Trump allegedly requests foreign election interference

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Trump essentially admitted on live TV to doing the thing he's accused of in the impeachment inquiry [https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-admits-to-ukraine-military-aid-quid-pro-quo-tv-2019-11]

In a Friday interview on "Fox & Friends," President Donald Trump admitted to holding up military aid to pressure Ukraine's government to investigate a baseless conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 US election.

In other words, he acknowledged doing the very thing he could be impeached for and has repeatedly denied.

Trump referred to the conspiracy theory that Ukraine is hiding a mysterious Democratic National Committee "server" that contains incriminating evidence of Ukrainian interference and Democratic collusion. There is no evidence supporting this conspiracy theory - the former National Security Council official Fiona Hill testified this week that it was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
"They have the server, right, from the DNC, Democratic National Committee," Trump said. "The FBI went in and they told them, get out of here, we're not giving it to you. They gave the server to CrowdStrike or whatever it's called, which is a country ? which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian. And I still want to see that server. You know, the FBI's never gotten that server. That's a big part of this whole thing. Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company?"

The cohost Steve Doocy, appearing to anticipate the path Trump was going down, asked incredulously: "Are you sure they did that? Are you sure they gave it to Ukraine?"

"Well, that's what the word is. That's what I asked, actually, in my phone call," he said, referring to his July 25 conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that's the focus of the whistleblower complaint that sparked the impeachment inquiry.
Then, critically, the president added: "I mean, I asked it very point-blank, because we're looking for corruption. There's tremendous corruption. Why should we be giving hundreds of millions of dollars to countries when there's this kind of corruption?"

In less than a minute, Trump appeared to, for the first time, link the 2016 conspiracy theory to the vague "corruption" concern his allies have cited as rationale for his withholding the critical military aid to Ukraine.

Many people want to take Zelensky at his word. He said it, so it has to be true. There was no mention of a Quid Pro Quo. The problem is, he WOULD say that given what he ran on and used to win by a landslide: Anti-Corruption [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48007487].

Analysts believe Mr Zelensky's informal style and vow to clean up Ukrainian politics resonated with voters who are disillusioned with the country's path under Mr Poroshenko.

Eschewing traditional campaign tactics, Mr Zelensky channelled his on-screen persona by promising to stamp out corruption and loosen the grip of oligarchs on Ukraine.

Experts say his supporters, frustrated with establishment politicians and cronyism, have been energised by his charisma and anti-corruption message.

Now, to be fair, I think his fellow countrymen would have understood. He bent the rules to make sure there will be armaments to give Russia pause. But if I was in his shoes, I would believe it would look somewhat disingenuous to have my first order of business to be tied in an effort to help a wildly disliked President win another term... through questionable means, mind you.

But we're constantly brought up that Zelensky said there was no Quid Pro Quo. Ok. Trump just said he held up Military Aid in order to enact an investigation. Can't we just take him at his word?

Finally, we should remember that even though the Aid was withheld since July [https://theweek.com/speedreads/879825/impeachment-witness-says-ukraine-knew-security-aid-held-july-25--day-trumpzelensky-call], The White House was actually looking for Justification of the Hold Up Since August [https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/24/politics/white-house-review-ukraine-military-aid-trump/index.html]

Officials close to Mulvaney have previously expressed frustrations about not being in the loop on the review. A senior administration official told CNN the chief of staff's office had not yet reviewed any of the findings of the internal review and had not been provided with the emails referenced in the Post story.

The delayed US aid, along with a whistleblower report on Trump's July 25 call, sits at the center of the Democrat-led impeachment probe into the President. House Democrats have argued that Trump used the delay of assistance as leverage to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals on that call. The President has denied there was any "quid pro quo" and Republicans have argued that bribery could not exist if Ukraine was not aware that the assistance was being held up.

In the August emails, Mulvaney asked acting Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought to provide him with the legal reasoning for withholding the aid, asking also how much longer it could be paused, according to the Washington Post. Emails also show Vought and OMB staffers argued that it was legal to withhold the aid, while National Security Council and State Department officials objected, the newspaper said.

The Post, citing two White House officials, reports Trump made the decision to withhold the aid in July "without an assessment of reasoning or legal justification."

The White House press office and counsel's office did not provide CNN a comment for this story.

In response to the Post report, an OMB spokeswoman insisted on Sunday that the White House followed "routine practices and procedures" in temporarily freezing security aid to Ukraine.

