fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
The official "let's impeach Trump" thread
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
This article from yesterday's New York Times is relevant.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/us/politics/ukraine-russia-interference.html
Here are many quotes from the article. Apologies for pasting in sentences and paragraphs without always indicating the cut marks.
-----
Moscow has run a yearslong operation to blame Ukraine for its own 2016 election interference. Republicans have used similar talking points to defend President Trump in impeachment proceedings.
The Republican defense of Mr. Trump became central to the impeachment proceedings when Fiona Hill, a respected Russia scholar and former senior White House official, added a harsh critique during testimony on Thursday. She told some of Mr. Trump’s fiercest defenders in Congress that they were repeating “a fictional narrative.” She said that it likely came from a disinformation campaign by Russian security services, which also propagated it.
In a briefing that closely aligned with Dr. Hill’s testimony, American intelligence officials informed senators and their aides in recent weeks that Russia had engaged in a yearslong campaign to essentially frame Ukraine as responsible for Moscow’s own hacking of the 2016 election, according to three American officials.
The revelations demonstrate Russia’s persistence in trying to sow discord among its adversaries — and show that the Kremlin apparently succeeded, as unfounded claims about Ukrainian interference seeped into Republican talking points.
... the campaign by Russian intelligence in recent years has been... complex as Moscow tries not only to undermine the government in Kyiv but also to use a disinformation campaign there to influence the American political debate.
...President Vladimir V. Putin ordered military and intelligence operatives to mount a broad campaign to sabotage the American election.
Russian intelligence operatives deployed a network of agents to blame Ukraine for its 2016 interference. Starting at least in 2017, the operatives peddled a mixture of now-debunked conspiracy theories along with established facts to leave an impression that the government in Kyiv, not Moscow, was responsible for the hackings of Democrats and its other interference efforts in 2016, senior intelligence officials said.
The Russian intelligence officers conveyed the information to prominent Russians and Ukrainians who then used a range of intermediaries, like oligarchs, businessmen and their associates, to pass the material to American political figures and even some journalists, who were likely unaware of its origin, the officials said.
That muddy brew worked its way into American information ecosystems, sloshing around until parts of it reached Mr. Trump, who has also spoken with Mr. Putin about allegations of Ukrainian interference. Mr. Trump also brought up the assertions of Ukrainian meddling in his July 25 call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, which is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry into whether he abused his power by asking for a public commitment to investigations he stood to gain from personally.
Russia’s operation to blame Ukraine has become more relevant as Republicans have tried to focus public debate during the impeachment inquiry on any Ukrainian role in the 2016 campaign, American officials said.
Republicans have denounced any suggestion that their concerns about Ukrainian meddling are without merit or that they are ignoring Russia’s broader interference. “Not a single Republican member of this committee said Russia did not meddle in the 2016 elections,” Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, said Thursday.
Indeed, Ms. Stefanik and her Republican colleagues on the Democratic-led House Intelligence Committee, which is conducting the impeachment hearing, have also steered clear of the fringe notion that Mr. Trump mentioned to Mr. Zelensky, which is pushed by Russian intelligence: the so-called CrowdStrike server conspiracy theory, which falsely suggests Ukraine, not Russia, was behind the breach of Democratic operatives’ servers.
Mr. Trump repeated the baseless claim on Friday in an interview with “Fox & Friends,” laying out the narrative and doubling down after a host gently pressed him on whether he was sure of one aspect of the debunked theory, that the F.B.I. gave a Democratic server to what Mr. Trump had inaccurately described as a Ukrainian-owned company.
“That is what the word is,” Mr. Trump replied.
Moscow has long used its intelligence agencies and propaganda machine to muddy the waters of public debate, casting doubts over established facts. In her testimony, Dr. Hill noted Russia’s pattern of trying to blame other countries for its own actions, like the attempted poisoning last year of a former Russian intelligence officer or the downing of a passenger jet over Ukraine in 2014. Moscow’s goal is to cast doubt on established facts, said current and former officials.
“The strategy is simply to create the impression that it is not really possible to know who was really behind it,” said Laura Rosenberger, the director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy, which tracks Russian disinformation efforts.
