Time for Trump Defenders on the Ukraine to Reconsider

Fletch said:

No, actually, his opinion deosnt matter at all. You like his opinion because it comports with yours. I want to hear his actual testimony and not just the leaked bits that Schiff wants me to hear. This is going to come down to the testimony of one person: Rudy. And the only thing, the ONLY thing, that makes me believe there is anything to this latest left wing takedown attempt of Trump is that is that RUDY has been silent.

Click to expand...

Well, I like him, certainly. And as a diplomatic and military professional his opinion is intended to carry weight in that specific context. He wasn't in on the call because he won a radio contest.

Most of what I've heard is him speaking directly to the media about how he is apolitical, and how he felt compelled to act after the call. Maybe it's a scam, but he's career military with a personal connection to Ukraine, so I'll take him at his word until we know better.

You don't like apolitical soldiers who are acting in the national interest? I thought you guys were all hyper-patriotic types.

maxparrish said:

In spite of the partisan orchestration by a whistleblower and his/her democratic politico enablers, and the clumsy and prejudicial star chamber treatment of the impeachment inquiry its time for those of us who found the initial transcript insufficient to support the accusations of Trump wrong-doing to acknowledge Trump is guilty as charged. The evidence is in: Trump, with Giuliani as his facilitator, used the threat (and brief action) of illegally withholding legal aid and a white house visit in order to coerce the Ukraine into investigating Biden's involvement Bursima and the termination of the former prosecutor.

The "rough transcript" supports an allusion to the aide and the expectation of a return of favor. The subsequent testimony by Taylor, others, and emails confirms it is plain reading. For some period of time, starting before the phone call, American officials attempted to "please" the White House by requiring a public announcement of an investigation into Biden NOT because of concern over corruption but because Trump's partisan animosity to "them", his political enemies. It is uniformly the impression of all who testified that a quid pro quo was required.

Mind you, I do not agree with those who claim that Trump was ONLY interested because Biden was running for the office. Nor am I claiming that he didn't change his mind when forced to by staff dissent, but there isn't any doubt that he crossed the line. He may not like the Ukraine, he may not like Biden, and he may want to know the answers to particular investigative questions BUT the Presidency should not be corrupted by personal and petty use of power.

Trump could have referred the matter the DOJ, and let them decide. He could called off his loose cannon personal attorney attack dog, Giuliani, and NOT expected state department to work with a political operative without official status. Trump could have not tried to withhold aid (illegally) and still conveyed his beliefs publicly.

He didn't. And he seems incapable of understanding his own wrong, and is forcing Congress down a path that most Republicans don't want. Absent an apology and admission of misjudgment, nothing good for Trump or the Republicans will come from denial.

My prediction: denial will continue and Trump will be impeached.

​

Click to expand...

The witnesses only claimed they were upset that Trump asked Zelenski to look into Biden. None of the witnesses stated Trump said he was going to withhold money unless Zelenski did what he was asked. Even Zelenski stated he was not forced to comply with Trumps request not to mention he didn't even know the money was delayed.

When the two main players in the conversation, the phone script, and the others on the call said it never happened, plus the FBI and DOJ stated no crime was committed, all you have now is confirmation of what they all stated in the first place. Wheres the big surprise.

WillyPete said:

You don't like apolitical soldiers who are acting in the national interest? I thought you guys were all hyper-patriotic types.

Click to expand...

Where did I say I didnt like the guy? Cant any of you liberals read and respond honestly?

maxparrish said:

Whenever a poster has to rely on "you really can't absolutely prove" what is almost certainly true, you know its just about all they got left. I am no more persuaded by the right, than I am the left, when I see such rhetorical evasion.

I found the transcript of the phone call insufficient, little more than a hint that because of prior US help and good relations it would be "a favor" to return in kind with two Ukraine investigations into the rumors over Biden and the DNC server. However, this is no longer a case of whistleblower rumor; its a case of a hired political surrogate of Trumps pushing for a political investigation with the cooperation of state department officials and Trump appointees. The likihood that Trump was an innocent, unware of Giuliani's actions OR of white house direction to Taylor (etc.) is as likely as Stalin's ignorance of Beria's labor camps and executions.

