Trump-Ukraine V10 - Whistle Blower is A Democrat Soy Boy

[rearnakedchoke]

Trumpsters have resorted to putting fingers in their ears and yelling lalalalalalalalalala

that way, they can’t make a comment on stuff they didn’t hear.

 

[*Z*]

I already did. You can read it here. Vindman speaks of only one transcript ("the transcript"), not two:

On July 21, 2019 President Zelenskyy’s party won Parliamentary elections in a landslide victory. The NSC proposed that President Trump call President Zelenskyy to congratulate him.

On July 25, 2019, the call occurred. I listened in on the call in the Situation Room with colleagues from the NSC and the office of the Vice President. As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said.
​

So if I had to bet, I'd take the position that the server-stored transcript is exactly the version Vindman is referring to. I have seen no evidence to the contrary, and on the other hand we have witnesses referring to "the transcript" instead of multiple transcripts.

Why did he seek to correct it and state that key words were omitted? We don't know what record of the call exists but we know what we got to see wasn't complete. I also have no idea why it was hidden away on a top secret server if it would just be released to the public. That's not the least bit fishy to you?

 

[waiguoren]

It's not misleading, it's an understanding in Trump's administration that military aid to Ukraine was contingent on Biden being investigated by the Ukraine.

I'm talking about the "quid pro quo" thing. Remember when Mulvaney did the press conference and said that release of military aid was conditioned in part on investigation of the server? That's literally a "quid pro quo" but it's not the "quid pro quo" most people are angry about.

Why did he seek to correct it and state that key words were omitted?

The transcript was the product of voice recognition software + translators. The voice recognition software wouldn't understand the word "Burisma", so that word didn't make it into the transcript. Vindman is a careful guy and was concerned with the call, so he suggested that this word "Burisma" be used in place of "the company". It's strange you're so focused on this. Vindman himself testified that the transcript was mostly accurate.

We don't know what record of the call exists but we know what we got to see wasn't complete.

That's not what Morrison testified to:

To the best of my recollection, the MemCon accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call.
​

I also have no idea why it was hidden away on a top secret server if it would just be released to the public. That's not the least bit fishy to you?

Fishy? I'd certainly hope that calls between the president and other world leaders are stored securely.

 

[andnowweknow]

Of course Sondland is secretly a deep state Democrat. Lindsay Graham has no soul.

 

[andnowweknow]

It's a very interesting case in how one can mislead with semantics.

Hilarious you snuck this in at the end.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Nah. He may have pressured a nation to look into corruption at worst. Big deal. Happens all the time, and you know it. What you want to do is pretend it was some unholy act, because he was targeting a Democrat. That's all this comes down to. How dare he want to look into Joe Biden's obvious and admitted(on fucking tape) corruption.

Funny how none of you give a flying fuck about Biden's role in all this. You scream about nepotism. You scream about corruption. Oh' but when it comes to Biden, and a President wanting to look into it, it's all of a sudden the crime of the century...because it's Trump.

You're not fooling anyone. You don't actually care about any of this. You just want Trump gone. If Trump jaywalked, and Dems pounced and called it an impeachable offense, you'd fall in line all the same. It's why you'll always be disappointed in the outcome. Because your attacks have no teeth, and you're not selling it to anyone other than Liberal lemmings.

Trump not only did not GAF about corruption in Ukrains (or anywhere eles) but he also had Rudy out trying to foster corruption in Ukraine by looking for anyone who would make up allegations against Biden.

What Biden did was no worse than what the Republican Senate did and creating the mandate to go after Ukraine. Joe was simply chosen as the spokesperson for them. Your view is as stupid as the Senate drawing straws to see who would be the spokesperson and then acting like the spokesperson did something wrong.

So get off you high horse pretending you care about facts when you are just spamming garbage talking points.

 

[MikeMcMann]

So you are saying what the WH released is identical to the one being held on the server?

You don't want that bet, buddy.

I would probably take that bet. At least nothing meaningful and different on the server.

