Trump allegedly requests foreign election interference

[TrulyBritish]

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.

You mean you'd rather spend your time weaseling out of admitting you were wrong than engage with arguments detailing why you're wrong?
Again, you posit that I "accidentally misunderstood [you]", except for the fact the conversation was:

You: "Why isn't Giuliani being subpoenaed to testify?"
Me: "He's already refused to comply with the Impeachment Inquiry".

You then twisted Giuliani's response to become "This subpoena is unfair and it's unreasonable to comply with it" instead of "I think this entire Inquiry is illegitimate", so you could make the conversation:

You: "Why isn't Giuliani being subpoenaed to testify?"
Me: "He's already said he won't comply with subpoena's".
You: "Well he said he won't comply with a specific release of documents, I said why isn't he being subpoenaed to testify instead?"

The only way my response doesn't answer your initial question is if you twist what Giuliani said to something else.

But sorry, I guess I'll try to bore you less.

 

[tstorm823]

You mean you'd rather spend your time weaseling out of admitting you were wrong than engage with arguments detailing why you're wrong?
Again, you posit that I "accidentally misunderstood [you]", except for the fact the conversation was:

You: "Why isn't Giuliani being subpoenaed to testify?"
Me: "He's already refused to comply with the Impeachment Inquiry".

You then twisted Giuliani's response to become "This subpoena is unfair and it's unreasonable to comply with it" instead of "I think this entire Inquiry is illegitimate", so you could make the conversation:

You: "Why isn't Giuliani being subpoenaed to testify?"
Me: "He's already said he won't comply with subpoena's".
You: "Well he said he won't comply with a specific release of documents, I said why isn't he being subpoenaed to testify instead?"

The only way my response doesn't answer your initial question is if you twist what Giuliani said to something else.

But sorry, I guess I'll try to bore you less.

You aren't answering my questions, you are making up your own to argue with. Just cut me out of the process and argue with yourself.

 

[TrulyBritish]

You aren't answering my questions, you are making up your own to argue with. Just cut me out of the process and argue with yourself.

You posited that Rudy Giuliani and others hadn't been subpoenaed (in an attempt to cast aspersions on the Impeachment Inquiry), I responded that he had in fact refused to comply with a subpoena. My first post was literally one line saying that with a link backing the statement up.
I only followed up on that post because you tried to change the meaning of what Giuliani said in order to fit your narrative, so what questions exactly did I make up just to argue with you?

 

[tstorm823]

You posited that Rudy Giuliani and others hadn't been subpoenaed (in an attempt to cast aspersions on the Impeachment Inquiry), I responded that he had in fact refused to comply with a subpoena. My first post was literally one line saying that with a link backing the statement up.
I only followed up on that post because you tried to change the meaning of what Giuliani said in order to fit your narrative, so what questions exactly did I make up just to argue with you?

I posited that Rudy Giuliani hadn't been subpoenaed to testify, which is still fact so far as I know. Your literal one line did precisely nothing to contradict that. I explained the distinction. If you refuse to acknowledge the distinction, you are no longer arguing with me.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

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.

Okay that answers the first part, though I think you're interpretation of the events is extremely generous to Giuliani and Trump.

But what about the second? Why do you think Sondland and others expressed concern about those dealings and went on record saying they beleived what Trump was doing was wrong? After all, the aid was approved by Congress and the DoD and State Department had *jointly* certified the aid and declared Ukraine "had taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption, increasing accountability, and sustaining improvements of combat capability." In MAY.
https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

So again, what's the explanation there? And please don't say you think all of these Trump affiliated/appointed folks are Deep State.

 

[tstorm823]

Okay that answers the first part, though I think you're interpretation of the events is extremely generous to Giuliani and Trump.

But what about the second? Why do you think Sondland and others expressed concern about those dealings and went on record saying they believed what Trump was doing was wrong? After all, the aid was approved by Congress and the DoD and State Department had *jointly* certified the aid and declared Ukraine "had taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption, increasing accountability, and sustaining improvements of combat capability." In MAY.
https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

So again, what's the explanation there? And please don't say you think all of these Trump affiliated/appointed folks are Deep State.

I mean, exactly. They had been certified to have taken those actions in May. After Zelenskyy had been elected, but either before or just after he was inaugurated. The behavior the aid was approved based on was certainly not behavior Zelenskyy was responsible for. Trump was looking for cooperation from Zelenskyy, who was not in power when Congress et al were deciding to certify the aid.

