. No need for you to be so excitable.

1) Giuliani is trying to get to someone close to Zelenskyy, not vice versa.

Y-e-s... These things are sensitive to time. Ukraine has been faced with two channels of communication with Trump. Giuliani has been approaching Zelenskyy for some time, but Ukraine has been ignoring him and trying to go through normal processes via the state department. Note that State Dept. officials dealing with Ukraine are also getting nowhere and are directed to use Giuliani because the president won't listen to them. Of course it ends up with the Ukrainians having to go through Giuliani.

my speculation is getting confirmed.

Your ability to cherry pick improbable interpretations of events to defend your fantasy is impressive.

Not even Republican Senators are denying that Trump did it at this stage. That's how terrible your case is. I think the problem is that you've now emotionally invested so much in it through arguing on this forum that you're too far down the rabbit hole to climb back out. Maybe if you take a big break and come back to it in a few months / years?

I suggest you look at the evidence Parnas has released. He's released texts where Giuliani helped Parnas with getting a visa approved, and texts that seemingly asked for Parnas' approval on public statements. He's released texts demonstrating that he was working for Lutsenko. Those texts show him agreeing to get Yovanovich out for Lutsenko. Then he released a recording of him personally trying to convince Trump to do so.

Parnas is, in fact, releasing documents and stuff. Those documents show Giuliani doing things for Parnas. There aren't equivalent documents showing Parnas doing the same for Giuliani.

Oh yes there are. There are a load of messages, many in Russian, where Parnas is trying to arrange meetings for Giuliani with Ukrainian officials. Parnas is also acting as go-between for other Republican agents (as I've previously mentioned). There are texts indicating Parnas doing stuff for Devin Nunes' office as well: at various points he's clearly working as a fixer for Republicans, Giuliani included, mediating cotnact with Ukrainian officials and ex-officials.

 

[tstorm823]

One Laura K. Cooper (the American deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia) testified, and confirmed that the Ukrainians knew about the aid hold by 25th July. Just because no-one who testified was in the room when the Ukrainians found out doesn't mean it was espionage. No need for you to be so excitable.

No she didn't testify they knew about the aid hold. She testified they noticed a delay. As a US citizen, I guarantee that when the government here is late with something, nobody assumes there was a deliberate freeze on the action.

Not even Republican Senators are denying that Trump did it at this stage. That's how terrible your case is. I think the problem is that you've now emotionally invested so much in it through arguing on this forum that you're too far down the rabbit hole to climb back out. Maybe if you take a big break and come back to it in a few months / years?

My argument here is correct, so far as I can tell. No amount of time is going to convince me to disregard truth and accept lies. That being said, it isn't good politics. a) The truth has too many moving pieces for anyone not really invested to follow all the players. Every Ukrainian name you add to the explanation doubles the chances the person you're talking to stopped listening. b) Sometimes the lie is easier to sell than the truth. "Trump did something questionable but definitely not impeachable" is easy to sell without much backlash from those who don't already want Trump out of office, it matches the average perspective on Trump, and doesn't come with the risk of accusing foreign powers of attempting bribery, an accusation they would forcefully deny and end up in a he-said/she-said sort of scenario.

Politicians are doing politics. I'm trying to understand the truth.

Oh yes there are. There are a load of messages, many in Russian, where Parnas is trying to arrange meetings for Giuliani with Ukrainian officials. Parnas is also acting as go-between for other Republican agents (as I've previously mentioned). There are texts indicating Parnas doing stuff for Devin Nunes' office as well: at various points he's clearly working as a fixer for Republicans, Giuliani included, mediating cotnact with Ukrainian officials and ex-officials.

You find the part where Giuliani requests those meetings and I'll buy you a cookie for good work. Otherwise, arranging meetings for someone because you want them in the meeting still means you're the one running the show.

