House Impeachment Inquiry

[kellyb]

Efforts over the last couple of pages to blame others for publicizing Trump’s post are sooo much dumber.

I don't think Zig is "blaming" Schiff for using Trump's tweet for PR purposes. He just doesn't think intimidation was the motive, and he's explaining how the mailman analogy is not a good analogy. It really isn't. It's a bad analogy.

 

[Stacyhs]

He doesn't need to legally, but ethically, and for the good of our relationships with other countries, publicly smearing a public servant and firing them if the smears aren't true is not a good thing.

Are we really in disagreement about that? The work that public servants do benefits from built up relationships, institutional knowledge and some degree of continuity and reliability.

Do we really need to make a case for why lieing about an ambassador's performance and firing her for no good reason is a bad thing? Is that where we are?

That. No one is disputing that Trump had the right to recall Yovanovitch. But that's not the point; it's the reason he did so that is the problem.

For anyone to claim that Trump was not demanding a qpq from Zelensky has not been watching the testimony with an open mind. Witness after witness has shown that Trump's intent was to withhold the aid money until Zelensky publicly announced a Biden investigation. To claim this had anything to do with investigating Ukrainian 'corruption' and not to benefit Trump personally in the 2020 election is either a fool or being intellectually dishonest.

If there were this much evidence presented in a trial not concerning Trump, the verdict would be guilty.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

That is the criminal statute. What's important is to recognize an impeachment is NOT a criminal proceeding. Whether Trump intent was to intimidate is irrelevant. And being POTUS, he should have a grasp of the power that he yields.

Good point, yet I don't doubt Republicans will try to hide behind the "letter of the law".

 

[kellyb]

I can't keep up with the thread but will try to go back to it. I have the rerun on of the testimony of Taylor and Kent on. Something I didn't notice in the first go-round:

Kent was asked how the derogatory campaign against the ambassador began. His answer, Giuliani met twice with the last fired prosecutor (the one that followed Shokin). That fired prosecutor met with Mr Soloman of the Hill who then wrote a derogatory piece on the ambassador.

You all remember Soloman? The alt-right and dishonest op ed writer The Hill is giving a platform too?

Yeah, Soloman from The Hill, who writes stuff that superficially looks like investigative journalism, but it's so bad it's categorized in the opinion section.

He's SUCH a hack. I don't think he's actually crazy or anything like that. That dude is in it for the money. He's like Alex Jones in that way. A FAKE conspiracy theorist who somehow got a sleazy gig as a writer inauthentically political conspiracy theorizing for cash. That's f'in gross.

I wish they'd fire him. He's an insult to journalism, even tho he's an opinion writer. He needs to go have his own private website for his freedom of speech. Shame on whoever lets him LARP as a member of the press.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not sure if this link will work, it's an anonymous view of the WA Po. It's on this date if someone needs to find it directly:

By
Erik Wemple
Media critic
November 15, 2019 at 6:44 PM EST

WA Po op ed: John Solomon leaves behind lasting damage at the Hill
I had no idea he was a VP there! Now he's at Fox where he belongs.

The legacy of John Solomon, a veteran Washington journalist who served simultaneously as an executive vice president at the Hill and as spinner of a flimsy and tendentious trail of reporting that the real collusion in the 2016 presidential election featured the Democrats and Ukrainian officials. Wrapped up in the Solomon oeuvre are the seeds of the smear against Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who was recalled as a result of the campaign. Solomon now serves as a Fox News contributor. ...

“I just find it reprehensible that any newspaper would just be willing to put that kind of crap out that is not — has no veracity whatsoever, and not check to see if it had any veracity,” Speier said, according to audio reported by Politico’s Michael Calderone. “And then it becomes a talking point. And he becomes a nonpartisan commentator. It’s corrupt. It’s just corrupt.”...

The diss from Speier is the first instance in the awareness of this blog when a Washington official has penalized the Hill for enabling Solomon’s reign of distortion under its banner. Witness after witness — all of them under oath — has slammed Solomon’s series of articles for containing a tenuous connection to actual events. “It was, if not entirely made up in full cloth, it was primarily non-truths and non-sequiturs,” said George Kent, a senior State Department official, in reference to a key Solomon article from March 2019.

That piece transmitted allegations from then-Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuri Lutsenko that Yovanovitch had presented him with a “do not prosecute” list. The New York Times reports that Lutsenko acknowledges that no such list ever existed but claims that Yovanovitch did ask him to go easy on certain individuals “who worked with the embassy on its anti-corruption efforts.” The list was a “fabrication,” Yovanovitch said on Friday. Nor did she tell “Mr. Lutsenko or other Ukrainian officials who they should or should not prosecute.” Solomon cites testimony by Kent acknowledging U.S. attempts to protect anti-corruption organizations as corroboration of his reporting.

