Trump-Ukraine v 11 lowering the Barr

[andnowweknow]

That wasn't what I was talking about, I am pointing out it's obvious the dems don't have to do this, which is why this is a partisan crap show in a way. Where's the integrity if they want the public to look at this without partisan blinders on?

Dems don't have to do what?

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Correct congressman

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Correct congressman

It's almost as though he's really dumb, he thinks we're all dumb, or he just makes shit up.

 

[ShadowRun]

Correct congressman

How did it play out for Clinton and Nixon? did it happen at the senate level...

 

[*Z*]

So they have to submit a list so it get's approved and the dems don't have to go through that process huh?

Welcome to the minority party.

 

[Joe]

So they have to submit a list so it get's approved and the dems don't have to go through that process huh?

Its funny watching republicans critiquing the rules they themselves came up with. Did it ever dawn on them that dems might use them too?

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Its funny watching republicans critiquing the rules they themselves came up with. Did it ever dawn on them that dems might use them too?

I think they just figured to change the rules when the power pendulum swung the other way.

 

[MikeMcMann]

So they have to submit a list so it get's approved and the dems don't have to go through that process huh?

No you don't have that quite right.

Every Dem who will have the right to be in attendance, just like the Republicans cannot simply call witnesses. Both sides have to submit their desires to the Chair and those selected to run the process who will set the agenda.

This is how all such proceedings work going back to the Nixon proceedings and prior, the Clinton Impeachment, and Benghazi in more recent times.

NEVER do those not Chairing or running the process get to set any part of the agenda and they should not.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Its funny watching republicans critiquing the rules they themselves came up with. Did it ever dawn on them that dems might use them too?

No i don't think there was.

Just as they now argue for powers for a POTUS they would be horrified to see a Dem POTUS, especially a far left one, wield.

They are literally too stupid to see it.

I think they just figured to change the rules when the power pendulum swung the other way.

And there is a lot of truth to that.

For instance the Repubs are fine with Russia and other meddling in US elections right now as they think they are the major benefactors.

However if it was exposed that China was meddling but to try and get Trump out, you would suddenly see them be concerned and call for a Bipartisan effort to stamp it out 'because it is wrong'.

And the Dem's would almost certainly join in and give them bipartisan support to try and end it.

 

[MikeMcMann]

oh and I'll drop this here as @waiguoren and others keep repeating this busted talking point.

-----

...

The call for Ukraine to clean up corruption was a world wide effort, not just US and certainly not Biden. And the key to that was a focus on removing the Prosecutor.

So again, unless you assume all these ...

- President of France
- President of Germany
- State Department
- US Embassy
- The EU
- The IMF
- The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

... were puppets of Biden or dupes and did not know he was running a game on them, then it is LITERALLY stupid to suggest they were all acting to protect Joe and Hunter.

The call for the end of corruption by the Republicans WAS a call to remove the Prosecutor. That is not in dispute.


This was a key statement by the Republican lead bipartisan committee pushing for the Ukranian Prosecutors ouster...


...“We similarly urge you to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General’s office and judiciary,” the Republicans and Democrats demand of the foreign leader.

cite
--------

So to keep pushing this line that this was Biden protecting his own interests you need to make the argument that these Republicans and all others were in the bag for Biden or his dupe or this argument fails as you are simply condemning a messenger for delivering a bipartisan message and a world wide effort he was not the originator of.

 

[Beastman09]

..

Facts?

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

I love Lindsey Graham's defense that Trump and his administration are too dumb and incompetent to extort a foreign government for his personal gain

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Trump was sooo close to getting away with this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/world/europe/ukraine-trump-zelensky.html

KIEV, Ukraine — It was early September, and Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, faced an agonizing choice: whether to capitulate to President Trump’s demands to publicly announce investigations against his political enemies or to refuse, and lose desperately needed military aid.

Only Mr. Trump could unlock the aid, he had been told by two United States senators, and time was running out. If the money, nearly $400 million, were not unblocked by the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, it could be lost in its entirety.

In a flurry of WhatsApp messages and meetings in Ukraine’s capital, Kiev, over several days, senior aides debated the point. Avoiding partisan politics in the United States had always been the first rule of Ukrainian foreign policy, but the military aid was vital to the war against Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, a conflict that has cost 13,000 lives since it began in 2014.

By then, however, Mr. Zelensky’s staffers were already conceding to what seemed to be the inevitable, and making plans for a public announcement about the investigations. It was a fateful decision for a fledgling president elected on an anticorruption platform that included putting an end to politically motivated investigations.

an impeachment inquiry undertaken after accusations surfaced of Mr. Trump’s demands.

But interviews in Kiev with government officials, lawmakers and others close to the Zelensky government have revealed new details of how high-level Ukrainian officials ultimately decided to acquiesce to President Trump’s request — and, by a stroke of luck, never had to follow through.

