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

[tstorm823]

And even if we take your word, if Trump (and therefore also Giuliani) was a "mark", he's dangerously incompetent, because it means the US president got successfully played by a small fry ex-Soviet businessman. That's a scary prospect.

He wasn't just played by a small fry ex-soviet businessman. They were influenced by that small-fry at the behest of and in cooperation with the Prosecutor General of Ukraine.

Read for yourself what the latest batch of documents really exposes... it's not Trump. [https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/parnas-texts-expose-ukrainian-prosecutors-role-in-impeachment-scandal]

(Side-note, in case this information seems just too good for my case, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/talking-points-memo/, left.)

But do we have anything official that might corroborate that Parnas was working at the behest of Lutsenko rather than Trump or Giuliani? How about a federal indictment? [https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/lev-parnas-and-igor-fruman-charged-conspiring-violate-straw-and-foreign-donor-bans] "They sought political influence not only to advance their own financial interests but to advance the political interests of at least one foreign official ? a Ukrainian government official who sought the dismissal of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine."

It's not Trump who wanted Yovanovich gone, it's Lutsenko. If Giuliani was working a campaign against her, it's because Parnas was telling her she should be ousted, and Parnas was doing that for the benefit of Lutsenko. Parnas worked Giuliani, Solomon, and a host of US politicians he was feeding funds to all to get Trump to pull her out, and we've been told the only time on record that Parnas interacted with Trump directly, he spent that opportunity personally convincing him to get Yovanovich out of Ukraine. So no, it wasn't Giuliani's campaign against her. You're just incorrect.

 

[SupahEwok]

And even if we take your word, if Trump (and therefore also Giuliani) was a "mark", he's dangerously incompetent, because it means the US president got successfully played by a small fry ex-Soviet businessman. That's a scary prospect.

He wasn't just played by a small fry ex-soviet businessman. They were influenced by that small-fry at the behest of and in cooperation with the Prosecutor General of Ukraine.

Read for yourself what the latest batch of documents really exposes... it's not Trump. [https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/parnas-texts-expose-ukrainian-prosecutors-role-in-impeachment-scandal]

(Side-note, in case this information seems just too good for my case, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/talking-points-memo/, left.)

But do we have anything official that might corroborate that Parnas was working at the behest of Lutsenko rather than Trump or Giuliani? How about a federal indictment? [https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/lev-parnas-and-igor-fruman-charged-conspiring-violate-straw-and-foreign-donor-bans] "They sought political influence not only to advance their own financial interests but to advance the political interests of at least one foreign official ? a Ukrainian government official who sought the dismissal of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine."

It's not Trump who wanted Yovanovich gone, it's Lutsenko. If Giuliani was working a campaign against her, it's because Parnas was telling her she should be ousted, and Parnas was doing that for the benefit of Lutsenko. Parnas worked Giuliani, Solomon, and a host of US politicians he was feeding funds to all to get Trump to pull her out, and we've been told the only time on record that Parnas interacted with Trump directly, he spent that opportunity personally convincing him to get Yovanovich out of Ukraine. So no, it wasn't Giuliani's campaign against her. You're just incorrect.

The texts reveal that Lutsenko engaged in a very specific quid pro quo with Parnas: in exchange for Lutsenko making negative statements about the Bidens, Yovanovitch would be removed.

In one March 22 text from Lutsenko, for example, the Ukrainian politician tells Parnas ?it?s just that if you don?t make a decision about Madam [Yovanovitch], you?re placing into doubt all of my statements. Including about B.?

It?s not confirmed that ?B? stands for Biden, but Lutsenko repeatedly uses it to refer to allegations later peddled by The Hill columnist John Solomon against the Bidens.

At the same time, the messages show, Lutsenko was getting upset that Parnas was not fulfilling his end of the apparent bargain: Yovanovitch had not yet been fired, even after Solomon began to publish Lutsenko?s allegations.

?My Zlochevsky case is moving along successfully. There?s evidence about transfers to B,? Lutsenko wrote in one March 26 message to Parnas, apparently referring to Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky and the Bidens. ?And yet you can?t even get rid of one fool.?

?She?s not a simple fool,? Parnas replied.

I don't care hugely who wanted the ambassador fired. Frankly, if Trump fired her at the behest of foreign interests, not because she didn't get along with them but because she hurt their corruption, that's not actually any better than firing her because she was in the way of his own interests.

But whatever about that. How do you want to spin that your own source claims that the firing was a favor for dirt on the Bidens? The whole matter that this impeachment actually boils down to, doing favors and strong-arming to get political ammunition?

 

[tstorm823]

But whatever about that. How do you want to spin that your own source claims that the firing was a favor for dirt on the Bidens? The whole matter that this impeachment actually boils down to, doing favors and strong-arming to get political ammunition?

