Obama spying scandal and the failed attempted coup against Trump

[Don Giovanni]

Sondland's testimony today alleges that such an arrangement did exist, but it's one thing to pressure (or encourage) and another to demand it via a quid pro quo. His testimony doesn't line up with that. The fact is the Ukrainian president himself acknowledges there was no such arrangement and Ukraine did in fact receive the aid without announcing or initiating any such investigations against Biden. There is no hard evidence of any such arrangement. The very best case the Democrats can make is a conspiracy to commit something that may not even be a crime to begin with. Moreover, there is good reason to question and investigate why Biden's disgraced son was sitting on the board of a company in Ukraine that was under investigation for corruption. Trump was right to encourage the Ukrainian president to look into it.

[Reaper]

What is it about the left and their over reliance on thought crimes.

[Don Giovanni]

Oleksandr Dubinsky and Andriy Derkach, leading Ukrainian MPs in President Zelensky's party (Servant of the People), held a press conference today demanding that the US DOJ and Ukrainian prosecutors team together to investigate money laundering to the US. They said the head of Burisma, a former government minister in Ukraine, used the company to funnel millions of dollars to the US. The head of Burisma was formerly indicted last week. They implored the president of Ukraine to call President Trump and fly to Washington to address the matter.

Here's the press conference:

https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/pres...ce/625831.html

"the Yanukovych 'family' illegally obtained $7.4 billion [from Ukrainian taxpayers] and laundered the funds through an investment fund close to some representatives of the U.S. Democratic Party in the form of external government loan bonds."

Yanukovych is wanted in Ukraine for treason and is currently exiled in Russia.

Meanwhile, Derkach said that several facts indicate Franklin Templeton Investments' relationship with the U.S. Democratic Party.

"The son of Templeton's founder, John Templeton Jr., was one of President Obama's major campaign donors. Another fund-related character is Thomas Donilon. Managing Director of BlackRock Investment Institute, shareholder Franklin Templeton Investments, which has the largest share in the fund. It is noteworthy that he previously was Obama's national security advisor," Derkach said.

The MP said that the presidents of Ukraine and the United States should combine the efforts of the two countries to establish facts of corruption and money laundering with the participation of citizens of both countries.

Derkach also announced the amount of money transferred to representatives of the Burisma Group, including Hunter Biden. According to documents, in general, in favor of Hunter Biden, Alexander Kwasniewski, Alan Apter and Devon Archer, Burisma paid about $16.5 million.

[Soprano76]

Given that I have off of school this month, I was able to watch much of the impeachment inquiry hearings. The testimony from Dr. Hill and Mr. Holmes yesterday pretty much sealed it. There was a quid pro quo/bribery/whatever you want to call it and Republican talking points were shot out of the sky day by day. Trump was leveraging aid and a White House meeting to Ukraine in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into Joe Biden and his son. On the first day of the hearings, Republicans attacked Mr. Holmes because of his testimony being "hearsay;" a few days later someone who was actually on the July 25th call testifies and corroborates (Lt Cl Vindman). Next, Gym Jordan screams how the Ukrainians didn't know aid was being held up so it couldn't have been a quid pro quo. Then, Laura Cooper testifies that in fact Ukrainians were asking why the aid was being held up as early as July 25th. The Republicans then keep on bringing up the whistleblower, when in fact their testimony at this point is not needed since we have first hand accounts of what was going on over these past few months.

What's particularly telling is that the Republicans on the committee were pretty much unable to attack the substance of the testimonies and instead resorted to debunked talking points like Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election (which Dr. Hill shot down), Obama sending "blankets" to Ukraine and Trump being an anti-corruption crusader. Devin Nunes made an embarrassment of himself and the look on his face when his "black ledger" conspiracy theory and association to Lev Parnes came up were telling.

It also seems that Sondland and Volker were not being 100% honest in their testimonies. They both said they did not make the connection between Burisma and Biden until quite late into this bribery scheme, however Dr. Hill and others do not find that credible. Neither do I, when you consider how vocal Rudy Giuliani was on the airwaves regarding the Bidens and Ukraine during this time period. It does not make sense how either of them could be so oblivious when they were so deeply involved in Ukraine.

