President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Vindman is a nobody in this impeachment from the perspective of what he witnessed and heard, as he's too far down the chain to really matter and never spoke with Trump directly or even corresponded with him.

He was on the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky!

Republicans: "Bill Taylor wasn't on the Call! George Kent wasn't on the call! Marie Yovonavitch wasn't on the call! These people can't tell us anything! Read the transcript! LTC Vindman wasn't on the oh wait"

I have no idea what context your excerpts lack so frankly I will wait for tomorrow's testimony, as whatever it is I imagine Republicans will ask about in cross.

We know, that Mr. Sondland - the political-appointee ambassador who paid Trump's inaugural fund $1M - spoke directly with the President before he made that response - this one where he suggests 'we stop' the on-record 'back and forth by text.' This was also a text exchange on September 9, long after this Shakedown had already begun. Within hours of that text, Michael Atkinson would alert Congress to the whistle-blower complaint and it would begin cranking up an inquiry; the next day Congress demanded to see the contents of the complaint, and John Bolton was fired/resigned suddenly; on September 11, after the yellow flags had been raised, after the Congress got wind of something, after his Security Adviser was fired/quit under yet to be determined circumstances, the aid is released.

Overheal

First Sondland, now Volker wants to revise his testimony: https://www.mediaite.com/news/breaking-kurt-volker-reportedly-plans-to-revise-impeachment-testimony-now-says-he-was-out-of-the-loop-on-wh-shadow-ukraine-policy/

Sondland, Volker, and Rick Perry are referred to in the inquiry as the “Three Amigos” and Perry has not agreed to testify that I’m aware, but he announced his resignation as Energy Secretary. All three have been alleged in an energy sector deal involving Naftogaz if I have all that correctly.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Vindman is a nobody in this impeachment from the perspective of what he witnessed and heard, as he's too far down the chain to really matter and never spoke with Trump directly or even corresponded with him.

Where he is not a nobody however is that he is very likely the main source of the "whistleblower" and indeed is the one who leaked information to Politico.

Just from Morrison's testimony alone he comes across as weirdo who badgered Morrison to attend meetings and come on trips he wasn't needed on. The reason for this is obvious once you learn that he was suspected of leaking information and accessing material he was not supposed to. So clearly his desire to go on these overseas trips was purely from an information gathering perspective and not one related to doing the job he was actually being paid to do.

Some of the relevant testimony from Morrison to that end:



But like I say, he's too far down the chain to really matter all that much.

Sondland is a different matter as he claims to have been tasked by Trump and was acting on his behalf when he infomed Zelensky's aides that Zelensky would have to public declare that he / Ukraine would be investigating Burisma/Bidens.

Course he's also told us:



So, that would suggest that their key witness (unless they can get Bolton) is something of an eccentric.

In a murder trial, not every witness will be a direct witness to the murder. Some will be expert witnesses, some will be witnesses familiar with the murder location, others will be familiar with the suspect, others will be familiar with the events leading up to and following the murder and in many cases, there won't even be a witness to the murder.


If you were under the impression that Vindeman's testimony was supposed to include Trump calling him to explicitly say that there was a quid-pro-quo, you may be missing the point. He, like others, is there to describe what was going on from his point of view while others can describe theirs. This lets us see how well everyone's testimony overlaps and where it diverges so that we can ask why.


Requiring that every witness be a direct witness to the crime is just not how any of this kind of thing works.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Kent, Taylor... It's all hearsay no first hand knowledge!!!
Vindman... Meh he's a nothing, too far down the pecking order! Never spoke with President!
You gotta love the hoops the peeps are jumping through! The GOP and the defenders would have you believe that up is down and down is up, common sense is Einstein and Einstein is common sense!
People have moaned about narratives being lies, I've lost count of the narratives that the GOP have used to explain away this, tbf to them it'll work in the end!

Overheal

Jennifer Willams and LTC Vindman will he heard together today, here is the CSPAN livestream:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POBP1uwgYDY

Coverage will begin at 9 AM on the East Coast.

Need recap: here is an interactive timeline from WaPo based on the know so far

[url] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-impeachment-timeline/[/url]

Outlaw Pete

Excellent from Ratcliffe there re: the allegation of Bribery. Especially pointing the WaPo poll.

Meanwhile, Trump drops the following regarding this whole politically motivated farce:


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1196832113447845889

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Excellent from Ratcliffe there re: the allegation of Bribery. Especially pointing the WaPo poll.

Meanwhile, Trump drops the following regarding this whole politically motivated farce:


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1196832113447845889

It's not the remit of fact witnesses, who's todays are, to determine what bribery is

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Excellent from Ratcliffe there re: the allegation of Bribery. Especially pointing the WaPo poll.

Meanwhile, Trump drops the following regarding this whole politically motivated farce:


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1196832113447845889

The Chair squarely rebutted that in a follow up.

Igotadose

Stefanik repeating same old smoke. "They got the the aid." "The investigation never happened." "Schiff won't allow us to call Hunter Biden!"