"To be clear, there was a legal consensus at every step of the way that the money could be withheld in order to conduct the policy review," OMB spokeswoman Rachel Semmel said in a statement to CNN. "OMB works closely with agencies on executing the budget. Routine practices and procedures were followed."

A senior administration official said that the OMB provided a legal justification for the aid freeze when the hold was formally put into effect in late August and claimed that there were no efforts to reshape the legal justification after the fact. But it appears that the formal order to temporarily freeze the Ukraine aid came after officials were informed in a July 18 interagency meeting that the aid would be frozen.

A senior administration official said the aid freeze was in the pipeline as early as late June, when the OMB general counsel spoke with lawyers at the Department of Defense about the incoming freeze. The official said it is not unusual for a hold on funds to be communicated verbally before it is formally implemented.

The lag between verbal communication of the aid hold and the formal submission could explain the discrepancy in the crafting of the legal justification.

Two senior administration officials told CNN they did not know specifically which early August emails the Post was referring to between Mulvaney and Vought, but they said the Post's description of the emails -- as asking "for an update on the legal rationale for withholding the aid" -- did not suggest that the legal rationale was not already in place or had changed.

So, that's all fun.

 

[tstorm823]

Right. Because if the WH won't hand over documents, sure they'll let staff testify. And until Sondland's late spill, there was no clear justification to request Pence, Pompeo, Perry. Trump was always a non-starter. And they can demand from the courts... but when is the Trump-stuffed SCOTUS going to get round to hearing it? 2021 maybe?

First court hearing on the issue is December 10th.

Fairly certain Giuliani has already refused to answer a subpoena related to Ukraine.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/giuliani-won-t-comply-congressional-subpoena-n1066586

Yeah, but that subpoena is decidedly different. That subpoena was essentially "give us all the documents you have relating to Ukraine for the last 2 years". And that's an utterly unreasonable request. Particularly when asked of a lawyer, there are unknown quantities of people whose rights would be tossed in the trash by complying with the subpoena. Like, this is one of those things, if this were a court, that subpoena wouldn't exist. It's an insane demand that would probably require weeks of effort to fully comply with issued by a congressional investigation that hadn't even been voted on yet that was issued as a fishing expedition.

Asking him to testify is 1000% more reasonable.

 

[Agema]

First court hearing on the issue is December 10th.

Yes. Allegedly, that was a "speedy" response. And then that'll be appealed, and then the appeal will be appealed...

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

First court hearing on the issue is December 10th.

Yes. Allegedly, that was a "speedy" response. And then that'll be appealed, and then the appeal will be appealed...

Hey, I think you're being unfair. I mean there's never been proof that anyone in this Administration is like that [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/15/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-tax-return-subpoena-from-house.html]. Where did you get such an idea [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/18/supreme-court-temporarily-halts-court-order-requiring-accountants-to-turn-over-trumps-tax-returns-to-congress.html]?

 

[Silvanus]

Yeah, but that subpoena is decidedly different.

There's always an excuse. You said something factually incorrect (that subpoenas had all been complied with); is it too much to ask, just once, to acknowledge it? Rather than the endless equivocation.

Honestly, it would make even those with whom you're arguing respect your position more.

Because honestly, right now, its transparent as all hell. The narrative that nothing untoward or self-serving came from the White House's approach to Ukrainian policy is contradicted now by multiple testimonies from those who were directly involved, among others. The White House response, meanwhile, has been endless empty rage and bluster and attempts to prevent people from testifying (because that will reeeaaaally make it look like there's nothing to hide).

I genuinely despair. The value of truth had already been degraded and eroded by decades (if not centuries) of entrenched dynasticism, nepotism, obfuscation, self-interest, and entrenched wealth. But THIS-- this ludicrous posturing wave, as embodied by Trump and Johnson in the UK, among others-- represents an utter disregard for truth or compassion on a scale previously unseen. Lying and corruption so absolutely blatant it defies all systems in place to act as a check and balance.

Disgusting fucking crooks. Abusive charlatans.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

There's always an excuse. You said something factually incorrect (that subpoenas had all been complied with); is it too much to ask, just once, to acknowledge it? Rather than the endless equivocation.

Honestly, it would make even those with whom you're arguing respect your position more.