That exchange of favors was between Parnas and Lutsenko. There is little to no evidence Trump knew anything about that agreement. If Parnas was passing messages for Trump here, he wouldn't have to convince Trump to recall Yovanovich beyond that statement made by Lutsenko against the Bidens. But he did have to convince Trump, he worked very hard to convince Trump. He worked through Giuliani to convince Trump, he got to Trump personally at a dinner to try and convince him, he gave illegal campaign contributions to US politicians to get them to badmouth Yovanovich to Trump. If there was an arrangement between Trump and Lutsenko to trade favors, literally none of that effort would be necessary. Hence, there was no arrangement with Trump.

 

[Agema]

He wasn't just played by a small fry ex-soviet businessman. They were influenced by that small-fry at the behest of and in cooperation with the Prosecutor General of Ukraine.

Read for yourself what the latest batch of documents really exposes... it's not Trump. [https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/parnas-texts-expose-ukrainian-prosecutors-role-in-impeachment-scandal]

You're forgetting something very important: Parnas's ability to offer his side of the bargain with Lutsenko derives from Trump, in large part via Giuliani. Parnas is a nobody without Giuliani.

Giuliani had prior links with Lutsenko going as far back as 2017, they'd met in 2018 with Parnas helping act as a go-between. Giuliani's been scratching away at Ukraine since long before, Lutsenko knows what Giuliani's looking for. There's evidence that in February 2019 Giuliani's consultancy firm had a contract worth $200,000 for services from the office Lutsenko ran, so a financial conflict of interest too.

The idea you're floating that Parnas suddenly turned up and magicked up this thing makes no sense at all in the light of all these prior dealings. As for Lutsenko, he was already known to be deeply compromised by mid-2019, and surely Giuliani knew that.

But do we have anything official that might corroborate that Parnas was working at the behest of Lutsenko rather than Trump or Giuliani? How about a federal indictment? [https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/lev-parnas-and-igor-fruman-charged-conspiring-violate-straw-and-foreign-donor-bans] "They sought political influence not only to advance their own financial interests but to advance the political interests of at least one foreign official ? a Ukrainian government official who sought the dismissal of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine."

It's not Trump who wanted Yovanovich gone, it's Lutsenko. If Giuliani was working a campaign against her, it's because Parnas was telling her she should be ousted, and Parnas was doing that for the benefit of Lutsenko. Parnas worked Giuliani, Solomon, and a host of US politicians he was feeding funds to all to get Trump to pull her out, and we've been told the only time on record that Parnas interacted with Trump directly, he spent that opportunity personally convincing him to get Yovanovich out of Ukraine. So no, it wasn't Giuliani's campaign against her. You're just incorrect.

You started by saying it was all Parnas. Now you've started saying it's all Lutsenko. If you're already moving the goalposts you're making this up along the way.

The tragic reality is that the interplay beween Giuliani and Lutsenko, through Parnas and any other intermediaries, is not the work of some single mastermind. It's a series of mutually beneficial deals freely entered into by all parties for their own benefit. Parnas doesn't have the contacts to remove Yovanovich, Giuliani does. Giuliani informs the US press, whispers in Trump's ear, thus it's Giuliani's campaign. Giuliani gets rid of Yovanovich because that's the deal on offer to get corrupt Ukrainians to start investigations against Biden. He knows what he's doing, he knows Lutsenko's dodgy as hell - everyone does. The Biden stuff first reached the US via a lobbyist, Bud Cummins: he knew Lutsenko was dodgy. All the State Dept. guys knew Lutsenko was dodgy. Who could have any substantial dealings with Ukraine at that level and not know Lutsenko's reputation was mud and that he was suspected of corruption, or not check if they didn't already know? Giuliani obviously knew, didn't stop him.

And one way or another, sitting at the back of the Giuliani end is Trump. Trump's caused this mess by packing off Giuliani to pursue a fantasy conspiracy in the first place, empowering Giuliani to act in his name. And then he's happily taking the shitty misinformation because he wants this dirt. so he's basing his decisions on the bullshit of criminals, fraudsters and corrupt politicians voluntarily. The truth of the matter was known to the US government in government departments and agencies - people like Yovanovich, of course. But instead of listening to them, Trump wanted his dirt, and so he started removing impediments like Yovanovich, or using cronies on government office like Sondland to do the dirty work instead.

The point being, Trump's been fucking neck deep in this shit at an active level from the start. His intentions, his decisions, his power, his misjudgements are all critical to the resultant controversy. Stop excusing him.

 

[tstorm823]

snip

So your theory here is that Parnas conducted a long and well documented campaign to publicly convince Donald Trump to fire Yovanovich at the behest of Donald Trump. Is that where we're at? You're ignoring the personal efforts of Parnas to convince Trump of that at a public dinner. You're ignoring Parnas giving illegal campaign funds to politicians while telling them to convince Trump to fire her. Does any of that make any sense at all if Trump is involved in an exchange of favors? No? Exactly.

