Modded Mustang Forums banner

61 - 80 of 194 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Discussion Starter #61
Read Fiona Hills transcript when it comes out. It spells out the corrupt scheme Trump and his cronies were attempting.

Her testimony detailing how Sondlaand was insistent that there be an investigation SPECIFICALLY into the Bidens or there would be no aid forthcoming.

Her testimony about how John Bolton abruptly ended a meeting when he heard Sondlaand asking for investigations for aid.

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/10/15/john-bolton-guiliani-ukraine.html

"The aide, Fiona Hill, testified that Mr. Bolton told her to notify the chief lawyer for the National Security Council about a rogue effort by Mr. Sondland, Mr. Giuliani, and Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, according to the people familiar with the testimony.
“I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up,” Mr. Bolton, a Yale-trained lawyer, told Ms. Hill to tell White House lawyers, according to two people at the deposition. (Another person in the room initially said Mr. Bolton referred to Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Mulvaney, but two others said he cited Mr. Sondland.)
It was not the first time Mr. Bolton expressed grave concerns to Ms. Hill about the campaign being run by Mr. Giuliani. “Giuliani’s a hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up,” Ms. Hill quoted Mr. Bolton as saying during an earlier conversation."


Republicans have been screaming about how unfair the closed door meetings were and how there needed to be transparency and that Schiff was being secretive and making up his own rules illegally yet the moment that transcripts get released and public hearings are announced they're both denounced as "partisan moves" now that they realize the error of their ways in trying to defend Trump. By having public hearings now the public will get to see and hear directly from those testifying what transpired rather than allowing Republicans to claim that "Shifty Schiff" is paraphrasing trying to make it look as bad as possible.

The most telling part about how Republicans are planning to muddy the waters is the addition of Jim Jordan in the intel committee. Jordan is a Republican hack useful for making an ass of himself in attempts to muddy the water but he's the best they have right now since other Republican hacks like Matt Gaetz, Devin Nunez and Lee Zeldin have all failed miserably in their attempts to either make hay out of nothing or to defend the indefensible. I've already voiced my opinion of Lindsay Graham but he's also a gold star member of this clown crew.

John
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
PoliticusUSA is partially quoting a New York Times article citing anonymous people familiar with the source who say Hill was told by Bolton to notify a lawyer for the NSA. Good God! Talk about printing rumor and hearsay. I also read the Times piece. It reads more like an opinion than anything else. There is a difference between reporting and opinion.

Two people in the room said that Bolton told Hill to tell the White House lawyers (or maybe it was NSA lawyers as stated in the first paragraph) that "I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up." (or maybe, according to someone else, it was Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Mulvaney.)

I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe that these are the "facts" upon which you are basing an opinion. I'll wait for the transcript.
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
PoliticusUSA is partially quoting a New York Times article citing anonymous people familiar with the source who say Hill was told by Bolton to notify a lawyer for the NSA. Good God! Talk about printing rumor and hearsay. I also read the Times piece. It reads more like an opinion than anything else. There is a difference between reporting and opinion.

Two people in the room said that Bolton told Hill to tell the White House lawyers (or maybe it was NSA lawyers as stated in the first paragraph) that "I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up." (or maybe, according to someone else, it was Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Mulvaney.)

I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe that these are the "facts" upon which you are basing an opinion. I'll wait for the transcript.
And that's why I say they all gobble up anything the propagandists at all the alt-left-wing corporate media outlets flush out of their toilets.

And then they throw out links and expect me to waste my time arguing with them. LOL

Crazy there is so much hate for Trump that they're willing to spend every day since the election making up lies to try and get him kicked out of office and keep him from winning re-election. :no

Literally, everything he has been accused of, once the real facts come out are proven to be false. :yes

I hope a lot of people go to jail for what they've done to this POTUS, starting with the spying on the Trump campaign when he ran against Hillary Clinton with that Fake Dossier, etc.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
Well I just spent the last 4 hours reading the transcript. Read it if you wish. I got to page 167 of 446 pages. They were basically rehashing everything so unless there are big surprises at the end I got the gist of her testimony. There is no smoking gun. Anonymous sources are taking bits and pieces out of context. The biggest thing I got out of it is that Ambassador Sondland is a rank amateur. The testimony bounced all over the place. I've got 8-9 pages of notes I'm going to go over before I make any comments. But unless there is a big surprise at the end liberals need to look elsewhere for an impeachable offense.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
Here it is:

There were technical procedures. A representative from the Judiciary Committee was kicked out. There was a complaint about how the inquiry was being run. The Majority gets one hour to ask questions, the minority gets one hour and they will alternate with follow-up questions every 45 minutes. Dr. Hill was sworn in. I will summarize her answers to the best of my ability. Please read the transcript yourself. If you see something different please list the page number so I can look it up.

Under majority questioning, she testified that there was a great deal of corruption in Ukraine and that Ukraine had a weak presidency. They were not well set up to be independent. “So it wasn’t just tackling corruption or helping the Ukrainians build a more viable sustainable state apparatus and institutions but also how we would tackle key problems for them beyond the restoration of their military.”

There was then a big discussion on executive privilege. When back on subject, Hill mentioned the upheavals in the 1980s and 1990s and said, “But certainly eliminating corruption in Ukraine was one of, if not the central, goals of U.S. foreign policy.”

She seemed to think Guiliani’s comments in the press got Ambassador Yoranovitch fired. This had really upset her. She did not hear and was not told that the President was involved. She did discuss this with Bolton. That was when Bolton said that Rudy Guiliani was a “hand grenade” that is going to blow everybody up. He was talking about Guiliani’s press comments.

Ambassador to the EU Sondland told her he was in charge of Ukraine but no official notice was ever sent out. Most were not aware of it and it set the stage for a turf battle (my opinion) between Bolton and Sondland. Maybe an hour an half later she was asked about Sondland. She said she always thought Sondland was working in the best interest of the U.S. He just wasn’t doing it in a way that was good for the process. When asked about Parnes and Fruman she said she didn't think he even knew who they were.

She said a former US Energy Envoy under Obama had been appointed to the board of Naftogaz – the main Ukrainian gas and oil company. He believed that there was pressure to have other board members put in place and it seemed to be at the direction of Guiliani. Seemed is not a fact (my opinion). She said, “to open up investigations into corruption that seemed beyond what I assumed was our push on corruption related to people trying to siphon off assets of Naftogaz… which had been done many times in the past and would in fact included the energy company Burisma that everyone has been very concerned about.” She said it was part of what seemed to be a package of deals. (Note: this is the same company that Biden’s son worked at and the same investigation that VP Biden got stopped.)

Bolton met with Ukrainian representatives. She said that Ukrainian leaders wanted a White House visit. Much later she clarified this to mean a meeting with the President anywhere. She said that most world leaders want a White House meeting. They are extremely difficult to set up. Bolton had avoided committing to one. Did they want a picture opportunity to boaster their own political ambitions? What issues would be discussed?

In the same meeting with the Ukrainians, Ambassador Sondland blurted out we have an agreement with the Chief of Staff for a meeting if these investigations in the energy sector start. Ambassador Bolton immediately stiffened. He ended the meeting and went back to his office.. He said he couldn’t discuss a meeting at that time.

Sondland then set up a follow up meeting because he thought he could in a classified area of the building. When Hill wanted to talk to him he had the Ukrainians leave the room and stand in the hall. Hill told him he couldn’t set up a White House meeting. He finally understood why when she pushed that it needed to be through proper channels. He then ended this side meeting. No White House meeting was set up.

Later it was made clear that the bone of contention was not only who would set up the meeting but when. Sondland wanted it immediately. Bolton wanted to wait until the Ukrainian parliament was elected. Failure to get a majority in parliament could result in a new election.

Sondland had clearly upset Bolton. When she met with Bolton after Sondland cancelled his meeting. She said that was when he told her, “You go and tell Eisenberg that I am not a part of what ever drug deal Sondland and Mulvany are cooking up.” Later she made it clear that the “drug deal” comment was sarcasm. But it appears that Sondland had listened to Hill and already thought about proper channels after Bolton left the meeting. A White House meeting was not set up.