Although American intelligence agencies have made no formal classified assessment about the Russian disinformation campaign against Ukraine, officials at several of the agencies have broadly agreed for some time that Russian intelligence services have embraced tactics to shift responsibility for the 2016 interference campaign away from themselves, officials said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/us/politics/ukraine-russia-interference.html
Here are many quotes from the article. Apologies for pasting in sentences and paragraphs without always indicating the cut marks.
-----
Moscow has run a yearslong operation to blame Ukraine for its own 2016 election interference. Republicans have used similar talking points to defend President Trump in impeachment proceedings.
The Republican defense of Mr. Trump became central to the impeachment proceedings when Fiona Hill, a respected Russia scholar and former senior White House official, added a harsh critique during testimony on Thursday. She told some of Mr. Trump’s fiercest defenders in Congress that they were repeating “a fictional narrative.” She said that it likely came from a disinformation campaign by Russian security services, which also propagated it.
In a briefing that closely aligned with Dr. Hill’s testimony, American intelligence officials informed senators and their aides in recent weeks that Russia had engaged in a yearslong campaign to essentially frame Ukraine as responsible for Moscow’s own hacking of the 2016 election, according to three American officials.
The revelations demonstrate Russia’s persistence in trying to sow discord among its adversaries — and show that the Kremlin apparently succeeded, as unfounded claims about Ukrainian interference seeped into Republican talking points.
... the campaign by Russian intelligence in recent years has been... complex as Moscow tries not only to undermine the government in Kyiv but also to use a disinformation campaign there to influence the American political debate.
...President Vladimir V. Putin ordered military and intelligence operatives to mount a broad campaign to sabotage the American election.
Russian intelligence operatives deployed a network of agents to blame Ukraine for its 2016 interference. Starting at least in 2017, the operatives peddled a mixture of now-debunked conspiracy theories along with established facts to leave an impression that the government in Kyiv, not Moscow, was responsible for the hackings of Democrats and its other interference efforts in 2016, senior intelligence officials said.
The Russian intelligence officers conveyed the information to prominent Russians and Ukrainians who then used a range of intermediaries, like oligarchs, businessmen and their associates, to pass the material to American political figures and even some journalists, who were likely unaware of its origin, the officials said.
That muddy brew worked its way into American information ecosystems, sloshing around until parts of it reached Mr. Trump, who has also spoken with Mr. Putin about allegations of Ukrainian interference. Mr. Trump also brought up the assertions of Ukrainian meddling in his July 25 call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, which is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry into whether he abused his power by asking for a public commitment to investigations he stood to gain from personally.
Russia’s operation to blame Ukraine has become more relevant as Republicans have tried to focus public debate during the impeachment inquiry on any Ukrainian role in the 2016 campaign, American officials said.
Republicans have denounced any suggestion that their concerns about Ukrainian meddling are without merit or that they are ignoring Russia’s broader interference. “Not a single Republican member of this committee said Russia did not meddle in the 2016 elections,” Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, said Thursday.
Indeed, Ms. Stefanik and her Republican colleagues on the Democratic-led House Intelligence Committee, which is conducting the impeachment hearing, have also steered clear of the fringe notion that Mr. Trump mentioned to Mr. Zelensky, which is pushed by Russian intelligence: the so-called CrowdStrike server conspiracy theory, which falsely suggests Ukraine, not Russia, was behind the breach of Democratic operatives’ servers.
Mr. Trump repeated the baseless claim on Friday in an interview with “Fox & Friends,” laying out the narrative and doubling down after a host gently pressed him on whether he was sure of one aspect of the debunked theory, that the F.B.I. gave a Democratic server to what Mr. Trump had inaccurately described as a Ukrainian-owned company.
“That is what the word is,” Mr. Trump replied.
Moscow has long used its intelligence agencies and propaganda machine to muddy the waters of public debate, casting doubts over established facts. In her testimony, Dr. Hill noted Russia’s pattern of trying to blame other countries for its own actions, like the attempted poisoning last year of a former Russian intelligence officer or the downing of a passenger jet over Ukraine in 2014. Moscow’s goal is to cast doubt on established facts, said current and former officials.