You have to remember that whatever is on there was crafted by WH staffers already intent on scrubbing it of anything indicting of Trump. Vindman tried to get some proper detail added in and they refused it, so not sure why people are convinced there is some smoking gun there. Maybe its because Trump refuses to give it up but Trump would refuse to give up his pocket lint to Congress. You should not read too much into it.

What is damning is that we know they left out key detail. That we know they were aware Trump was saying inappropriate and potentially illegal stuff and they would not stop him (no adults in the room) and instead they would try to cover it up later. How many times and on how many calls had he done same.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Sondland updated his testimony to admit that he did let them know they needed to publicly announce the investigations if they wanted the aid and a trip to the WH.

My understanding was that Ukraine never knew the money was held up. But I've lost interest in keeping up with all the details a couple threads ago.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

No, and that's a bad argument. The crime, in a nutshell, is using the office of the President for personal gain. All that matters is the solicitation.

Under your theory, a President could outright attempt to sell State secrets to our enemies in exchange for cash, but so long as those enemies don't bite, then no crime.

That would be retarded.

No, my question was how it could it be quid pro quo if Ukraine wasn't being offered/threatened anything.

A few posters have said that Sonland changed his testimony so the question is moot.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

From yesterday's WSJ, print edition:

Firm Cited Biden’s Son to Try to Sway Official
BY JESSICA DONATI

WASHINGTON—A consulting firm hired by Burisma Group mentioned that former Vice President Joe Biden’s son served on the Ukrainian energy company’s board so the firm could leverage a meeting with the State Department, according to documents and a former U.S. official.

The documents—email exchanges between State Department staff members made public this week—show that the consulting firm, Washington-based Blue Star Strategies, used Hunter Biden’s name in a request for a State Department meeting and then mentioned him again during the meeting as part of an effort to improve Burisma’s image in Washington.

Mr. Biden was appointed to the Burisma board in 2014, when the company and its owner faced allegations of corruption, and he remained there until last April.

It isn’t clear whether the younger Mr. Biden knew his name was being used by Blue Star in its contacts with State Department officials on Burisma’s behalf in early 2016. A lawyer for Mr. Biden didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Hunter Biden served on the Burisma board when his father, then the vice president, was overseeing U.S. efforts to get Ukraine to reduce corruption. That arrangement has drawn allegations from President Trump and his allies that the younger Mr. Biden sought to profit from his father’s name. Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s leader to investigate the Bidens—an act at the center of the House’s impeachment inquiry. Both Bidens deny any wrongdoing.

The email exchanges between State Department staffers show that Karen Tramon- tano, chief executive of Blue Star, cited Mr. Biden’s position in trying to secure a meeting with a senior official at the State Department. “She noted that two high profile U.S. citizens are affiliated with the company (including Hunter Biden as a board member),” the special assistant at the Office of the Undersecretary for Economic Growth, Energy and the Envi- ronment, wrote in the Feb. 24,2016 email.

The documents don’t name the other American. Hunter Biden’s business partner Devon Archer was also a Burisma board member.
Ms. Tramontano met with the undersecretary, Catherine Novelli, on March 1, 2016, the documents show. During the meeting, Ms. Tramontano mentioned Mr. Biden served on the company’s board, according to a former State Department official familiar with the discussion. In the contacts with the State Department, Ms. Tramontano said that Burisma hadn’t engaged in corruption and wanted to change the view of the company in Washington.

The former official said that Mr. Biden’s position on the firm wasn’t the reason that Ms. Novelli took the meeting and that no further action was taken afterward.

The State Department didn’t respond to a request for comment. Blue Star declined to comment for this article.

The documents were released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by John Solomon, who first published the documents on Scribd.com. Copies of the emails were made available to The Wall Street Journal by the law firm that represented Mr. Solomon, the Southeastern Legal Foundation.


The documents were released after the Southeastern Legal Foundation filed a complaint against the State Department. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the release of the documents.