She went to Eisenberg. She told Ambassador Eisenberg what had happened. She was concerned that Sondland was saying all this stuff in front of foreign nationals. She also expressed concern that foreign nationals were standing around in the corridor outside the ward room where they could overhear things.

When asked she said she was aware that in the congratulation letter to Ukrainian President Zelensky Trump wrote, “I would like to invite you to meet with me at the White House in Washington D.C. as soon as we can find a mutually convenient time.” She said it was the kind of thing one would normally have, or might have, in a letter.” But she said she preferred a more general statement. Later it was suggested that Sondland had the original statement added. When asked she agreed that these invitations are rhetorically extended but, in practicality they don’t come to fruition. Part of diplomatic pleasantries.

When talking about Guiliani’s illicit transaction she said they believed that he was making improper arrangements to have a meeting in the White House and that they were predicated on restarting the energy investigation that was dropped. She again said the energy sector was rife with corruption. They had worked on this during the Bush and Obama administrations. “We have been on this issue for decades.”

That was where I stopped and I hope I am reading my scribbles correctly. Feel free to spend hours reading the transcript if you wish. I have had enough. There really appears to be nothing in her testimony to suggest a crime – unless investigating corruption is a crime.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
I have heard that Democrats are looking forwart to Taylor's testimony. Apparently he has no first hand knowledge of anything. This is an opinion piece from Gregg Jarrett. If true then all of the evidence everyone is said to have all goes back to a presumption.

"The chain of hearsay went something like this: the European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland told National Security Council official Tim Morrison who, in turn, told Taylor that there was a purported "quid pro quo." But wait. If Sondland was the original source, where did he get his information? He initially testified that in a brief phone conversation with Trump, the president explicitly told him, “I want nothing ... I want no quid pro quo.” Sondland added that he “never” thought there was a precondition on aid. Later, he revised his testimony to state, “I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.”

Another witness,"Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent testified that he “believed” there was a “quid pro quo” after speaking to Taylor who spoke to Morrison who heard it from Sondland who, as noted, “presumed” a precondition. This is conjecture built on triple hearsay. It is not evidence, it is junk. If this were a court of law, the presiding judge would instruct the jury to disregard such testimony and strike it from the record."

Please remember that during the trial in the Senate Schiff will not be in charge. There will be a presiding judge, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
Please remember that during the trial in the Senate Schiff will not be in charge. There will be a presiding judge, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
I mean, the trial in the senate is kind of irrelevant in reality. They'll never convict unless "reasonable" constituents such as yourself turn on Trump, which as you yourself as a kind of barometer prove, is unlikely to ever happen.

The GOP has waaaaaay too much to lose in turning on Trump. He's the new norm and he's what their voters want and expect.

Unless critical thinking skills start getting handed out like candy by Jesus Christ himself, Trump ain't being convicted of ****, regardless of evidence. Especially, when based on historical precedence, the outcome would all but completely guarantee that swing voters elect a Democrat president in response.

In the post-truth era, the GOP has put all their chips on Party Over Country.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
What facts? People were betting on Dr. Hill's testimony when her reported comments were taken out of context. But when taken in context there is nothing there. People have mentioned Taylor but he has no direct knowledge of anything just hearsay rumors based on a presumption. Pretty much all the testimonies are hearsay, double or even quadruple hearsay, seemed to be traced backed to Sondland who wasn't given directions from the President but who presumed to know what was going on. This is the same Sondland who I learned from reading Dr. Hill's transcript is pretty much a rank amateur.

I do not know what high crime Trump might be guilty of. I know the Democrats are looking everywhere to find one but they haven't yet. The entire thing is another fishing expedition. But you are correct. The entire purpose of this circus is to sway the election not impeach the President. Wasn't it Congressman Green who said if we don't impeach this president he will get reelected?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,184 Posts
I mean, the trial in the senate is kind of irrelevant in reality. They'll never convict unless "reasonable" constituents such as yourself turn on Trump, which as you yourself as a kind of barometer prove, is unlikely to ever happen.

The GOP has waaaaaay too much to lose in turning on Trump. He's the new norm and he's what their voters want and expect.

