What's new
By:

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

Zombie said:
This doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

Maybe not to you. But to any rational person, the argument that the president of Ukraine was being pressured, intimidated or extorted by Trump can be nullified by the president of Ukraine saying, "I was never pressured, intimidated or extorted by Trump. In fact, I asked the U.S. to help our new prosecutor investigate the corruption at Burisma." Zelenskyy makes the latter statement in the same phone transcript.

The Dems are saying that Trump made an "implied threat" or innuendo that means the same as pressure or intimidation. That's a subjective interpretation, at best, and is a very weak argument. The Dems need more than this phone transcript to make a case.

In other words, the Dems really need Zelenskyy to be a witness for their prosecution, and not a witness for Trump's defense.
 
Catchall said:
Maybe not to you. But to any rational person, the argument that the president of Ukraine was being pressured, intimidated or extorted by Trump can be nullified by the president of Ukraine saying, "I was never pressured, intimidated or extorted by Trump. In fact, I asked the U.S. to help our new prosecutor investigate the corruption at Burisma." Zelenskyy makes the latter statement in the same phone transcript.

The Dems are saying that Trump made an "implied threat" or innuendo that means the same as pressure or intimidation. That's a subjective interpretation, at best, and is a very weak argument. The Dems need more than this phone transcript to make a case.

In other words, the Dems really need Zelenskyy to be a witness for their prosecution, and not a witness for Trump's defense.
Click to expand...
This is completely disregarding the fact that the Ukrainian president isn't in a position to admit to being pressured, even if he was, due to their reliance on us.

Whether he feels threatened or not doesn't matter a single bit, Trump's actions alone are what will determine what he's guilty of.

You're really trying hard to find a path that makes Trump asking a foreign leader to look into his political rival into something totally normal and OK. It's not working.
 
fishonjazz said:
I asked in another thread but didn't really get an answer.
So if trump were impeached he would continue on as president and then still be able to run for president next fall again right?

So impeachment means absolutely nothing really if his supporters remain loyal to him.
Click to expand...

Impeachment is the parallel of a grand jury indictment. The House impeaches, the Senate convicts (although so far, the Senate never has).

Yes, if Trump is impeached but not convicted, he continues as President.

I am not aware of any Constitutional clause that would prevent a President who was removed from office from running again.
 
Catchall said:
Here is the president of Ukraine, not only saying that they are looking into the corruption involving the gas company and the state prosecutor who was dismissed, but also asking for assistance and information from the U.S. to do so. If Zelenskyy is being extorted here, he sure sounds agreeable. The Dems are arguing that by President Trump merely mentioning the issue, he is making an 'implied threat,' but that is a very subjective and partisan interpretation, especially if Zelenskyy makes a statement to the contrary.
Click to expand...


I really don't think you know anything about this portion of the memorandum you're quoting. Some pretty critical information you seem to be passing by even though you're acting like you know what Zelensky is talking about, while ironically declaring that other people are putting together a "partisan interpretation."

President Zelenskyy:
Click to expand...
I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly... That I can assure you. I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all, I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September.
Click to expand...

Notably, Zelensky is saying that the OLD outgoing prosecutor is NOT his candidate and is not someone with his support.

That outgoing prosecutor, who left office on August 29, 2019, is Yuriy Lutsenko. If you've paid attention to the story, or watched the video from the Kyiv Post I linked to earlier today, you know that Lutsenko is the same person that made the allegation about Biden in the first place. Zelenksy responds to Trump by telling him that the prosecutor with the position most favorable to Trump/Guiliani's allegation is going to be promptly replaced because they are not Zelensky's person or candidate.


He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country
Click to expand...

The new prosecutor as of last month is Ruslan Riaboshapka. He is the former official with a national agency for the prevention of corruption - the Ukrainian equivalent of a Consumer Finance Protection Board functionary. His role is specifically to investigate corruption generally and that's his mandate. Zelensky ran on a broad anti-corruption platform. The only thing he's telling Trump in this part of the call is that he's going to carry out the plan he already had. That's why he reframes the issue of this one investigation as part of the larger push to "restore honesty." This was a campaign theme, a significant portion of his inaugural address, and a significant motif of his television show - including plotlines in which he enforced administrative laws against his own family.

with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.
Click to expand...

This is an obvious error in the memorandum. First, she's the ambassador from the United States to Ukraine, not the other way around. Second, her name is Yovanovitch.