“The strategy is simply to create the impression that it is not really possible to know who was really behind it,” said Laura Rosenberger, the director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy, which tracks Russian disinformation efforts.
Although American intelligence agencies have made no formal classified assessment about the Russian disinformation campaign against Ukraine, officials at several of the agencies have broadly agreed for some time that Russian intelligence services have embraced tactics to shift responsibility for the 2016 interference campaign away from themselves, officials said.
Following up on those questions, what about attempted public corruption?
olden_undercover
Well-Known Member
Great post as usual, colton. This paragraph in particular really struck me as a good generalization of Trumpian strategy: To leave enough ambiguity-- ethical, factual, etc.-- that apologists can dismiss claims of corruption, and those inclined to connect the dots will fall just short of their purpose. Trump supporters label his unabashed scummy behavior as status quo-- that past and present politicians were just as corrupt, that he's merely fighting fire with fire, and that his brilliance lies in the fact he is honest about his lying because he does it publicly. And this is exactly why his claim that he could kill someone in broad daylight and get away with it is 100% true. (The genius, incidentally, of saying something so outlandish, is that it creates a scenario in the imaginations of his supporters that makes what he is now accused of far more palatable: It's not like he killed someone, after all!)
To be really blunt, what makes his behavior especially disgusting is his complete disregard for the American people. He knows exactly how easily his voters will forgive his reprehensible words and actions, and has a laser-accurate understanding of the amount of moral wiggle-room that gives him to operate within... which is, unfortunately, nearly infinite. That he and Putin are so similar in their philosophy, and that philosophy being precisely why he is untouchable, is a disheartening thing to consider. Term limits would be the big difference, of course; if this impeachment inquiry fails, riding it out as concerned citizens may be the only thing to look forward to.
Red
Well-Known Member
Yes, actually, I know I for one am aware of the things you are emphasizing here. For me, personally, I have felt it is important to do what's right when it is called for. I've always expected to see Trump acquitted in the Senate. Prefer not to count those chickens before they hatch, but, for the moment, I expect the Senate will acquit.
But, while I would prefer a conviction, the most important thing is that Americans who understood right from wrong where their current president is concerned, simply do the right thing. And that's impeachment.
As a student of history, I want future generations of Americans, when they read the history of this age, to see that some Americans stood up for American values and simply acted to protect the republic. And I am proud to be counted among those Americans.
Should I need to live through five more years of this guy, well, that's a shame, but I will take my country's history one day at a time, either way.
when the leading sentence of an article is whole-cloth fabrication, it is hardly going to be a fruitful consideration.
Calling Biden "the then-Democratic front runner" is second fiddle to asserting "a crime that did not take place". And the fact is, there have been rather obvious disingenuities by his critics for almost three years running.
I did not believe he really cared to win the Presidency then, nor am I sure he cares now, in terms of holding office. He is competitive, but not obsessed. He realized then, as now, that quite a few of the political class don't care much for him, but I believe he is committed to finding out and proving some truths, including the facts of what the DNC, Hillary, Obama, and a significant number of partisans have done using their offices and government employment in establishing a kind of illegitimate power withing the establishment of the federal system.
Trump, as the Chief Exectutive charged constitutionally and by his oath of office to uphold the nation's laws and fundamental institutions, is not only personally affected by those crimes, which are undeniable by any except the morally corrupt proponents of the overthrow of our constitutional and legal system, which must include most of his his critics in this forum, some of whom have declared sithin these discussions an open determination to subvert our electoral process as the rule and mode of transfers of power from one Executive elected to the next.
However you believe this to be a moral duty, or some kind of necessary thing, Trump has never done anything comparable, and has no notion in his schemes of doing so. If not elected again, he will go home, and do his business if he can.
So far as I'm concerned, or ever will be, he should work with, encourage, and make American taxpayer expenses dependent on willingness to help enforce not only American law, but American treaty agreements that pertain to cooperating to investigate international crime, such as election interference.
It is so shameful for all of you, including otherwise nice folks like Colton and yourself who have sorta loved America's role in implementing some kind of better world through the UN schema, to deny the need to enforce established laws, whoever may be or must be investigated for cause.