I see plenty of reasons to find Trump's actions wrong, as well as many reasons to find his mistakes somewhat understandable given his personae. While I am sure he did not believe he could be doing wrong (and still doesn't) his actions were as stupid as they were ethically wrong. It is no more, or less, wrong than if Obama had demanded of Russia a quid-pro-quo investigation of Trump or Romney as a condition to drop US sanctions (regardless of the actions legality).

Trump will be impeached, that seems certain. And Trump won't apologize or ask for forgiveness, that too is certain. And finally, whether the Republicans in the Senate convict or not, they will be crushed by a segment of their voting block. Unless Trump recants, one must expect a landslide in Congress against the GOP in both houses (and, of course, the Presidency).

Click to expand...

If you are talking about removing a President from Office, you'd better be able to "absolutely prove" something. Otherwise, you are wasting your time. Your opinion...or anyone else's, for that matter...isn't enough.

Nancy knows this. That's why her aim isn't about impeachment at all. It's about shaping public opinion.

It's all about the 2020 election.

Mycroft said:

No, because I don't give credence to "consensus"...that is, opinion. I give credence to fact.

Click to expand...

You're a Birther who gets his news from The Conservative Treehouse. You wouldn't know "fact" if it hit you in the face.

Fletch said:

No, actually, his opinion deosnt matter at all. You like his opinion because it comports with yours. I want to hear his actual testimony and not just the leaked bits that Schiff wants me to hear. This is going to come down to the testimony of one person: Rudy. And the only thing, the ONLY thing, that makes me believe there is anything to this latest left wing takedown attempt of Trump is that is that RUDY has been silent.

Click to expand...

And you don't like his opinion because it makes Trump look really, really corrupt and out of control.

HIs testimony hasn't been leaked. And you read his statement like the rest of us do. You know exactly what he said. You just reject his "opinion" because it's exposed Trump. And as a full blown Trump supporter, you reject the opinion of anyone who doesn't worship him.

lwf said:

I think a backfire would look more like Trump being removed from office and Pence stepping in with a fresh start and a 2020 campaign all ready to go.

Click to expand...

That is beginning to sound like the best the republicans can hope for.

They keep the president a republican going into 2020 and enjoy proxy incumbency.

And from what we've seen so far, if conservative media gets on board and the likes of hannity turn on trump the cult will follow right along. Hating trump completely within days.

tres borrachos said:

You're a Birther who gets his news from The Conservative Treehouse. You wouldn't know "fact" if it hit you in the face.

Click to expand...

I'm not a birther and I don't get "news" from The Conservative Treehouse. I get facts from that site.

But hey...you go ahead and stay away from the facts. Enjoy your "opinion" sites. (since you can't seem to come up with your own)

What if...? said:

That is beginning to sound like the best the republicans can hope for.

They keep the president a republican going into 2020 and enjoy proxy incumbency.

And from what we've seen so far, if conservative media gets on board and the likes of hannity turn on trump the cult will follow right along. Hating trump completely within days.

Click to expand...

That's not what Nancy wants and that's why she's not going for impeachment. She's going for public opinion.

btw, don't you like the way she is using YOUR taxpayer dollars for campaign purposes?

Mycroft said:

That's not what Nancy wants and that's why she's not going for impeachment. She's going for public opinion.

btw, don't you like the way she is using YOUR taxpayer dollars for campaign purposes?

Click to expand...

Well, I guess you could label anything any politician does that makes a member of the other side look bad in the course of doing the job of representation "spending taxpayer money for campaign purposes.

But that wouldn't make it true in any way.

It would just sound good to a narrative manager's pre-conditioned target audience.

But you know that, of course.

That's why you said it

Your job sucks now.

What if...? said:

Well, I guess you could label anything any politician does that makes a member of the other side look bad in the course of doing the job of representation "spending taxpayer money for campaign purposes.

But that wouldn't make it true in any way.

It would just sound good to a narrative manager's pre-conditioned target audience.

But you know that, of course.