You are correct that Parnas had no personal ability to get Yovanovich out of there and he needed Trump to do it. That's why there was such a major push to talk Trump into it. That's also why it took so long to bear fruit that Lutsenko messaged Parnas to say "My Zlochevsky case is moving along successfully. There?s evidence about transfers to B, and yet you can?t even get rid of one fool." Does any of that sound like at any point they had Trump's knowledge and/or consent to what they were doing?

And no, I haven't moved goalposts. The campaign against Yovanovich was all orchestrated by Parnas, done at the behest of Lutsenko. That's not contradicting anything I've said. It's just a second layer of why your "done by Giuliani at the behest of Trump" theory is baseless garbage.

 

[Agema]

So your theory here is that Parnas conducted a long and well documented campaign to publicly convince Donald Trump to fire Yovanovich at the behest of Donald Trump.

Trump's campaign is to get dirt on the Democrats and Biden.

Powerful people delegate work, and expect minions to use initiative and independent agency to carry it out. Trump delegates getting dirt to Giuliani, then Giuliani delegates to Parnas. Parnas finds out he gets dirt if he removes the ambassador. So he sets about trying to do so by various means, and eventually with Giuliani they get Trump to do so.

Is that where we're at? You're ignoring the personal efforts of Parnas to convince Trump of that at a public dinner. You're ignoring Parnas giving illegal campaign funds to politicians while telling them to convince Trump to fire her. Does any of that make any sense at all if Trump is involved in an exchange of favors? No? Exactly...

And no, I haven't moved goalposts. The campaign against Yovanovich was all orchestrated by Parnas, done at the behest of Lutsenko. That's not contradicting anything I've said. It's just a second layer of why your "done by Giuliani at the behest of Trump" theory is baseless garbage.

Parnas is after Yovanovich directly because of what he has been tasked to do by Giuliani, and Giuliani is representing Trump. This isn't some one-way process, it's a deal - dirt for removing the ambassador - which Parnas and Giuliani sign up to.

I will happily grant you that Parnas and Giuliani are exercising a great deal of independent agency, and that it's unlikely Trump is micromanaging or even following their activities in high detail. People like Trump send their fixers and agents to get stuff done, and often with a lot of autonomy (especially if there's something shady because it makes things much more deniable when there's a problem). But they are still carrying out Trump's work, and Trump will surely be getting some sort of updates.

Whether Trump specifically knows that removing Yovanovich gets him the dirt is technically an unknown. But Trump obviously knows what Giuliani is in Ukraine doing because he sent him to do it, so when Giuliani starts feeding him information to get rid of Yovanovich, he has to realise it relates to getting him his dirt. Now, Trump can also find out what sort of ambassador Yovanovich is from the State Dept., where her reputation is apparently good: honest, anti-corruption... and yet he pushes her out anyway.

So really, your gambit here is to argue that Trump is "merely" an incompetent who unwittingly failed to carry out proper checks and fired a respectable government employee on hearsay, rather than a crook who knowingly fired a government employee to advance his personal benefit. Either way, he let Ukrainian corruption straight into the heart of the US government.

When you add in all the other stuff he did (like illegally holding aid, pressurising and then explicitly asking the Ukrainian president for favours), honestly I can see no good justification for assuming the best (bad though even the best is). There is a remarkable consistency about all Trump's behaviour relating to Ukraine. If we were to look through your strategy throughout the various threads, it's about taking all manner of individual incidents in isolation and then selecting the kindest interpretation for Trump for each one. It's a bit like not seeing the wood for the trees. You want us to believe that dozens of interactions across months all just happened to coincidentally make it seem like Trump was abusing his power. But that's not credible: there's too consistent a pattern.

 

[tstorm823]

I will happily grant you that Parnas and Giuliani are exercising a great deal of independent agency, and that it's unlikely Trump is micromanaging or even following their activities in high detail. People like Trump send their fixers and agents to get stuff done, and often with a lot of autonomy (especially if there's something shady because it makes things much more deniable when there's a problem). But they are still carrying out Trump's work, and Trump will surely be getting some sort of updates.

I don't want you to grant me that. You're still treating Parnas as Giuliani's subordinate, and you're just taking Parnas' word on that one. Meanwhile, the actual evidence Parnas has provided has multiple texts where Giuliani is answering to Parnas about Yovanovich's removal and running public statements by Parnas first, seemingly for guidance. That's not a subordinate relationship. You're putting Giuliani in a position of control just because it ties more directly to Trump, but that's not what the evidence says.