 

[Silvanus]

No she didn't testify they knew about the aid hold. She testified they noticed a delay. As a US citizen, I guarantee that when the government here is late with something, nobody assumes there was a deliberate freeze on the action.

Oh lol.

Cooper testified that Ukrainian officials enquired about the aid on July 25th. Out of interest, what do you think happened next?

1) The US told them it was a meaningless delay (lied to them);

2) The US told them it was on hold;

3) The US just... didn't answer for whatever reason.

Honestly, just think about it. What story are you trying to write, relying on so much farcical misunderstanding?

With the US Ambassador testifying specifically that the US President's wish for the investigation announcement had been communicated to the Ukrainians prior to this... it takes a mountain of wilful naivety to chalk this all up to miscommunication, followed by dozens of high-ranking officials all lying about it to make Trump look bad.

 

[tstorm823]

Oh lol.

Cooper testified that Ukrainian officials enquired about the aid on July 25th. Out of interest, what do you think happened next?

The aid was still being delivered on schedule on July 25th.

1) The US told them it was a meaningless delay (lied to them);

2) The US told them it was on hold;

3) The US just... didn't answer for whatever reason.

3, because it's a disorganized mess.

Honestly, just think about it. What story are you trying to write, relying on so much farcical misunderstanding?

The truth.

With the US Ambassador testifying specifically that the US President's wish for the investigation announcement had been communicated to the Ukrainians prior to this... it takes a mountain of wilful naivety to chalk this all up to miscommunication, followed by dozens of high-ranking officials all lying about it to make Trump look bad.

I'm not the one suggesting dozens of high-ranking officials are all lying, all of you are. There were like 18 witnesses who testified, none of whom testified under oath that Ukrainians were informed of the freeze by the US government. You all keep accusing me of wontonly disregarding evidence, but I'm the one who trusts the most evidence here.

 

[Agema]

My argument here is correct, so far as I can tell.

You and virtually no-one else.

No amount of time is going to convince me to disregard truth and accept lies.

Right, let's just pause here a moment: you can't prove your version of events. What you call "truth" is in fact a theory that you've built up from your personal, subjective interpretation of events. You are entitled to make your own interpretations and your own theory, but that doesn't make it "truth" nor means anyone should believe you.

You're tying to explain almost everyone else disagreeing your theory as them being too ignorant, or stupid, or biased, or "playing politics" to be able to see the truth. That's not genius, it's obstinacy. I've got another idea: these people with about as much or more information and smarts than you have came to a different conclusion by fair processes of reasoning. And I think it says a lot when the vast majority of people have come to a certain conclusion, especially the ones who have strong motive to deny.

You find the part where Giuliani requests those meetings and I'll buy you a cookie for good work. Otherwise, arranging meetings for someone because you want them in the meeting still means you're the one running the show.

Right. So Giuliani's writing letters to Zelenskyy asking for a meeting saying he's representing Donald Trump on behalf of Parnas, is he? When Trump, personally or via the State Dept., directs Ukrainian officials to speak to Giuliani, that's on behalf of Parnas, is it? That government officials (like Bolton) clearly believe Giuliani is doing stuff for Trump, they're just idiots and you know better? Come off it - your implied argument here is absurd.

 

[Agema]

3, because it's a disorganized mess.

Yes, let's pause on that a moment...

I'm not the one suggesting dozens of high-ranking officials are all lying, all of you are. There were like 18 witnesses who testified, none of whom testified under oath that Ukrainians were informed of the freeze by the US government. You all keep accusing me of wontonly disregarding evidence, but I'm the one who trusts the most evidence here.

A simple explanation from your own mouth: because it's a disorganised mess.

It is entirely plausible that someone in the US government told the Ukrainians the Trump administration had held the aid. Maybe they weren't even aware it was wrong to do so. The fact that none of the people who testified knew who and when doesn't tell us it didn't happen.

Bottom line, we have both an American official and a Ukrainian ex-official who say Ukraine was informed somewhere around the 25th July. That's good enough to believe it happened, and simply claiming they are liars isn't good enough.

