Amash was reacting to the voters in his district moreso than any GoP leaders. But that's where we are now, there are very few who will survive a republican primary if they give any credibility to impeachment.
It's times like these that I wish we had more of a UK system so we could get congressmen actually yelling at each other and get called out on their bullshit.
Giuliani Associate Left Trail of Troubled Businesses Before Ukraine Probe Push
Lev Parnas pointed to relationship with ex-New York mayor to show investors he could ‘get things done’
Messrs. Parnas and Correia set up Fraud Guarantee in a Boca Raton office park. Mr. Parnas picked the name in part to clean up his Google search results, ensuring that the word “fraud” and his own name would be paired in a positive light, said people familiar with the matter.
Some associates questioned the name, but it worked: Negative search results about the bridge loan and Edgetech soon dropped in Google’s rankings, one of the people said.
If a person needs to do that, maybe you shouldn't work with that person?
+26
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
It’s infuriating how journalists everywhere can’t be asked to work for a living.
Reading a piece in the second largest newspaper in Sweden, about the vote to have public proceedings they draw a line straight from the interview occupation last week as if that’s the only reason. They also frame the occupation as republicans wanting insight into the impeachment proceedings as a reasonable thing, not mentioning that half of those republicans were called to the interview in the first place by being members of the committee. Like you’ll need to ask hundreds of people here to find one single person that isn’t anti-trump, this is 100% because journalists don’t or aren’t permitted to do actual work. They straight up know less than me and I browse this thread once or twice per day - in my free time. It’s completely inexcusable.
PSN: Honkalot
+18
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
I mean, I guess its true that no Republicans voted for the inquiry, since anyone who voted for the inquiry won't long remain a Republican.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
It’s infuriating how journalists everywhere can’t be asked to work for a living.
Reading a piece in the second largest newspaper in Sweden, about the vote to have public proceedings they draw a line straight from the interview occupation last week as if that’s the only reason. They also frame the occupation as republicans wanting insight into the impeachment proceedings as a reasonable thing, not mentioning that half of those republicans were called to the interview in the first place by being members of the committee. Like you’ll need to ask hundreds of people here to find one single person that isn’t anti-trump, this is 100% because journalists don’t or aren’t permitted to do actual work. They straight up know less than me and I browse this thread once or twice per day - in my free time. It’s completely inexcusable.
I mean what newspaper? DI would absolutely go that route. They are hard in the tank for moneyed interests so would support republicans
Doesn't the President pretty much always help Senators & Reps in the party fundraise during elections? And probably favors those that vote with him most often? IDK why anyone would expect Trump to suspend down ticket fundraising during an impeachment inquiry, especially one her expects to survive. That would be doing Democrats a huge favor.
There's a difference between stumping for them and directly handing them money.
Nah. Sharing is fine. Democrats do it too. What is not fine is making that money contingent on specific acts of congress... because it would be illegal if anyone gave a senator money to their campaign contingent on specific acts of congress
Doesn't the President pretty much always help Senators & Reps in the party fundraise during elections? And probably favors those that vote with him most often? IDK why anyone would expect Trump to suspend down ticket fundraising during an impeachment inquiry, especially one her expects to survive. That would be doing Democrats a huge favor.
There's a difference between stumping for them and directly handing them money.
Nah. Sharing is fine. Democrats do it too. What is not fine is making that money contingent on specific acts of congress... because it would be illegal if anyone gave a senator money to their campaign contingent on specific acts of congress
What would really cinch it is if a GOP Senator came out in favor of Impeachment and then the fundraising money was immediately taken away somehow.
Doesn't the President pretty much always help Senators & Reps in the party fundraise during elections? And probably favors those that vote with him most often? IDK why anyone would expect Trump to suspend down ticket fundraising during an impeachment inquiry, especially one her expects to survive. That would be doing Democrats a huge favor.
There's a difference between stumping for them and directly handing them money.