 

[Agema]

I don't want you to grant me that. You're still treating Parnas as Giuliani's subordinate, and you're just taking Parnas' word on that one. Meanwhile, the actual evidence Parnas has provided has multiple texts where Giuliani is answering to Parnas about Yovanovich's removal and running public statements by Parnas first, seemingly for guidance. That's not a subordinate relationship. You're putting Giuliani in a position of control just because it ties more directly to Trump, but that's not what the evidence says.

Giuliani's been active snuffling around in Ukraine possibly as far back as 2017, certainly by early 2018. Parnas, meanwhile, does not appear to be then active in Ukraine around that time, but is passionately hob-nobbing with the Trump administration post-election. Then in mid-2018 Parnas starts doing stuff in Ukraine. Parnas is clearly involved in much of Giuliani's Ukrainian operations as a representative or go-between or arranger. One of Parnas's notes explicitly states that his principal aim in Ukraine is to get dirt for Trump, which is Giuliani's mission; other evidence clearly shows he receives instructions that would only come from the Trump / Giuliani direction (e.g. getting Zelenskyy to offer an investigation). Furthermore, let's also bear in mind there's evidence Giuliani wanted Yovanovich gone independently of Lutsenko, because she was limiting access to US officials of dodgy Ukrainians Giuliani wanted information from.

Whether you want to dicker over the term "subordinate" or "associate" or "fixer" or whatever else is up to you, but the only evidence we have explaining why Parnas got involved in Ukraine points at being through Giuliani. By his own hand and mouth (in some cases before he was caught and had reason to lie), Parnas's stated objectives are those which he'd get from Giuliani, and his phone includes texts where Giuliani is telling him what his job is.

It of course more complex - there are other people involved in this sad web of venality in various ways like disgraced Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash, US lawyer Victoria Toensing, etc. which Giuliani and Parnas had links to as well. For instance, remember those John Solomon articles you were relying on to make your arguments months back? Turns out that was misinformation involving these guys. (Incidentally, have you though about reconsidering some of those points now we know Solomon's sources were corrupt Ukrainians running a smear campaign?)

 

[tstorm823]

Whether you want to dicker over the term "subordinate" or "associate" or "fixer" or whatever else is up to you, but the only evidence we have explaining why Parnas got involved in Ukraine points at being through Giuliani. By his own hand and mouth (in some cases before he was caught and had reason to lie), Parnas's stated objectives are those which he'd get from Giuliani, and his phone includes texts where Giuliani is telling him what his job is.

It of course more complex - there are other people involved in this sad web of venality in various ways like disgraced Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash, US lawyer Victoria Toensing, etc. which Giuliani and Parnas had links to as well. For instance, remember those John Solomon articles you were relying on to make your arguments months back? Turns out that was misinformation involving these guys. (Incidentally, have you though about reconsidering some of those points now we know Solomon's sources were corrupt Ukrainians running a smear campaign?)

Parnas may have been involved in Ukraine in part due to his connections to Giuliani. But I haven't seen any evidence that Giuliani instructed him to take out Yovanovich, which is what we were talking about at this moment. Quite the opposite, that clearly seems to have come from Lutsenko. The worst you could still suppose is that Parnas agreed about Yovanovich perhaps because Giuliani wanted dirt on Biden by any means necessary, but the lack of action on Yovanovich for months and the effort put into convincing Trump strongly suggest Trump had no idea such an exchange was ever agreed upon, it's possible Giuliani wasn't even aware that it was an explicit exchange. Like, doesn't the idea that the US ambassador to Ukraine was stopping Ukraine from investigating Biden strike you as an incredibly dumb claim? What was she going to do about it without the approval of the US president? I'm pretty sure she had no power at all in that regard. But Giuliani's dumb enough to buy that line, Parnas probably fed him that lie to make good on the exchange with Lutsenko without telling Giuliani he had that agreement.

And like, consider the behavior of Zelenskyy again. He was advised not to meet with Giuliani, was basically disconnected from the "irregular channel" for 2 months, and then Yermak requests a meeting with Giuliani and ties together a White House meeting with Biden investigations. Well, Lutsenko was still Prosecutor General at the time, Zelenskyy and/or Yermak probably talked to Lutsenko and got the idea that Giuliani would exchange favors for investigations from him, and Yermak wanted a favor and went with that. Like, there's been a definite missing link between May and July where the new Ukrainian leaders flipped from "nah, we don't want to talk to you" to "why don't you formally request an investigation?", and we haven't seen where that flip came from. I would suggest now it probably came from talking to Lutsenko.

And I'm not particularly interested in reconsidering my points knowing Solomon's sources were corrupt. I think the posts where we had that discussion may now be lost to time, I tried to go back and find them but I think that may have started in R&P. At any rate, I don't think my point was ever that Biden was actually super corrupt the whole time because John Solomon reported it, my point was that he did have a source in Ukraine telling him that. Which is to say there was also the same source in Ukraine telling Giuliani that. And then Giuliani was telling Trump that. The point was never the veracity of the source, just that the source existed and wasn't "Donald Trump made this up out of whole cloth".