 

[Silvanus]

The aid was still being delivered on schedule on July 25th.

Why were they asking about it? Are you honestly going to tell me this is coincidence? They just happened to be checking up on it, apropos of nothing-- which Cooper specifically testified that they don't do-- and then by chance a hold got placed on it very shortly afterwards?

Seriously man. Pull the other one.

3, because it's a disorganized mess.

Yep. The government must have forgotten to check its spam inbox or something. Governments just fail to respond to other governments all the time. It's not as if issues of national importance would get followed up.

Jesus Christ.

 

[tstorm823]

Right, let's just pause here a moment: you can't prove your version of events. What you call "truth" is in fact a theory that you've built up from your personal, subjective interpretation of events. You are entitled to make your own interpretations and your own theory, but that doesn't make it "truth" nor means anyone should believe you.

You're tying to explain almost everyone else disagreeing your theory as them being too ignorant, or stupid, or biased, or "playing politics" to be able to see the truth. That's not genius, it's obstinacy. I've got another idea: these people with about as much or more information and smarts than you have came to a different conclusion by fair processes of reasoning. And I think it says a lot when the vast majority of people have come to a certain conclusion, especially the ones who have strong motive to deny.

First off: nobody has more smarts than me, so put that out of your mind.

Moving on, you're basically being offended by the nature of truth and perspective. You're suggesting that taking time away will change my mind, what does that mean? Is my perspective relative to whether or not you disagree with me? Is your perspective determined by me disagreeing with you? I hope not. I think that what I think is right is right. It's supremely tautological, but it is what it is. What I think is the truth, I think is the truth. I wouldn't argue it if I didn't, or rather if I argued something I didn't believe, it would involve a huge amount of qualifiers indicating so. If you think I'm arguing things that I don't believe, you shouldn't be arguing with me.

Right. So Giuliani's writing letters to Zelenskyy asking for a meeting saying he's representing Donald Trump on behalf of Parnas, is he? When Trump, personally or via the State Dept., directs Ukrainian officials to speak to Giuliani, that's on behalf of Parnas, is it? That government officials (like Bolton) clearly believe Giuliani is doing stuff for Trump, they're just idiots and you know better? Come off it - your implied argument here is absurd.

Did I ever say Giuliani wasn't doing things for Trump? No, of course not. You're the one suggesting he was doing everything on behalf of Trump. You suggested Giuliani was trying to convince Trump to fire Yovanovich on behalf of Trump. That argument is absurd.

Giuliani was working for two clients. He was working on behalf of Parnas to advance Parnas' interests, and working on behalf of Trump to advance Trump's interests. I don't know why you're so insistent that Parnas has to be down chain from Donald Trump, when they definitely had different goals. It's not just one or the other.

It is entirely plausible that someone in the US government told the Ukrainians the Trump administration had held the aid. Maybe they weren't even aware it was wrong to do so. The fact that none of the people who testified knew who and when doesn't tell us it didn't happen.

Bottom line, we have both an American official and a Ukrainian ex-official who say Ukraine was informed somewhere around the 25th July. That's good enough to believe it happened, and simply claiming they are liars isn't good enough.

Question: if it wasn't Trump or anyone in contact with Trump that informed the Ukrainians of the hold, doesn't that make a difference? If Donald Trump and the diplomats working with Ukraine didn't intend to tell them and didn't believe Ukraine knew about it, how can you treat that as a threat?

 

[Agema]

Moving on, you're basically being offended by the nature of truth and perspective. You're suggesting that taking time away will change my mind, what does that mean? Is my perspective relative to whether or not you disagree with me? Is your perspective determined by me disagreeing with you? I hope not. I think that what I think is right is right.

"Offended" is a strange term to throw around. I think perspective matters, that there are heavy limits to our reason.

