Whistleblower identified

[oxmixmudd]

And that evidence is...?

We can start with the Morrison testimony, which "Republicans emerged calling him the most favorable witness they had heard from so far." (from the link below)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/u...peachment.html

Even this witness, a Trump appointee loyal to Trump, had this to say

Source: above

A senior National Security Council aide on Thursday confirmed a key episode at the center of the impeachment inquiry, testifying that a top diplomat working with President Trump told him that a package of military assistance for Ukraine would not be released until the country committed to investigations the president sought.

© Copyright Original Source

This is the witness who claimed he saw nothing 'illegal' in the call itself, but that begs the question. In the call Trump asks Zelensky for a favor. The favor being the investigation of corruption that we know from other sources and other contexts was focussed on Biden and Burisma. In fact, we know from Vindman's testimony that specific mention of Biden and Burisma was in fact in this very call and removed from the official record of the call, even when Vindman pushed for it to be included.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/u...p-ukraine.html



We also know that officials in the Ukraine goverment were aware early on following the July 25 call. As early as the first week of August.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/u...peachment.html

So we know that they understood the aid was on hold early in the process. We know that Trump had asked for a 'favor' at the point in the call where the aid was mentioned. That is a causal correlation. There is no credible claim these could not be correlated, and no diplomat worth his salt is going to miss that implication. The investigation was something Trump 'needed', with the direct implicit tie to the aid.

And the aid is held up. And Zelensky has NOT announced - publically - the investigation Trump has requested as a 'need' in relation to the aid itself in the July phone call. So Zelensky has not met Trump's 'need' and the aid is not coming.

Indeed, Mulvaney told us the aid was, in fact, tied to that 'needed' investigation:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/u...p-ukraine.html

Now let's be clear hear. Mulvaney did not say - directly - that Trump held up the aid to forward his political interests by having Ukraine investigate Biden. But there is a Domino like cascade of facts here that drive that as the only logical conclusion:

Trump is asking 'needs' a favor. Trump 'needs' an investigation if Biden and Burisma. This is all very clear from the transcript. But that doesn't mean Trump is holding up the money to satisfy that need.

Yet we have testimony from Taylor and Vindman and now Mulvaney that the Aid was held up to force a 'corruption investigation'. And that (alone) doesn't mean the money was being held up to investigate Biden.

But these two sets to fact, taken TOGETHER, does. Because if the money was held up to force a public declaration of a corruptions investigations, and if that primary focus of that investigation is to include Burisma and specifically Biden and his son, the transitively we have:

Trump was holding up aid to force an investigation into Biden with 'general corruption' as it cover.

And we also know that Biden was Trump's most dangerous 2020 political rival at the time all of this is going down. The evidence then, confirmed through mulitiple avenues and independent testimony is that Trump was engaged in a Quid Pro Quo for personal, political gain. He 'needed' an investigation of his chief political rival from Zelensky, and Zelensky needed that money for weapons to sustain their fight against Russian aggression.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

We can start with the Morrison testimony, which "Republicans emerged calling him the most favorable witness they had heard from so far." (from the link below)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/u...peachment.html

Even this witness, a Trump appointee loyal to Trump, had this to say

Source: above

A senior National Security Council aide on Thursday confirmed a key episode at the center of the impeachment inquiry, testifying that a top diplomat working with President Trump told him that a package of military assistance for Ukraine would not be released until the country committed to investigations the president sought.

© Copyright Original Source

This is the witness who claimed he saw nothing 'illegal' in the call itself, but that begs the question. In the call Trump asks Zelensky for a favor. The favor being the investigation of corruption that we know from other sources and other contexts was focussed on Biden and Burisma. In fact, we know from Vindman's testimony that specific mention of Biden and Burisma was in fact in this very call and removed from the official record of the call, even when Vindman pushed for it to be included.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/u...p-ukraine.html



We also know that officials in the Ukraine goverment were aware early on following the July 25 call. As early as the first week of August.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/u...peachment.html

So we know that they understood the aid was on hold early in the process. We know that Trump had asked for a 'favor' at the point in the call where the aid was mentioned. That is a causal correlation. There is no credible claim these could not be correlated, and no diplomat worth his salt is going to miss that implication. The investigation was something Trump 'needed', with the direct implicit tie to the aid.

And the aid is held up. And Zelensky has NOT announced - publically - the investigation Trump has requested as a 'need' in relation to the aid itself in the July phone call. So Zelensky has not met Trump's 'need' and the aid is not coming.