For good measure, Yovanovitch denied a rumor — also raised in Solomon’s reporting — that she had bad-mouthed President Trump in Ukraine by saying his orders must be ignored because of his likely impeachment. “I did not and I would not say such a thing. Such statements would be inconsistent with my training as a Foreign Service officer and my role as an ambassador,” said Yovanovitch.

I couldn't agree more with the following:

Though Solomon departed from the organization earlier this fall — the circumstances of the split remain unclear — he has left behind the stink of a rotten fish in the site’s archives. And it’s wafting into the corridors of Capitol Hill.

I emailed The Hill a while back complaining about Solomon.

 

[varwoche]

This much is for sure: Trump & minions treat his base like the blind cultists, and/or blithering morons they are. This is evident in the Baghdad Bob'ish excuses they offer up for the Ukraine shakedown:

Zelinski says he wasn't pressured. Really? Does anyone here need it explained why this absurdity is painfully, obviously laughable?

Third-hand evidence! We demand remaining transcripts be released! Nunes et al are demanding that remaining depositions be made public, knowing said depositions contain yet more 2nd/3rd hand evidence for them to squeal about. Meanwhile, not one syllable about the direct witnesses Trump has obstructed from testifying.

Nunes recitation of Trump phone call #1 with Zelinski. WTF? Never mind that we learn the White House read-out at the time was a lie. (Corruption wasn't even mentioned in the call.) If a criminal is caught on camera robbing a bank on Tuesday, does it matter they are caught on camera on Monday not robbing a bank?

There's a lot more this. But these particular excuses strike me as the most painfully obvious BS, relying on the target audience to be willfully blind, drooling zealots and/or actual imbeciles, take your pick.

Ho hum, another day in crazyville aka the USA.

 

[Stacyhs]

This much is for sure: Trump & minions treat his base like the blind cultists, and/or blithering morons they are. This is evident in the Baghdad Bob'ish excuses they offer up for the Ukraine shakedown:

Zelinski says he wasn't pressured. Really? Does anyone here need it explained why this absurdity is painfully, obviously laughable?

Third-hand evidence! We demand remaining transcripts be released! Nunes et al are demanding that remaining depositions be made public, knowing said depositions contain yet more 2nd/3rd hand evidence for them to squeal about. Meanwhile, not one syllable about the direct witnesses Trump has obstructed from testifying.

Nunes recitation of Trump phone call #1 with Zelinski. WTF? Never mind that we learn the White House read-out at the time was a lie. (Corruption wasn't even mentioned in the call.) If a criminal is caught on camera robbing a bank on Tuesday, does it matter they are caught on camera on Monday not robbing a bank?
There's a lot more this. But these particular excuses strike me as the most painfully obvious BS, relying on the target audience to be willfully blind, drooling zealots and/or actual imbeciles, take your pick.

Ho hum, another day in crazyville aka the USA.

That was basically my first thought about this first call. What does it matter if Trump did or didn't mention Biden or corruption or anything related to the impeachment in it? Nunes is an idiot.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I think a lot of people are focusing on the Republican talking point of "The President can remove an ambassador any time he wants," which while true, isn't the crux if the matter.

It's not that he removed her, it's that he removed her based on a vicious smear campaign by a bunch of corrupt foreigners and certain Americans who were close to the President himself, as well as using illegal campaign financing to get a at least one US Senator into helping to lobby for their dirty work.

It's that the US President was, at best, able to be manipulated into firing an Ambassador that was so effective at taking out the bad guys, that they wanted revenge and to get her removed, and that they were able to do that with the help of people working for the President!

The fact that it opened the way to get Soudland in with control over US Policy in Ukraine and to establish a back channel that bypassed the State Department is almost secondary background, though it explains why certain members of the President's crew wanted and needed her gone so much that they were willing to cooperate with corrupt and evil pro-Russian figures who in some cases are still wanted by the US DoJ for trial over their corrupt actions.

This whole things is a serpent's nest, and either willingly or unwillingly, Trump is in the middle of it.

 

[Cavemonster]

Everyone claiming that is getting that second hand. It's conceivable, but it hasn't been demonstrated, and there are other reasons to delay payment.


That reason wouldn't be proper (but I wouldn't impeach for it). But there were proper reasons to delay. It doesn't really work to get your panties in a bunch over a possible improper reason when there is a proper reason.

There are other technically possible reasons an administration could decide to delay a payment, but the available evidence supports that the motivation is what Trump has been accused of.

Before the memorandum was released, Republican Chris Christie publicly speculated about the content and gave out "Do me a favor though" as his example of the damning language that he believed would not be in the memorandum. That was precisely the language in the memorandum.