That's why you said it

Your job sucks now.

Click to expand...

If she spent taxpayer money passing laws that worked for the American people...like ratifying the USMCA...I'd call that proper use of taxpayer money. Using taxpayer money to win a Presidential election...not really.

But you seem to be okay with her doing that. Shows how much YOU care about your fellow taxpayer.

veritas1 said:

So, your recommendation is to swallow the Democrat poison, apologize and ask them to please not be too rough on us when they take power? I never took you for one that would be swayed by the left's manufactured "crimes" against Trump. Nothing he's done reaches a threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. If Bill Clinton could commit 11 felonies according to the Starr Report and still survive, how much more so should Trump? The only way there will be a landslide against Trump and the GOP will be if they do what you suggest. Playing nice and expecting the left to give you any credit is the kiss of death. When your opponent will do ANYTHING to win, you cannot throw yourself on his mercy. If the GOP should have learned anything over the last 50 years, it is that.

Click to expand...

Bill Clinton was wise enough to eventually confess his error and the GOP was the one thrashed in the following mid-term elections. One can, with a degree of honor, make a confession based on a noble intent (knowing the truth of these controversies) while confessing error in the way you go about it. It may not be acceptable to the Trump haters but at least it will satisfy the less partisan.

It's either that or be hoisted on the petard of "quid pro quo", which has been the Trumpian defense to date. As that has fallen apart, either you minimize damage OR you go down with the ship.

Mycroft said:

If she spent taxpayer money passing laws that worked for the American people...like ratifying the USMCA...I'd call that proper use of taxpayer money. Using taxpayer money to win a Presidential election...not really.

But you seem to be okay with her doing that. Shows how much YOU care about your fellow taxpayer.

Click to expand...

The money in question in the Ukraine debacle was taxpayer money too, apparently withheld to help win an election.

Don't they teach you not to obviously project?

Just sayin'.

tres borrachos said:

And you don't like his opinion because it makes Trump look really, really corrupt and out of control.

Click to expand...

We havent heard his testimony. It was held in secret and went on for 10 hours.

HIs testimony hasn't been leaked. And you read his statement like the rest of us do. You know exactly what he said. You just reject his "opinion" because it's exposed Trump.

Click to expand...

It didnt expose Trump. We already have the transcript. His testimony is how he felt about it. That may be interesting, but irrelevant

And as a full blown Trump supporter, you reject the opinion of anyone who doesn't worship him.

Click to expand...

Well thats just stupid. But what else is new.

tres borrachos said:

And you don't like his opinion because it makes Trump look really, really corrupt and out of control.

HIs testimony hasn't been leaked. And you read his statement like the rest of us do. You know exactly what he said. You just reject his "opinion" because it's exposed Trump. And as a full blown Trump supporter, you reject the opinion of anyone who doesn't worship him.

Click to expand...

This transcript isn’t the only one on trump’s secret server that is questionable at best. That server thing all started with the all-Russian meeting in the WH, where trump gave away high-level Israeli intel as well as telling the Russians that he was not concerned with their election interference.

Calls with Putin, bin Salman and others are in the secret server. Putin has already warned trump not to release them. This will go the USSC, just as the Nixon tapes did. Even then, I expect only the Gang of Eight will get to see what’s in the secret server, if the USSC so rules.

What if...? said:

The money in question in the Ukraine debacle was taxpayer money too, apparently withheld to help win an election.

Don't they teach you not to obviously project?

Just sayin'.

Click to expand...

At least I'm not lying.

Trump has done nothing in regard to Ukraine..."to help win an election". That's YOUR projection.

Mycroft said:

At least I'm not lying.

Trump has done nothing in regard to Ukraine..."to help win an election". That's YOUR projection.

Click to expand...

Who am I supposed to believe? My lying eyes and ears or the birther?

Are you sure that this is a good tack?

Nobody is buying it except those who already believe the latest spin as gospel.

You sound like you live in an alternate universe.

Which I guess is where alternative facts would come from, so maybe that's what it is.