Because honestly, right now, its transparent as all hell. The narrative that nothing untoward or self-serving came from the White House's approach to Ukrainian policy is contradicted now by multiple testimonies from those who were directly involved, among others. The White House response, meanwhile, has been endless empty rage and bluster and attempts to prevent people from testifying (because that will reeeaaaally make it look like there's nothing to hide).

I genuinely despair. The value of truth had already been degraded and eroded by decades (if not centuries) of entrenched dynasticism, nepotism, obfuscation, self-interest, and entrenched wealth. But THIS-- this ludicrous posturing wave, as embodied by Trump and Johnson in the UK, among others-- represents an utter disregard for truth or compassion on a scale previously unseen. Lying and corruption so absolutely blatant it defies all systems in place to act as a check and balance.

Disgusting fucking crooks. Abusive charlatans.

This is the conversation of our time. Right here.

I am baffled as to what is going on here. The amount of people who are willingly breaking all of the morals they have espoused on having just because they are 'winning' is breaking almost all faith in humanity.

When Al Franken, a beloved Senator was found to have sexual allegations against him mount, the Democratic party got together in a second to tell him to resign [https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/politics/al-franken-democratic-senators-resign/index.html]. It was an embarrassment, and no one wanted him to represent the party.

Was it a knee-jerk reaction? Yeah. I haven't followed the case since he resigned, so I don't know the evidence. But it's consistent. It's what we had with Kavanaugh [https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-ford-sexual-assault-hearing/index.html].

Meanwhile, it's proven that Stephen Miller wrote to Breibart [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/24/stephen-miller-white-nationalist-trump-immigration-guru], promoting white supremacist speaking points and there's not one peep from the white house or Prominent Republicans on action. This man who used Camp of the Saints [https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/780552636/stephen-miller-and-the-camp-of-the-saints-a-white-nationalist-reference] as an analogue of what would happen to our nation if we didn't handle immigration.

And of course this is the person Trump chooses to handle Immigration to our nation [https://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/12/trump-legal-immigration-cuts-240478]

Trump plans to get behind a bill being introduced later this summer by GOP Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia that, if signed into law, would, by 2027, slash in half the number of legal immigrants entering the country each year, according to four people familiar with the conversations. Currently, about 1 million legal immigrants enter the country annually; that number would fall to 500,000 over the next decade.

The senators have been working closely with Stephen Miller, a senior White House official known for his hawkish stance on immigration. The issue is also a central priority for Steve Bannon, the president's chief strategist, who has several promises to limit immigration scribbled on the walls of his office.

The politicians are never the actual problem, even though they make more problems. It's the citizenry. The people who choose to be blind to things. To ignore facts. To lead with their feelings than truth. These people elect their delusional demagogues and we have this mess.

A politician is just trying to make some money. And you have those like Stephen Miller actually trying to harm others because it gives them something. But we have actual citizens letting this happen and lying to themselves and others because they can't outwardly admit what's in their heart.

 

[tstorm823]

There's always an excuse. You said something factually incorrect (that subpoenas had all been complied with); is it too much to ask, just once, to acknowledge it? Rather than the endless equivocation.

I did acknowledge that I said something factually incorrect. I did say subpoenas for testimony had been complied with, I was wrong, I acknowledged that.

But I was aware that Giuliani was subpoenad for documents and didn't comply, which is why I said pretty specifically "subpoena'd to testify". Why would I put in the effort to make that distinction and then not inform the person who didn't notice?

Because honestly, right now, its transparent as all hell. The narrative that nothing untoward or self-serving came from the White House's approach to Ukrainian policy is contradicted now by multiple testimonies from those who were directly involved, among others. The White House response, meanwhile, has been endless empty rage and bluster and attempts to prevent people from testifying (because that will reeeaaaally make it look like there's nothing to hide).

But it isn't contradicted by multiple testimonies! It just isn't! We have multiple testimonies that people assumed Trump was being corrupt and self-serving, most of whom reached that conclusion by seeing it on the news.

I genuinely despair. The value of truth had already been degraded and eroded by decades (if not centuries) of entrenched dynasticism, nepotism, obfuscation, self-interest, and entrenched wealth. But THIS-- this ludicrous posturing wave, as embodied by Trump and Johnson in the UK, among others-- represents an utter disregard for truth or compassion on a scale previously unseen. Lying and corruption so absolutely blatant it defies all systems in place to act as a check and balance.