Aides were arguing in favor of “bowing to what was demanded,” said Petro Burkovskiy, a senior fellow at the Democratic Initiatives Foundation who has close ties to the Ukrainian government. They were willing to do so, he said, despite the risk of losing bipartisan support in the United States by appearing to assist Mr. Trump’s re-election bid. “The cost was high.”

admitted Tuesday in congressional testimony, the Trump administration had withheld the military aid to pressure Mr. Zelensky to make a public statement on the two investigations: one into whether former Vice President President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had pressed for the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, a natural gas company where his son served on the board; the other into unproven accusations that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that meddled in the 2016 election to promote the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

a whistle-blower complaint and touched off the impeachment inquiry, Mr. Zelensky offered private assurances that his government would look into those matters.

But a public statement that raised doubts about Russian meddling and Mr. Biden, whom the president regarded as the greatest threat to his re-election, would be far more useful politically to Mr. Trump. Not only would it smear Mr. Biden, it could also appear to undermine the Mueller investigation into Russian electoral interference by pinning some blame on Ukraine.

A tug-of-war ensued between a senior aide to Mr. Zelensky, Andriy Yermak, and another of Mr. Trump’s envoys to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, over the wording of the proposed public statement. Mr. Volker went so far as to draft a statement for Mr. Zelensky that mentioned both investigations.

Mr. Yermak pushed back, suggesting language that mentioned investigations but in general terms, so as not to antagonize the Democrats. Late in the negotiations, the American diplomats consented to dropping mention of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.

Even as Mr. Yermak negotiated the wording in August, the stakes were clear. While rumors had been swirling for months about a possible hold on military aid, by early August high-level Ukrainian officials had confirmed the freeze.

The trade soon became explicit. They were approached in September by Mr. Sondland, a major donor to Mr. Trump’s inauguration who had been appointed ambassador to the European Union despite having no diplomatic experience. At that point, he explained in blunt terms to Mr. Zelensky and Mr. Yermak, there was little chance the aid would be forthcoming until they made the public statement on the investigations.

said in sworn testimony released Tuesday by the House committees leading the impeachment inquiry.

Twitter posts.

They also uncovered a post from Mr. Trump attacking Fox News as “not working for us anymore!”

Nearly all Mr. Zelensky’s top advisers favored his making the public statement, said one of the officials who participated in the debate. United States military aid, they agreed, as well as diplomatic backing for impending peace talks to end the war outweighed the risks of appearing to take sides in American politics.

There was a lone holdout — Alexander Danyliuk, the director of the national security council. Mr. Danyliuk, who resigned in late September, told the Ukrainian news media that the Zelensky administration would now need to “correct the mistakes” in relations with the United States and “in particular their own.”

Finally bending to the White House request, Mr. Zelensky’s staff planned for him to make an announcement in an interview on Sept. 13 with Fareed Zakaria, the host of a weekly news show on CNN.

Though plans were in motion to give the White House the public statement it had sought, events in Washington saved the Ukrainian government from any final decision and eliminated the need to make the statement.

testified in the impeachment inquiry that the freeze on aid was part of a quid pro quo designed to coerce Mr. Zelensky into making the public statement.

In Kiev, there is still a debate about whether Mr. Zelensky caved or held out. “The Zelensky team was ready to make this quid quo pro,” said Mr. Burkovskiy, the analyst. “They were ready to do this.”

But Pavlo Klimkin, Ukraine’s foreign minister until a change of government on Aug. 29, said there was no telling what Mr. Zelensky would have ended up saying in the interview, as there were so many versions of a statement under negotiation.

“From the contacts that took place, it’s difficult to say if they led, or did not lead, to concrete deals,” Mr. Klimkin said in an interview. In public, Mr. Zelensky has insisted he would never order a politicized prosecution.

Either way, Mr. Klimkin said, Ukrainian officials were at the least keenly aware of the stakes — a trade of United States assistance for political favors, even as Mr. Trump’s supporters have insisted they should not have viewed relations in this light.

“We are not idiots, or at least not all of us,” Mr. Klimkin said.

 

[*Z*]

Trump was sooo close to getting away with this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/world/europe/ukraine-trump-zelensky.html

KIEV, Ukraine — It was early September, and Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, faced an agonizing choice: whether to capitulate to President Trump’s demands to publicly announce investigations against his political enemies or to refuse, and lose desperately needed military aid.

Only Mr. Trump could unlock the aid, he had been told by two United States senators, and time was running out. If the money, nearly $400 million, were not unblocked by the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, it could be lost in its entirety.

In a flurry of WhatsApp messages and meetings in Ukraine’s capital, Kiev, over several days, senior aides debated the point. Avoiding partisan politics in the United States had always been the first rule of Ukrainian foreign policy, but the military aid was vital to the war against Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, a conflict that has cost 13,000 lives since it began in 2014.

By then, however, Mr. Zelensky’s staffers were already conceding to what seemed to be the inevitable, and making plans for a public announcement about the investigations. It was a fateful decision for a fledgling president elected on an anticorruption platform that included putting an end to politically motivated investigations.

an impeachment inquiry undertaken after accusations surfaced of Mr. Trump’s demands.

But interviews in Kiev with government officials, lawmakers and others close to the Zelensky government have revealed new details of how high-level Ukrainian officials ultimately decided to acquiesce to President Trump’s request — and, by a stroke of luck, never had to follow through.