Condor060 said:

The witnesses only claimed they were upset that Trump asked Zelenski to look into Biden. None of the witnesses stated Trump said he was going to withhold money unless Zelenski did what he was asked. Even Zelenski stated he was not forced to comply with Trumps request not to mention he didn't even know the money was delayed.

When the two main players in the conversation, the phone script, and the others on the call said it never happened, plus the FBI and DOJ stated no crime was committed, all you have now is confirmation of what they all stated in the first place. Wheres the big surprise.

Click to expand...

Impeachment is a political process and judgement of regarding the bad faith execution of one's official duties. Therefore there are only two questions needing answered: a) Did Trump abuse power in the performance of his duties? b) If so, does it warrant impeachment, let alone conviction?

To determine the answers, one must first seek to know those facts (or likely facts) that indicate his seeming abuse of power. Then one must seek either counterfactuals or non-abusive defendable reasons for these apparent facts and actions that would equally account for the White House conduct. In the battle of competing narratives, the more plausible wins.

To that end, the fatal flaw is Trump defenders their weak counter-narrative. What must we believe to accept Trump's innocence? That, for example, his staff misunderstood his instructions? That the surrogate Giuliani wasn't pushing for an investigation of Bursima and Biden? That Trump has had a long history of concern over general corruption in the Ukraine? That Trump only violated Congresses power of the purse because he was on a crusade against corruption, but not so much that (heaven forbid) anyone would think of it as a threat to do as he asks "or else?"

None of the facts makes that "counter-narrative" as likely. Trump's concern over "corruption" only blossomed when his own interests were at stake: his idea of corruption being his deeply held belief that Ukraine, not Russia, was interfered in 2016 on behalf of Hillary, as well as his timely belief that Biden (a political opponent) was up to no good in a "no good" Ukraine. Carelessly, and stupidly, he let a personal lawyer Giuliani (and his two shady clients) fill his head with confirming bias, feeding his personal and animosity to the Ukraine (well chronicled by several) leading him into trusting Giuliani to make demands...personal pre-requisites for better relations.

This is the perfect storm for Trump: Democrats will lynch him on any half-plausible pretext, and his own current/prior staff composed mostly of mainstream anti-Russian and pro-Ukraine officials (Bolton, Taylor, Coats, etc.) have no sympathy for Trump's alt-right pro-Russia views and aren't going to going to be swayed from honest testimony, and we know the foreign policy establishment believes Trump to be a dangerous whack-a-doodle.

Only Trump and a few loyalists are going to be left to "sway" the bi-partisan mob coming for him.

And its his own damned fault.

maxparrish said:

Impeachment is a political process and judgement of regarding the bad faith execution of one's official duties. Therefore there are only two questions needing answered: a) Did Trump abuse power in the performance of his duties? b) If so, does in warrant impeachment, let alone conviction?

To determine the answers, one must first seek to know those facts (or likely facts) that indicate seeming abuse of power. Then one must seek either counterfactuals or non-abusive reasons for these apparent facts and actions that would equally account for the White House actions. In the battle of competing narratives, the more plausible wins.

To that end, the fatal flaw is Trump defenders their weak counter-narrative. What must we believe to accept Trump's innocence? That, for example, his staff misunderstood his instructions? That the surrogate Giuliani wasn't pushing for an investigation of Bursima and Biden? That Trump has had a long history of concern over general corruption in the Ukraine? That Trump violated Congresses power of the purse because he was on a crusade against corruption, but not so much that (heaven forbid) anyone would think of it as a threat to do as he asks or else?

None of the facts makes that "counter-narrative" as likely. Trump's concern over "corruption" only blossomed when his own interests were at stake: his idea of corruption being his deeply held belief that Ukraine, not Russia, was interfering on behalf of Hillary in the election, as well as his timely belief that Biden (a political opponent) was up to no good in a "no good" Ukraine. Carelessly, and stupidly, he let Giuliani (and his clients) fill his head with confirming bias, his personal and animosity to the Ukraine (well chronicled by several) leading him into trusting Giuliani to make demands...personal pre-requisites for better relations.

