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

[Silvanus]

So you think that Trump laid the groundwork out, took the phone call with Zelenkyy, was told presumedly what he wanted to hear from Zelenskyy, and then contacted OMB immediately through means we have no record or testimony of to officially put the freeze in place? Is that the theory?

Possibly, but I'm not offering a theory. It could be that the freeze was instituted at that time in order to increase pressure on Zelensky to follow through on what he said in the call; it could have already been in the works and unrelated to the call.

My point is that the fact we have talk of a freeze from weeks before the call is quite meaningless, and doesn't disprove a connection.

[...] the people at OMB are denying such a thing happened, this collection of records that got released includes no such order [...]

Oh! Spokespeople said there's nothing to see here? Open and shut case, then!

 

[Agema]

So you think that Trump laid the groundwork out, took the phone call with Zelenkyy, was told presumedly what he wanted to hear from Zelenskyy, and then contacted OMB immediately through means we have no record or testimony of to officially put the freeze in place? Is that the theory?

Yep, I think Trump prepped the aid hold as an backup in case Zelenskyy didn't come through.

I cannot see any single reason to believe there is a connection in this timing other than conspiracy-theory level seeing of patterns that don't exist.

This would be the pattern of Trump's personal lawyer digging for dirt, Trump's obsession with dirt, directly asking the Ukrainian pres. for dirt, and state employees and whistleblowers objecting to all the dirt, removing an ambassador believed an obstruction to acquiring dirt. On top of this, an apparent total lack of transparency, and blocking access to whatever evidence may elucidate matters.

No, no you definitely can't suspect those tiles you've got left might have things like leaves and butterflies on. Crazy talk! The picture is a total unknown.

I say to you again: let's have some WH testimonies and documents to explain what the fuck has been going on here. I'm willing to accept some good evidence of innocence should it be provided. What are you afraid of? Why are the Republicans so keen we shouldn't see any? Come on, let's have some transparency and see our politicians have to explain themselves, and if in the wrong be held to account. In any normal circumstance we'd all believe in that. Why the cold feet here and now?

 

[Silvanus]

So all of the evidence and testimony indicating the freeze was in motion before the phonecall is "quite meaningless"

You say "all the evidence and testimony" as if the weight of that is going to prove something, but... nobody is disputing that the freeze was requested and worked-on before.

If you think you'll need something done at a certain time, you prep it. If there's a chance you won't need it, you prep it but hold off on the final go-ahead. That's how things are done in pretty much any administrative workplace anyway. This is like explaining really basic grown-up workplace stuff.

, but one step in the process happening to alnd on the same day as the phone call is perfectly valid reason to be suspicious?

It wouldn't be suspicious if we didn't also have multiple testimonies stating that the subject of the call was related to the freeze.

Frankly, in any criminal trial that would be taken to be shady as fuck.

Just shut up.

Stop being purposefully naive.

 

[tstorm823]

It wouldn't be suspicious if we didn't also have multiple testimonies stating that the subject of the call was related to the freeze.

You literally have no testimony from anyone that the call was related to the freeze. Nobody has ever said that ever. Sondland said his interpretation a month later was that the asked for investigations would get the freeze released, but that is not the same. Literally nobody with any actual knowledge has claimed that phone call and the hold on aid were connected.

Which is precisely why people are excited about this email, they're saying "ha, we knew it was related even though everyone said otherwise, we finally have proof!" You don't have proof.

Stop being purposefully naive.

Lol. You know what's naive? Believing that beneath all of this is a fully competent system full of adequate and well controlled communication such that Trump would carefully plan his moves weeks in advance, smoothly communicate his desires so that his orders can get where they need to be in like an hour after his decision, and successfully conceal that the order ever took place. You believing that is woefully naive.

Donald Trump does not do careful bureaucratic groundwork in preparation for diplomatic engagements weeks in advance, Trump doesn't get his personal orders enacted swiftly without resistance, and Trump definitely doesn't keep secrets well. This is just the latest edition of "Republicans are evil masterminds when convenient for Democrats, but also hopeless incompetents when convenient for Democrats."

 

[Silvanus]

You literally have no testimony from anyone that the call was related to the freeze. Nobody has ever said that ever.