Nah. Sharing is fine. Democrats do it too. What is not fine is making that money contingent on specific acts of congress... because it would be illegal if anyone gave a senator money to their campaign contingent on specific acts of congress
What would really cinch it is if a GOP Senator came out in favor of Impeachment and then the fundraising money was immediately taken away somehow.
But I don't see that happening...
Is that even illegal? I know Senators are jurors, but impeachment is also a purely political process. Facing political repercussions (no funds from Trump) for a political decision (supporting Trump's impeachment) doesn't seem like an injustice or evidence of corruption to me.
Tim Morrison, the outgoing top White House Russia expert, testified behind closed doors that he doesn't believe anything illegal was discussed during President Trump’s July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, according to a copy of his prepared remarks.
“I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,” Morrison said in the remarks.
Trump's GOP allies in Congress quickly framed Morrison's testimony as evidence that there was no quid pro quo surrounding Trump's interactions with Ukrainian leaders, while Democrats argued that his testimony only underscored their concerns about the call.
Morrison, who was recruited by national security adviser John Bolton, laid out several concerns he feared would result if the readout leaked, including how it would be received in “Washington's polarized environment” and how it would affect the U.S. relationship with Ukraine — both in Congress as well as the perceptions of it.
Morrison also said he "can confirm that the substance" of a statement Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine, made to House investigators “is accurate” in terms of conversations the two had together, but that his view of events differ on two details including a conversation with U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland.
In another conversation on Sept. 1, Taylor testified that Sondland told top Zelensky aide Andriy Yermak that security assistance aid would not come until Zelensky committed to opening a probe into Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian energy company that employed Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden.
“My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland's proposal to Mr. Yermak was that it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian prosecutor general — not President Zelensky — would commit to pursue the Burisma investigation,” Morrison's opening statement reads.
He said in the Sept. 1 conversation with Sondland that he hoped that strategy was being carried out solely by the E.U. diplomat.
“Even then I hoped that Ambassador Sondland's strategy was exclusively his own and would not be considered by leaders in the Administration and Congress, who understood the strategic importance of Ukraine to our national security."
Before that conversation, Morrison recalled that he and Taylor were concerned Ukraine would start asking questions about the aid holdup, though he expressed confidence that the administration’s national security principals “were genuinely invested in their anti-corruption agenda.”
That just confirms there was quid pro quo with the aid? Unless you are a hack, you can't just ignore all the surrounding evidence that includes people openly demanding something illegitimate in return for releasing aid.
Morrison is just trying to protect Trump by pretending Sondland might have been doing all that on his own without permission from Trump despite Trump being the guy that gave Sondland that power in general.
Morrison, who replaced Fiona Hill as the senior director for European and Russian affairs on the National Security Council (NSC), also said Thursday that he wasn't concerned about the accuracy of a partial readout of the phone call released earlier this year by the White House.
“To the best of my recollection, the MemCon [memorandum of conversation] accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call,” said Morrison, a conservative political appointee and former counsel to Republicans on the Armed Services Committee.
So he's making the assertion that Vindman's testimony yesterday was false.
This is on top of admitting that it was buried not for security reasons, but because he thought it would look (and is) politically damning.
It's definitely not illegal to do what Trump is doing RE extending his fundraising to the most vehement detractors of impeachment, but that's only because campaign finance law is a joke.
It's definitely not illegal to do what Trump is doing RE extending his fundraising to the most vehement detractors of impeachment, but that's only because campaign finance law is a joke.
Pretty sure if you squint hard enough that's true. But we're talking Trump here. This isn't 'assistance'. It's just a bribe.
What looks to be in the opening statement doesn't contradict much of what the other witnesses said.
He admits Somdland had such demands like the others said. He is just trying to interpret the Trump call in a way that pretends ot should not be interpreted in light of everything else. The Ukrainians who received such demands definitely would interpret in light of that and claiming Trump did not know anything about what people fairly close to him were doing like that requires the "president is a complete moron" defense and that he held up the aid for generic corruption fears that he had already been told were wrong and that he did not appear to actually care about.
Edit: And all of this ignores that Trump was asking for dirt on a political opponent for purely political reasons.