Spoiler

I think belief is only a semi-rational process: it's also an emotional one. Plenty of studies show that individuals presented with contrary evidence double down on their beliefs, for instance, rather than reconsider. I think we believe some things because the people around us do, and we desire to conform with the people we like. We are prone to prefer to believe things that fit in with other pre-existing beliefs, even at the expense of the evidence. I think changing someone's mind is not about giving them reasons, it's about surpassing all the emotional barriers they may have to change their mind. We all do this, you, me, everyone else.

Did I ever say Giuliani wasn't doing things for Trump? No, of course not. You're the one suggesting he was doing everything on behalf of Trump. You suggested Giuliani was trying to convince Trump to fire Yovanovich on behalf of Trump. That argument is absurd.

Why is it absurd? Trump wants Giuliani to get dirt on his political enemies. Giuliani tells Trump that in order to get the dirt, better if the ambassador goes. Trump gets rid of the ambassador.

Giuliani was working for two clients. He was working on behalf of Parnas to advance Parnas' interests, and working on behalf of Trump to advance Trump's interests. I don't know why you're so insistent that Parnas has to be down chain from Donald Trump, when they definitely had different goals. It's not just one or the other.

We mostly agree here. Parnas has his own interests in Ukraine: he's after liquid gas contracts and other business opportunities. He wants to be best buddies with Giuliani because it hugely boosts his profile and credibility. Giuliani has business in Ukraine on behalf of Trump and Parnas is useful as a go-between, organiser, man-on-the-ground because Giuliani's much too big a cheese to be scurrying round sorting this stuff out personally.

They have a relationship of mutual advantage. When we say "working for", it needs perhaps to be seen in the frame of from whom the task is originating. Getting rid of Yovanovich appears to be a mutual aim. Subsequent activities meeting with government officials align much more strongly with Giuliani's task than Parnas's. The involvement of other Republican operatives (like Toensing) and funding from Republican donors emphasises this.

Question: if it wasn't Trump or anyone in contact with Trump that informed the Ukrainians of the hold, doesn't that make a difference? If Donald Trump and the diplomats working with Ukraine didn't intend to tell them and didn't believe Ukraine knew about it, how can you treat that as a threat?

Firstly, for all we know Mick Mulvaney or Mike Pompeo told Ukraine. Probably not, of course, I'm just illustrating how much of an unknown it is. I don't think it's useful to speculate. Stick to the facts: it was done.

There is an obvious implicit threat. The Ukrainians know the aid should be released, and yet that Trump himself has held it - and then Trump wants them to do him "a favour". Sondland, in his testimony, points out what this is about. Anyone on the planet would put the 2 of held aid and the 2 of wanting the investigations together to reach the quid pro quo 4. It doesn't need to be explicitly stated.

 

[tstorm823]

"Offended" is a strange term to throw around. I think perspective matters, that there are heavy limits to our reason.

Spoiler

I think belief is only a semi-rational process: it's also an emotional one. Plenty of studies show that individuals presented with contrary evidence double down on their beliefs, for instance, rather than reconsider. I think we believe some things because the people around us do, and we desire to conform with the people we like. We are prone to prefer to believe things that fit in with other pre-existing beliefs, even at the expense of the evidence. I think changing someone's mind is not about giving them reasons, it's about surpassing all the emotional barriers they may have to change their mind. We all do this, you, me, everyone else.

I think in a general sense you're spot on. Changing someone's mind in political discussions is much more like converting than convincing, and conversion is more about admiration and disgust than it is about reason. That being said, you might want to consider that you're not having your mind changed specifically because I am trying to convince with evidence. Not to keep circling back, but I suspect the other thread ended where it did because I presented a case that left you disgusted with the House Democrats and you didn't want to defend them.

Why is it absurd? Trump wants Giuliani to get dirt on his political enemies. Giuliani tells Trump that in order to get the dirt, better if the ambassador goes. Trump gets rid of the ambassador.