But back to the question, why do I think they expressed concern about the dealings? Because they all (probably rightly) believe that supporting Ukraine's efforts against Russia are in both Ukrainian and US interests. And additionally, it's clear that nobody knew everything that was going on. There were multiple US officials speaking personally to Zelenskyy at different times stating different things. That's going to cause confusion and confusion leads to worry.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

Okay that answers the first part, though I think you're interpretation of the events is extremely generous to Giuliani and Trump.

But what about the second? Why do you think Sondland and others expressed concern about those dealings and went on record saying they believed what Trump was doing was wrong? After all, the aid was approved by Congress and the DoD and State Department had *jointly* certified the aid and declared Ukraine "had taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption, increasing accountability, and sustaining improvements of combat capability." In MAY.
https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

So again, what's the explanation there? And please don't say you think all of these Trump affiliated/appointed folks are Deep State.

I mean, exactly. They had been certified to have taken those actions in May. After Zelenskyy had been elected, but either before or just after he was inaugurated. The behavior the aid was approved based on was certainly not behavior Zelenskyy was responsible for. Trump was looking for cooperation from Zelenskyy, who was not in power when Congress et al were deciding to certify the aid.

But back to the question, why do I think they expressed concern about the dealings? Because they all (probably rightly) believe that supporting Ukraine's efforts against Russia are in both Ukrainian and US interests. And additionally, it's clear that nobody knew everything that was going on. There were multiple US officials speaking personally to Zelenskyy at different times stating different things. That's going to cause confusion and confusion leads to worry.

1) You're reaching. You do realize that Giuliani/Trump's request for the Biden investigation was NOT part of the official U.S. policy for the aid and State/Defense Department approval? And also, you didn't read that timeline.

2) Huh? So your excuse is that people were confused and concerned during the summer while this was going on? Yeah, no shit. But if everything's been cleared up and this was all above board, then...why are these guys going on record about it MONTHS later saying they thought what Trump was doing was wrong? Why are they saying they never, EVER got a reasonable explanation from Mulvaney or Trump or Giuliani or anyone else?

Again, read the timeline.

 

[TrulyBritish]

You posited that Rudy Giuliani and others hadn't been subpoenaed (in an attempt to cast aspersions on the Impeachment Inquiry), I responded that he had in fact refused to comply with a subpoena. My first post was literally one line saying that with a link backing the statement up.
I only followed up on that post because you tried to change the meaning of what Giuliani said in order to fit your narrative, so what questions exactly did I make up just to argue with you?

I posited that Rudy Giuliani hadn't been subpoenaed to testify, which is still fact so far as I know. Your literal one line did precisely nothing to contradict that. I explained the distinction. If you refuse to acknowledge the distinction, you are no longer arguing with me.

That would be because I wasn't trying to contradict, but to explain. You were using Giuliani not being subpoenaed to testify as evidence that the Impeachment Inquiry wasn't interested in getting, at least, the Trump teams side of the story. I explained Giuliani wasn't subpoenaed to testify because he's said that he won't honour it. The only reason to subpoena him would be to the drag him by force before the Inquiry, and its abundantly clear democrats have no interest in playing the media game around such an act.
There's no distinction to acknowledge, because I'm not arguing that Giuliani was subpoenaed to testify, just stating why he wasn't (i.e. because he's refused to honour a subpoena already and said he wouldn't respond to any).

 

[tstorm823]

Again, read the timeline.

I'm not sure what I'm missing. Please explain.

There's no distinction to acknowledge, because I'm not arguing that Giuliani was subpoenaed to testify, just stating why he wasn't (i.e. because he's refused to honour a subpoena already and said he wouldn't respond to any).

That's not why though. In addition to bribery, the Democrats are trying to build an obstruction claim. Every time someone from the White House refuses to comply with them, it's extra fuel for that fire. Their PR plan right now is supposed to be that House Democrats are trying to do the right thing and Trump is running a cover-up worse than Watergate. Giuliani defying a subpoena is exactly the thing they want right now to maintain that image. But then, he might not defy them.

They don't want Giuliani to testify, and they're not going to give him the chance.

 

[TrulyBritish]

Again, read the timeline.

I'm not sure what I'm missing. Please explain.