Indeed, Mulvaney told us the aid was, in fact, tied to that 'needed' investigation:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/u...p-ukraine.html

Now let's be clear hear. Mulvaney did not say - directly - that Trump held up the aid to forward his political interests by having Ukraine investigate Biden. But there is a Domino like cascade of facts here that drive that as the only logical conclusion:

Trump is asking 'needs' a favor. Trump 'needs' an investigation if Biden and Burisma. This is all very clear from the transcript. But that doesn't mean Trump is holding up the money to satisfy that need.

Yet we have testimony from Taylor and Vindman and now Mulvaney that the Aid was held up to force a 'corruption investigation'. And that (alone) doesn't mean the money was being held up to investigate Biden.

But these two sets to fact, taken TOGETHER, does. Because if the money was held up to force a public declaration of a corruptions investigations, and if that primary focus of that investigation is to include Burisma and specifically Biden and his son, the transitively we have:

Trump was holding up aid to force an investigation into Biden with 'general corruption' as it cover.

And we also know that Biden was Trump's most dangerous 2020 political rival at the time all of this is going down. The evidence then, confirmed through mulitiple avenues and independent testimony is that Trump was engaged in a Quid Pro Quo for personal, political gain. He 'needed' an investigation of his chief political rival from Zelensky, and Zelensky needed that money for weapons to sustain their fight against Russian aggression.


Jim

And yet there is still no evidence that anybody in the Ukrainian government was ever aware of these internal discussions, was aware that aid had been temporarily suspended, or that they did anything special to get the military aid restored, and President Zelinsky himself has stated multiple times on the record that he was never pressured into taking a closer look at Biden.

As for Vindman's claims of omissions, he's going to have to do better than merely his say-so to impeach the credibility of an official government transcript.

This is why Democrats refuse to hold open hearings, because their case against Trump is so easily dismantled... but that doesn't stop them from stringing along low-information specialists like you who dutifully regurgitate the party approved talking points.

[Juvenal]

Having spot checked a few of your sources, they don't say what you guys are claiming.

I claimed nothing. You asked if there was a source behind the expression you bolded:

Judge Denny Chin asked Trumps lawyers; that if Trump shot someone on 5th avenue, is it your contention that local authorities could do nothing about it?

Trumps lawyer replied. "That's correct, yes."

Yes, there are, and many more than I cited. I stopped at 17.

Picking off the first three:

Vox:

Politico:

NY Post:

This actually happened. I looked for that language in all of the sources I provided before I linked them. Trump's lawyer actually claimed no criminal investigation could be opened, even if the president opened fire on Fifth Avenue.

But the question is not whether such an investigation could be undertaken. The mere existence of the Mueller investigation moots the claim. The question is why the president's legal team would make such a claim to begin with.

Whether it is because his team is that deficient and this is a reflection of their incompetence, or because his position is so deficient that competent representation finds it necessary to evince absurdities, it is the case that representatives of the president of the United States are publicly mounting an incompetent defense, and the president is allowing this to happen.

[JimL]

Having spot checked a few of your sources, they don't say what you guys are claiming. The argument, obviously, is that if there is evidence that a crime was committed - such as a president committing murder in broad daylight - then the president can be impeached and removed from office and then investigated and charged as a private citizen, but while president, he is intentionally shielded by the Constitution from petty and politically motivated lawsuits, such as trying to subpoena his tax returns without probable cause (and, no, "We want to look at them to see if there's a crime" is not probable cause).

To put it another way, the Office of the President is immune to criminal investigation by design, but the person serving as president is not. The remedy for a criminal president is impeachment and removal from office which happens in the legislature and not the judiciary, but the bar for such action is deliberately high requiring a very serious offense such as treason or bribery. Murder would certainly qualify as well.

If the President can't be investigated, then he can't be impeached, and to argue that he can get away with whatever heinous crime he commits, so long as he has a captive political party backing him up is completely ignorant of the fact that according to the Constitution, we have a President, not a King," and a president is not above the law.

[oxmixmudd]

And yet there is still no evidence that anybody in the Ukrainian government was ever aware of these internal discussions, was aware that aid had been temporarily suspended, or that they did anything special to get the military aid restored, and President Zelinsky himself has stated multiple times on the record that he was never pressured into taking a closer look at Biden.