This is the perfect storm for Trump: Democrats will lynch him on any half-plausible pretext, his own current/prior staff composed mostly of mainstream anti-Russian and pro-Ukraine officials (Bolton, Taylor, Coats, etc.) have had no sympathy for Trump's alt-right views and aren't going to going to be swayed from honest testimony, and the foreign policy establishment believes Trump to be a whack-a-doodle.

Only Trump and a few loyalists are going to be left to "sway" the mob coming from him.

And its his own damned fault.

Click to expand...

You could be right. I only know what has been public information. But I honestly think there is a typhoon of information coming very soon. Like I stated earlier, I am all for letting the facts and evidence fall where it will and holding anyone accountable for their actions. If Trump goes down for criminal activity, I will support the facts just as much if its Schiff and Pelosi.

What I think is there is no grey area here. Someone is lying and I think we are a few days away from finding out. Fair enough?

Condor060 said:

You could be right. I only know what has been public information. But I honestly think there is a typhoon of information coming very soon. Like I stated earlier, I am all for letting the facts and evidence fall where it will and holding anyone accountable for their actions. If Trump goes down for criminal activity, I will support the facts just as much if its Schiff and Pelosi.

What I think is there is no grey area here. Someone is lying and I think we are a few days away from finding out. Fair enough?

Click to expand...

Yea the career public servants risking their careers by giving their depositions are LYING and Trumpkin who cannot even tell the truth when the truth actually provides him a clearer path to his objectives, IS TELLING THE TRUTH. Ah-huh!

Tim Morrison resigned tonight ahead of his Deposition on Thursday. Public servants are leaving the WH and administration in droves and walking right down the street to the House Intel Committee to drive another nail into Trumpkin's coffin on a wide range of issues. Trump is already dead and too stupid to fall over and we have not even gotten to the main characters in this theater of the absurd yet.

jnug said:

Yea the career public servants risking their careers by giving their depositions are LYING and Trumpkin who cannot even tell the truth when the truth actually provides him a clearer path to his objectives, IS TELLING THE TRUTH. Ah-huh!

Click to expand...

Why are these public servants risking there careers by telling the truth? I never stated they were lying. I actually stated they have testified to what the call transcript states. I don't think any of them are lying. Where did you get that from?

Condor060 said:

Why are these public servants risking there careers by telling the truth? I never stated they were lying. I actually stated they have testified to what the call transcript states. I don't think any of them are lying. Where did you get that from?

Click to expand...

Yup, they are saying what the MEMO says. Its not a transcript and they are saying a WHOLE LOT MORE.

jnug said:

Yup, they are saying what the MEMO says. Its not a transcript and they are saying a WHOLE LOT MORE.

Click to expand...

When they make the transcripts public and we have all the testimony then we can all make a decision. Isn't that a fair statement

Condor060 said:

When they make the transcripts public and we have all the testimony then we can all make a decision. Isn't that a fair statement

Click to expand...

You mean after the PROPAGANDISTS who appear not to even understand American English Vocab can pick apart every "the", "of" and "and" in the transcript as if they are exculpatory when in fact it is simply an effort to focus on the trees and miss the forest. I would say that might be an UNSCRUPULOUS statement more than a fair statement.

You guys cannot even read the title of a document as in MEMO of Tel Con and read the footer in that document and acknowledge that ITS NOT A TRANSCRIPT when its very title tells you what it is and its footer tells you how to consider it and you want me to give any credibility to your claim of fairness. I will pass thank you.

jnug said:

You mean after the PROPAGANDISTS who appear not to even understand American English Vocab can pick apart every "the", "of" and "and" in the transcript as if they are exculpatory when in fact it is simply an effort to focus on the trees and miss the forest. I would say that might be an UNSCRUPULOUS statement more than a fair statement.

You guys cannot even read the title of a document as in MEMO of Tel Con and read the footer in that document and acknowledge that ITS NOT A TRANSCRIPT when its very title tells you what it is and its footer tells you how to consider it and you want me to give any credibility to your claim of fairness. I will pass thank you.

Click to expand...

You may be right, but I can guarantee you I have a mind of my own and will make a decision void of outside projections or conjecture. But thats just me