There's no distinction to acknowledge, because I'm not arguing that Giuliani was subpoenaed to testify, just stating why he wasn't (i.e. because he's refused to honour a subpoena already and said he wouldn't respond to any).

That's not why though. In addition to bribery, the Democrats are trying to build an obstruction claim. Every time someone from the White House refuses to comply with them, it's extra fuel for that fire. Their PR plan right now is supposed to be that House Democrats are trying to do the right thing and Trump is running a cover-up worse than Watergate. Giuliani defying a subpoena is exactly the thing they want right now to maintain that image. But then, he might not defy them.

They don't want Giuliani to testify, and they're not going to give him the chance.

That narrative has already been set though, through subpoenas already being defied, Mulvany refusing to testify and Giuliani saying he won't testify (and now, I believe, Trump saying he won't get involved with Inquiry).
I also find it interesting that even in the face of Giuliani refusing a subpoena and saying he won't testify you're still saying "Oh but we don't know he'll defy a subpoena to testify". Sure, it's not impossible for him to change his mind but there's no reason to think that's the case.
Thirdly, if Giuliani did want to testify, what exactly stops him from saying that and having republicans on the Inquiry ask for him to testify? Presumably as lead Schiff could block that and prevent him from testifying, but that would massively undermine the obstruction argument if democrats were actively blocking key witnesses from testifying.

 

[Silvanus]

That's not why though. In addition to bribery, the Democrats are trying to build an obstruction claim. Every time someone from the White House refuses to comply with them, it's extra fuel for that fire. Their PR plan right now is supposed to be that House Democrats are trying to do the right thing and Trump is running a cover-up worse than Watergate. Giuliani defying a subpoena is exactly the thing they want right now to maintain that image. But then, he might not defy them.

So... you're saying they should subpoena him for essentially PR reasons?

Has it occurred that maybe their reason for issuing subpoenas is actually to get people to appear and to gather evidence, rather than to play at PR? Just a thought.

 

[tstorm823]

So... you're saying they should subpoena him for essentially PR reasons?

Has it occurred that maybe their reason for issuing subpoenas is actually to get people to appear and to gather evidence, rather than to play at PR? Just a thought.

Ha! No. It's not a criminal investigation with a trial and a jury, it's a political process where the votes on what to do are theoretically representative of the people's will. Even if they legitimately hoped to remove Trump from office (which I believe we are not even entertaining anymore), it still would be a PR campaign in essence. Their goal is not to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a specific crime was committed, their goal is to get the American people to support the vote for removal.

Thirdly, if Giuliani did want to testify, what exactly stops him from saying that and having republicans on the Inquiry ask for him to testify? Presumably as lead Schiff could block that and prevent him from testifying, but that would massively undermine the obstruction argument if democrats were actively blocking key witnesses from testifying.

Republicans don't want him to testify either. He'd drag down Democrats by testifying about his inquiries in Ukraine, but he's also a loose cannon that would take down other Republicans with him if need be. Like, to quote Sondland, "Every time Rudy gets involved he goes and f---s everything up."

 

[TrulyBritish]

Thirdly, if Giuliani did want to testify, what exactly stops him from saying that and having republicans on the Inquiry ask for him to testify? Presumably as lead Schiff could block that and prevent him from testifying, but that would massively undermine the obstruction argument if democrats were actively blocking key witnesses from testifying.

Republicans don't want him to testify either. He'd drag down Democrats by testifying about his inquiries in Ukraine, but he's also a loose cannon that would take down other Republicans with him if need be. Like, to quote Sondland, "Every time Rudy gets involved he goes and f---s everything up."

I'm not sure I follow your logic, if Rudy testifying would clear up that it was Ukraine that was pushing for an investigation into Biden and/or that the Trump admin wasn't doing anything wrong, how is Giuliani going to be taking down republicans?

 

[Silvanus]

Ha! No. It's not a criminal investigation with a trial and a jury, it's a political process where the votes on what to do are theoretically representative of the people's will. Even if they legitimately hoped to remove Trump from office (which I believe we are not even entertaining anymore), it still would be a PR campaign in essence. Their goal is not to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a specific crime was committed, their goal is to get the American people to support the vote for removal.

I understand the nature of the proceedings, and that its purpose is not truly to formally remove Trump from office.

Even so, issuing a subpoena you know will be rejected, just so that it can be rejected and then you can moan about it, would be particularly pathetic and transparent theatrics. I gather they at least want to find out details and make them known.

