Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump

[CJD]

I read the entirety of Taylor's statement. I recommend you read it, as it is a very gripping, holistic chronological recount of the events.
You can find it here.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/politics/bill-taylor-opening-statement-congress/index.html

And it's the definition of "damning" if it's the truth.

Page 1

Quote:However, in August and September of this year, I became increasingly concerned that our relationship with Ukraine was being fundamentally undermined by an irregular, informal channel of U.S. policy-making and by the withholding of vital security assistance for domestic political reasons.

Page 5

Quote:By mid-July it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelenskyy wanted was conditioned on the investigations of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. It was also clear that this condition was driven by the irregular policy channel I had come to understand was guided by Mr. Giuliani.

Page 9

Quote:By mid-August, because the security assistance had been held for over a month for no reason that I could discern, I was beginning to fear that the longstanding U.S. policy of strong support for Ukraine was shifting...I asked [Morrison] if there had been a change in policy of strong support for Ukraine, to which he responded "it remains to be seen." He also told me during this call that the "President doesn't want to provide any assistance at all."

Page 10

Quote:Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation.

Page 11

Quote:During that phone call [with Sondland], Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

Quote:...Ambassador Sondland said, "everything" was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted President Zelenskyy "in a public box" by making a public statement about ordering such investigations.

Page 12

Quote:President Trump said it was not a "quid pro quo." Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelenskyy and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelenskyy did not "clear things up" in public, we would be at a "stalemate." I understood a "stalemate" to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance.

Page 13

Quote:...Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman. When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check...I argued to both that the explanation made no sense: the Ukrainians did not "owe" President Trump anything, and holding up security assistance for domestic political gain was "crazy," as I had said in my text message to Ambassadors Sondland and Volker on September 9."

Taylor's opening statement was that there was an explicit Quid Pro Quo. The quote from Page 12 is especially interesting because it is a recounting of Sondland telling President Zelenskyy that it was not a Quid Pro Quo, but [insert the literal definition of a Quid Pro Quo].

Page 13 is interesting as well because it details how Trump seems to think Ukraine owes America something for the assistance. Implicitly...investigations into Burisma (and, by extension, Joe/Hunter Biden) and the 2016 election?

[Belsnickel]

(10-23-2019, 07:57 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I read the entirety of Taylor's statement. I recommend you read it, as it is a very gripping, holistic chronological recount of the events.
You can find it here.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/politics/bill-taylor-opening-statement-congress/index.html

And it's the definition of "damning" if it's the truth.

Taylor has given around 50 years of service to this country in the military and in foreign service, serving administrations of both sides since Reagan. He chose to enroll in West Point and serve during Vietnam. I only wish the people currently seeking to discredit Taylor and dismiss his testimony as nothing more than a partisan smear effort had half the sense of duty to the public this man has. Instead, we get talking points that are crafted in a way to intentionally spread false ideas about how this process is intended to work. Yes, the Democrats did themselves no favors by talking impeachment from day one as they have made it more difficult to defend what is occurring as a legitimate thing, but for ***** sake, why are so many Republicans willing to bow down to this wannabe autocrat? I cannot understand how anyone that took the oath that our elected officials take can in any sort of good faith go out there and say the things they have been saying.

[CJD]

(10-23-2019, 08:29 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Taylor has given around 50 years of service to this country in the military and in foreign service, serving administrations of both sides since Reagan. He chose to enroll in West Point and serve during Vietnam. I only wish the people currently seeking to discredit Taylor and dismiss his testimony as nothing more than a partisan smear effort had half the sense of duty to the public this man has. Instead, we get talking points that are crafted in a way to intentionally spread false ideas about how this process is intended to work. Yes, the Democrats did themselves no favors by talking impeachment from day one as they have made it more difficult to defend what is occurring as a legitimate thing, but for ***** sake, why are so many Republicans willing to bow down to this wannabe autocrat? I cannot understand how anyone that took the oath that our elected officials take can in any sort of good faith go out there and say the things they have been saying.

The thing that makes the least amount of sense to me is that...behind closed doors many Republicans have admitted to not even liking Trump. They could have their Christian, Conservative President in Pence if they just...agreed that the crimes Trump crimed were actually crimes. 

I have no idea why they wouldn't want Pence instead of Trump unless they actually like the racist, autocratic, sexist and overall adversarial and confrontational tone added on top of the purported goals of Christian/Conservative beliefs.

[Au165]

(10-23-2019, 08:33 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The thing that makes the least amount of sense to me is that...behind closed doors many Republicans have admitted to not even liking Trump. They could have their Christian, Conservative President in Pence if they just...agreed that the crimes Trump crimed were actually crimes. 

I have no idea why they wouldn't want Pence instead of Trump unless they actually like the racist, autocratic, sexist and overall adversarial and confrontational tone added on top of the purported goals of Christian/Conservative beliefs.

They are worried about his crazy following turning on them. I think they are even a bit surprised by how deep the crazy is his base runs and how ingrained into their part it is. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-23-2019, 08:33 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The thing that makes the least amount of sense to me is that...behind closed doors many Republicans have admitted to not even liking Trump. They could have their Christian, Conservative President in Pence if they just...agreed that the crimes Trump crimed were actually crimes. 

I have no idea why they wouldn't want Pence instead of Trump unless they actually like the racist, autocratic, sexist and overall adversarial and confrontational tone added on top of the purported goals of Christian/Conservative beliefs.

(10-23-2019, 08:38 AM)Au165 Wrote: They are worried about his crazy following turning on them. I think they are even a bit surprised by how deep the crazy is his base runs and how ingrained into their part it is. 

Trump is more popular among the base than Pence. They are afraid to lose their seats. That's what it all boils down to.

[GMDino]

(10-23-2019, 12:30 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Graham is drafting a resolution to condemn the impeachment inquiry. He said "Here's the point of the resolution: Any impeachment vote based on this process, to me, is illegitimate, is unconstitutional, and should be dismissed in the Senate without a trial,"

Of course, nothing that the House is doing is unconstitutional, and he knows that.

(10-23-2019, 08:29 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Taylor has given around 50 years of service to this country in the military and in foreign service, serving administrations of both sides since Reagan. He chose to enroll in West Point and serve during Vietnam. I only wish the people currently seeking to discredit Taylor and dismiss his testimony as nothing more than a partisan smear effort had half the sense of duty to the public this man has. Instead, we get talking points that are crafted in a way to intentionally spread false ideas about how this process is intended to work. Yes, the Democrats did themselves no favors by talking impeachment from day one as they have made it more difficult to defend what is occurring as a legitimate thing, but for ***** sake, why are so many Republicans willing to bow down to this wannabe autocrat? I cannot understand how anyone that took the oath that our elected officials take can in any sort of good faith go out there and say the things they have been saying.

The one thing DJT was good at was manipulating the press about himself.

What he didn't realize was that once he was outside of New York the lights get brighter and everything gets shown.  He wanted the bright lights but not the people looking where the shadows were.

(10-23-2019, 08:33 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The thing that makes the least amount of sense to me is that...behind closed doors many Republicans have admitted to not even liking Trump. They could have their Christian, Conservative President in Pence if they just...agreed that the crimes Trump crimed were actually crimes. 

I have no idea why they wouldn't want Pence instead of Trump unless they actually like the racist, autocratic, sexist and overall adversarial and confrontational tone added on top of the purported goals of Christian/Conservative beliefs.

They think Pence is "safe".  All of the GOP loves: anti-abortion, anti-gay, prot tax cuts, etc...without the scandals and craziness of DJT. As if the stench of Trump won't stick to him?

Add in they have no guts or souls left and the choice is easy for them.  

Let me add that if Trump resigns or this gets worse for him and they do impeach the entire right wing will deny they ever supported him in the first place.  And they will be led by the Weasel Graham.

[GMDino]

Remember when they wanted this guy to be AG?

“Abuse of power is not a crime,” says Matthew Whitaker, who acted as the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

WHAT? WHAT? EXCUSE ME?! pic.twitter.com/Wca4wBxssW

— Brian Gay [35k] (@brian2596) October 23, 2019

 

[CJD]

(10-23-2019, 09:08 AM)GMDino Wrote: Remember when they wanted this guy to be AG?

“Abuse of power is not a crime,” says Matthew Whitaker, who acted as the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

WHAT? WHAT? EXCUSE ME?! pic.twitter.com/Wca4wBxssW

— Brian Gay [35k] (@brian2596) October 23, 2019

 

Sounds very similar to the initial argument about collusion. Collusion isn't a crime because there isn't a charge called "collusion."

Just like, I assume, there isn't a charge called "Abuse of Power."

The real question isn't if Abuse of Power is a "crime." It's whether Trump's current brand of abuse of power is "illegal."

To which the answer is "yes."

[Belsnickel]

(10-23-2019, 09:08 AM)GMDino Wrote: Remember when they wanted this guy to be AG?

“Abuse of power is not a crime,” says Matthew Whitaker, who acted as the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

WHAT? WHAT? EXCUSE ME?! pic.twitter.com/Wca4wBxssW

— Brian Gay [35k] (@brian2596) October 23, 2019

 

Here's the big thing, though, that has been the false narrative the GOP has been pushing and is working on their supporters. Trump does not need to commit a crime in order to be impeached. The wording of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" means any number of things not covered under criminal codes. Conduct unbecoming, abuse of power, and all sorts of things. The reason for this is intentional. Public officials are to be held to a HIGHER standard than the general public. Just like there need not to have been an actual quid pro quo for there to have been an abuse of power and a federal elections finance violation, there does not need to be any crime committed at all for there to be a legitimate impeachment under the Constitution.

[GMDino]

(10-23-2019, 09:12 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Sounds very similar to the initial argument about collusion. Collusion isn't a crime because there isn't a charge called "collusion."

Just like, I assume, there isn't a charge called "Abuse of Power."

The real question isn't if Abuse of Power is a "crime." It's whether Trump's current brand of abuse of power is "illegal."

To which the answer is "yes."

Aye.

And it was one of the basis of the articles of impeachment against Nixon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon

Quote:Three articles were approved by the Committee, each one premised on abuse of the powers of the presidency, although the first Article also involved a criminal allegation.[105][74] In addition to these three articles, the Committee considered two others, which were rejected.[106] One charged Nixon with encroaching on the powers of Congress by ordering the bombing of Cambodia without authorization and by largely concealing information about these bombing operations.[107] The other charged Nixon with tax fraud for improvements made to his private homes at San Clemente and Key Biscayne at government expense, and failure to pay necessary taxes.[107][108]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon#cite_note-nyt-roll3-114][/url]

[GMDino]

(10-23-2019, 09:15 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here's the big thing, though, that has been the false narrative the GOP has been pushing and is working on their supporters. Trump does not need to commit a crime in order to be impeached. The wording of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" means any number of things not covered under criminal codes. Conduct unbecoming, abuse of power, and all sorts of things. The reason for this is intentional. Public officials are to be held to a HIGHER standard than the general public. Just like there need not to have been an actual quid pro quo for there to have been an abuse of power and a federal elections finance violation, there does not need to be any crime committed at all for there to be a legitimate impeachment under the Constitution.

Let's face it, and I have been taken to task for saying this, but Trump is relying on people being uninformed. 

I don't care if someone still supporting and defending DJT is offended by that.  They can prove me wrong any time they choose.

Talking points, spin, whatever...but this is simply lying and manipulation that the average Trump supporter swallows whole.

[*michaelsean*]

Well at least you all are finally learning Graham is a weasel. A lot of us have never liked that guy.

[Belsnickel]

(10-23-2019, 09:32 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well at least you all are finally learning Graham is a weasel. A lot of us have never liked that guy.

I think it's a matter of his weaselness being on full display for the whole country to see, lately, that has done it.

[GMDino]

(10-23-2019, 09:32 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well at least you all are finally learning Graham is a weasel.  A lot of us have never liked that guy.

He's still some people's "boy" though.  They will never see him for what he is.

And I'll admit I didn't realize how bad he was until he lost his guide when McCain died.  I didn't care one way or the other for him except for whatever policy we agreed or disagreed on.  I just didn't realize he had zero moral compass.

[GMDino]

I'll add to this that someone tried to bring cell phones into the classified hearings and were told they cannot and were fighting about it.

OMG they have lost their GD minds!

Watch this so sad publicity stunt @mattgaetz @SteveScalise @HouseGOP trying to break into the chambers where the #ImpeachmentInquiry is being held.

Arrest these crazy as f men, they are not representing Americans pic.twitter.com/lqm7N0Yq8O

— Skyleigh #GlovesOff?⚖️ (@Sky_Lee_1) October 23, 2019

 

[GMDino]

Might as well put this nonsense here...

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/23/trump-lawyer-prosecuted-shooting-someone-055648

Quote:Trump lawyer: Trump can’t be prosecuted for shooting someone


A lawyer for Donald Trump argued in federal court on Wednesday that the president could shoot someone on 5th Avenue in New York City and not be prosecuted.


The lawyer, William Consovoy, was responding to a question by Judge Denny Chin of the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, who asked, “What’s your view on the 5th Avenue example? Local authorities couldn’t investigate? They couldn’t do anything about it?”

“I think once the president is removed from office, any local authority — This is not a permanent immunity,” Consovoy said.




“Well, I’m talking about while in office,” Judge Chin continued.



“No,” Consovoy interrupted.


“That’s the hypo[thetical]. Nothing could be done — that’s your position?” the judge pressed.


“That is correct. That is correct,” Consovoy responded.


The exchange came as lawyers were arguing in the 2nd Circuit in New York over a subpoena for Trump’s tax returns as part of a Manhattan county criminal investigation involving the president.


Trump filed suit in New York last month to block the grand jury subpoena. It was dismissed by a federal district judge who said he had no jurisdiction to intervene in a state court proceeding.


The judge's question was a reference to a remark Trump made as a presidential candidate back in January 2016, when he marveled at the durability of his support and bragged during a campaign rally, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters, OK? It's like, incredible."

[Belsnickel]

(10-23-2019, 12:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'll add to this that someone tried to bring cell phones into the classified hearings and were told they cannot and were fighting about it.

OMG they have lost their GD minds!

Watch this so sad publicity stunt @mattgaetz @SteveScalise @HouseGOP trying to break into the chambers where the #ImpeachmentInquiry is being held.

Arrest these crazy as f men, they are not representing Americans pic.twitter.com/lqm7N0Yq8O

— Skyleigh #GlovesOff?⚖️ (@Sky_Lee_1) October 23, 2019

 

So, they brought cameras into a room that is a SCIF. I just can't fathom how they thought this was a great idea.

[GMDino]

(10-23-2019, 01:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, they brought cameras into a room that is a SCIF. I just can't fathom how they thought this was a great idea.

Did you see who it was?

Gaetz
Gym Jordan
Scalise

"Great ideas" do not flow from those guys.

[CJD]

Gaetz is quickly assuming the mantle as "most incompetent and insufferable House Representative."

[Dill]

(10-23-2019, 07:57 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I read the entirety of Taylor's statement. I recommend you read it, as it is a very gripping, holistic chronological recount of the events.
You can find it here.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/politics/bill-taylor-opening-statement-congress/index.html

And it's the definition of "damning" if it's the truth.

Taylor's opening statement was that there was an explicit Quid Pro Quo. The quote from Page 12 is especially interesting because it is a recounting of Sondland telling President Zelenskyy that it was not a Quid Pro Quo, but [insert the literal definition of a Quid Pro Quo].

Page 13 is interesting as well because it details how Trump seems to think Ukraine owes America something for the assistance. Implicitly...investigations into Burisma (and, by extension, Joe/Hunter Biden) and the 2016 election?

B-b-but Laura Ingraham says Taylor is a deep-state globalist helping the Dems undo an election. He is like Romney and those RINOs who have turned on the president.  How can we trust what he says?

Former AG Whitaker was on her show last night and he said that "abuse of power is not a crime" anyway. He is a lawyer and knows.