The administration has had plenty of time now to clear up for the public their reasons for delaying the funding and to show evidence to support that this explanation is true. Instead they have hopped through various alternative explanations, dropping them when they became unsupportable. We've gone through "They were waiting for other countries to contribute more" and landed on "We wanted them to investigate corruption". But there has been no evidence of either of those requests being made whereas the request to investigate Biden and the supposed crowdstrike server were explicit. No other requests have been made public that corroborate any other aim.

The timing of the actual release of funds correlates with the whistleblower report. No other suggested motivation gives a reasonable explanation for the end of the hold on the funds. They got caught. Period.

There has been no satisfying explanation for why several mentions of Biden were removed from the memorandum or why it was stored on a higher level security server than similar calls are held on.

Several people familiar with the content of the call have expressed their impression that it, along with other actions were intended to further the president's political aims rather than national interests. The "second hand" critique doesn't hold much water because the people who originated these reports are known. These are not coffee boys or high school students. These are not rumors.

Several statements made that apparently minimized the incriminating nature of this exchange have been shown to be false.

Trump explicitly mentions that he is sending his personal lawyer to speak with a foreign head of state about investigations into his potential political rival.

No alternative reason for withholding aid would explain the available evidence. The proposed alternatives would be expected to leave communications and evidence that is missing. The administration has had plenty of time to clear the record by showing the communications which support their alternative explanations.

Instead, their supporter's narrative has changed to "So what? He can do this if he wants"

 

[Lurch]

I think Schiff was smart to do it from a PR perspective, and it was the morally correct thing to do, as well, but in no way is that a good analogy.

Why was Schiff reading twitter himself in the first place in the middle of the Impeachment??? It's not normal to interrupt a legal proceeding because of anything ANYONE says on twitter.

Maybe one of Schiff's staff members alerted him?... I don't know for sure on that, as I wasn't watching during the minutes leading up to his announcement.

 

[acbytesla]

Maybe one of Schiff's staff members alerted him?... I don't know for sure on that, as I wasn't watching during the minutes leading up to his announcement.

Almost certainly. It doesn't take long for something like that to move around today. My guess is that people in politics follow POTUS and not because they want to.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Almost certainly. It doesn't take long for something like that to move around today. My guess is that people in politics follow POTUS and not because they want to.

Which makes Zig's claims more incredulous. There was a 30+ min recess shortly after the text, a recess in which number of people were asked about the tweet. The belief that none of Yovanovitch's people would have been aware of the text and relayed it to her during that recess or the later 5+ minute one, is quite staggering.

 

[Stacyhs]

There are other technically possible reasons an administration could decide to delay a payment, but the available evidence supports that the motivation is what Trump has been accused of.

Before the memorandum was released, Republican Chris Christie publicly speculated about the content and gave out "Do me a favor though" as his example of the damning language that he believed would not be in the memorandum. That was precisely the language in the memorandum.

The administration has had plenty of time now to clear up for the public their reasons for delaying the funding and to show evidence to support that this explanation is true. Instead they have hopped through various alternative explanations, dropping them when they became unsupportable. We've gone through "They were waiting for other countries to contribute more" and landed on "We wanted them to investigate corruption". But there has been no evidence of either of those requests being made whereas the request to investigate Biden and the supposed crowdstrike server were explicit. No other requests have been made public that corroborate any other aim.

The timing of the actual release of funds correlates with the whistleblower report. No other suggested motivation gives a reasonable explanation for the end of the hold on the funds. They got caught. Period.

There has been no satisfying explanation for why several mentions of Biden were removed from the memorandum or why it was stored on a higher level security server than similar calls are held on.

Several people familiar with the content of the call have expressed their impression that it, along with other actions were intended to further the president's political aims rather than national interests. The "second hand" critique doesn't hold much water because the people who originated these reports are known. These are not coffee boys or high school students. These are not rumors.

Several statements made that apparently minimized the incriminating nature of this exchange have been shown to be false.

Trump explicitly mentions that he is sending his personal lawyer to speak with a foreign head of state about investigations into his potential political rival.

No alternative reason for withholding aid would explain the available evidence. The proposed alternatives would be expected to leave communications and evidence that is missing. The administration has had plenty of time to clear the record by showing the communications which support their alternative explanations.

Instead, their supporter's narrative has changed to "So what? He can do this if he wants"

Well put and I agree.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

It isn't intimidating because she says its intimidating. That's not how it works. It's intimidating if it intimidates. Her testimony shows no sign that she was intimidated. Her response to Schiff only demonstrates she is willing to play Schiff's game.

And think for a moment about the precedent Schiff is trying to set here. He's trying to make any witness against the president above criticism. That is a very bad precedent to set.

Wow.

And I don’t mean that in an “I’m astounded at the monumental force of this argument and will forever hold it in the highest regard as well as expecting it will stand uneclipsed as a shining example of the kind of statement students of rhetoric will likely study through the ages.”

A different wow.