...because that's ridiculous?

The subject of the call. The investigations were explicitly discussed in the call; what we have are multiple testimonies that the freeze was related to something under heavy discussion in the call.

Everything else you've written is about the lack of direct testimony that the physical call itself was related to the freeze. That's the most simplistic line of argument you could possibly take.

Imagine we find a letter from me, blackmailing a businessman. The letter contains instructions to provide me with 6000 dollars. It also states that the businessman will be fine and safe if the money is paid.

Later, this goes to court. Witnesses testify that the businessman only gave me the money because I was threatening him.

Your argument here is essentially that the letter doesn't prove anything, because the witnesses didn't specifically state that the letter itself compelled the businessman to act in any particular way.

Well, fucking obviously, they testified that the subject of the letter did!

Stop being purposefully naive.

Lol. You know what's naive? Believing that beneath all of this is a fully competent system full of adequate and well controlled communication such that Trump would carefully plan his moves weeks in advance, smoothly communicate his desires so that his orders can get where they need to be in like an hour after his decision, and successfully conceal that the order ever took place. You believing that is woefully naive.

Donald Trump does not do careful bureaucratic groundwork in preparation for diplomatic engagements weeks in advance, Trump doesn't get his personal orders enacted swiftly without resistance, and Trump definitely doesn't keep secrets well. This is just the latest edition of "Republicans are evil masterminds when convenient for Democrats, but also hopeless incompetents when convenient for Democrats."

No, you're adding your own little flourishes to make it look far-fetched. Nobody is assuming anything especially "competent", "smoothly-communicated", or "careful". We're talking about doing admin in advance, for heaven's sake-- which is done routinely in the most basic adult jobs.

If you want to argue that its "naive" to believe Trump could operate on the level of a basic adult with a job, then please, go ahead.

 

[tstorm823]

If you want to argue that its "naive" to believe Trump could operate on the level of a basic adult with a job, then please, go ahead.

Ignoring the rest because you clearly have no idea what was testified to beyond what the headlines pretend happened, but as far as this bit is concerned, I sure would argue that, Covfefe

 

[Agema]

We know what happened.

No, we don't.

We have a massive crap-ton of circumstantial evidence, and a decent chunk of direct evidence, that very strongly suggests the president tried to use national policy to extract bogus investigations out of a foreign country for his own domestic political gain.

Like that aid freeze. There is literally no official reason given for it, that's one of the major points of contention. The president blocked a Congressionally-authorised payment for no given reason, contrary to expected practice. (I don't know how you think the US government should run, but I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be autocratic whim of the president.)

Nothing being withheld is going to greatly expand our knowledge of events. I know you want there to be secret correspondence where Trump told Giuliani to tell Zelenskyy to fabricate a crime to pin on Biden, but that doesn't exist.

Fine. In that case, if you don't believe they exist, you can have no objection whatsoever for Congress to subpoena documents and testimonies from Giuliani and the White House regarding their dealings with Ukraine. If you're really so sure it's all above board, why are you so refusing to seek what would be the final word in evidence that would end all the uncertainty? Why are the Republicans?

Over 50% of the USA thinks there's massive problem here, and this is into the realm of Congress doing it's duty for democratic good practice and confidence in government. Whether or not all those 50+% can be convinced of innocence(I suspect a fair chunk can't but a fair chunk can), history and the reputation of the US government would benefit from doing a proper job of oversight, not a grubby, political stitch-up.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

After Soleimani's execution, I honestly think unless there is an impeachment, removal, and jail time for Trump... it will take a good long time before America ever reaches 'favorable' in the eyes of other nations.

Forget 'leader in the global stage'. Trump, no matter how harmful, is temporarily holding this position. A very small section of the population voted him in, but again, that was done by us allowing blind ignorance to vote in Republican law makers who systematically took away the votes of Americans because their ability to vote would have inconvenienced them.

We are making ourselves a second world country by these actions. And there are still a number of citizens dancing in the filth because they were told that filth is victory mud. Thank God that my application to being a Canadian citizen is looking better all the time.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Where the heck is Saelune? Shouldn't she be throwing a party about Trump being impeached?