We mostly agree here. Parnas has his own interests in Ukraine: he's after liquid gas contracts and other business opportunities. He wants to be best buddies with Giuliani because it hugely boosts his profile and credibility. Giuliani has business in Ukraine on behalf of Trump and Parnas is useful as a go-between, organiser, man-on-the-ground because Giuliani's much too big a cheese to be scurrying round sorting this stuff out personally.

They have a relationship of mutual advantage. When we say "working for", it needs perhaps to be seen in the frame of from whom the task is originating. Getting rid of Yovanovich appears to be a mutual aim. Subsequent activities meeting with government officials align much more strongly with Giuliani's task than Parnas's. The involvement of other Republican operatives (like Toensing) and funding from Republican donors emphasises this.

I still think your position fits the evidence better if you drop the idea that Yovanovich was a real impediment to investigations. You could certainly suggest that Giuliani convinced Trump to oust her for Parnas in exchange for Parnas setting up those meetings for Giuliani. Before she was recalled, the investigations were unimpeded. We have recorded evidence of Parnas agreeing to get her out for someone else. We've got lots of recorded incidents of people pushing to have her out without relation to investigating Democrats. Why stick to the idea that this was directly connected to getting at Bidens?

Firstly, for all we know Mick Mulvaney or Mike Pompeo told Ukraine. Probably not, of course, I'm just illustrating how much of an unknown it is. I don't think it's useful to speculate. Stick to the facts: it was done.

There is an obvious implicit threat. The Ukrainians know the aid should be released, and yet that Trump himself has held it - and then Trump wants them to do him "a favour". Sondland, in his testimony, points out what this is about. Anyone on the planet would put the 2 of held aid and the 2 of wanting the investigations together to reach the quid pro quo 4. It doesn't need to be explicitly stated.

Nobody that I know of has absolutely that the Ukrainians knew early on, but they especially haven't said they knew Trump was directly involved.

Like, Laura Cooper suggesting they knew actually reads like this:

Spoiler

On July 25th, a member of my staff got a question from a Ukraine embassy contact asking, What was going on with Ukraine?s security assistance? Because at that time, we did not know what the guidance was on the USAI, the OMB notice of apportionment arrived that day, but the staff member did not find out about it until later, I was informed that the staff member told the Ukrainian official that we were moving forward on the USAI but recommended that the Ukraine embassy check in with State regarding the FMF.

Sometime during the week of August 6 to 10, a Ukraine embassy officer told a member of my staff that a Ukrainian official might raise concerns about security assistance in an upcoming meeting. My understanding was that the issue was not, in fact, raised. Again, I have no further information about what concerns about the security assistance Ukraine may have had at that time.

My staff also recalled thinking that Ukrainians were aware of the hold on security assistance during August, but they cannot pinpoint any specific conversations where it came up. My staff told me they?re aware of additional meetings where they saw officials from the Ukrainian embassy in August, and they believe that the question of the hold came up at some point. But they told me they did not find any corresponding email or other records of those meetings.

The whistleblower complaint:

Spoiler

As of early August, I heard from U.S. officials that some Ukrainian officials were aware that U.S..aid might be in jeopardy, but I do not know how or when they learned of it.

The Ukrainian official:

Spoiler

We had this information. It was definitely mentioned there were some issues. (Unfortunately this interview again was with the New York Times, so that is the only quote as they were willing to publish about the subject. They paraphrased everything else until the part where she commented on Ukraine wanting her not to get involved in the impeachment proceedings.)

I don't think there is anyone saying they were proactively informed by the Trump administration, nor do I think there is anyone saying they knew Trump did it personally until August 29th when it hit the news. Saying "stick to the facts" and then just moving forward as though someone proactively warned them that Trump was personally withholding the aid... well, it's not sticking to the facts after all.

And like, if they don't know Trump decided to freeze the aid, it doesn't matter what Trump wants. You can't do 2+2=4 without knowing both 2s exist.