The systems in place to act as a check and balance are what have been lying to you. Trump hand waving over truth is no different then every other media Democrat for decades. If you can look at the 20th century and think Trump is more disregarding of truth than the news has been for longer than anyone here has been alive, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I've seen a lot of people state that this is all a waste of time. Why does this matter? This isn't even that bad of an event, Democrats are just looking for a win.


Who is Rod Blagojevich and what was he convicted of? [https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/politics/who-is-rod-blagojevich-conviction/index.html]

Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich got a new lifeline on Thursday when President Donald Trump said he would consider pardoning or commuting his sentence on his federal corruption conviction.

The opening of the door is a change in fortune for the disgraced former governor, who has been serving time in a federal prison in Colorado since March 2012 on a 14-year sentence for a host of public corruption charges, including trying to solicit money for an appointment to former President Barack Obama's Senate seat after the Chicagoan won the presidency.

Blagojevich (pronounced Bluh-GOY-uh-vitch) was the Democratic governor of Illinois from 2003 to 2009, when he was charged with corruption and then impeached by the Legislature.

Over the course of two trials, the first of which resulted in a hung jury on all counts except lying to federal investigators, Blagojevich's famous personality was on full display, both through his testimony and the FBI recordings that were played at his trial.

Blagojevich also showed his flair for showmanship -- and initially got to know Trump -- in a four-episode stint on "The Celebrity Apprentice" in 2010, before his first trial. He was fired after leading his team to losing that week's challenge, as recounted at the time by Chicago magazine.

The gregarious Blagojevich was known for his carefully coiffed hair, love of Elvis and penchant for jogging, as well as being the first Democratic governor elected in the state in 30 years.

After the first jury was hung at 11 to 1 for conviction on key corruption counts, prosecutors tried again -- winning the second trial and securing convictions on 17 of 20 corruption charges, including the shakedowns related to Obama's Senate seat. Blagojevich was also convicted of shakedowns involving a children's hospital, racetrack owner and a building executive.

The trial provided for some dramatic moments, including the playing of secret recordings made of Blagojevich during the shakedowns.
In perhaps the most famous tape, Blagojevich refers to the Senate seat as "f***ing golden."

"I've got this thing and it's f***ing golden, and, uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for f***ing nothing," jurors heard Blagojevich saying, as preserved by The Chicago Tribune.

At the trial, former Illinois Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. -- who later pleaded guilty to charges related to misusing campaign funds -- also memorably testified that Blagojevich punished him for not donating him $25,000 to Blagojevich's campaign, testifying dramatically that at a later meeting, Blagojevich snapped his fingers like Elvis and told Jackson he should have given Blagojevich "that $25,000." Blagojevich later said he did not recall that happening.

Blagojevich did show off his memory during the trial, though, giving long autobiographic testimony that included his childhood sports aspirations and a summer construction job that earned him free shampoo that, he recalled, smelled like strawberries.

The prosecutor in the case was US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who helped lead the investigation that resulted in the conviction of Scooter Libby, who Trump has already pardoned. Fitzgerald is also now a member of fired FBI Director and Trump critic James Comey's legal team.

This was a Democratic Governor who received no favors from his party. In 2008, the Democrats had control of the House [https://ballotpedia.org/Illinois_House_of_Representatives], with 70 seats to Republicans' 48. And it didn't matter. From a vote of 114 to 1, Blagojevich was impeached [https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/us/politics/10illinois.html].

When the case reached the Senate, it was uniamious. 59 to 0 [https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/30illinois.html]. The Senate at the time had 37 Democrats and 22 Republicans [https://ballotpedia.org/Illinois_State_Senate].

There are certain times when we look at Politicians doing wrong things and we punish them for it. We don't shrug and state "Oh well, that's what happens. Four more years, am I right?". There are certain times we Punish. We don't think about Party Loyalty or Power. We don't excuse or overlook it when one of our own says "Bleh, does this law even matter [https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/21/trump-emoluments-clause-053289]?"

This has already been decided. That's why this matters. And it's now beyond shameful. It's frightening how much people will burn just so they can be happy their figurehead stays in power.

 

[Agema]

The narrative that nothing untoward or self-serving came from the White House's approach to Ukrainian policy...

But it isn't contradicted by multiple testimonies!

Seriously? The testimonies suggest "nothing" was "untoward or self-serving"?

