Cleaning up the Impeachment Narrative (UPDATED)

[waiguoren]

Biden said what he did out in the open because what he did was done out in the open; It was a general push to reform Ukraine and was backed by other Western European countries. One of the end goals was to remove Shokin, whose investigation into Burisma had fallen dormant at that time.

I've yet to see a contemporaneous source indicating that the underlined portion is true. Have you encountered one?

Shokin's sworn affidavit contradicts the bolded portion. Also, a bit of common sense/critical thinking will tell you that large-scale corruption investigations don't "fall dormant".

He attempted to use the office of the presidency to manufacture a public spectacle with the express purpose of political weaponization.

I think you're referring to this. If so, I think you have much more faith in the New York Times to fairly characterize the statement than I do. There is a gulf between a general anti-corruption statement (as Sondland appeared to refer to in his revised testimony) and a statement specifically targeting the Bidens. I want to see the supposed draft of the statement before I believe the statement fit the latter profile. Note also that a general anti-corruption statement would align with Trump's original public explanation for withholding aid.

 

[woodguyatl]

Its a combination of the left not being able to accept the results of the election 3 years ago and the trump being a shady con man as weve known for decades now. After the "muller is coming" bullshit we had to suffer through for years im going ti err on the side of theyre grapsing at straws here and it will ultimately lead nowhere.

Next the Libtards are going to try to argue that Trump is an illegitimate President because he wasn’t born in the US.

 

[woodguyatl]

It doesn't seem very important given that we have a copy of the call transcript.

No we don’t. The document released by the WH specifically says it is “not a verbatim transcript.” It says it is the “notes and recollections” of people who were on the call.

 

[andnowweknow]

Next the Libtards are going to try to argue that Trump is an illegitimate President because he wasn’t born in the US.

There is a verifiable charge of bribery and abuse of power WITH WITNESSES of exceptional standing that will be televised this Wednesday...and you're babbling about birtherism.

Be patient. Testimony in public by utterly unimpeachable witnesses looms in several days.

 

[Overtures]

I've yet to see a contemporaneous source indicating that the underlined portion is true. Have you encountered one?

The consistency with which the investigations (Crowdstrike and Biden) appeared throughout the months long fiasco strongly suggests the intent was political weaponization. The plot to hatch the investigations in exchange for U.S resources dates back to Giuliani's associates Parnas and Fruman and their attempt to cajole the previous Ukrainian president into looking into the matter. The exchange comes up in Sondland and Taylor's discussions prior to the phone call. And the exchange is implied in the transcript itself.

The impeachment inquiry depositions and timeline of events paints a clear picture of a President and administration that hijacked foreign policy (not simply the aid) in order to serve political ends. It's obvious.

You are upset about what Biden did, but not what Trump did? I've already said that what Biden did was inappropriate and smacks of corruption. There seems to be a double standard here. Your outrage over Biden isn't impartial. You're just using it as a launch pad to defend Donald Trump from.

There's no conspiracy here. Trump did things a president shouldn't do. He got caught because a whip-smart Democratic Soy Boy decided to report it. And then it turned into a partisan shit show.

 

[Prokofievian]

Pathetic. You even old enough to vote?

He's Canadian.

 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

Always good to see a another unbiased thread about Trump and this rigged impeachment farce. In their zeal to take out Trump all they've done is take out Biden.

 

[fedoriswar37]

Next the Libtards are going to try to argue that Trump is an illegitimate President because he wasn’t born in the US.

Im more interested in how they wont accept the impending loss in 2020. If the last 3 years is any indication....itll be doing the exact same thing hoping for a different result

 

[Here's the thing]

It's pretty simple Trump used Congressionally approve funds to extort a vulnerable ally into manufacturing dirt on a political foe and undermine the 2020 election.

Put down the crack pipe NOW. And stop watching MSNBC, it's rotting your brain.

 

[andnowweknow]

Put down the crack pipe NOW. And stop watching MSNBC, it's rotting your brain.

What should he watch?

 

[nostradumbass]

Lol, thanks for that unbiased take. All you "cleaned up" was the horrifying biased democrat argument.

But that's exactly what Biden says he did, on tape. He says he held up a $1 billion aid package to Ukraine in exchange for the firing of Shokin. Here's the footage (timestamped):




Maybe you think Biden is lying or exaggerating. Well, here is a Reuters article from 2015 which explains that a $2 billion package of loan guarantees from the US to Ukraine was "contingent on the former Soviet republic remaining on track to meet the conditions of its loan program from the International Monetary Fund". That is, QPQ.


No, the QPQ which Trump has argued never existed was of the form "US aid <-> an investigation of the Bidens/Burisma."

From the time of the release of the whistleblowerto the congressional intelligence committees (September 25), Trump has given two reasons for holding up the aid disbursement: (1) he wanted to secure a commitment from Ukraine to clean up corruption (QPQ) (2) he wanted a greater financial commitment from European allies toward Ukraine aid.

So when Trump said "no quid pro quo" in a press conference on October 16---21 days later---he's obviously not talking about (1). He's talking about aid for investigating Burisma.


The whistleblower's complaint describes what one man heard about the contents of a the call. It doesn't seem very important given that we have a copy of the call transcript.



Sondland's testimony addendum is here. Sondland says he told Yermak (Zelensky's negotiator) on September 1 that "resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks." So that's consistent with (1) above and is exactly the sort of condition that often comes attached to US aid.

Oh yeah? Well you're a racist!

 

[waiguoren]

No we don’t. The document released by the WH specifically says it is “not a verbatim transcript.” It says it is the “notes and recollections” of people who were on the call.

As the Wall Street Journal reported, it's a MemCon made from voice recognition software + translation + professional annotations of the call from those who listened to it.