Blue Star’s efforts for Burisma came as the company and its Ukrainian tycoon founder, Mykola Zlochevsky, faced investigations in Ukraine focused on allegations of tax irregularities, money laundering and illegal enrichment. Mr. Zlochevsky was never charged.
The dropping of the investigations in 2016 came after Ukraine’s prosecutor general was dismissed. Vice President Biden and European Union officials had brought pressure on the prosecutor, seeing him as a hindrance to anticorruption efforts.

So Burisma was concerned about Shokin investigating them, they name drop Hunter Biden to get a meeting with State Dept, which takes place 3 weeks after the home of Burisma’s owner is raided by police, and Joe Biden subsequently flies to Ukraine demanding they fire the person investigating Burisma (because he wasn’t investigating corruption hard enough) or lose out on a billion dollars. Mhmm.

nothing so see here.

 

[waiguoren]

So Burisma was concerned about Shokin investigating them, they name drop Hunter Biden to get a meeting with State Dept, which takes place 3 weeks after the home of Burisma’s owner is raided by police, and Joe Biden subsequently flies to Ukraine demanding they fire the person investigating Burisma (because he wasn’t investigating corruption hard enough) or lose out on a billion dollars. Mhmm.

nothing so see here.

Right.

 

[MikeMcMann]

It's definitely real that Trump asked Zelensky to investigate the Bidens. Whether or not that's wrong, intelligent people can disagree. It would probably hinge on whether Giuliani is telling the truth when he says that Ukrainian officials reached out to him in August 2018 to pass documents to him and to inform him that Biden had gotten Shokin fired in order to protect Hunter Biden.

It's not clear if Trump held up the disbursement of military aid to Ukraine in exchange for the investigation. When Trump shouts "no quid pro quo", that's what he's referring to.

Prominent Democrats and mainstream media outlets have recently misled people into thinking that holding up the military aid in exchange for something else (other than the Biden investigation) qualifies as the "quid pro quo" in question. It's obviously very different if the aid was held up to help Trump's re-election vs. being held up e.g., to pressure Ukraine to clean up (Biden-unrelated) corruption. It's a very interesting case in how one can mislead with semantics.

You say a lot of stupid things here meant to be consumed by a stupid audience but I will cut to the core of it since your entire post hinges on this one fake point.

it was NOT Joe Biden who got him fired. It was the Republicans in the Senate, It was Obama. And it was all of these jointly...


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


... who pressured to get him fired.

This was not some rogue or covert behind the scenes pressure Joe decided on, on his own and acted upon. He was ASKED to be the spokesperson for the US on an action that was debated in and decided by a bipartisan Senate committee.

So your entire thesis falls apart unless you imagine Joe was secretly manipulating everyone else calling for the ouster on behalf of his son and they did not know.

And has been told to you prior the ouster of the prosecutor actually put Burisma at more risk, not less.

 

[MikeMcMann]

CALLED IT UPTHREAD!

Oh those dastardly deep cover democrats.


-----

Sondland

#deepstate
#secretDemocrat
#neverTrumper

Sondland is just proof of how deep this conspiracy against Trump goes. He gave Trump a million dollars to get elected all in a 4D chess game so he would be able to get Trump thrown out of office.

He figured out 'you cannot get Trump thrown out of office if you first don't help him get in to office'.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Trumpsters have resorted to putting fingers in their ears and yelling lalalalalalalalalala

that way, they can’t make a comment on stuff they didn’t hear.

Yup.

Lindsey Graham Won’t Read Impeachment Hearing Transcripts Because ‘This Is All B.S.’

--------

When it was simply the WB Lindsey claimed it was just second hand info and therefore not enough to impeach.

As first hand witnesses now come out, Lindsey says his position has not chagned. The reason why? He is not reading what these new witnesses say. He has determined without the evidence this is all B.S. and is tuning it out.

Irony not lost that he accused the Dem's of going into this process with their minds made up and not being open to waiting for evidence.

 

[waiguoren]

He was ASKED to be the spokesperson for the US on an action that was debated in and decided by a bipartisan Senate committee.