Whether or not the Bidens are corrupt is also immaterial to the investigation at hand. If they truly are, there are official and proper ways for Trump to have had an investigation undertaken via the US intelligence community. But no, it's obvious Trump doesn't care about fighting corruption. He just wanted to hurt someone who he perceives as one of his biggest opponents in the upcoming election. What's hilarious is that Biden probably won't even win the Dem nomination.

FYI Don Giovanni, the aid was released because Congress was alerted to the scheme via the whistleblower. Your line of reasoning would also exonerate someone who attempted murder but was unsuccessful at it.

[Don Giovanni]

Devin Nunes made an embarrassment of himself? Why? Because he "slighted" Vindman by not referring to him as a "lieutenant colonel"? Vindman is partisan, but unlike Nunes who serves as a Republican, Vindman pretends he's not and that he's above reproach merely because of his uniform. Just because he served in the military doesn't mean he gets to be treated like royalty. Nunes' only regret should be he didn't refer to Vindman as "His rotundity."

And which proper channels should Trump use? Trump's former UN ambassador Nikki Haley recently acknowledged that his former Chief of Staff, John Kelly, and Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, were sabotaging his presidency and tried to recruit her to undermine Trump. He's surrounded by people who actively work against him, which is why you have this farce of an impeachment. Look at all the people in Trump's administration who were so quick to testify against him without little to no first-hand knowledge on these matters. Trump is surrounded by people actively undermining him. They're saboteurs, not patriots fulfilling their duties by "saving the country from Trump," like Rex Tillerson argued to Nikki Haley:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...on-kelly-trump

She also said this:

Speaking to the [NY] Post, Haley said that though she opposed Trump’s infamous request to the Ukrainian president for a public investigation into Joe Biden, a political rival, “it’s hard for me to understand where the whole impeachment situation is coming from, because what everybody’s up in arms about didn’t happen”.

She's right. There is no hard evidence that any arrangement was made. No recorded conversations show this. The fact of the matter remains that the president of Ukraine has denied any quid pro quo and still does. Why would the president of Ukraine deny it? If we're to reason someone attempted a murder, but was unsuccessful, then how can there be a conspiracy to commit murder when the would-be victim has denied any attempt was made on his life and he himself exonerates the would-be murderer?

Let's be clear, it's one thing to apply pressure and another to set explicit conditions and demand reciprocation. Trump applied pressure to initiate investigations against Biden, but he didn't impose a quid pro quo. Trump requested, he didn't demand it and then threatened if he didn't receive. That's in the transcript.

The Democrats opened a can of worms with this impeachment nonsense. Biden won't even get the nomination and he will do untold damage to the party that has now backed him as some kind of saint in this whole affair.

Lindsey Graham has opened up a Senate Judiciary probe against Biden to counter the impeachment proceedings. Here's your proper channels at work:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/graham-launches-probe-into-bidens-burisma-and-ukraine/2019/11/21/5a5675b4-0ca5-11ea-97ac-a7ccc8dd1ebc_story.html

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday requesting documents related to former vice president Joe Biden and his communications with Ukrainian officials, a step seen as a GOP effort to counter the House impeachment investigation of President Trump.

Unlike Trump, Biden did brag about demanding the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor or else $1 billion dollars of aid would be withheld. And in Ukraine, criminal charges have been laid against the head of the company that employed Biden's son after being found that the company was funneling money out of Ukraine to the US! It seems Biden's Ukrainian dealings aren't so immaterial anymore.

[Soprano76]

Nah, Nunes was made to look like a moron when his "black ledger" and Ukraine meddling conspiracies were shot dead by the witnesses. Did you see the look he gave Castor after Sondland's opening testimony on Tuesday? Legit looked like a deer in headlights. Gym Jordan looked foolish when he yelled about hearsay and then the Ukrainians not knowing the aid was being held up, but then was subsequently proven wrong on both counts. Hell, the Republicans pretty much just gave up asking questions toward the end yesterday.

What proof do you have that Vindman is a partisan? Even if he were, that doesn't discount his testimony. Not to mention Sondland, who purchased his ambassadorship for a cool 1 million dollars, also testified to there being a quid pro quo/bribery. Don't forget others who testified, and oh yeah, Mulvaney, Trump and Giuliani themselves in various statements that are available for public consumption.

Are you really about to take Zielinski's (spelling) statements regarding his interactions with Trump at face value and discount all subtext and context? That's a pre-school argument and regardless, would still not negate Trump's actions.