It is incredibly obvious that something was very wrong with Trump's Ukraine policy. The reactions of numerous government personnel make this abundantly clear, whether that be whistleblowers calling it out, State Dept. (and it turns out, also DoD) officials resigning or threatening to resign, all the way John Bolton's reaction and saying the NSC need to be informed, etc. People don't do that sort of thing for shits and giggles, they do it because they think something is seriously wrong. We're not talking about a bunch of do-gooder shrinking violets here, we're talking about people whose noses are in the dirt of brutal political and governmental machinations daily and are involved in massive decisions that can end in people's deaths.

Everyone who has the faintest idea what Giuliani has been up to believes or knows Trump is after Burisma/Biden and the 2016 conspiracy theory from Ukraine, because they know Trump is basing Ukraine policy on what Giuliani is telling him, and Trump is telling many of them to co-ordinate with Giuliani. Sure, they might hedge their bets about precisely when they knew, but everyone is 'fessing up to a clear picture of what was the desired end point was for the Trump administration with Ukraine.

The only thing that stops this being the easiest of slam dunks is that various key individuals like Pompeo, Mulvaney and so on have been blocked by the White House from testifying or supplying documents, which is intensely suspicious.

 

[TrulyBritish]

I did acknowledge that I said something factually incorrect. I did say subpoenas for testimony had been complied with, I was wrong, I acknowledged that.

But I was aware that Giuliani was subpoenad for documents and didn't comply, which is why I said pretty specifically "subpoena'd to testify". Why would I put in the effort to make that distinction and then not inform the person who didn't notice?

I did notice it wasn't about testifying, which is why I said a subpoena "related to Ukraine" and not to testify, kindly do not insult my intelligence again by making presumptions.
I also disagree that you acknowledged you were wrong when literally the first line in your response is literally moving the goal posts to "sure he didn't comply, but it was toootally unfair to expect him to".
Fact of the matter is Giuliani said nothing about the subpoena for documents itself being unfair, or badly timed or anything, what he said was that he wouldn't comply with an Impeachment Inquiry that he characterizes as unfair, biased and illegitimate. You then went on to change his words to make it seem like he only had a problem with that specific subpoena.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

Because honestly, right now, its transparent as all hell. The narrative that nothing untoward or self-serving came from the White House's approach to Ukrainian policy is contradicted now by multiple testimonies from those who were directly involved, among others. The White House response, meanwhile, has been endless empty rage and bluster and attempts to prevent people from testifying (because that will reeeaaaally make it look like there's nothing to hide).

But it isn't contradicted by multiple testimonies! It just isn't! We have multiple testimonies that people assumed Trump was being corrupt and self-serving, most of whom reached that conclusion by seeing it on the news.

I asked you this earlier but don't think you responded -- what do YOU think happened here? What's your theory for what took place with Trump and the funding? Do you believe that Sondland and others are implicating Giuliani and Trump because...they saw it on the news?

 

[Agema]

I mean, imagine a whistleblower at a bank had reported that the bank had been laundering money for a regime under sanctions. The police investigate further and interview a dozen bank staff, all of whom report that they know of the bank laundering money for said regime, provide details on the process by which it was done and their own (mostly unwitting or unwilling) involvement in the process, and finally that they were told to do it by a senior executive team. The senior bank employees refuse to speak to the police or turn over financial records upon request.

At which point certain Republicans would presumably say there's no reason to look any further and the police investigation is a waste of time and money, clearly the bank and the senior execs haven't done anything wrong.

 

[Silvanus]

The systems in place to act as a check and balance are what have been lying to you. Trump hand waving over truth is no different then every other media Democrat for decades. If you can look at the 20th century and think Trump is more disregarding of truth than the news has been for longer than anyone here has been alive, I don't know what to tell you.

"No different"? Absolute bollocks. He lies more often, and more brazenly, than almost any major politician. Independent fact-checking organisations routinely find his drivel to be even less reliable than the average US politician, which is a feat in itself.

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I mean, imagine a whistleblower at a bank had reported that the bank had been laundering money for a regime under sanctions. The police investigate further and interview a dozen bank staff, all of whom report that they know of the bank laundering money for said regime, provide details on the process by which it was done and their own (mostly unwitting or unwilling) involvement in the process, and finally that they were told to do it by a senior executive team. The senior bank employees refuse to speak to the police or turn over financial records upon request.