 

[Agema]

Parnas may have been involved in Ukraine in part due to his connections to Giuliani. But I haven't seen any evidence that Giuliani instructed him to take out Yovanovich, which is what we were talking about at this moment. Quite the opposite, that clearly seems to have come from Lutsenko. The worst you could still suppose is that Parnas agreed about Yovanovich perhaps because Giuliani wanted dirt on Biden by any means necessary,

I think it's very reasonable to suspect Giuliani had an active, knowing part in this: you're missing out that Giuliani has expressed motivation to remove Yovanovich for reasons independent of Lutsenko. Giuliani knew perfectly well she could get in the way of investigations.

...but the lack of action on Yovanovich for months and the effort put into convincing Trump strongly suggest Trump had no idea such an exchange was ever agreed upon, it's possible Giuliani wasn't even aware that it was an explicit exchange.

Not really. Parnas makes a sort of half-arsed attempt to smear Yovanovich on his own, but he's a nobody and Trump doesn't listen to nobodies. Giualiani however isn't a nobody: once Giualiani decides Yovanovich needs to go, he's got the ear of Trump and she's gone. Can I please remind you, again, that Giualiani even by his own admission seems to have known what the score was and was happy to get rid of Yovanovich.

Like, doesn't the idea that the US ambassador to Ukraine was stopping Ukraine from investigating Biden strike you as an incredibly dumb claim?

She's not stopping Ukraine from investigating Biden, she's stopping Giuliani's (/Trump/WH) plots.

Firstly, she's part of keeping an eye on what shady people are doing in a notoriously corrupt country, especially with regard to the USA. She will be potentially impede Giualiani trying to get dirt through corrupt and shady sources.

Secondly, the ambassador could not fail to be aware of dealings between the WH and Zelenskyy. Yovanovich is not in the Trump circle of corruption, which means she's a big risk when they decide to pressurise Zelenskyy into an investigation. Remember how the special envoy who succeeded her reacted to events so negatively? Yeah, the WH doesn't want a straight arrow like Yovanovich with sight over all that as they did it.

Zelenskyy and/or Yermak probably talked to Lutsenko...

Honestly I really am not interested in the sort of speculation where people magic up whatever fantasy most flatters their convenience.

And I'm not particularly interested in reconsidering my points knowing Solomon's sources were corrupt... The point was never the veracity of the source, just that the source existed and wasn't "Donald Trump made this up out of whole cloth".

And I say to you, why is Trump paying attention to dodgy journalists with dodgy documents from dodgy Ukrainians when he's got a whole damn government full of people that know better? This is your president: a man who makes policy on what he reads from a third-rate hack and muck-rakers rather than professional intelligence, law and diplomatic staff in his own government.

 

[tstorm823]

Secondly, the ambassador could not fail to be aware of dealings between the WH and Zelenskyy. Yovanovich is not in the Trump circle of corruption, which means she's a big risk when they decide to pressurise Zelenskyy into an investigation. Remember how the special envoy who succeeded her reacted to events so negatively? Yeah, the WH doesn't want a straight arrow like Yovanovich with sight over all that as they did it.

As is tradition at this point, I'm just going to point out order of events here.

When Yovanovich was the ambassador, Giuliani was having meetings with Lutsenko.
When Yovanovich was the ambassador, they were publicly announcing investigations into the Bidens in Ukraine.
Yovanovich is recalled between April 25th and May 7th.
After Yovanovich was recalled on May 10th, Ukrainians turned down a meeting with Giuliani.
After Yovanovich was recalled on May 16th, Lutsenko retracted any claims that the Bidens did anything wrong.

Like, does that strike you as Yovanovich standing in their way? It's almost as if investigating Democrats in Ukraine recieved no resistance whatsoever until after she was out of that role. Huh.

 

[SupahEwok]

Secondly, the ambassador could not fail to be aware of dealings between the WH and Zelenskyy. Yovanovich is not in the Trump circle of corruption, which means she's a big risk when they decide to pressurise Zelenskyy into an investigation. Remember how the special envoy who succeeded her reacted to events so negatively? Yeah, the WH doesn't want a straight arrow like Yovanovich with sight over all that as they did it.

As is tradition at this point, I'm just going to point out order of events here.

When Yovanovich was the ambassador, Giuliani was having meetings with Lutsenko.
When Yovanovich was the ambassador, they were publicly announcing investigations into the Bidens in Ukraine.
Yovanovich is recalled between April 25th and May 7th.
After Yovanovich was recalled on May 10th, Ukrainians turned down a meeting with Giuliani.
After Yovanovich was recalled on May 16th, Lutsenko retracted any claims that the Bidens did anything wrong.