But her removal is actually a very important point in the US/Ukraine relationship because GOP figures demanded her resignation after, a familiar name here, Yuriy Lutsenko alleged that she had personally given him a list of names of people not to prosecute for corruption. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/0...dia-accusations-congress-diplomats-diplomacy/

The U.S. State department, run by Mike Pompeo has called that story an "outright fabrication" and Lutsenko was forced to retract it some months later. Lutsenko, of course, made this allegation in the same manner, and to the same person, John Solomon of theHill, that he made the allegation against Joe Biden.

This is one of the key problems with the whole house of cards on this Biden allegation - it's married to a dude that was pushed out by the current President and was a Poroshenko loyalist, and who has a demonstrated history of trying to take down other people with him.
 
Zombie said:
This is completely disregarding the fact that the Ukrainian president isn't in a position to admit to being pressured, even if he was, due to their reliance on us.

Whether he feels threatened or not doesn't matter a single bit, Trump's actions alone are what will determine what he's guilty of.

You're really trying hard to find a path that makes Trump asking a foreign leader to look into his political rival into something totally normal and OK. It's not working.
Click to expand...

The transcript of that particular phone conversation does not show much, if any, evidence that the President of Ukraine was being pressured to investigate the Bidens. Maybe the whistle-blower complaint or some larger pattern of evidence will. But the transcript posted on CNN shows a cordial conversation that touches on corruption in passing. It's circumstantial evidence, at best, and the Repubs are dismissing it as a sham.
 
sirkickyass said:
I really don't think you know anything about this portion of the memorandum you're quoting. Some pretty critical information you seem to be passing by even though you're acting like you know what Zelensky is talking about, while ironically declaring that other people are putting together a "partisan interpretation."



Notably, Zelensky is saying that the OLD outgoing prosecutor is NOT his candidate and is not someone with his support.

That outgoing prosecutor, who left office on August 29, 2019, is Yuriy Lutsenko. If you've paid attention to the story, or watched the video from the Kyiv Post I linked to earlier today, you know that Lutsenko is the same person that made the allegation about Biden in the first place. Zelenksy responds to Trump by telling him that the prosecutor with the position most favorable to Trump/Guiliani's allegation is going to be promptly replaced because they are not Zelensky's person or candidate.




The new prosecutor as of last month is Ruslan Riaboshapka. He is the former official with a national agency for the prevention of corruption - the Ukrainian equivalent of a Consumer Finance Protection Board functionary. His role is specifically to investigate corruption generally and that's his mandate. Zelensky ran on a broad anti-corruption platform. The only thing he's telling Trump in this part of the call is that he's going to carry out the plan he already had. That's why he reframes the issue of this one investigation as part of the larger push to "restore honesty." This was a campaign theme, a significant portion of his inaugural address, and a significant motif of his television show - including plotlines in which he enforced administrative laws against his own family.



This is an obvious error in the memorandum. First, she's the ambassador from the United States to Ukraine, not the other way around. Second, her name is Yovanovitch.

But her removal is actually a very important point in the US/Ukraine relationship because GOP figures demanded her resignation after, a familiar name here, Yuriy Lutsenko alleged that she had personally given him a list of names of people not to prosecute for corruption. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/0...dia-accusations-congress-diplomats-diplomacy/

The U.S. State department, run by Mike Pompeo has called that story an "outright fabrication" and Lutsenko was forced to retract it some months later. Lutsenko, of course, made this allegation in the same manner, and to the same person, John Solomon of theHill, that he made the allegation against Joe Biden.

This is one of the key problems with the whole house of cards on this Biden allegation - it's married to a dude that was pushed out by the current President and was a Poroshenko loyalist, and who has a demonstrated history of trying to take down other people with him.
Click to expand...

And your conclusion is what, then? Amdist these complexities, you're saying that Trump is trying to re-steer future corruption investigations in Ukraine to target the Bidens?
 
Catchall said:
The transcript of that particular phone conversation does not show much, if any, evidence that the President of Ukraine was being pressured to investigate the Bidens. Maybe the whistle-blower complaint or some larger pattern of evidence will. But the transcript posted on CNN shows a cordial conversation that touches on corruption in passing. It's circumstantial evidence, at best, and the Repubs are dismissing it as a sham.
Click to expand...
Lol yeah for sure man. Donald Trump bringing up Joe Biden and asking for him to be looked into as a "favor" is totally on the level, and an example of Trump advancing US interests with a foreign power.
 
colton said:
a) There was absolutely an implied quid pro quo; even if Trump didn't say explicitly that the withheld funding would be restored if Ukraine did what Trump wanted, there was a very strong implication.

b) Even if there had not been an implied quid pro quo, it really doesn't matter whether there was one or not. What Trump has already admitted to, is illegal and definitely impeachable.
Click to expand...