 

[Cavemonster]

Which makes Zig's claims more incredulous. There was a 30+ min recess shortly after the text, a recess in which number of people were asked about the tweet. The belief that none of Yovanovitch's people would have been aware of the text and relayed it to her during that recess or the later 5+ minute one, is quite staggering.

Minor language point. "Incredulous" describes a person who finds a claim hard to swallow. Some adjectives for the claim itself might be preposterous, unbelievable, uncredible, dubious, ridiculous, implausible, unbelievable.

 

[Craig4]

The mailman has a legal obligation to deliver a letter, and no knowledge of its content. Schiff had no legal obligation to repeat Trump's tweet, and his knowledge of its content was precisely the point.

Your comparison is dumb.

You're right. He did it to hurt Trump and neuter the Trumptrash on the Committee and it worked so it's okay that he did it. The goal is to damage Trump and sideline his defenders and it worked. It may have been a dirty trick but it worked so there's nothing wrong with what Schiff did.

 

[Craig4]

He doesn't need to. Presidents frequently remove ambassadors for no other reason than that another president appointed them, as Yovanovitch was. And I don't see people complaining about who he replaced her with. I'm sure she wasn't happy, because ambassadorships are sweet gigs, but she's not entitled to the job.



It was delayed, yes.



Everyone claiming that is getting that second hand. It's conceivable, but it hasn't been demonstrated, and there are other reasons to delay payment.



That reason wouldn't be proper (but I wouldn't impeach for it). But there were proper reasons to delay. It doesn't really work to get your panties in a bunch over a possible improper reason when there is a proper reason.

So Mulvaney got it second hand when he admitted to withholding aid at the press conference?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I think they've had the greenlight, but it works like a lazer pointer with a cat. It will draw them to her. But that wasn't his core motive. Although, he probably does know it happens and likes it. Just look at his encouragement of violence in his rallies. He's sick, and digs that stuff. ETA: it really is his secondary motive if not his first. It could be his primary motive. But he knows and likes it. I really do believe that.

Trump wanted to be president, but he didn’t want the job.

It’s as if someone somehow conned their way into being NYC Chief of Police but had never received law enforcement training, never walked a beat or collected evidence or written a report or in any way rolled up their sleeves and served and protected. Yet there they suddenly are, the leader of a force of thousands, but their only concept of what it means to be a cop comes from watching Starsky and Hutch.

Trump wants to race around the city with a gumball machine on the roof of his badass Torino and break chairs over the heads of bad hombres in bars and shoot suspects in empty warehouses without reading them their rights like only pussies do. That’s fun! Don’t for a second dare to harsh his Huggy Bear with reality.

 

[Trebuchet]

Trump wanted to be president, but he didn’t want the job.

It’s as if someone somehow conned their way into being NYC Chief of Police but had never received law enforcement training, never walked a beat or collected evidence or written a report or in any way rolled up their sleeves and served and protected. Yet there they suddenly are, the leader of a force of thousands, but their only concept of what it means to be a cop comes from watching Starsky and Hutch.

Trump wants to race around the city with a gumball machine on the roof of his badass Torino and break chairs over the heads of bad hombres in bars and shoot suspects in empty warehouses on Fifth Avenue without reading them their rights like only pussies do. That’s fun! Don’t for a second dare to harsh his Huggy Bear with reality.

Fixed that for you. I may nominate just the first sentence. Trump's never had a job in his entire life.
When I was younger and more conservative, my criticism of Ted Kennedy was that he'd never had to work for a living, and had no real idea of what it meant. That applies in spades to Trump.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This much is for sure: Trump & minions treat his base like the blind cultists, and/or blithering morons they are. This is evident in the Baghdad Bob'ish excuses they offer up for the Ukraine shakedown:

Zelinski says he wasn't pressured. Really? Does anyone here need it explained why this absurdity is painfully, obviously laughable?

Third-hand evidence! We demand remaining transcripts be released! Nunes et al are demanding that remaining depositions be made public, knowing said depositions contain yet more 2nd/3rd hand evidence for them to squeal about. Meanwhile, not one syllable about the direct witnesses Trump has obstructed from testifying.

Nunes recitation of Trump phone call #1 with Zelinski. WTF? Never mind that we learn the White House read-out at the time was a lie. (Corruption wasn't even mentioned in the call.) If a criminal is caught on camera robbing a bank on Tuesday, does it matter they are caught on camera on Monday not robbing a bank?

There's a lot more this. But these particular excuses strike me as the most painfully obvious BS, relying on the target audience to be willfully blind, drooling zealots and/or actual imbeciles, take your pick.

Ho hum, another day in crazyville aka the USA.

Jordan said a number of times after accusing Taylor by saying multiple times that anything anyone told Taylor was hearsay, "It didn't happen. It didn't happen."

I so wanted someone to ask Jordan for evidence it didn't.