Couscous on
+2
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
You could probably play the shitty"we all know this is unethical, but it's politics" game with the Trump funneling money to Congress members thing if he hadn't said "I'll give you money if and only if you defend me from impeachment"
Once again, he just says he's committing a crime
He could have said, I don't know, support the party and the party will support you, but he literally gave an example of quid pro quo again
I was not aware that the White House was holding up the security sector assistance passed by Congress until my superior, Dr. Charles Kupperman, told me soon after I succeeded Dr. Hill. I was aware that the President thought Ukraine had a corruption problem, as did many others familiar with Ukraine. I was also aware that the President believed that Europe did not contribute enough assistance to Ukraine. I was directed by Dr. Kupperman to coordinate with the interagency stakeholders to put together a policy process to demonstrate that the interagency supported security sector assistance to Ukraine. I was confident that our national security principals—the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the head of the National Security Council—could convince President Trump to release the aid because President Zelensky and the reform-oriented Rada were genuinely invested in their anti-corruption agenda.
Ambassador Taylor and I were concerned that the longer the money was withheld, the more questions the Zelensky administration would ask about the U.S. commitment to Ukraine. Our initial hope was that the money would be released before the hold became public because we did not want the newly constituted Ukrainian government to question U.S. support.
I have no reason to believe the Ukrainians had any knowledge of the review until August 28, 2019.Ambassador Taylor and I had no reason to believe that the release of the security sector assistance might be conditioned on a public statement reopening the Burisma investigation until my September 1, 2019 conversation with Ambassador Sondland. Even then I hoped that Ambassador Sondland’s strategy was exclusively his own and would not be considered by leaders in the Administration and Congress, who understood the strategic importance of Ukraine to our national security.
I am pleased our process gave the President the confidence he needed to approve the release of the security sector assistance. My regret is that Ukraine ever learned of the review and that, with this impeachment inquiry, Ukraine has become subsumed in the U.S. political process.
The bolded sounds a lot like Morrison admitting to pretty much everything with the rest being him trying to put a spin on it like assuming Trump released the aid because they somehow educated a president incapable of learning.
Sounds like he's trying to spin it to be solely Sondland's fault
Except Sondland doesn't have the power to hold up the aid himself
Yeah that read requires outright ignoring so much of what has happened, in public, since then. It’s staggering how willfully blind you have to be to walk that line
Really Nancy Pelosi said I don't know why the GOP is afraid of the truth
I don't know either as I am not curious and scared how deep the rabbit hole goes
Sounds like he's trying to spin it to be solely Sondland's fault
Except Sondland doesn't have the power to hold up the aid himself
I think the argument is that Trump was just concerned about general corruption and lack of European support while Sondland did his thing without Trump knowing what was happening. He makes it sound like Trump was convinced that the corruption and European support were no longer issues when the reality is that the aid was only released when shit started to hit the fan.
That is not plausible because Sondland and Giuliani were major players in Ukraine policy making solely because Trump made them so. He basically authorized them to do that stuff and the idea he would have not supported Sondland and Giiani's actions feels ludicrous.
Couscous on
+3
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Sounds like he's trying to spin it to be solely Sondland's fault
Except Sondland doesn't have the power to hold up the aid himself
I think the argument is that Trump was just concerned about general corruption and lack of European support while Sondland did his thing without Trump knowing what was happening. He makes it sound like Trump was convinced that the corruption and European support were no longer issues when the reality is that the aid was only released when shit started to hit the fan.
That is not plausible because Sondland and Giuliani were major players in Ukraine policy making solely because Trump made them so. He basically authorized them to do that stuff and the idea he would have not supported Sondland and Giiani's actions feels ludicrous.