 

[Trunkage]

Where the heck is Saelune? Shouldn't she be throwing a party about Trump being impeached?

Or Zontar getting angry over it. Or even Breakfast Man threatening Gulags

 

[tstorm823]

Where the heck is Saelune? Shouldn't she be throwing a party about Trump being impeached?

It's been a while. Hopefully good things keeping her busy.

 

[CaitSeith]

Where the heck is Saelune? Shouldn't she be throwing a party about Trump being impeached?

Knowing her, no. At least not until Trump is definitely barred from entering into the Oval Office ever again.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I think I have to amend this.

Getting rid of Trump will not be enough.

The Republican Politicians who cover for them will have to go as well.

So in short, no, no recovery in reputation for a long time. There will have to be a few presidents on the apology tour.

 

[Trunkage]

I think I have to amend this.

Getting rid of Trump will not be enough.

The Republican Politicians who cover for them will have to go as well.

So in short, no, no recovery in reputation for a long time. There will have to be a few presidents on the apology tour.

Trump had gotten rid of a lot of Republicans and replaced them with Yes Men. It's going to take a lot to get Republicans back where they were

 

[Thaluikhain]

I think I have to amend this.

Getting rid of Trump will not be enough.

The Republican Politicians who cover for them will have to go as well.

So in short, no, no recovery in reputation for a long time. There will have to be a few presidents on the apology tour.

Eh, get rid of the politicians, and people will still wonder if the voters will vote someone similar in next time, or the time after that. You can't unset the precedent of having Trump as President.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I think I have to amend this.

Getting rid of Trump will not be enough.

The Republican Politicians who cover for them will have to go as well.

So in short, no, no recovery in reputation for a long time. There will have to be a few presidents on the apology tour.

Trump had gotten rid of a lot of Republicans and replaced them with Yes Men. It's going to take a lot to get Republicans back where they were

I'm not sure I want them back as they were I'd want something better than that. That said it'd still be better than what we have now

 

[Silvanus]

Thought this would be relevant to the discussion on international reputation;

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/01/08/trump-ratings-remain-low-around-globe-while-views-of-u-s-stay-mostly-favorable/

The current US president is seen less favourably around the world than despots like Vladimir Putin. In a historical context, that's astounding in the "first world" of traditional US allies.

 

[Agema]

Eh, get rid of the politicians, and people will still wonder if the voters will vote someone similar in next time, or the time after that. You can't unset the precedent of having Trump as President.

True.

Choosing terrible leaders doesn't half shake faith in the people that chose the leader: and whilst leaders might go in the scale of years, voters die in the scale of decades. This is a similar problem faced by the Labour Party in the UK. If the party selects numpties as leaders, what does that say about the party?

 

[Trunkage]

Thought this would be relevant to the discussion on international reputation;

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/01/08/trump-ratings-remain-low-around-globe-while-views-of-u-s-stay-mostly-favorable/

The current US president is seen less favourably around the world than despots like Vladimir Putin. In a historical context, that's astounding in the "first world" of traditional US allies.

Perhaps, since there is clearly a backlash against Trump, that is open and generally unopposed militarily, the system looks like its working. Like, the country is bigger than one man.

But then I remember hugr backlashes against Bush and Obama... which I dont know if this actually backs this up

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Eh, get rid of the politicians, and people will still wonder if the voters will vote someone similar in next time, or the time after that. You can't unset the precedent of having Trump as President.

True.

Choosing terrible leaders doesn't half shake faith in the people that chose the leader: and whilst leaders might go in the scale of years, voters die in the scale of decades. This is a similar problem faced by the Labour Party in the UK. If the party selects numpties as leaders, what does that say about the party?

Which, again, I think is an unfair idea.

The Republicans in Power were keen to expunge votes in their controlled districts that they didn't like. Trump actually lost the popular vote by 3 million. And Republicans Redmap was put into secret action six years prior to make sure the Republican vote counted more than any other.

To be faced with this information and then shrug and go "Oh well, he was still voted in" teeters on willful ignorance. This was a legal coup that worked.

But still... Republicans, you had better choices than Trump.