I know Biden's boast.... the video taken I believe against the Council of Foreign Relation's internal covenants of "non-attribution", and put out onto some media platforms.... is because of that fact, something some major media platforms cannot broadcast because of their "covenant" of their owner' and their talents' shared responsibility of non-attribution. But that fact only means others must publish it, to the shame of the Council on Foreign Relations.
But sometimes, the CFR leadership or public relations folks release videos of some speeches, and publish others in various ways. You can go online to see some, and I don't know exactly the facts of who published the Biden speech, but I'm sure Biden is insisting they make amends and squash the video now. Somehow, it doesn't seem impossible to me that the CFR just did not even realize the implications of Biden's boast. They are institutionally just that crooked.
We even have a member in here sporting a bald abusive boast as his "handle" who is capable of endless litigation against the obvious truth of Biden's abuse of power in Ukraine.
It proves, it plainly demonstrates, the corruption within the Council on Foreign Relations, which any honest human must now resign from, if they wish to be considered honorable persons with a worthy project for political discussions or advocacies.
The prosecution in the house hearings, has brought in members of the CFR, former fully-committed members of George Soro's communist open borders/American national dissolution team, and John Brennan's agents implanted in the NSC taking direction from him, or Obama, in making Trump's administration ineffective, through illegal disclosures of internal national classified materials. But even this determined prosecution has found nothing that can stand as an impeachable offense.
Of course, Nobody should assume that another administration, known to be compliant with the "right" objectives, would not criminally prosecute anyone who so behaved with them. The "law" is here, with whole-cloth fabrications and lies constituting a shameless arrogance of power, being made applicable only to the offending non-compliant administration. Trumps associates who have been abusively prosecuted include an amazing clean associate in Flynn, where criminal abuses are now coming out in court. Other's, like the flagrantly outspoken Stone, who perhaps never said anything that could be proven by the NY Times "news", or Manafort.... who had operated for decades as an international "fixer" for the worst regimes on the face of this planet.... well except for the even worse regimes he helped un-do, who had nothing Wiesman cared to publish about Ukranian corruption..... leaving the "Mueller" investigation with nothing but old tax issues to prosecute. It cost Trump a pretty penny to have someone around for about three months who could actually talk with informed notions about international intrigues. People like many of those who frequent the CFR dens of knowing players. But Trump's associates all had to be viciously prosecuted, and none of HIllary's or Obama's or Brennan's, or Bidens'.
Trump has clearly seen how these malicious prosecutions are aimed at him, and he has rightly seen the need for bringing out public disclosures of his opponents' misconduct. He has stated that "No President should be treated this way". He has declared that any administration, any President, who cannot have secure control of time-sensitive national security information, cannot be effective. We have the FOIA laws, which Obama and Hillary flagrantly broke to protect themselves, which in some ways help American citizens to protect themselves from being abused by governance. We may need more of this open information for the public, not less.... but even Trump is letting the Assange prosecutions play out. I think we could use more such talent in getting things out to the voting public, because the balance is clearly out of the people's hands now.
We need more people like Alex Jones or Roger Stone out in the news talking about whatever they can learn outside of "official channels", not less. The folks who continually campaign to shut down free speech only out themselves as "interested" wonks with stinky asses, well-kicked by authority, willing to do their best to effect their own way in the dark.
It can be a "Wild West" sort of world with free speech, but it is a better world than any "effective managers" can achieve.
Orange Man Bad is the unmannerly outsider dumping the china on the floor while shoveling the poop of polite society, perhaps, but we have needed him for a long time. And we will always need such leadership every now and then to shake things up and reset our priorities.
Trump believed the Presidency could be a legitimate office effective in making changes the American people voted for. That belief has to be the rule of our system of governance, or we actually have no system of governance. We actually have to have laws which can be enforced without partiality for who is who in the player's little black books. Without an independent executive branch that can effectively check the legislative and judicial branches, and manage its own agencies, we actually have have no democracy, no way the people can have a voice in their government.
The Council of Foreign Relations has a duty to promote this democracy, or be known for it's fascist organizational proclivities.
It is a veritable den of thieves, a band of Gadianton Robbers if there ever were one, or could ever be any association of humans placed under an oath of secrecy that punishes snitches in any way, for any reason. Losing membership in the CFR is probably a minor price to pay for most, but for some it is their whole network for having standing in the community and a place at the guvmint trough for whatever swill they can hog, for any suck they can get on the corporate or government teats.
Anyone who wants to be honest will just see the incongruity of their association with such an outfit. And their critical failure in judgement for believing media that is morally compromised on issues dealing with their fellow membership.
And, for Jonah, everything argued as the reason we must impeach Trump is pretty nearly exactly the reason we need to exclude folks bound by "oaths of non-attribution" or organizations devoted to supplanting our Constitutional system with another, from the eligibility to serve in American public service or elective offices requiring the oath to uphold the Constitution.
The reason for the oath to uphold the Constitution, a provision of the Constitution itself, is precisely the determination to maintain our democracy, or better stated, our "constitutional republic" that is of the people, by the people, and for the people, as Lincoln described it.
Last edited:
olden_undercover
Well-Known Member
And please realize, despite the polling numbers, this has nothing to do with party politics for many of us. I am not a Democrat. Neither is colton, nor others posting in this thread in various positions not supporting Trump. Don't let party or polling numbers tell you how to think-- you have far more power than that as an American citizen, if you want it.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
I'm not a Democrat either. Just hate Trump. Got no problem with other republican politicians.
Voted for mitt Romney for the Senate.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Let’s call it the “loser’s defense”
trump was so inept that he tried to bribe a foreign country, one which we have extraordinary leverage over, his people ignored him, he failed, ergo he is innocent.
laughable but that is reality in the trumpverse.
JazzyFresh
Banned
Impeaching the president is no laughing matter. What I am against is this hoax called Russia and this hoax called Ukraine just because you guys don't like the guy. I don't even like the guy but i'm not for weaponizing the impeachment process because I don't like the ELECTED official. How about you go to the polls and beat the guy fair and square? No, instead we make up garbage like Collusion, then we switch it to obstruction, then nothing happens, so we make up some whistleblower who said Trump said something on a phone call. Scream Quid Pro Quo, then suddenly it's not even about the phone call anymore and republicans cant even call witnesses. The same whistleblower who's lawyer openly tweeted he was going to resist and that a coup was coming.
Beat him fair and square. I absolutely dare you all to beat him fair and square... You can't though so you have completely thrown every value you have out the window to impeach him. I'm sorry I don't buy this ******** that you guys are bringing. Trump is not the first president to overstep his constitutional boundries and he wont be the last. We could dig deep enough and do this clown show to any president since I've been alive. Hell Biden is leading your polls and his son somehow magically landed a cushy job with garbage credentials. The guy who was dismissed from the military, has a drug addiction, slept with his dead brothers wife. Yeah, I believe he was the best person for the job... Yet whenever someone brings that up we are shushed and told it's nothing.
Or how about this new news that Carter Page(supposedely) completely lied and fabricated evidence to get the FISA warrant to start this entire Russia Hoax? We have transcripts of Obama's FBI openly admitting they have back up plans if Trump is elected, then suddenly this whole Russiagate pops up. You guys really don't give a ****. Your really don't. All you want is to better Trump. All you want is to get him impeached because you can't stand him. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. You are calling wolf time and time and time and time again.
I'm sorry, I feel that I'm thinking for myself. I hardly post tweets, news articles, social media garbage ever. I use my own words. You guys obviously disagree but there is more than your side to the story. I've been blasted every corner, people telling me how stupid I am, all for a difference of opinion. This very thread was to Impeach Trump for nothing more than disliking the guy. I understand not liking the guy but I think you are going to any legnth to get him out and I don't buy it. People don't want to vote for Trump but I think a good majority of Americans agree with me that they'd rather have Trump than this Socialist(Marxist) resist around every corner ******** you guys are on.
JazzyFresh
Banned
At the end of the day Trump will still be president and absolutely nothing will be accomplished. Just a complete waste of everything.
JazzyFresh
Banned
More passionate than annoyed to be 100% honest. I think the route you guys are taking is 100% wrong and don't wish it on any candidate. Sadly Pandora's box is open.
Is negotiating a trade agreement with China an attempt at extortion? Attempted bribery? Are you aware of how bi-lateral relations work?
It's perfectly reasonable to ask Ukraine to help investigate corruption involving the U.S. State Dept., especially in light of the fact that the DOJ is already investigating it.
Last edited:
olden_undercover
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to articulate your thoughts. I totally respect you and your position, although I will say for my part my reasons for not supporting him aren't really about disliking Trump (true as that may be). We're frankly just in really different places, in terms of how we're thinking about this, and I doubt we'll ever see eye-to-eye, but that's okay. I'm comfortable with still calling you a friend. Go Jazz.
a) I wasn't talking about China at all.
b) As has been well established, this was not at all about asking Ukraine to investigate corruption in general. I mean, the evidence is overwhelming. Like I could start listing the evidence and not be done an hour from now. But you're not looking for evidence, are you? You're looking for excuses.
c) I noticed you conveniently didn't answer any of my questions.
a) I pointed to China as an example where the President is negotiating with a foreign power, conducting foreign policy as he is empowered and obligated to do. If you want to be partisan, you can try to argue that Trump is 'extorting' trade concessions from China. However, it is precisely his job to do this in support of the national interest. That's just one example of how foreign relations works.
b) I don't think evidence is overwhelming at all. Nothing I've seen would hold up in a court of law. You can't establish charges of bribery or extortion unless a concrete (preferably quantified) demand was made to Zellenskyy that departs from Trump's normal foreign relations. Zellenskyy, or someone in his administration, would need to verify that this was the case, or you'd need an authentic record. Furthermore, you would need to show that asking (or even pressuring) Ukraine to help investigate U.S. State Dept. corruption is a clear departure from the nation's interest. Whereas, as President, Trump has every right to establish his foreign policy with Ukraine's new President Zellenskyy, even if former state dept. officials don't agree with it.
If the evidence were real, it could be summarized in two sentences. It doesn't take hours to list things.
You're saying that Trump is only trying to go after Biden for personal political reasons. I'm saying, and the Justice Department has publicly stated, that there is a much broader investigation into U.S. State Dept. corruption involving Ukraine going on. It started before Zellenskyy took office. It's not just the Crowdstrike server story. It's a bigger pay-to-play scheme that involved the Clintons, members of the Obama state department, as well as possibly Joe Biden, and it was covered up by the FBI.
That's John Durham's investigation. You seem to be ignoring its existence, although in all fairness, several details have been kept quiet as the investigation is ongoing.
Many people, myself included, agree with the Justice Dept. that pursuing this investigation is very much in the nation's interest, even if the convictions it yields are few. You and others are welcome to disagree, but that is simply your own personal view and not grounds to impeach a President for high crimes or misdemeanors.
c) I thought your questions were being flippant, but I'll answer them here --- Yes, attempted murder, arson, robbery, bribery, or extortion are serious crimes. However, no crime has been shown to be committed by Trump. No serious prosecutor would pursue this case based on what's surfaced in hearings. Now granted, impeachment is a political process rather than a purely legal one. However, if/when this goes to trial in the Senate, it will get dismissed quickly, not on merely partisan grounds, but because the evidence is weak. There's an allegation made by an anonymous whistleblower who claims to have second-hand or third-hand conversations and an interpretation of circumstantial facts.
To make this case, you pretty much need Zellenskyy or someone he appointed to say, "Trump threatened to withhold foreign aid unless we fabricate evidence against Joe Biden." Or you'd need a voice recording that establishes the same. You need real evidence of the threat (withhold the aid) and the cure ("make up dirt") to create the case.
So far, Zellenskyy is denying that this is what happened, which stands as evidence against the claim. So you also need to show that the person who is being bribed or extorted is aware that he is being bribed or extorted.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Is he though? How do we know he’s negotiating things with China in the country’s interest? Especially when the country’s interest would’ve been best served having never started a trade war at all? Or do we need another farm bailout to prove the trade war’s effect?