The Senate Ukraine Caucus doesn't determine US policy toward Ukraine and certainly did not determine that US policy would be to fire Shokin. You're referring to a short letter from Durbin, Portman and Shaheen and others:

Spoiler: Letter

Dear President Poroshenko,

As members of the U.S. Senate Ukraine Caucus and strong supporters of your government, we write to express our concern regarding the recent resignation of Minister of Economy Aivaras Abromavi?ius‎ and his allegations of persistent corruption in the Ukrainian political system.

During the past year, Mr. Abromavi?ius and his team implemented tough but necessary economic reforms, worked to combat endemic corruption, and promoted more openness and transparency in government. He was known to many of us as a respected reformer and supporter of the Ukrainian cause. Minister Abromavi?ius‎’s allegations raise concerns about the enormous challenges that remain in your efforts to reform the corrupt system you inherited.

We recognize ‎that your governing coalition faces not only endemic corruption left from decades of mismanagement and cronyism, but also an illegal armed seizure of territory by Russia and its proxies. Tackling such obstacles to reforms amidst a war and the loss of much of southeastern Ukraine’s economic productivity is a formidable challenge -- one which we remain committed to helping you overcome.

Succeeding in these reforms will show Russian President Vladimir Putin that an independent, transparent, and democratic Ukraine can and will succeed. It also offers a stark alternative to the authoritarianism and oligarchic cronyism prevalent in Russia. As such, we respectfully ask that you address the serious concerns raised by Minister Abromavi?ius‎. We similarly urge you to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General's office and judiciary. The unanimous adoption by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Basic Principles and Action Plan is a good step.

We very much appreciate your leadership and commitment to reform since the Ukrainian people demonstrated their resolve on the Maidan two years ago, and we look forward to continued cooperation in the future.

If you take the time to read the letter, you will find no explicit call for Poroshenko to fire Shokin. The Senators were calling for broad structural reforms to prevent corruption.

I have not been able to find any contemporaneous sources to indicate that the US had been calling on Poroshenko to fire Shokin before the firing.

 

[MikeMcMann]

So Burisma was concerned about Shokin investigating them, they name drop Hunter Biden to get a meeting with State Dept, which takes place 3 weeks after the home of Burisma’s owner is raided by police, and Joe Biden subsequently flies to Ukraine demanding they fire the person investigating Burisma (because he wasn’t investigating corruption hard enough) or lose out on a billion dollars. Mhmm.

nothing so see here.

You guys say a lot of stupid things here meant to be consumed by a stupid audience but I will cut to the core of it since this entire point hinges on this one fake point.

it was NOT Joe Biden who got him fired. It was the Republicans in the Senate, It was Obama. And it was all of these jointly...


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


... who pressured to get him fired.

This was not some rogue or covert behind the scenes pressure Joe decided on, on his own and acted upon. He was ASKED to be the spokesperson for the US on an action that was debated in and decided by a bipartisan Senate committee.

So your entire thesis falls apart unless you imagine Joe was secretly manipulating everyone else calling for the ouster on behalf of his son and they did not know.

And has been told to you prior the ouster of the prosecutor actually put Burisma at more risk, not less.

 

[MikeMcMann]

The Senate Ukraine Caucus doesn't determine US policy toward Ukraine and certainly did not determine that US policy would be to fire Shokin. You're referring to a short letter from Durbin, Portman and Shaheen:

Spoiler: Letter

Dear President Poroshenko,

As members of the U.S. Senate Ukraine Caucus and strong supporters of your government, we write to express our concern regarding the recent resignation of Minister of Economy Aivaras Abromavi?ius‎ and his allegations of persistent corruption in the Ukrainian political system.

During the past year, Mr. Abromavi?ius and his team implemented tough but necessary economic reforms, worked to combat endemic corruption, and promoted more openness and transparency in government. He was known to many of us as a respected reformer and supporter of the Ukrainian cause. Minister Abromavi?ius‎’s allegations raise concerns about the enormous challenges that remain in your efforts to reform the corrupt system you inherited.