It is an undeniable fact, based on current testimony and public statements from Trump/Mulvaney/etc, that monetary aide and a White House meeting was held up in exchange for an investigation into Joe Biden and his son. This was done as a "domestic political errand," to quote Dr. Hill. To paraphrase Sondland, this was done on Trump's orders and with his blessings. Aide was eventually released, but on the day Congress announced an investigation into the whistleblower complaint.

There's not denying it, and we would have a clearer picture if the WH and State Department were not blocking access to witnesses and relevant files. But for sure, they have nothing to hide and were being totally appropriate LMAO.

[Don Giovanni]

Sondland himself admitted he "presumed' there was a quid pro quo, he was never told explicitly this was the case, and in his own conversation with a Ukrainian adviser he said the aid was "likely" conditioned on a public anti-corruption statement which Giuliani pushed for on behalf of Trump. He interpreted that there were conditions set, but he had no clear indication of that.

The fact of the matter remains that the president of Ukraine continues to deny there was a quid pro quo. That denial is proof there was no quid pro quo. President Trump pressed the president of Ukraine to investigate Crowdstrike's servers as a "favor," that much is fact, before then adding separate that he should look into Biden's dealing, but Trump never told Zelensky that aid would be withheld unless Zelensky announced that investigation. In other words, Trump pushed the president of Ukraine to investigate Biden's dealings, but Trump never set conditions to him requiring that he did so. That's not only in the phone call, that's been borne out even the in the testimonies. No one has stated the president ever declared this as a requisite. Sondland himself admitted that.

There's a distinction to be drawn here between pressing for an announcement of an investigation and demanding a quid pro quo in which the president of Ukraine announces that investigation and then receives the aid that was withheld. Therefore, the testimonies we've heard do not prove a quid pro quo and the transcript of the phone call shows this as well. There was an effort to encourage Ukraine to investigate Biden, which they in fact should do, but there was no quid pro quo.

As for Vindman, he is a Ukrainian-born refugee and has a conflict of interest towards Ukraine. Trump came into office looking to normalize and improve relations with Russia. This is a well known fact. Providing military aid to Ukraine would undermine a stated position of Trump's given the animosity and war between the two countries. Vindman admitted he was concerned that if Zelensky opened up an inquiry into Biden, then that would become a "partisan play" and that Ukraine would lose bipartisan support. He felt this undermined US policy and advanced Russian interests, something that would come at the expense of Ukraine. And to be clear, it's Vindman who portrays himself as impartial on this matter when clearly he is not. He says he was acting out of sense of duty, but duty to whom? Clearly he has a conflict of interest when matters concern Ukraine's interests.

[Don Giovanni]

There was talk to vote for censuring the president, but Pelosi announced the house will vote to impeach. They don't have the votes in the Republican majority Senate to convict, but they pledged it and they have to go through with it now.

Not voting to impeach would acknowledge this latest collusion claim as a big sham, which it is. We know this for two reasons.

First of all, the president of Ukraine from the very beginning admitted there was no quid pro quo. He reaffirmed that claim just the other day. We heard ad nausem claims of a quid pro quo, yet how can there be one if the President of Ukraine denies it?

The media is by and large misleading the public on this fact. Consider this "fact check" from the New York Times:

Trump Misquotes Ukrainian President in Latest Impeachment Defense

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/02/u...act-check.html

“Breaking News: The President of Ukraine has just again announced that President Trump has done nothing wrong with respect to Ukraine and our interactions or calls. If the Radical Left Democrats were sane, which they are not, it would be case over!”
— President Trump, in a tweet on Monday morning

“The Ukrainian president came out and said very strongly that President Trump did absolutely nothing wrong. That should be case over.”
— Mr. Trump in remarks to reporters on Monday morning

Mr. Trump was most likely referring to — and distorting — comments President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine made in an interview with Time magazine and other publications published early Monday morning. Nowhere in the interview did Mr. Zelensky say that his American counterpart did “nothing wrong.” In fact, he criticized Mr. Trump’s comments about corruption in Ukraine and his decision to suspend military aid to Kyiv.

Though he said there had been no discussion of a quid pro quo in their conversations, Mr. Zelensky questioned the United States’ decision to freeze the aid, which he said was a matter of “fairness.”