Like, does that strike you as Yovanovich standing in their way? It's almost as if investigating Democrats in Ukraine recieved no resistance whatsoever until after she was out of that role. Huh.

Uh, what it sounds like is that Giuliani got played by Lutsenko.

 

[tstorm823]

Uh, what it sounds like is that Giuliani got played by Lutsenko.

Careful there, at that rate you might believe that the entire thing wasn't an devious plot and masterful cover-up by Donald J. Trump.

 

[SupahEwok]

Uh, what it sounds like is that Giuliani got played by Lutsenko.

Careful there, at that rate you might believe that the entire thing wasn't an devious plot and masterful cover-up by Donald J. Trump.

Uh, what it sounds like is that Giuliani got played by Lutsenko.

Careful there, at that rate you might believe that the entire thing wasn't an devious plot and masterful cover-up by Donald J. Trump.

Uh, if it was a devious plot and masterful coverup, they wouldn't have been caught.

I mean, I'll say this: I think that the Dems have rushed through this enough that they haven't established the case "beyond all reasonable doubt". One could play semantics and spin possible, low likelihood explanations, such as Trump not knowing why his personal lawyer wanted him to essentially fire a prominent ambassador. As a matter of fact, that's what you've been doing with Agema for weeks (months?).

But not being "beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't mean "innocent." I firmly believe Trump did this shit. I firmly believe he's done worse that hasn't been leaked. The fool has been running the Whitehouse like its The Apprentice. He's not responsible for the current good economy. Economic policy takes years to have a strong effect, and he simply hasn't been in office for long enough to claim most of the credit here. And that's the only positive thing one can attempt to claim he's done for the country.

But the absolutely worst thing that's come out of his administration is that he's broken the conservative party. Even now they're lined up behind him. They should be willing to continue the investigation in the Senate regardless of the Democrat's motives. Because they have a duty to ensure the sanctity of the separation of powers, of Congress keeping the executive in check. And they're not. They're just feeding off the corruption Trump emanates to cash in all they can while the country is headed for a cliff.

Fuck it all. Around now is when the Republicans told Nixon to resign, back in the day. Modern day Republicans in office should burn. You oughtta quit hiding behind the party line and start advocating for a new conservative party, the old needs to go.

 

[tstorm823]

I firmly believe Trump did this shit.

You firmly believe Trump did what exactly?

But the absolutely worst thing that's come out of his administration is that he's broken the conservative party. Even now they're lined up behind him. They should be willing to continue the investigation in the Senate regardless of the Democrat's motives. Because they have a duty to ensure the sanctity of the separation of powers, of Congress keeping the executive in check. And they're not. They're just feeding off the corruption Trump emanates to cash in all they can while the country is headed for a cliff.

Fuck it all. Around now is when the Republicans told Nixon to resign, back in the day. Modern day Republicans in office should burn. You oughtta quit hiding behind the party line and start advocating for a new conservative party, the old needs to go.

Broken the conservative party? I think not. The Republican Party is not just "the conservative party". And Trump certainly isn't breaking it. If anything, the Republican Party's issues go back decades, when the Democrats started breaking the country apart by racial and gender lines, and the Republican response was to pull together the "conservative coalition" which isn't really all that conservative. A hodge-podge of traditionalists, libertarians, neoliberals, neoconservatives, religious fundamentalists, etc. stuck together by their mutual disdain for communism isn't a real party identity nor is it necessarily terribly conservative. If you want to find the most genuinely conservative demographic groups in America, they're often registered Democrats because they happen to be African American. If the Republican Party is to be the conservative party, it's going to need to trade out the old neoliberal guard for those people.

I think Trump's presidency has been a success, mostly by the accident that it's been just long enough for the tea party movement to hit Republican Party leadership just in time to coincide with a President that does almost anything asked of him nicely enough. You think the economy is his only success and he doesn't deserve credit for that, but he does deserve some credit for that and a bunch of other things.

1) The man could just run on the price of gas and win in a fair world, we've been through Venezuela crashing, Suadi Arabia blowing up, and tightening sanctions on Russia and Iran without ever hitting the gross gas prices of yesteryear, and that wouldn't be the case under a Democrat; we would have been tanking the economy that's investing in clean energy development to try and stem the bleeding of climate change with ineffective technology incapable of solving the problem.

2) We got tax reforms that closed some big tax loopholes for the rich and majorly expanded the standard deduction for regular people; if a Democrat did that, it would be applauded as groundbreaking, but since we also lowered corporate taxes to match the other most egalitarian nations on the planet, it's somehow just a gift to the rich in the eyes of the media.