You didn't read (or didn't understand the implications of) the links in my post. We know they knew the aid had been detained in the first week of August. That is just 2 weeks or so after that call itself. They don't have to know it was detained during the call - assuming they did not - they can (and did) figure it out. That is, especially in a government used to corruption, bribes, etc, only an idiot would not link Trump's request and the money were not linked. And as far as why it was detained, they were directed to Mulveny, and Mulveny just got done telling us the aid was detained contingent upon the 'corruption' investigations. Are you going to content that even though Mulveny told that to the US Press, he didn't tell the Ukrainian diplomats when they contacted him as they were instructued to do?

But even more critically, and perhaps more objectively, the Ukrainian officials KNEW Trump wanted the investigation as a precondition to the July 25th call itself. This becomes clear in Taylor's testimony.



Note that Vindmans testimony is consistent with Taylors on the fact that favors from Trump were tied to these same investigations:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...6ef_story.html



This is well before the call. So before Trump ever asked for a 'favor', Zelenskyy was well aware of the importance of the investigations to any real support from the president, Donald Trump.

And, indeed, Muleveny tells us the aid was another extension of this very same pressure already being exerted on Zelenskyy to condition support from the President on those investigations.

As for Vindman's claims of omissions, he's going to have to do better than merely his say-so to impeach the credibility of an official government transcript.

This is why Democrats refuse to hold open hearings, because their case against Trump is so easily dismantled... <typical MM attempt to degrade>

Sorry, that testimony is clear and damning, and in light of all the other mentions of Burisma and Biden before and after the call, believable. However, all we need is testimony under oath from those that he urged to include that text.

Vindman also said this about ellipsis in the document:

Source: above

The rough transcript also contains ellipses at three points where Mr. Trump is speaking. Colonel Vindman told investigators that at the point of the transcript where the third set of ellipses appears, Mr. Trump said there were tapes of Mr. Biden.

© Copyright Original Source

We already know this is a 'rough' transcript, and that there are omissions. So there is no reason not to believe Vindman is telling the Truth. He is under oath. He is a man of integrity. And we already have multiple additional sources that I have already cited which connect these 'investigations' to a strong effort targeting Biden and Burisma.

I also note your buy in to the 'fake news' narrative. The sources I'm quoting are legitimate news organizations with a track record and a commitment to real journalism and high journalistic standards. And these are simply recounts of the testimony of the individuals who witnessed the events.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

If the President can't be investigated, then he can't be impeached, and to argue that he can get away with whatever heinous crime he commits, so long as he has a captive political party backing him up is completely ignorant of the fact that according to the Constitution, we have a President, not a King," and a president is not above the law.

The point you're missing is that if there is clear evidence that a crime was committed, such as a president shooting someone in broad daylight in front of witnesses, then there's really no need for an investigation, and Congress should be able to move quickly and unanimously to impeach and remove from office, and then the civil courts can dispense justice. It's notable that the only "punishment" specified in the Constitution is removal from office, but surely the Founding Fathers did not intend for that to be the end of the matter. There are also no allowances in the Constitution for Congress to go digging for crimes. I forget who said it, but it's a worthy point: impeachment should never pass narrowly along party lines, and such a scenario should be regarded as a failure of the process.

[Cow Poke]

The point you're missing is that if there is clear evidence that a crime was committed, such as a president shooting someone in broad daylight in front of witnesses, then there's really no need for an investigation, and Congress should be able to move quickly and unanimously to impeach and remove from office, and then the civil courts can dispense justice. It's notable that the only "punishment" specified in the Constitution is removal from office, but surely the Founding Fathers did not intend for that to be the end of the matter. There are also no allowances in the Constitution for Congress to go digging for crimes. I forget who said it, but it's a worthy point: impeachment should never pass narrowly along party lines, and such a scenario should be regarded as a failure of the process.

Not Getting a Single Republican Is a Bad Omen for Pelosi



Of course, this is Newt, so it will be tossed aside as useless information.

[Mountain Man]

You didn't read (or didn't understand the implications of) the links in my post.

I'll stop you right there and simply note that what you call "implications" are not evidence but simply you trying to back-fill your presumption that the President is guilty. I will repeat: there is zero evidence that anybody in the Ukrainian government was aware that military aid had been temporarily suspended; there is zero evidence that anybody in the Ukrainian government did anything special to get the aid restored; and President Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have consistently said that there was no pressure to investigate Biden or his son.

Until we have we clear, hard evidence disproving any of those three facts then the case against Trump is dead in the water. Your problem is that you're being suckered in by Shifty Adam Schiff's selective leaks. For instance, Taylor's testimony, which was touted as particularly "damning" for the benefit of low-info consumers like, was obliterated in 90-seconds by Representative Ratcliffe.