(emphasis mine)

There was no quid pro quo. So what did the president do wrong?

Second, the legal opinion of the DOJ is a matter of fact correct in claiming that the whistle blower had no right to any legal protections and that his complaint should never have even been entertained. The act they cite only extends to matters relating to intelligence activities. The phone call Trump made to his Ukrainian counterpart doesn't qualify under that act.

The facts are that aid to Ukraine was withheld and Zelensky was asked to do a press conference announcing an investigation into Biden, among other things. President Trump did ask Zelensky for a "favor" in examining CrowdStrike's servers in the interest of getting to the bottom of Russian hacking claims. That said, let's be very clear, he never did demand a quid pro quo which conditioned the aid on investigating his rival Joe Biden. That's a fact.

This raises a question, if there was no quid pro quo and if the complaint was never valid even from legal or procedural standpoint, then why is the intelligence community so concerned that President Trump would ask his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Joe Biden's son sitting on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian company? Why are they so concerned that President Trump asked President Zelensky to look into CrowdStrike's servers in Ukraine, the very ones that initiated claims of Russian hacking? These appear to be valid concerns worthy of investigation.

Maybe President Trump was on to something...

[Don Giovanni]

Pat Buchanan underscores just how weak a case the Democrats are making against Trump:

https://buchanan.org/blog/where-are-...rimes-2-137880

Consider Article I, “Abuse of Power.”

The heart of this charge is that Trump briefly held up delivery of $391 million in “vital military and security assistance to oppose Russian aggression.” So doing, Trump “compromised the national security of the United States.”

Is the House serious? It was the Trump administration that began the transfer of the lethal aid — sniper rifles, Javelin missiles — that President Barack Obama had denied to Ukraine for three years.

George H. W. Bush in 1991 implored the Ukrainians not to indulge a “suicidal nationalism” by declaring independence. Stay with Russia, said Bush. Was Bush 41 committing an impeachable act and imperiling U.S. national security?

Truth be told, by providing Ukraine with lethal aid, the US is committing an act of war against Russia. If anything, Trump imperiled US national security by providing the aid, which is why Obama held off since he didn't want to heighten tensions with Russia and so left it to his successor to make that call.

Article II is titled “Obstruction of Congress.”

Trump did direct the Executive branch not to provide witnesses and documents subpoenaed by the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, both of which are partisan, pro-impeachment and chaired by unapologetic Trump-haters Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiff.

the substance of Article II is really about the eternal conflict between the first and second branches of the government over their respective rights and powers.

Such clashes are usually decided by the third branch, the Supreme Court. But Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff are unwilling to wait for the court to decide.

Trump would be derelict in his duty if he allowed a rogue House to run roughshod over the White House.

The president had in fact acted well within his prerogative.

Under the Constitution, a president shall be impeached and removed on conviction by the Senate of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

During the years of the Mueller investigation, Trump was accused of “treason,” of being a Kremlin ally and asset.

With Trump, said Pelosi, “All roads lead to Putin!”

Yet nowhere in the articles of impeachment is “treason” mentioned. Nor is “bribery” or “extortion,” the other crimes alleged. Where are the “high crimes” in this impeachment resolution? There are none.

He's not getting convicted in the Senate on this.

Judge Andrew Napolitano made a better case than the Democrats did and they should have gone with that. At least his interpretations maintained some illusion of high crimes. Here we are... again, yet another anti-Trump scheme falling apart at the seams. Russia-gate, Ukraine-gate... at this point it's just the boy who cries wolf. This time even I thought they had something more to this waiting to be revealed, especially with Hillary licking at her lips, waiting to get into the race, but it turns out they had nothing. This is like watching the Godfather, except Michael Corlone has nothing to hold onto but his dick in his hand when he was finished up in the washroom.

I hope Hillary goes back into hiding for good. If the Democrats actually ran on something other than impeachment and idiotic Star Wars/Marvel themed "resistance," got themselves out from under the Clintons, and if they actually appealed to Trump voters instead of labeling them all a bunch of bigots, then Trump might not be getting another 4 years in office. As it stands, their front runner is the very guy being accused of corruption in Ukraine. No matter how you look at it, it doesn't look good on Biden. I thought Trump Jr was naive and/or foolish, but Hunter Biden takes the cake. Trump is going to win in a landslide come the 2020 election, just like Boris did in the UK yesterday.