3) We got criminal justice reform, reducing sentences for non-violent offenses while expanding rehabilitation and reform efforts using the money saved not keeping people locked in prison. If a Democrat did that, it would be applauded as groundbreaking, but since the programs weren't fully funded in the first year of implementation, it somehow means Trump is a racist.

4) The trade agreement with Mexico and Canada is about to be law. It passed the House with immense bipartisan support, and is likely to do the same in the Senate. Even if it's little more than a modernization of NAFTA, it's going to help regulate international disputes better, impose environmental and labor standards on Mexican business, while ideally pulling Mexico out of the "race to the bottom" mindset. The trade agreement with China seems to be forthcoming.

5) Foreign policy is actually way better. We spent a long time speaking hard rhetoric to dictators and then appeasing them at every opportunity. I much prefer Trump's combination of friendly rhetoric and harsh policy to the previous 20 years of criticizing North Korea publicly while also handing them piles of money.

Combine all those things and a few more nitpicky things, I would say the good of this term outweighs the bad of Trump's twitter and the media's complete insanity. A lot of that is stuff Trump only deserves minor credit for, and I wouldn't call him a great president by any means, but considering the crap competition I would genuinely say that Donald Trump has been the best US president in the 21st century so far. But he's got potential for much better. There are some signs that there is a chance, slim as it may be, that black Americans will vote for him in greater numbers than a Republican has seen in a very long time. Especially if the Democrats pick anyone but Biden, there's a fair possibility that black conservatives will finally vote Republican again. And then, far from breaking the Republican Party, a real party of Republican values that was long thought to be dead forever can rise from the ashes. As a Republican, I'd put Trump's face on Mt Rushmore if he can get 30% of the black vote.

 

[Agema]

Like, does that strike you as Yovanovich standing in their way? It's almost as if investigating Democrats in Ukraine recieved no resistance whatsoever until after she was out of that role. Huh.

Yovanovich is not going to stop Giuliani meeting Lutsenko in Ukraine (nor would be able to). She can however refuse US visas to corrupt Ukrainians, write up and warn the state department about dodgy stuff (thus it becoming official government record). When you're carrying out an underhanded plot, you don't want anyone leaving records of it.

Yovanovich is recalled between April 25th and May 7th.
After Yovanovich was recalled on May 10th, Ukrainians turned down a meeting with Giuliani.

Yew, Yovanovich is removed just before Giuliani requests a meeting with Zelenskyy. Most convenient. It's almost like Giuliani might be concerned the ambassador could have something to say about likely inappropriate contact between the president of Ukraine and Trump's personal lawyer. [footnote]That's probably the meeting where Giuliani sent that letter which was pretty much a tacit admission of impropriety: "Hi, I'm representing the president and have his full backing, but not in any way that's going on official record of government business." Like a country famed for its corruption isn't going to be familiar with that concept.[/footnote]

 

[Agema]

I think Trump's presidency has been a success

Success? No. It's certainly not been a outright failure, either. It has been a colossal load of domestic mediocrity coupled with corruption, utter debasement of political tone and major foreign policy errors.

The tax cuts abjectly failed to live up to their rationale. Investment did not surge, wages did not get a boost, fiscal stimulus barely kicked in so the economic boost was much shorter and smaller than advertised. In return, it stopped the USA being able to start cutting its national debt, and the vast majority of the benefits went to the rich who didn't really need it. In fact, Trump has missed his economic promises by a very large margin: he claimed he'd get 4% GDP growth. Incidentally, US corporation tax might have been nominally very high, but actual liabilities were very similar to other Western countries, because US businesses have so many ways of getting rebates. It's thus basically a myth that the US gouged corporate profits.

The US economy has overall done fine. But none of that is Trump's hard work: it's just American workers and businesses working as normal.

The trade deals are virtually nothingburgers. The neo-NAFTA achieved very little. The China trade deal, according to the existing drafts, have achieved very few of the USA's aims (to the point that the word "capitulation" has been used to describe the USA's position in some quarters). Because they have achieved so little, they have been squandered time and effort, and in the case of China expensive and damaging to many Americans reliant on US-China trade.

Foreign policy is on the one hand business as normal (propping up the USA's usual allies and low level involvement in petty wars), on the other some staggering and embarrassing errors (Turkey / Kurds, for instance) and the considerable and pointless alienation of the USA's traditional allies for no apparent gain whatsoever. North Korea, for instance? Pointless grandstanding by Trump for absolutely nothing in return. Scrapping the Iran deal? What's that achieved, now Iran says it's just may as well start spinning the uranium centrifuges?

The justice reform bill, I'll grant you, is on face value almost certainly a good job. Although frankly, that's at best a shared one given the hard bipartisan effort in the legislature.