Unless critical thinking skills start getting handed out like candy by Jesus Christ himself, Trump ain't being convicted of ****, regardless of evidence. Especially, when based on historical precedence, the outcome would all but completely guarantee that swing voters elect a Democrat president in response.

In the post-truth era, the GOP has put all their chips on Party Over Country.


If this was a Democrat of any name just fill in the blank with a name bc it can get a bit iffy if you just put certain names in there. Some of his crap that has been happening prior to day one of the administration and since day one of the administration would not be acceptable at all on a social level and on a political level from lawmakers like we are seeing with this song and dance from some on social sites and with some lawmakers.

We all seen how critical many were of the smallest things and statements not too long ago but now since this guy has gotten into office it seems to be a total different world so the defense at all cost and complete blinders no matter what is seen and heard comes as no surprise bc they have been doing it since day one but was far from doing that before this guy took office so it’s just full on locked in partisan loyalty no matter what when you see that behavior no matter how one denies it when you see that behavior in any shape form or fashion.

That includes the dance of yeah I never liked Trump but I will defend his obvious bullshit at all cost. That’s in a way trying to have it both ways point out his obvious faults sometimes and that he wasn’t supported but still support and defend him to the fullest just as the the next guy who will not speak a negative word about him period. But looking at it all it does seem like a full on toe the line full on partisan loyalty party over country type thing when it boils down to it.

It doesn’t matter what anyone says, points out or what is shown. Like the President has said many times over about different people of differing opinions well I think he or she is a Democrat so that automatically in a way discredits or dismisses ones opinion in a certain way in a tribal partisan type way. The conversations since he has taken office and have sucked many in just seem beyond pointless now.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
What facts?
As T.Lee has pointed out, the level of scrutiny you and others utilize with Trump is so high above what you and others would ever apply towards a Democrat, that it might as well be in another solar system. This can be proven with the level of evidence y'all have used in past posts on this very forum to point to Clinton or other Democrats being guilty of one thing or another.

So, what facts? It honestly doesn't matter - even in a hypothetical scenario in which concrete evidence with audio and video recording would not be enough. Why? Start with my first sentence in this post; it makes no difference.

You or JohnC or Mike can feel free to quote that and say "if you had anything, you'd show a link", but as T.Lee has also pointed out previously, going through the effort is 100% not worth it. So I'll stick to the lazy approach.

But overall, I don't disagree: Trump will not be removed from office by the Senate and the impeachment hearings are an effort to swing the election away from him in 2020. Where we disagree is in the case of one of the president's favorite terms: "witch hunt"
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts


Granted, I'm not sure if the Russian envoy people (IRA Operatives) are the same as the 12 "Russian Intelligence Officers" but if so, that's pretty misleading in the graphic and total count.

But the one's closest to Trump (Cohen, Flynn, Manafort, Papadopalous, Stone, Gates) added to his number of people who have resigned from their positions added to Trump's historical dealings with sketchy ****ers including the mafia and Russian oligarchs/organized crime organizations going back to Fred ****ing Trump, the GIF still stands as a good response.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts


Granted, I'm not sure if the Russian envoy people (IRA Operatives) are the same as the 12 "Russian Intelligence Officers" but if so, that's pretty misleading in the graphic and total count.

But the one's closest to Trump (Cohen, Flynn, Manafort, Papadopalous, Stone, Gates) added to his number of people who have resigned from their positions added to Trump's historical dealings with sketchy ****ers including the mafia and Russian oligarchs/organized crime organizations going back to Fred ****ing Trump, the GIF still stands as a good response.
I agree but its going to be hard to separate the relevant names from the irrelevant ones.

I watched the impeachment inquiry hearing today. I took 14 pages of notes. A couple of things really stuck out:

1. It is against US law to give aid to Ukraine unless they are certified as having made significant progress on corruption. When asked who does the certification, Kent said the Department of Defense (DoD). And, DoD did not make the certification until July 2019.

..........In case you don't know our federal government doesn't work on a calendar year (Jan 1 - Dec 31). It works on a fiscal year (Oct 1 - Sep 31). Taylor made a comment that he was worried the authorization would expire if not released before Sep 31. This is why.