At which point certain Republicans would presumably say there's no reason to look any further and the police investigation is a waste of time and money, clearly the bank and the senior execs haven't done anything wrong.

Piggying back off of this, it's also like you get pulled over for a DUI. You don't want any troubles, so you pull out a few hundred bills and ask the police officer if there's anyway this can all go away.

The police officer does his duty, says no, and adds a bribery charge.

... Then your lawyer says "There was no bribery, the officer didn't accept the money and my client actually received the ticket!!"

 

[tstorm823]

It is incredibly obvious that something was very wrong with Trump's Ukraine policy. The reactions of numerous government personnel make this abundantly clear, whether that be whistleblowers calling it out, State Dept. (and it turns out, also DoD) officials resigning or threatening to resign, all the way John Bolton's reaction and saying the NSC need to be informed, etc. People don't do that sort of thing for shits and giggles, they do it because they think something is seriously wrong. We're not talking about a bunch of do-gooder shrinking violets here, we're talking about people whose noses are in the dirt of brutal political and governmental machinations daily and are involved in massive decisions that can end in people's deaths.

Did they see it this way and react like that? Or did they react that way when others saw it that way? Bill Taylor's didn't think there was anything totally unreasonable until Yermak found out the aid was frozen. Sondland didn't think they were doing a quid pro quo until it hit the news. The White House didn't start preparing explanations until investigations started. Like, lots of people don't like Giuliani, but how many testimonies were "no, I don't have evidence there was a crime here". How many people weren't going to say anything until they were subpoena'd.

I did notice it wasn't about testifying, which is why I said a subpoena "related to Ukraine" and not to testify, kindly do not insult my intelligence again by making presumptions.

It's not insulting your intelligence to suggest you missed specific phrasing. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

I asked you this earlier but don't think you responded -- what do YOU think happened here? What's your theory for what took place with Trump and the funding? Do you believe that Sondland and others are implicating Giuliani and Trump because...they saw it on the news?

What do I think happened here? I think the military aid to Ukraine had been judged based on the record of previous Ukrainian administration. Under that administration, Poroshenko had been buddy-buddy with Giuliani. After the election, Poroshenko declared that all of the things Giuliani wanted investigated weren't being investigated, and when Giuliani attempted to contact the incoming president of Ukraine, Zelenskyy's advisors said not to get involved. So on those things Trump was personally interested in, Ukraine was reversing course from the previous administration, and Trump decided to hold the aid long enough to see if the nation would continue to cooperate with the US after a major regime change. That's why all these diplomats testifying are telling you that they were going to Trump saying "yes, Zelenksyy's good, we trust him". Because they knew the aid was frozen. They knew what Giuliani was up to. And they were going to Trump saying "yes, Zelenskyy is good". Because that was the question at hand. Not specifically investigations, but general trust in the new leadership.

 

[TrulyBritish]

I did notice it wasn't about testifying, which is why I said a subpoena "related to Ukraine" and not to testify, kindly do not insult my intelligence again by making presumptions.

It's not insulting your intelligence to suggest you missed specific phrasing. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

Considering that nothing that I wrote indicated that I'd misunderstood either your initial premise of "Why isn't Giuliani being subpoenaed?" or the article I linked, yes, I consider suggesting that I didn't understand either in order to justify you not acknowledging your mistake an insult.

At any rate, I find it interesting that aside from this one point you've chosen to completely ignore the rest of my post about how, yet again, you were wrong and possibly misrepresenting what people are saying.

 

[Avnger]

It is incredibly obvious that something was very wrong with Trump's Ukraine policy. The reactions of numerous government personnel make this abundantly clear, whether that be whistleblowers calling it out, State Dept. (and it turns out, also DoD) officials resigning or threatening to resign, all the way John Bolton's reaction and saying the NSC need to be informed, etc. People don't do that sort of thing for shits and giggles, they do it because they think something is seriously wrong. We're not talking about a bunch of do-gooder shrinking violets here, we're talking about people whose noses are in the dirt of brutal political and governmental machinations daily and are involved in massive decisions that can end in people's deaths.

Did they see it this way and react like that? Or did they react that way when others saw it that way? Bill Taylor's didn't think there was anything totally unreasonable until Yermak found out the aid was frozen. Sondland didn't think they were doing a quid pro quo until it hit the news. The White House didn't start preparing explanations until investigations started. Like, lots of people don't like Giuliani, but how many testimonies were "no, I don't have evidence there was a crime here". How many people weren't going to say anything until they were subpoena'd.