[Soprano76]

Donald Trump conditioned official acts for personal benefit. Do you believe that is an appropriate action for a President to take?

[Don Giovanni]

Until this very moment, I thought I was right, but I was wrong. You're right.

But Trump's corruption is even worse than that. It turns out Trump also started a charitable foundation and launched an initiative that saw him hold "honorary" positions that raked in millions of dollars. You can read about it here:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...026-story.html

Laureate International University, the for-profit international school that donated more than $1.4 million to the Clinton Foundation and was paying Bill Clinton $3.5 million a year to serve as “honorary chancellor.”

The company paid Clinton more than $17 million before the relationship ended last year, as Hillary Clinton was launching her presidential bid.

Yes, Trump did condition official acts for personal benefit. You got me. You finally you got me. Good job.

[Don Giovanni]

Glenn Greenwald: The Inspector General’s Report on 2016 FBI Spying Reveals a Scandal of Historic Magnitude: Not Only for the FBI but Also the U.S. Media

https://theintercept.com/2019/12/12/...the-u-s-media/

Matt Taibi: ‘Corroboration Zero’: An Inspector General’s Report Reveals the Steele Dossier Was Always a Joke

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-media-924944/

[Don Giovanni]

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Impeachment and the Constitution

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/impe...rew-napolitano

Federal election laws prohibit as criminal the mere solicitation of foreign help for a federal political campaign, whether the aid arrives or not. Federal law also prohibits and defines as bribery the intentional withholding or offering to withhold the performance of an official duty until a thing of value arrives, whether the thing of value arrives or not.

Napolitano has made a case for bribery in the past and he does above. He thought the Democrats would file three articles, one on bribery, but the Democrats did not. Instead Democrats used language that appeared to imply bribery ("conditioned official acts for personal benefit") without actually leveling the charge. They ran with abuse of power (solicitation of foreign help) and obstruction of Congress (advising witnesses to defy subpoenas). This means despite suggesting there was bribery and quid pro quo, this is not why they are voting to impeach the president. This adds weight to the president's denials.

Without the charge of bribery, the case they made is little more than hot air. To put added perspective on this, consider the following:

• Are we really going to remove a president from office because he asked a foreign country to investigate corruption?
• Are we going to remove a president because he told witnesses not to partake in a biased political inquiry?

This is what the articles of impeachment come down to. Without the charge of bribery, their case looks weak, so much so that support for impeachment among independents fell significantly. Trump took to Twitter to even brag about it.

Gallup: Trump Approval Inches Up, While Support for Impeachment Dips

https://news.gallup.com/poll/271691/trump-approval-inches-support-impeachment-dips.aspx

Less than half of political independents approve [of Trump], but the current 42% is up from 34% at the start of the impeachment hearings and matches their highest rating of Trump so far.

That's a big 8-point swing among independents. The Democrats made too weak a case and now they run a big risk of losing support moving forward. Their top two candidates are Hillary Clinton, who has been teasing a run, and Joe Biden. Both are mired in corruption claims that appear to be much more valid.

[Reaper]

It is weird. It is like the democrats are telling teacher that Trump has been rolling in dog shit in the park - and when the teacher asks to see the hands of the democrats, they themselves are covered in shit.

Like that old saying, those in glass houses should not throw stones. All this has done is highlight the Biden's dirt.

[Don Giovanni]

The Democrats have been promising impeachment since Trump first entered office. I was expecting more from them this time, but they screwed up. I still can't grasp why they didn't charge him on a count of bribery. They could have and should have. Weak. Do Nothing Democrats sounds about right.

Everyone talks about Trump being the next Hitler, but really he risks becoming the next Neville Chamberlain--at the worst. He has to follow the example of George H.W. Bush, but unlike Bush he can't make the same mistake, he has to draw a line in the sand. That goes for Venezuela, North Korea, Turkey, Iran, Qatar, Russia, and China. He has to stop letting the national security establishment bully him. He needs to improve relations with Russia. Realistically, that's the key to solving the other geopolitical issues. There is no good reason not to work out a positive relationship with Russia. They're not the USSR anymore, they're not Communists. We don't need another Cold War, which is only good for the national security establishment and their contractors. The president must heed the warning of Eisenhower. Now that the cloud of impeachment and Russia collusion have gone, he must go against his advisers and do this.