 

[Avnger]

Ha! No. It's not a criminal investigation with a trial and a jury, it's a political process where the votes on what to do are theoretically representative of the people's will. Even if they legitimately hoped to remove Trump from office (which I believe we are not even entertaining anymore), it still would be a PR campaign in essence. Their goal is not to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a specific crime was committed, their goal is to get the American people to support the vote for removal.

I understand the nature of the proceedings, and that its purpose is not truly to formally remove Trump from office.

Even so, issuing a subpoena you know will be rejected, just so that it can be rejected and then you can moan about it, would be particularly pathetic and transparent theatrics. I gather they at least want to find out details and make them known.

My favorite part about tstorm's complaining here is that, if the democrats were to issue the subpoena and have it rejected, the goalposts would find themselves teleported once again; he'd move on to whining about the Democrats pulling theatrics.

 

[tstorm823]

I'm not sure I follow your logic, if Rudy testifying would clear up that it was Ukraine that was pushing for an investigation into Biden and/or that the Trump admin wasn't doing anything wrong, how is Giuliani going to be taking down republicans?

Because the guys who were funneling information to both the Ukrainians and Giuliani just got arrested for pushing illegal foreign money into republican campaigns.

I understand the nature of the proceedings, and that its purpose is not truly to formally remove Trump from office.

Even so, issuing a subpoena you know will be rejected, just so that it can be rejected and then you can moan about it, would be particularly pathetic and transparent theatrics. I gather they at least want to find out details and make them known.

They started with closed door hearings because they didn't want to make information known before they could verify whether it fits their goals or not. A lot of these witnesses were called just to corroborate the details of the original wistleblower complaint. I've seen little evidence that Adam Schiff ever intended to uncover new facts beyond those he used to start the process.

My favorite part about tstorm's complaining here is that, if the democrats were to issue the subpoena and have it rejected, the goalposts would find themselves teleported once again; he'd move on to whining about the Democrats pulling theatrics.

I'm not complaining. I'm just pointing out the politics. I'd love for Giuliani to take the stand, I'd be disappointed if he refused. It would be a spectacular hearing.

 

[Silvanus]

They started with closed door hearings because they didn't want to make information known before they could verify whether it fits their goals or not. A lot of these witnesses were called just to corroborate the details of the original wistleblower complaint. I've seen little evidence that Adam Schiff ever intended to uncover new facts beyond those he used to start the process.

Uhrm, closed-door proceedings and calling for corroborating testimony are both totally routine (and rational) for this kind of thing.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

They started with closed door hearings because they didn't want to make information known before they could verify whether it fits their goals or not. A lot of these witnesses were called just to corroborate the details of the original wistleblower complaint. I've seen little evidence that Adam Schiff ever intended to uncover new facts beyond those he used to start the process.

Uhrm, closed-door proceedings and calling for corroborating testimony are both totally routine (and rational) for this kind of thing.

And in fact, totally used by the Republicans [https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/244160-ex-clinton-aide-blumenthal-to-appear-before-benghazi-panel]. They just seem to ignore that fact all the time.

 

[Trunkage]

They started with closed door hearings because they didn't want to make information known before they could verify whether it fits their goals or not. A lot of these witnesses were called just to corroborate the details of the original wistleblower complaint. I've seen little evidence that Adam Schiff ever intended to uncover new facts beyond those he used to start the process.

Isn't the person leading the investigation a Republican. And its dominated by Republicans...

Are the Republicans waiting for evidence to fit their goals, too? So, now 50 something Republicans are trying to take out Trump? And they're at these proceedings?

I could understand if you're saying 'see if their actual evidence of a crime.' 'Fits theit goals' implies that the Democrats are in charge of this process. Which, I'm pretty sure they are not

 

[Agema]

Isn't the person leading the investigation a Republican. And its dominated by Republicans...

Nope. The investigation is run by the House of Representatives where the majority is currently Democrat, so Democrats occupy the lead positions and majorities on most/all of the subcommittees. However, it's not like the Republicans are cut out of the process: they have representation on the committees and have the right to call and question witnesses.

Impeachment works that the House of Representatives do the "investigation", and then they take a vote to decide whether they think there's sufficient case to move it forwards. If a majority do, the Senate (currently a Republican majority) then run a "trial", and it's their vote that decides whether the accused is guilty or not.

You might be thinking of Mueller, who ran the previous investigation re. Russia and was apparently a registered Republican.