I mean I could see possibly being able to spin what I am now going to call the rogue ambassador theory if a certain member of the administration had not directly called for an investigation into Biden by Ukraine (and China of all places), on camera in front of the press, immediately after the whole affair was made public
You could probably play the shitty"we all know this is unethical, but it's politics" game with the Trump funneling money to Congress members thing if he hadn't said "I'll give you money if and only if you defend me from impeachment"
Once again, he just says he's committing a crime
He could have said, I don't know, support the party and the party will support you, but he literally gave an example of quid pro quo again
It's almost amazing
They're basically all in normalizing this shit since it's the only hope in hell they have of getting away with what is blatantly illegal behavior.
Sounds like he's trying to spin it to be solely Sondland's fault
Except Sondland doesn't have the power to hold up the aid himself
I think the argument is that Trump was just concerned about general corruption and lack of European support while Sondland did his thing without Trump knowing what was happening. He makes it sound like Trump was convinced that the corruption and European support were no longer issues when the reality is that the aid was only released when shit started to hit the fan.
That is not plausible because Sondland and Giuliani were major players in Ukraine policy making solely because Trump made them so. He basically authorized them to do that stuff and the idea he would have not supported Sondland and Giiani's actions feels ludicrous.
I mean I could see possibly being able to spin what I am now going to call the rogue ambassador theory if a certain member of the administration had not directly called for an investigation into Biden by Ukraine (and China of all places), on camera in front of the press, immediately after the whole affair was made public
Yeah, it requires you to believe Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Biden, that he even asked the leader of Ukraine to investigate Biden, that he did not want the aid to be used as leverage to get them to do so, and the people he basically put in charge of Ukraine business were using it as leverage doing it without permission.
And nobody seems to have thought talking to Trump about Sondland would do anything. If they believed Sondland was acting on his own without support from Trump, informing Trump about that would quickly kill Sondland's attempt.
+1
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
I wonder how Sondland feels about being cast as the sole responsible party here.
Sounds like he's trying to spin it to be solely Sondland's fault
Except Sondland doesn't have the power to hold up the aid himself
They could be looking to spin it as Sondland misrepresenting his ability to deliver the aid and using it as leverage to bring home a win on the declaration.
(Thereby jamming him further under the bus)
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
I wonder how Sondland feels about being cast as the sole responsible party here.
He doesn’t strike me as a very Northian figure
Sondland's wife made it sound like he's in this for the sport of networking with powerful people.
Maybe she was just trying to take the heat off of him (and their business), but, yeah, "self-made hotel baron who up and bought an Ambassador title" doesn't sound like a guy looking to jump on a grenade for anyone.
Apparently the NRCC sent some frontline Democrats “moving boxes” after the impeachment vote, but because the boxes looked like suspicious packages, Capitol Police were called to investigate. So that’s neat.
Apparently no one at the NRCC took a second to think whether sending congressional offices suspicious looking packages was a sound idea, which sounds about right.
+47
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
If Democrats did this to Republicans, they'd already be having a field day with it. There'd be conspiracy theories about the Deep State establishment trying to assassinate duly elected Congress critters within the hour.
Sounds like he's trying to spin it to be solely Sondland's fault
Except Sondland doesn't have the power to hold up the aid himself
They could be looking to spin it as Sondland misrepresenting his ability to deliver the aid and using it as leverage to bring home a win on the declaration.
(Thereby jamming him further under the bus)
This still has to actively ignore that Sondland couldn't, and didn't, hold up the aid. That came from Trump, directly, as has been testified to already.
And if they're trying to use Morrison's testimony that his understanding that releasing the aid wasn't contingent on the president making a statement, just that there was an investigation...
It doesn't make any difference you god damned idiot fucking republicans. Just because you're trying to force their prosecutor general to investigate for aid, vs getting the same and Zelensky to make a public statement, you're still holding up aid for personal political motivation and it's the same crime.
The sad thing is I fully expected pretty much every move the Republicans are making right now, today, with this stuff. Those two dipshit Democrats certainly helped absolutely nothing, and I suspect they'll be out on their asses next election anyway (and fuck the DNC if they continue to support them; I don't want to hear any lectures about "ideological purity", those fucksticks just handed Trump and his stooges weeks of ammunition). But it is still profoundly disappointing and infuriating. The level if purposeful dishonesty and...yeah just blatant intentional lies; the clear corruption, lack of care for humanity (let alone the country), and so on, just makes me sick. It is just a reminder that it almost doesn't matter what happens with Trump at this point. That is obviously not true; but these shitstains have now truly shown their asses, and it is clearer than ever that maybe my children's children might end up back where we started before 2016, and maybe have a chance of making the country a better place. That is of course if climate change hasn't made everything worse, and the country even weathers the next few decades.