Aides were arguing in favor of “bowing to what was demanded,” said Petro Burkovskiy, a senior fellow at the Democratic Initiatives Foundation who has close ties to the Ukrainian government. They were willing to do so, he said, despite the risk of losing bipartisan support in the United States by appearing to assist Mr. Trump’s re-election bid. “The cost was high.”

admitted Tuesday in congressional testimony, the Trump administration had withheld the military aid to pressure Mr. Zelensky to make a public statement on the two investigations: one into whether former Vice President President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had pressed for the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, a natural gas company where his son served on the board; the other into unproven accusations that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that meddled in the 2016 election to promote the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

a whistle-blower complaint and touched off the impeachment inquiry, Mr. Zelensky offered private assurances that his government would look into those matters.

But a public statement that raised doubts about Russian meddling and Mr. Biden, whom the president regarded as the greatest threat to his re-election, would be far more useful politically to Mr. Trump. Not only would it smear Mr. Biden, it could also appear to undermine the Mueller investigation into Russian electoral interference by pinning some blame on Ukraine.

A tug-of-war ensued between a senior aide to Mr. Zelensky, Andriy Yermak, and another of Mr. Trump’s envoys to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, over the wording of the proposed public statement. Mr. Volker went so far as to draft a statement for Mr. Zelensky that mentioned both investigations.

Mr. Yermak pushed back, suggesting language that mentioned investigations but in general terms, so as not to antagonize the Democrats. Late in the negotiations, the American diplomats consented to dropping mention of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.

Even as Mr. Yermak negotiated the wording in August, the stakes were clear. While rumors had been swirling for months about a possible hold on military aid, by early August high-level Ukrainian officials had confirmed the freeze.

The trade soon became explicit. They were approached in September by Mr. Sondland, a major donor to Mr. Trump’s inauguration who had been appointed ambassador to the European Union despite having no diplomatic experience. At that point, he explained in blunt terms to Mr. Zelensky and Mr. Yermak, there was little chance the aid would be forthcoming until they made the public statement on the investigations.

said in sworn testimony released Tuesday by the House committees leading the impeachment inquiry.

Twitter posts.

They also uncovered a post from Mr. Trump attacking Fox News as “not working for us anymore!”

Nearly all Mr. Zelensky’s top advisers favored his making the public statement, said one of the officials who participated in the debate. United States military aid, they agreed, as well as diplomatic backing for impending peace talks to end the war outweighed the risks of appearing to take sides in American politics.

There was a lone holdout — Alexander Danyliuk, the director of the national security council. Mr. Danyliuk, who resigned in late September, told the Ukrainian news media that the Zelensky administration would now need to “correct the mistakes” in relations with the United States and “in particular their own.”

Finally bending to the White House request, Mr. Zelensky’s staff planned for him to make an announcement in an interview on Sept. 13 with Fareed Zakaria, the host of a weekly news show on CNN.

Though plans were in motion to give the White House the public statement it had sought, events in Washington saved the Ukrainian government from any final decision and eliminated the need to make the statement.

testified in the impeachment inquiry that the freeze on aid was part of a quid pro quo designed to coerce Mr. Zelensky into making the public statement.

In Kiev, there is still a debate about whether Mr. Zelensky caved or held out. “The Zelensky team was ready to make this quid quo pro,” said Mr. Burkovskiy, the analyst. “They were ready to do this.”

But Pavlo Klimkin, Ukraine’s foreign minister until a change of government on Aug. 29, said there was no telling what Mr. Zelensky would have ended up saying in the interview, as there were so many versions of a statement under negotiation.

“From the contacts that took place, it’s difficult to say if they led, or did not lead, to concrete deals,” Mr. Klimkin said in an interview. In public, Mr. Zelensky has insisted he would never order a politicized prosecution.

Either way, Mr. Klimkin said, Ukrainian officials were at the least keenly aware of the stakes — a trade of United States assistance for political favors, even as Mr. Trump’s supporters have insisted they should not have viewed relations in this light.

“We are not idiots, or at least not all of us,” Mr. Klimkin said.

Lies. I was told Ukraine was unaware of the aid being withheld.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Lies. I was told Ukraine was unaware of the aid being withheld.

The President was just trying to get home to his family

 

[The Wrath of Crom]

So the dems believe the impeachment probe will be wrapped up by Christmas. Like I said, we're getting an early Christmas gift with Trump's forced resignation. Lindsay Graham is saying now Trump was too inept to perform a quid pro quo so worm is starting to turn me thinks.

 

[Limbo Pete]

“We are not idiots, or at least not all of us,” Mr. Klimkin said.

That's a helluva quote lmao

 

[The Wrath of Crom]

@HereticBD I call you out in the other thread and you go on a flailing meltdown attacking everyone BUT me?
Don't be afeard of Big Poppa. I'll be gentle.

 

[Ophydian]

It's almost as though he's really dumb, he thinks we're all dumb, or he just makes shit up.

It can be all 3.

 

[hillelslovak87]

I love Lindsey Graham's defense that Trump and his administration are too dumb and incompetent to extort a foreign government for his personal gain

Its amazing how they don't see rank incompetence as being impeachable in itself.