We recognize ‎that your governing coalition faces not only endemic corruption left from decades of mismanagement and cronyism, but also an illegal armed seizure of territory by Russia and its proxies. Tackling such obstacles to reforms amidst a war and the loss of much of southeastern Ukraine’s economic productivity is a formidable challenge -- one which we remain committed to helping you overcome.

Succeeding in these reforms will show Russian President Vladimir Putin that an independent, transparent, and democratic Ukraine can and will succeed. It also offers a stark alternative to the authoritarianism and oligarchic cronyism prevalent in Russia. As such, we respectfully ask that you address the serious concerns raised by Minister Abromavi?ius‎. We similarly urge you to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General's office and judiciary. The unanimous adoption by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Basic Principles and Action Plan is a good step.

We very much appreciate your leadership and commitment to reform since the Ukrainian people demonstrated their resolve on the Maidan two years ago, and we look forward to continued cooperation in the future.

If you take the time to read the letter, you will find no explicit call for Poroshenko to fire Shokin. The Senators were calling for broad structural reforms to prevent corruption.

I have not been able to find any contemporaneous sources to indicate that the US had been calling on Poroshenko to fire Shokin before the firing.

You make no point.

The call for Ukraine to clean up corruption was a world wide effort, not just US. 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.

 

[JamesRussler]

The whistleblower’s attorney, Mark Zaid

He posted these tweets a few years ago:

Yeah, we’ll see about that, fuck boy.

And to top it all off, he’s a CREEPER! Here’s his old YouTube page (same as his Twitter handle), and his “likes” are public. Why does he like so many videos of underage girls? Gross!

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Fishy? I'd certainly hope that calls between the president and other world leaders are stored securely.

Just like you'd hope your house keys were secure., you wouldn't leave them dangling on your front door lock, but you wouldn't lock them in a box and then store the box in your safe either. It's also telling that the impetus that got them stored away was the complaint of malfeasance.

 

[MikeMcMann]

The Senate Ukraine Caucus doesn't determine US policy toward Ukraine and certainly did not determine that US policy would be to fire Shokin. You're referring to a short letter from Durbin, Portman and Shaheen and others:

Spoiler: Letter

Dear President Poroshenko,

As members of the U.S. Senate Ukraine Caucus and strong supporters of your government, we write to express our concern regarding the recent resignation of Minister of Economy Aivaras Abromavi?ius‎ and his allegations of persistent corruption in the Ukrainian political system.

During the past year, Mr. Abromavi?ius and his team implemented tough but necessary economic reforms, worked to combat endemic corruption, and promoted more openness and transparency in government. He was known to many of us as a respected reformer and supporter of the Ukrainian cause. Minister Abromavi?ius‎’s allegations raise concerns about the enormous challenges that remain in your efforts to reform the corrupt system you inherited.

We recognize ‎that your governing coalition faces not only endemic corruption left from decades of mismanagement and cronyism, but also an illegal armed seizure of territory by Russia and its proxies. Tackling such obstacles to reforms amidst a war and the loss of much of southeastern Ukraine’s economic productivity is a formidable challenge -- one which we remain committed to helping you overcome.

Succeeding in these reforms will show Russian President Vladimir Putin that an independent, transparent, and democratic Ukraine can and will succeed. It also offers a stark alternative to the authoritarianism and oligarchic cronyism prevalent in Russia. As such, we respectfully ask that you address the serious concerns raised by Minister Abromavi?ius‎. We similarly urge you to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General's office and judiciary. The unanimous adoption by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Basic Principles and Action Plan is a good step.

We very much appreciate your leadership and commitment to reform since the Ukrainian people demonstrated their resolve on the Maidan two years ago, and we look forward to continued cooperation in the future.

If you take the time to read the letter, you will find no explicit call for Poroshenko to fire Shokin. The Senators were calling for broad structural reforms to prevent corruption.

I have not been able to find any contemporaneous sources to indicate that the US had been calling on Poroshenko to fire Shokin before the firing.

And this was a key statement by the Republican lead bipartisan committee...


...“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 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 he was not the originator of.