She's at least a little prepared - reading from notes.

Oh, money's pouring into her opponents campaign.

Outlaw Pete

Boom, right again ... mole is outed!

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

[Vindman] is very likely the main source of the "whistleblower" ....

Love him being asked does the Trump administration need his approval. The look on his face. Full of self importance, as Morrison testified.

mcmoustache

The republicans don't really have any defence here. The main one, that all of these witnesses are confused or disloyal is such a stretch that only the weaker end of the Trumpian anti-intelligentsia could fall for it. The other stuff seems to be a mix of the sorts of conspiracy theories that get spread from the likes of Giuliani and Lutsenko, through John Solomon to the willing eyes of the serially gullible.

I know that the intention here is to gather soundbites for Hannity and tweets for those who should know better but this charade is recorded and will live on well after Trump falls apart. I'm starting to think that a lot of these people are starting to believe their own nonsense if they're so willing to go all in for this.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Boom, right again ... mole is outed!



Love him being asked does the Trump administration need his approval. The look on his face. Full of self importance, as Morrison testified.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you using a quote from yourself to prove something or did I miss something?

rosser44

Maloney on fire there, excellent questioning

Overheal

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you using a quote from yourself to prove something or did I miss something?

He’s implying somehow that if Vindman ever gazed upon whoever the whistleblower is, it’s a “smoking gun” of the deep state conspiracy... because, he heard collegial concerns about matters of the national interest?

Whistleblower Complaint wrote:

I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues’ accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another. In addition, a variety of information consistent with these private accounts has been reported publicly.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

He’s implying somehow that if Vindman ever gazed upon whoever the whistleblower is, it’s a “smoking gun” of the deep state conspiracy... because, he heard collegial concerns about matters of the national interest?

Find one post of mine on Boards where I even use the term "Deep State" and I'll give $1000 to a charity of your choice.

See this is all you folks can do, exaggerate people's positions non-stop.

It's clear Vindman is the mole from his testimony. If you want to stick your head in the sand on that, work away.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Find one post of mine on Boards where I even use the term "Deep State" and I'll give $1000 to a charity of your choice.

See this is all you folks can do, exaggerate people's positions non-stop.

It's clear Vindman is the mole from his testimony. If you want to stick your head in the sand on that, work away.

Can you point us exactly to where in his testimony he's 'the mole' (whatever that is considering he's a witness now, which is a public mole to use your analogy)

rosser44

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If you want to stick your head in the sand on that, work away.

L O F**king L

The projection is breathtaking.

Outlaw Pete

I have my head in the sand on what?? That Trump is guilty of bribery?? :pac:

Outlaw Pete

duploelabs wrote: »

Can you point us exactly to where in his testimony he's 'the mole'

Sure, 1m50s otherwise known as "Duper's Delight"


https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1196860571183804417

0lddog

Not following this thread so maybe you all know

BBC Parliament channel broadcasting this live 19:30 - 23:30 this evening

I wont be viewing

MeMen2_MoRi_

I wonder how many times "deep state" was said in closed depositions..
I'll hazard a guess it was more then once!

James Brown

"It was inappropriate, it was improper for the president to request - to demand - an investigation into a political opponent, especially (from) a foreign power where there is, at best, dubious belief that this would be a completely impartial investigation and that this would have significant implications if it became public knowledge," Lt Col Vindman told the committee.

Lt Col Vindman was among the US officials who listened in on the 25 July call.

Lt Col Vindman, an Iraq war veteran who appeared at the hearing wearing his army uniform and medals, has been publicly criticised by Mr Trump along with other witnesses.

He said that "character attacks" against public servants testifying in the impeachment inquiry were "reprehensible".

Donald Trump

"It is natural to disagree and engage in spirited debate, this has been the custom of our country since the time of our founding fathers, but we are better than personal attacks," Lt Col Vindman said.
https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2019/1119/1092758-trump-impeachment/

Good man. Great to see some semblance of decency coming from U.S. officials.
Time that low rent, no class, charlatan of a human gets ousted. Trump's no friend of America or it's democratic system.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1196874405563031553

Tim Morrison had him spot on:

Sondland and Vindman are different people. Unless I've missed something.

Overheal

Having watched the full thing, I think the Republicans were handed their lunch.

While I was happy as a moderate to see them stop the shennanigans (no point of order interruption, no "holy cow" tantrums) and the whole thing was at least more or less civil. But I they apparently had nothing better to do in questioning/cross than to burn up time on soapboxing, in the middle of the hearing; Jim Jordan spent about an entire segment of his time going on about waffle. And they got burned for this when Democrats called it out, too: disparaging an active duty soldier for wearing dress uniform to Capitol Hill; making limited efforts to dispute the matters of established fact in the Ukraine timeline (waffling, while not inquiring in-defense of the president's culpability); and Jim Jordan (this was daft) while sitting in front of 2 witnesses that were on the July 25 call (not to mention witnesses to much else in the timeline), he bemoaned in a waffling soliloqui about a lack of first-hand witnesses. Odd that duck.

rosser44

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I have my head in the sand on what?? That Trump is guilty of bribery?? :pac:

Ehhh.... Yup, that's exactly what I meant.

mcmoustache

I'm still puzzled why Pete was using this quote to smear Vindman. Am I going mad?