Regardless, I just have to remember that the Democrats are doing the right thing, and the truth is coming out; and even if it goes nowhere, even if Trump never faces any sort of come-upance, some people still worked to fight for facts and information, and no matter what happens, no one can use the excuse "we just didn't know". Because we know, and will know more every day. Some point down the line, that will matter; winners may write history, but even they fade, and reality has a habit of surfacing in the end.
Posts
It's times like these that I wish we had more of a UK system so we could get congressmen actually yelling at each other and get called out on their bullshit.
I had to read this twice, because I read it as
The only bipartisan thing about this impeachment is the sham opposition to it.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/giuliani-associate-left-trail-of-troubled-businesses-before-ukraine-probe-push-11572527608 If a person needs to do that, maybe you shouldn't work with that person?
Reading a piece in the second largest newspaper in Sweden, about the vote to have public proceedings they draw a line straight from the interview occupation last week as if that’s the only reason. They also frame the occupation as republicans wanting insight into the impeachment proceedings as a reasonable thing, not mentioning that half of those republicans were called to the interview in the first place by being members of the committee. Like you’ll need to ask hundreds of people here to find one single person that isn’t anti-trump, this is 100% because journalists don’t or aren’t permitted to do actual work. They straight up know less than me and I browse this thread once or twice per day - in my free time. It’s completely inexcusable.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
I mean what newspaper? DI would absolutely go that route. They are hard in the tank for moneyed interests so would support republicans
Nah. Sharing is fine. Democrats do it too. What is not fine is making that money contingent on specific acts of congress... because it would be illegal if anyone gave a senator money to their campaign contingent on specific acts of congress
What would really cinch it is if a GOP Senator came out in favor of Impeachment and then the fundraising money was immediately taken away somehow.
But I don't see that happening...
So remember when Micheal Flynn wanted to change his plea and we all wondered why? Because his lawyer is insane apparently.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Is that even illegal? I know Senators are jurors, but impeachment is also a purely political process. Facing political repercussions (no funds from Trump) for a political decision (supporting Trump's impeachment) doesn't seem like an injustice or evidence of corruption to me.
Morrison is just trying to protect Trump by pretending Sondland might have been doing all that on his own without permission from Trump despite Trump being the guy that gave Sondland that power in general.
So he's making the assertion that Vindman's testimony yesterday was false.
This is on top of admitting that it was buried not for security reasons, but because he thought it would look (and is) politically damning.
Someone's certainly toeing the party line.
Pretty sure if you squint hard enough that's true. But we're talking Trump here. This isn't 'assistance'. It's just a bribe.
He admits Somdland had such demands like the others said. He is just trying to interpret the Trump call in a way that pretends ot should not be interpreted in light of everything else. The Ukrainians who received such demands definitely would interpret in light of that and claiming Trump did not know anything about what people fairly close to him were doing like that requires the "president is a complete moron" defense and that he held up the aid for generic corruption fears that he had already been told were wrong and that he did not appear to actually care about.
Edit: And all of this ignores that Trump was asking for dirt on a political opponent for purely political reasons.
That's what I was wondering about... why did he resign ahead of his testimony if his testimony was that everything was kosher?
Once again, he just says he's committing a crime
He could have said, I don't know, support the party and the party will support you, but he literally gave an example of quid pro quo again
It's almost amazing
The bolded sounds a lot like Morrison admitting to pretty much everything with the rest being him trying to put a spin on it like assuming Trump released the aid because they somehow educated a president incapable of learning.