..........I have also worked over 10 years in military procurement. Issuing a contract does not occur overnight. Delivery takes even longer.

2. Kent also testified that aid was being given in 2019, but things like the boats were under the 2018 authorization. A lot of the aid in 2020 will be based on the 2019 authorization.

..........So any inference that people are dying in Ukraine because of the temporary hold on military aid is untrue.

3. Taylor testified that he wanted the White House meeting. He and the informal channel (Volker, Sondland, and Guiliani) both wanted it. . Taylor did say that if there was such a meeting the NSA would have to set it up. No one mentioned Dr. Hill's testimony that it was Bolton who opposed it

4. Taylor also testifies that he thought Obama has supported Ukraine better. That was a surprise and when questioned he said he was talking about political support. He also said that Trump is the one who gave Ukraine military aid. As others said he gave missiles instead of blankets.

I don't intend to post all my thoughts. I wanted to watch it in case a lot of reports came out taking the testimony out of context. Taylor said over and over that he had no first hand knowledge. Neither he nor Kent had met with Trump. He repeatedly said he was there to report what other people told him.

Sondland seems to be at the center of his crap. He needs to testify.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
Maybe Trump could grow some balls and testify himself. Bill Clinton did.

Would certainly clear things up nicely finally getting that first-hand hearsay...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Discussion Starter #77
Maybe Trump could grow some balls and testify himself. Bill Clinton did.

Would certainly clear things up nicely finally getting that first-hand hearsay...
Are you crazy? Trumps attorneys and cohorts realize that Trump will pull a Col. Jessup and land not only himself but all those around him in jail that have been conspiring with him to use the government for Trumps personal gain.

But here's the rub.....I don't really blame Trump so much. He's more the symptom. How is it that the RNC is breaking fundraising records? What class has that kind of money to shower on the RNC? What do they get in return for their "donation"? It's the unbridled money that poisons our elections that is the real culprit. It's what has brought us to this juncture in our history. Billionaires(most of them) and many millionaires are anonymously filtering millions of dollars through PAC's and whatever other nefarious vehicles they can use to prop up Trumps re-election. Why would that be? Because they know with him in office they will only grow richer. They don't care about the constitution or the country. They care about their bank accounts.

Judge Andrew Napolitano. No one can say that he is a "Never Trumper" or a liberal or whatever other strawman the right wants to throw up whenever one of their own grows a spine but on Fox Nation he laid it out cleanly and clearly from a legal standpoint. Trump has committed several impeachable offenses.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/foxs-napolitano-questions-trumps-fitness-for-office-his-threats-to-ignore-constitution-reveal-character-traits/

So you ask "If Fox's own senior legal analyst is saying that Trump violated his oath through abuse of power, Obstruction of Justice and whatever other myriad violations of the constitution Trump has disregarded why is he still in office?".....because Republican congressmen see that the base doesn't care that he's lawless. The claim that they are constitutionalists is a bunch of BULLSHIT. They are allowing a rogue president to run roughshod over the constitution and they don't care. They don't care that he breaks laws. They don't care that he's violated the constitution. They care about keeping America white and Christian......

John
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
Are you crazy?
But here's the rub.....I don't really blame Trump so much. He's more the symptom. How is it that the RNC is breaking fundraising records? What class has that kind of money to shower on the RNC? What do they get in return for their "donation"?
Where do you get this stuff? My wife and I have been members of the RNC for over 40 years. Are we some of those billionaires you are talking about?

I am sure they have large donors but the RNC basically get its money through thousands of smaller donations. We typically donated $250. What do we get out of it? The ability to voice our opinion as to policy and a defender of our rights. We have several friends like us who are members of the RNC.

Rural America is conservative. And in the fight for our rights and our freedom we donate to the RNC.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
I just saw this article. The Trump 2020 campaign raised $3.1 million during the impeachment hearing in small dollar twitter donations. The goal was $3 million in 24 hours. Response was so good they upped the goal to $5 million in 24 hours.
 
61 - 80 of 194 Posts
Top