Congratulations. You've just discovered the fact that most human beings are able to adjust their understanding of a situation when additional facts are presented to them.

Is this really the best argument you've got left?

 

[tstorm823]

Considering that nothing that I wrote indicated that I'd misunderstood either your initial premise of "Why isn't Giuliani being subpoenaed?" or the article I linked, yes, I consider suggesting that I didn't understand either in order to justify you not acknowledging your mistake an insult.

At any rate, I find it interesting that aside from this one point you've chosen to completely ignore the rest of my post about how, yet again, you were wrong and possibly misrepresenting what people are saying.

There's only so much time in the day, so I'd rather spend it resolving the part where you accidentally misunderstood me rather than focus on you now deliberately doing it. Basically, the rest of your post bores me.

Congratulations. You've just discovered the fact that most human beings are able to adjust their understanding of a situation when additional facts are presented to them.

Is this really the best argument you've got left?

Well yeah, except it's "facts".

Early in this process, one of the news organizations thought they had the worst possibility confirmed: a Ukrainian insider told them that he had heard that Trump was exchanging military aid for personal election assistance. But then it had to be walked back because he wasn't actually an insider at the time and he only heard those rumors on the news like everyone else. Well, we've done that a whole bunch of times now, where somebody says something damning that gets reported, only to find out later the person wasn't really that much of an insider and they only learned of possible misdeeds from the news. It's just that now they're letting these things stand because if they walked it all back there'd be little evidence of anything at all. You can't report Trump's alleged misdeeds unsubstantiated in the news, then use US officials reading that news and asking the questions as evidence that the news was right all along. That's just a circle of information with no foundation. The only independent foundation in this whole thing is Alexander Vindman, who took issue with the phone call as a matter of policy, not legality.

 

[Agema]

Did they see it this way and react like that? Or did they react that way when others saw it that way? Bill Taylor's didn't think there was anything totally unreasonable until Yermak found out the aid was frozen. Sondland didn't think they were doing a quid pro quo until it hit the news. The White House didn't start preparing explanations until investigations started.

Lots of people were evidently reporting their unhappiness and concerns either to their superiors or oversight bodies such as the NSC, which is the obvious first step.

Like, lots of people don't like Giuliani, but how many testimonies were "no, I don't have evidence there was a crime here". How many people weren't going to say anything until they were subpoena'd.

Firstly, we can be sure that if anyone thought this was all above board, they'd have presumably offered themselves for testimony and the congressional Republicans would have jumped at the chance and had a field day. Don't you think it says something that they couldn't find a single relevant witness to support their case, forcing them to ask for tangential ones like Hunter Biden?

Secondly, going outside the organisation is rare - that's just human nature. People tend to take the assumption things are being done properly, use internal processes and tell superiors if they think there's something wrong. However, they are easily reassured if told it's okay or content themselves that they've done the right thing by speaking up even if their superiors do nothing about it. It's all about things like being part of a team, loyalty to ones colleagues (potentially friends) and organisation, ambition, accepting authority, etc. If really troubled, they tend to resign.

But spilling outside the organisation, that's unusual in any sphere. In the health profession, staff are frequently obliged to report forms of bad practice, and even then a lot of it doesn't get reported or action isn't taken on it and staff keep on going.

 

[Agema]

Well, we've done that a whole bunch of times now, where somebody says something damning that gets reported, only to find out later the person wasn't really that much of an insider and they only learned of possible misdeeds from the news.

I think you're missing out a key point here, which is that it is clear that officials were deeply concerned about Ukraine policy: both in terms of it not aligning with US national interest and that it was being run though irregular and even improper channels. They may not have been aware that it was being run for Trump's personal benefit until later, but they knew something was off. Then you have the 25th July call and those who experienced it in some form.

The point here being that we need to look at the evidence in toto. It's like you've got 10 CCTV cameras which catch a suspect on the way to a crime scene, and try to argue as there isn't one camera showing the whole journey they all have to be discounted. None of the witnesses have the whole picture individually, but you put lots of witnesses and evidence together and see the bigger picture. It doesn't matter that someone enacting Ukraine policy didn't immediately realise it's corrupt because we have other witnesses and evidence who can illustrate the corruption.