Except Sondland doesn't have the power to hold up the aid himself
Yeah that read requires outright ignoring so much of what has happened, in public, since then. It’s staggering how willfully blind you have to be to walk that line
I don't know either as I am not curious and scared how deep the rabbit hole goes
I think the argument is that Trump was just concerned about general corruption and lack of European support while Sondland did his thing without Trump knowing what was happening. He makes it sound like Trump was convinced that the corruption and European support were no longer issues when the reality is that the aid was only released when shit started to hit the fan.
That is not plausible because Sondland and Giuliani were major players in Ukraine policy making solely because Trump made them so. He basically authorized them to do that stuff and the idea he would have not supported Sondland and Giiani's actions feels ludicrous.
I mean I could see possibly being able to spin what I am now going to call the rogue ambassador theory if a certain member of the administration had not directly called for an investigation into Biden by Ukraine (and China of all places), on camera in front of the press, immediately after the whole affair was made public
They're basically all in normalizing this shit since it's the only hope in hell they have of getting away with what is blatantly illegal behavior.
Yeah, it requires you to believe Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Biden, that he even asked the leader of Ukraine to investigate Biden, that he did not want the aid to be used as leverage to get them to do so, and the people he basically put in charge of Ukraine business were using it as leverage doing it without permission.
And nobody seems to have thought talking to Trump about Sondland would do anything. If they believed Sondland was acting on his own without support from Trump, informing Trump about that would quickly kill Sondland's attempt.
They could be looking to spin it as Sondland misrepresenting his ability to deliver the aid and using it as leverage to bring home a win on the declaration.
(Thereby jamming him further under the bus)
He doesn’t strike me as a very Northian figure
Trump is not nearly as reliable as Reagan and Bush when it comes to rewarding fall guys.
Explains why he's trying to cover his ass; he knows if he tries to incriminate Trump they'll do everything in their power to pin it on him.
Sondland's wife made it sound like he's in this for the sport of networking with powerful people.
Maybe she was just trying to take the heat off of him (and their business), but, yeah, "self-made hotel baron who up and bought an Ambassador title" doesn't sound like a guy looking to jump on a grenade for anyone.
Huffpost reporter:
National Republican Congressional Committee
If Democrats did this to Republicans, they'd already be having a field day with it. There'd be conspiracy theories about the Deep State establishment trying to assassinate duly elected Congress critters within the hour.
This still has to actively ignore that Sondland couldn't, and didn't, hold up the aid. That came from Trump, directly, as has been testified to already.
And if they're trying to use Morrison's testimony that his understanding that releasing the aid wasn't contingent on the president making a statement, just that there was an investigation...
It doesn't make any difference you god damned idiot fucking republicans. Just because you're trying to force their prosecutor general to investigate for aid, vs getting the same and Zelensky to make a public statement, you're still holding up aid for personal political motivation and it's the same crime.
The sad thing is I fully expected pretty much every move the Republicans are making right now, today, with this stuff. Those two dipshit Democrats certainly helped absolutely nothing, and I suspect they'll be out on their asses next election anyway (and fuck the DNC if they continue to support them; I don't want to hear any lectures about "ideological purity", those fucksticks just handed Trump and his stooges weeks of ammunition). But it is still profoundly disappointing and infuriating. The level if purposeful dishonesty and...yeah just blatant intentional lies; the clear corruption, lack of care for humanity (let alone the country), and so on, just makes me sick. It is just a reminder that it almost doesn't matter what happens with Trump at this point. That is obviously not true; but these shitstains have now truly shown their asses, and it is clearer than ever that maybe my children's children might end up back where we started before 2016, and maybe have a chance of making the country a better place. That is of course if climate change hasn't made everything worse, and the country even weathers the next few decades.
Regardless, I just have to remember that the Democrats are doing the right thing, and the truth is coming out; and even if it goes nowhere, even if Trump never faces any sort of come-upance, some people still worked to fight for facts and information, and no matter what happens, no one can use the excuse "we just didn't know". Because we know, and will know more every day. Some point down the line, that will matter; winners may write history, but even they fade, and reality has a habit of surfacing in the end.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand