Posted on Nov 5, 2019
Ambassador Acknowledges He Said Aid For Ukraine Depended On Public Support For Probes
1.09K
23
41
9
9
0
Now we have quid pro quo confirmed too and with that we now have bribery as well as abuse of power. We're outside of the subjective "high crimes and misdemeanors" and straight into a specifically enumerated reason for impeachment, bribery.
Will Trump's supporters care? Will the Republicans? No, I doubt it. As long as things are going their way, nothing else matters. Not morality, not damage to the country, not bribery, not corruption, not the rule of law, not honor, just winning.
Will Trump's supporters care? Will the Republicans? No, I doubt it. As long as things are going their way, nothing else matters. Not morality, not damage to the country, not bribery, not corruption, not the rule of law, not honor, just winning.
Ambassador Acknowledges He Said Aid For Ukraine Depended On Public Support For Probes
Posted from npr.org
Donald Trump
Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 5
2
2
0
2
2
0
Interesting developments. Still in the he said, she said mode. I'll be watching to see if charges, or an upgrade to criminal investigation, come from this. What I understand in the NPR report is that Sonderland said it. Put's him in a rather hot seat at the moment.
At the same time, I'll be watching to see if charges come from the current DOJ investigations since it was already upgraded to a criminal investigation.
At the same time, I'll be watching to see if charges come from the current DOJ investigations since it was already upgraded to a criminal investigation.
(2)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SSgt (Join to see) In order for it even to be he said - she said we have to assume Trump's command climate is screwed. None of his people know what he wants, no one feels they can clarify anything with him and he's appointed some loose cannon running around that he says speaks for Trump and tells Trump's people to do shady stuff. Is he ever responsible for anything that happens in his command?
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SPC Kevin Ford - I think that is a pretty safe bet.
I can personally testify that was the case when I did missions in Ukraine the past couple years. I had the distinct impression that the embassy staff did not know what Washington's policy was.
I can personally testify that was the case when I did missions in Ukraine the past couple years. I had the distinct impression that the embassy staff did not know what Washington's policy was.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
1SG (Join to see) - If definitely does appear that Trump is not ... direct about what he wants.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SPC Kevin Ford - Neither is Ukraine, which is really a two-headed monster that can't make up it's mind either.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Is it bribery to put conditions on international aid?
Because if it is, that would affect nearly every country we provide aid to, going back decades.
At issue here is whether this falls under a treaty provision for bilateral cooperation in order to combat corruption involving US nationals in Ukraine (or vice versa) or if it is a pay for play situation. The first possibility isn't just legal, it is mandated by law. The second will come down to how it is interpreted - campaign finance (getting a thing of value from a foreign entity), an unusual but legal arrangement, or a bribe. If it is the latter, that spells peril for Trump, but also Biden.
Because if it is, that would affect nearly every country we provide aid to, going back decades.
At issue here is whether this falls under a treaty provision for bilateral cooperation in order to combat corruption involving US nationals in Ukraine (or vice versa) or if it is a pay for play situation. The first possibility isn't just legal, it is mandated by law. The second will come down to how it is interpreted - campaign finance (getting a thing of value from a foreign entity), an unusual but legal arrangement, or a bribe. If it is the latter, that spells peril for Trump, but also Biden.
(1)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
1SG John Faircloth - Sure it happens, and intel is wrong sometimes too. But determining what is true or false given what people say to us is how we navigate our normal lives. You probably do it 100 times a day.
I don't even understand your argument. Are we to throw away our entire civil and criminal legal system because you think the standard should be "beyond any doubt". There is a reason the criminal standard is "reasonable doubt" and civil somewhat less than that. Multiple independent sources have independently testified to the events. We're moving well outside the realm of reasonable doubt.
I don't even understand your argument. Are we to throw away our entire civil and criminal legal system because you think the standard should be "beyond any doubt". There is a reason the criminal standard is "reasonable doubt" and civil somewhat less than that. Multiple independent sources have independently testified to the events. We're moving well outside the realm of reasonable doubt.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
1SG John Faircloth - I haven't seen any refutations of the accuracy of the events in the testimony given, even from Trump. That's why I feel comfortable coming to the conclusion that it happened.
What I hear in defense is:
- It's not impeachable - OK fair enough. Impeachment is a political process with a political decision. I believe if this were a criminal matter there would be ample evidence to convict based off what is impeachable in the Constitution, but that's not what this is.
- It's a waste of time because the Senate won't convict - Fair point, perhaps doesn't say good things about the integrity of Republicans in the Senate.
- The process is wrong - Given the behavior of the Republicans in the House I have little confidence they won't try to turn this into a circus if allowed. It seems fair enough.
I've gone back and forth on the wisdom of the impeachment thing. But I've come down to this, the president's actions are egregious, obvious and getting worse. It would be great if he lost in 2020 but that may not happen. At some point, someone has to try and apply the Constitutional checks and balances. I suspect if the Congress (Republicans in particular) pushed back on him in the beginning, a lot of this later misconduct could have been headed off at the pass.
What I hear in defense is:
- It's not impeachable - OK fair enough. Impeachment is a political process with a political decision. I believe if this were a criminal matter there would be ample evidence to convict based off what is impeachable in the Constitution, but that's not what this is.
- It's a waste of time because the Senate won't convict - Fair point, perhaps doesn't say good things about the integrity of Republicans in the Senate.
- The process is wrong - Given the behavior of the Republicans in the House I have little confidence they won't try to turn this into a circus if allowed. It seems fair enough.
I've gone back and forth on the wisdom of the impeachment thing. But I've come down to this, the president's actions are egregious, obvious and getting worse. It would be great if he lost in 2020 but that may not happen. At some point, someone has to try and apply the Constitutional checks and balances. I suspect if the Congress (Republicans in particular) pushed back on him in the beginning, a lot of this later misconduct could have been headed off at the pass.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
1SG John Faircloth - I'll pull back from criminality and say illegality, which are not exactly the same thing.
You hit on that which I think is the only valid defense for Trump at this point, that he wasn't doing it for personal gain. If it was done primarily for a legitimate government interest, this becomes acceptable. The problem is the facts (real verifiable facts :)) don't support that conclusion. For example, Trump wasn't going after general corruption based on Trump's own transcript. He was going specifically after Burisma and Biden. That makes it really hard to square as a legitimate government interest instead of his own personal interest. Another fact (from his own transcript, admission and testimony from several individuals) is that he was doing this through his own personal attorney who is representing his personal interests and not the interests of the US government. I agree it is his only valid defense, but verifiable information makes that a real hard case to make at this point.
Will this end up in conviction during impeachment. Probably not, for all the reasons we talked about.
You hit on that which I think is the only valid defense for Trump at this point, that he wasn't doing it for personal gain. If it was done primarily for a legitimate government interest, this becomes acceptable. The problem is the facts (real verifiable facts :)) don't support that conclusion. For example, Trump wasn't going after general corruption based on Trump's own transcript. He was going specifically after Burisma and Biden. That makes it really hard to square as a legitimate government interest instead of his own personal interest. Another fact (from his own transcript, admission and testimony from several individuals) is that he was doing this through his own personal attorney who is representing his personal interests and not the interests of the US government. I agree it is his only valid defense, but verifiable information makes that a real hard case to make at this point.
Will this end up in conviction during impeachment. Probably not, for all the reasons we talked about.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
1SG John Faircloth - I suspect he does. If we has using Giuliani for official business, there are a whole host of recordkeeping laws that we are talking about being potentially in violation of if all those conversations with him were not officially captured. He can't be acting both as personal attorney acting under attorney client privilege and simultaneously doing the people's business. There is a very good reason for that and we are now seeing that reason.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google