I cannot disagree more. This is another ridiculous over-reach by the democrats.
 
Catchall said:
And your conclusion is what, then? Amdist these complexities, you're saying that Trump is trying to re-steer future corruption investigations in Ukraine to target the Bidens?
Click to expand...

My conclusion is that the call demonstrates that Zelensky knows he can't outright offend Trump and is doing everything he can to make it sound, to Trump, like he's agreeing to what Trump wants so that he can then ignore him.

He confirmed today that he didn't take any actions to ask anyone to investigate Biden after the call. You'll note the answer is designed to insulate himself from corruption because this kind of side deal is precisely what he was running against for the last year.

 
Catchall said:
Maybe not to you. But to any rational person, the argument that the president of Ukraine was being pressured, intimidated or extorted by Trump can be nullified by the president of Ukraine saying, "I was never pressured, intimidated or extorted by Trump. In fact, I asked the U.S. to help our new prosecutor investigate the corruption at Burisma." Zelenskyy makes the latter statement in the same phone transcript.

The Dems are saying that Trump made an "implied threat" or innuendo that means the same as pressure or intimidation. That's a subjective interpretation, at best, and is a very weak argument. The Dems need more than this phone transcript to make a case.

In other words, the Dems really need Zelenskyy to be a witness for their prosecution, and not a witness for Trump's defense.
Click to expand...

Funny, I think the opposite. I think any rational human being see what Trump was trying to do. Especially when it’s put into context that over the past few years this country has endured Russian aggression and the Trump administration has exploited their need for aid to serve their own agenda. President Zelensky is a new leader who cannot admit to being pressured over fear of losing desperately needed foreign aid. He also has critics in his own party and pro Russian propagandists who’ll exploit him if he admits to feeling pressured or to being used as an American puppet.

Honestly, it’s really bizarre to see people rationalize for trump’s completely inappropriate and dishonorable behavior. Is this really the way we want foreign policy to be conducted???

Anyway, thought this was interesting:

 
The Thriller said:
He also has critics in his own party
Click to expand...

Talking out your *** here. Don't get over your own skis.

Zelensky IS the party. It didn't exist three years ago. The party is named after his television show. Significant portions of the upper echelon of the administration are made of people who worked for his production company. His domestic political competition is all outside his party - and largely focused on his relationship with Igor Kolomoisky (which is one reason why he can't take more water on regarding corruption or quid pro quo deals). There's no catering to his party base concern like there would be in America.
 
sirkickyass said:
Talking out your *** here. Don't get over your own skis.

Zelensky IS the party. It didn't exist three years ago. The party is named after his television show. Significant portions of the upper echelon of the administration are made of people who worked for his production company. His domestic political competition is all outside his party - and largely focused on his relationship with Igor Kolomoisky (which is one reason why he can't take more water on regarding corruption or quid pro quo deals). There's no catering to his party base concern like there would be in America.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that’s why you shouldn’t post while talking to others. what I meant was he has a party to lead and critics in his own country. He can’t admit to being weak or a trump puppet. It was just a few years ago thru had their Orange Revolution to oust their pro Putin puppet
 
The Thriller said:
Sorry, that’s why you shouldn’t post while talking to others. what I meant was he has a party to lead and critics in his own country. He can’t admit to being weak or a trump puppet. It was just a few years ago thru had their Orange Revolution to oust their pro Putin puppet
Click to expand...

Orange Revolution was 15 years ago.

Maidan was in 2014.

Sorry man, gotta be an equal opportunity "set the record straight" voice on Ukraine.
 
Stoked said:
Jazzfanz is often a microcosm of the nation as a whole. How often do you see some stupid *** complaint against this admin get played over a legit complaint. Sometimes over simple attempts to rewrite vocabulary definitions.

Talk about, get out of your own way.
Click to expand...
Wait, but he stole a sandwich or something, from a DEAD RELATIVE, that he didn't know was dead for hell's sale!! How is this not getting more press!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top