Outlaw Pete

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Good man. Great to see some semblance of decency coming from U.S. officials.
Time that low rent, no class, charlatan of a human gets ousted. Trump's no friend of America or it's democratic system.

lol. Are you kidding me? The guy had to Google 'Burisma' - so how would his opinion of what Trump said on the call matter with regards to Trump's motives? Opinions need to be informed. His were clearly not.

He said Trump "Demanded" Zelensky investigate the Bidens but during testimony when asked to point the part of the call transcript it was were Trump was "demanding" he couldn't do it, and he was given three minutes to!

In the end he just turned to the mic and said that it was more an overall thing and today he illogically said that when he was in the army if a superior asked him to do something, he considered it a demand because of that, but by that measure, EVERYTHING a POTUS asks another president for would qualify was a bloody demand.

Can't remember which congressman it was that rebutted him, but they did it beautifully by pointing out that when they were in the air force they didn't consider every favour asked of them by a superior to be a demand.

Another illogical argument made by the democrats today was that because Ukraine are desperate for defensive aid, they might make stuff up about the Bidens to please Trump ... but sure in that case, why ask Ukraine for anything going forward at all, as sure they're just gonna make shit up.

Weak show for the democrats today but liberals will no doubt see all the feelz testimony about Vindman's brother and dad as really good moments which may have manipulated the public into hating Trump just that little bit more and sure isn't that what this circus is all really about, keeping the negative narrative about Trump alive in the hope it will influence the electoral come 2020 ...

'Pay no attention to the Job Growth and Stock Market folks, look over here, the President's asking foreign countries to interfere in US elections and he's a racist too!!'

Sondland tomorrow. Finally someone who actually spoke to Trump about the hold up of aid. He's their last hope. Changed his story already of course and is also is on record as saying Trump told him 'No quid pro quos' and so that will for sure dilute whatever it is that he has to say.

Either way though, the POTUS sets foreign policy, and if he determines (based on the information in his possession) that he would like Ukraine to look into the Burisma-Biden allegations, and chooses to withhold aid until such time as they agree to do just that, then that's his call .. and should it get there (and I believe it will) that's how the Senate will see it too.

The gall of these people thinking they can question the authority of the President of the United States on a matter which is clearly for him to make the call on. Had they witnessed him requesting an illegal act, of course then it would be understandable to leak or blow all the whistles they want on, but if Pompeo and Pence didn't feel motivated enough to raise the alarm on something as innocuous as this, then nor should these people, who clearly haven't accepted that Trump was elected in 2016 and not Hillary Clinton.

As for the crocodile tears and pearl clutching about Ukraine needing security aid, which I keep reading, and about how Trump endangered their lives by leaving them vulnerable to a Russian attack? Puh-leaze!!

https://twitter.com/RepStefanik/status/1196880282692907008

Something Vindman was wrong on also as it happens:

At his Oct. 29 deposition, Col. Vindman, an infantry officer and decorated war veteran, was asked about military aid by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat.

“Under the previous administration, there was a, I’m aware of the transfer of a fairly significant number of Javelins, yes,” Col. Vindman testified.

The historical record shows that assertion to be wrong. The Obama administration limited its aid to support items to Ukraine after the 2014 Russian invasion.

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

Sondland and Vindman are different people. Unless I've missed something.

Apologies, I got the transcripts mixed up, will delete it.

Outlaw Pete

rosser44 wrote: »

Ehhh.... Yup, that's exactly what I meant.

Ok, well make a case for it. Why do you consider him asking what he did to be an example of attempted bribery?

Zelensky is on record as saying he felt no pressure on the back of the requests.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ok, well make a case for it. Why do you consider him asking what he did to be an example of attempted bribery?

Zelensky is on record as saying he felt no pressure on the back of the requests.

Can we just agree I could probably respond to your posts with segments of the hearing? I know at least, 2 I think Democrats bunked that entire argument. Including establishing that neither of the witnesses are lawyers and aren't in a position to decide what the statue was. Can't recall who offhand but someone questioned the witness and asked would we have to dismiss a criminal case because a survivor of an attempted murder only testified to 'surviving from getting shot multiple times' but didn't actually call this "attempted murder" or "murder."

Also, as the Inquiry has already established on the record, Zelensky is in a politically compromised position, and relies on US support as a matter of their national security - turning against Trump's narrative would jeopardize that. Today, Zelensky flatly refused to answer whether he had made the arrangements (as Fahreed Zakaria has reported) to appear in an interview on CNN to announce "Investigations" "2016" "Burisma" "Bidens."