Morrison already testified under oath: "To the best of my recollection, the MemCon [memorandum of conversation] accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call."

Vindman already testified (page 52):

Q: Is there a word-for-word transcript that is produced of these conversations?
A: I don't believe so.
Q: Okay. So this is completely normal?
A: Yes, completely normal.​

 

[waiguoren]

The consistency with which the investigations (Crowdstrike and Biden) appeared throughout the months long fiasco strongly suggests the intent was political weaponization.

How? To me that just indicates that Trump wanted these matters investigated. It seems you're leaping from facts to motives too easily.

The plot to hatch the investigations in exchange for U.S resources dates back to Giuliani's associates Parnas and Fruman and their attempt to cajole the previous Ukrainian president into looking into the matter.

As far as I can tell, "hatch" is the wrong word here. That word suggests these were new investigations, while in reality Trump was asking for 1) Ukrainian assistance in the ongoing DOJ investigation of the origins of the FBI surveillance into the Trump 2016 campaign 2) a re-opening of closed Ukrainian investigations into Burisma/Zlochevsky, with particular emphasis on the Biden connection.

Also, the administration has not accepted your premise that disbursement of aid was conditioned upon 1) and 2) above. We have some administration officials saying that was their understanding (e.g., Taylor), but others (e.g., Sondland) disputing it.

You are upset about what Biden did, but not what Trump did? I've already said that what Biden did was inappropriate and smacks of corruption. There seems to be a double standard here. Your outrage over Biden isn't impartial. You're just using it as a launch pad to defend Donald Trump from.

I am not "upset" about anything. I do not feel in that way. Also, my goal is not to defend Donald Trump. I think you are misunderstanding, and I will attempt to explain.

Growing up, my family subscribed to the New York Times and the Washington Post. I mostly watched CNN for TV news. These days, out of habit, these are the sources I turn to first for my news, and part of my mind tends to assume that these sources are setting the overall "media narrative" that most of the population is exposed to.

From what I can tell, those sources have been dedicating a very small percentage of overall Trump impeachment coverage to the Burisma/Biden aspect of the story. It has taken significant work on my part just to discover the existence of and to collect critical documents such as the Shokin affidavit. If my "media diet" were not so diverse, I think I'd probably be completely unaware that there is another interpretation of the Shokin firing and associated events that CNN/NYT/WaPo are mostly ignoring.

 

[Andy Capp]

Back in 2016 I was worried that Trump's rhetoric on NATO sounded a LOT like he was trying to run a protection racket. And Ukraine being essentially in a state of war with Russia right now, this is exactly a protection racket, imo.

Nice country you got dere, shame if something were to happen to it, huh?

 

[bobgeese]

Maybe you guys should be focusing on the “we’re running a presidential candidate in a year” narrative.


Somehow I don’t see this as something that’ll win votes. ESPECIALLY if they vote to impeach trump. There are a LOT of idiots out there who think

Impeachment = removal

I doubt Teflon Don squirming out of removal will excite the democrat base.

 

[Jack V Savage]

How? To me that just indicates that Trump wanted these matters investigated. It seems you're leaping from facts to motives too easily.

In one case, he's trying to get an investigation of his main political rival in the news, and in the other, he's trying to get fake evidence for a conspiracy theory that would clear Russia of wrongdoing and probably weaken the case for enhanced security to protect us against future attacks.

I am not "upset" about anything. I do not feel in that way. Also, my goal is not to defend Donald Trump. I think you are misunderstanding, and I will attempt to explain.

It's ridiculous that you'd expect anyone to believe that. On every issue, you come in and parrot absurd arguments (often contradicting your previously stated principles) to defend indefensible behavior by the president. I don't have any doubt that you would support scrapping the Constitution altogether if that's what Trump wanted.

From what I can tell, those sources have been dedicating a very small percentage of overall Trump impeachment coverage to the Burisma/Biden aspect of the story.

Right, because that is a desperate and dishonest attempt to shift the narrative after Trump was caught egregiously violating his oath of office and abusing his powers. The president subverted U.S. interests in order to help smear a political rival is a bigger story than the discredited smear. In much the same way, the media dedicated a very small percentage of 9/11 coverage to the theory that the planes were actually holograms and the buildings were taken down with explosives.

The sleaziness of you and the Trump defenders you're parroting is really impressive. The big takeaway from this era, assuming we as a country overcome the threat should be that it can happen here--that a third or so of the population is perfectly willing to destroy the country and help implement a dictatorship.

 

[Richie Madano]

Maybe you guys should be focusing on the “we’re running a presidential candidate in a year” narrative.


Somehow I don’t see this as something that’ll win votes. ESPECIALLY if they vote to impeach trump. There are a LOT of idiots out there who think

Impeachment = removal

I doubt Teflon Don squirming out of removal will excite the democrat base.

All their candidates are pretty bad though and have little chance, of any of beating Trump.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

The big takeaway from this era, that a third or so of the population is sick and tired of my bullshit.

Fixed.

 

[bobgeese]

All their candidates are pretty bad though and have little chance, of any of beating Trump.

The optics are they’re simply running as not Trump. That usually doesn’t work well.

 

[HomeCheese]

[QUOTE="Overtures, post: 156482821, member: 299895"

5. Investigations into the 2016 election and Hunter Biden are part of normal National Interests.

• This is a gross representation of what happened. The back channel government and Trump's wishes to publicize these two very specific investigations that would benefit him both politically by fitting into his narratives show that Trump usurped existing Foreign Policy for his own personal gain.
  

Elect a clown as president, and the White House becomes a circus.[/QUOTE]

One item I have wanted to ask, if the Trump administration thought Biden Jr. did something wrong why did the US investigate?