* * *

Trump's first term, in the sense of the USA's domestic wellbeing on most basic indicators, has definitely not been bad. But he doesn't merit credit for that - there's virtually nothing you can point at he's really done right, unless you count doing nothing much. After that, nearly all Trump's achievements are mediocre at best. In foreign policy, I think Trump has done the USA a great deal of damage and weakened its position.

If you start at policy mediocrity and then add the demerits of corruption, government chaos and political rancour, it's really hard to look at Trump's first term kindly. Sure, Republicans are going to fucking love him now because he's their man now and what choice do they have, but 20 years down the road with a spot of distance and perspective, his first term will definitely not be going down positively.

 

[tstorm823]

Yovanovich is not going to stop Giuliani meeting Lutsenko in Ukraine (nor would be able to). She can however refuse US visas to corrupt Ukrainians, write up and warn the state department about dodgy stuff (thus it becoming official government record). When you're carrying out an underhanded plot, you don't want anyone leaving records of it.

So to summarize, you think Trump, or at least Giuliani, were the ones who really wanted Yovanovich out, so they they talked to Lutseko who want to Parnas who paid off US politicians to go all the way around back to Trump who could have moved her somewhere else at any time for any reason he wants. Like, you think Trump and Giuliani were covering up their misdeads by taking part in a big propaganda campaign in public and documented events to accomplish something that could have been done easily and nonsuspiciously as "hey, we're moving you to Brussels to be ambassador to the EU instead." That's some "moon landing is fake" level conspiracy right there.

The tax cuts abjectly failed to live up to their rationale. Investment did not surge, wages did not get a boost, fiscal stimulus barely kicked in so the economic boost was much shorter and smaller than advertised. In return, it stopped the USA being able to start cutting its national debt, and the vast majority of the benefits went to the rich who didn't really need it. In fact, Trump has missed his economic promises by a very large margin: he claimed he'd get 4% GDP growth. Incidentally, US corporation tax might have been nominally very high, but actual liabilities were very similar to other Western countries, because US businesses have so many ways of getting rebates. It's thus basically a myth that the US gouged corporate profits.

Investment is up, the market is up, wages are up, employment is up, the economic boost is still ongoing, the debt is up I will concede, but the wages at the bottom have been growing the fastest [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/workers-at-lower-end-of-pay-scale-getting-most-benefit-from-rising-wages.html] in an economy where wages are definitely growing [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/business/economy/wage-growth-economy.html]. Honestly, I'm just stopping here. You could get this information from Fox News or the New York Times just the same. I could easily excuse ignorance or skepticism as well. But you saying that many consecutive things that are just blatantly upside-down, I have no idea where you're getting your information from. You're just consistently misinformed.

 

[Agema]

So to summarize, you think Trump, or at least Giuliani, were the ones who really wanted Yovanovich out, so they they talked to Lutseko who want to Parnas who paid off US politicians to go all the way around back to Trump who could have moved her somewhere else at any time for any reason he wants. Like, you think Trump and Giuliani were covering up their misdeads by taking part in a big propaganda campaign in public and documented events to accomplish something that could have been done easily and nonsuspiciously as "hey, we're moving you to Brussels to be ambassador to the EU instead." That's some "moon landing is fake" level conspiracy right there.

I think it probably went that Giuliani sent Parnas as his Ukrainian point man (Giuliani, after all, has a lot of other irons in the fire). Lutsenko wanted Yovanovich gone, and Parnas tried to do that solo to secure the dirt, but couldn't. Later, with no progress and a new president and new potential strategy, Giuliani decided Yovanovich needed to go to make it easier and stepped in personally to make it happen. How much Trump was aware and involved is unclear. We should be trying to find out, but you and other Republicans don't want to even try to find out.

Investment is up

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

Not really. By historical standards, investment is low-modest and there's no significant evidence of an investment boom consistent with the tax cuts.

the market is up

Sure: stock markets grow as economies grow. There's no recession, obviously it's up. Here again, there is no evidence it has done particularly well under Trump compared to other presidents - behind Clinton, Bush Snr. and Obama at a similar point in their presidencies.

wages are up, employment is up,

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

And let's bear in mind when you say wages are rising highest at the low end that lots of states and cities, on their own initiative, have been increasing the minimum wage. That will contribute heavily to wage growth for low salaries.

the economic boost is still ongoing

Minimal. 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

But you saying that many consecutive things that are just blatantly upside-down, I have no idea where you're getting your information from. You're just consistently misinformed.

Americans can be content about the economy under Trump. The key word being "content", because there's actually nothing that good about it. It's fallen vastly short of his pre-election promises, certainly not done better than under Obama. If we then look at his sole major economic achievement, the tax cuts, they blew a hole in public finances whilst not giving anything close to the economic gains he claimed they would. In other words, a failure.

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

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

So, how is this screwball comedy of errors progressing?