Vindman had a lot to say about his opinion of Trump's foreign policy, but so what? His opinion is not evidence. He claims he tried to "correct" the official transcript by restoring content, but what evidence do we have that he wasn't trying to add content that was never there in the first place? There were obviously other firsthand witnesses who prevented him from adding his "corrections", which is a significant point. We have also come to find that Vindman had numerous contacts with foreign agents as a member of the National Security Council, and it was almost certainly him who leaked the contents of a confidential presidential phonecall to the "whistleblower", which is possibly a crime (apparently he didn't have the guts to blow the whistle himself). This all speaks to his credibility -- or lack of.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Like I said, there's a reason Democrats won't hold these public hearings, and you're just gullible enough to fall it.

[oxmixmudd]

The point you're missing is that if there is clear evidence that a crime was committed, such as a president shooting someone in broad daylight in front of witnesses, then there's really no need for an investigation, and Congress should be able to move quickly and unanimously to impeach and remove from office, and then the civil courts can dispense justice. It's notable that the only "punishment" specified in the Constitution is removal from office, but surely the Founding Fathers did not intend for that to be the end of the matter. There are also no allowances in the Constitution for Congress to go digging for crimes. I forget who said it, but it's a worthy point: impeachment should never pass narrowly along party lines, and such a scenario should be regarded as a failure of the process.

The problem is, with this senate, it would require such an act for them to act. There is already ample evidence this president operates in a lawless manner. Setting up backchannel 'diplomacy', strong arming potential allies trying to maintain independence from the Russians in efforts to employ foreign powers to help with his election bid, snubbing his nose at the entire concept of the emoluments clause, undermining our intelligence services, etc.

The fact this can be tolerated is not just an indictment of this senate, not just an indictment of the republican party, but in indictment of our population and how low it has been brought morally over the last 30+ years of constant assaults on morality and decency.

And the icing on the cake is that the Evangelical Church is leading the charge for acceptance and tolerance of this President's excess and his illegal, immoral disparaging of so many of the good things we as a people have aspired to over the last 2 and 1/2 centuries.

Somehow the tendency of the press to support causes that often are at odds with Christian teachings on Sexual Morality has resulted in the Church accepting and supporting a person that represents the lowest of the low in personal and social morality. Lying, deciept, personal and corporate corruption, political corruption. The elements the founding fathers worked so hard to create a system to limit are now embraced (overlooked, ignored, tolerated, excused) on the hope of pushing back against abortion and the LBGTQ agenda.

It's a fools errand - at the cost of the personal integrity of that same Church and its members.

[oxmixmudd]

I'll stop you right there and simply note that what you call "implications" are not evidence but simply you trying to back-fill your presumption that the President is guilty. I will repeat: there is zero evidence that anybody in the Ukrainian government was aware that military aid had been temporarily suspended; there is zero evidence that anybody in the Ukrainian government did anything special to get the aid restored; and President Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials have consistently said that there was no pressure to investigate Biden or his son.

Until we have we clear, hard evidence disproving any of those three facts then the case against Trump is dead in the water. Your problem is that you're being suckered in by Shifty Adam Schiff's selective leaks. For instance, Taylor's testimony, which was touted as particularly "damning" for the benefit of low-info consumers like, was obliterated in 90-seconds by Representative Ratcliffe.

Vindman had a lot to say about his opinion of Trump's foreign policy, but so what? His opinion is not evidence. He claims he tried to "correct" the official transcript by restoring content, but what evidence do we have that he wasn't trying to add content that was never there in the first place? There were obviously other firsthand witnesses who prevented him from adding his "corrections", which is a significant point. We have also come to find that Vindman had numerous contacts with foreign agents as a member of the National Security Council, and it was almost certainly him who leaked the contents of a confidential presidential phonecall to the "whistleblower", which is possibly a crime (apparently he didn't have the guts to blow the whistle himself). This all speaks to his credibility -- or lack of.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Like I said, there's a reason Democrats won't hold these public hearings, and you're just gullible enough to fall it.

MM- All I have done is lay out the actual testimony and the logical implications of it. I was under no illusions it could move you an inch, or that you could even see that these are simply the facts and their honest implications.

But the truth is the truth, and there may be others reading that may see it for what it is, and it is my responsibility to at least lay out what it is that makes a clear case against this president as regards the quid pro quo he was engaged in.


Jim

[Juvenal]

Of course, this is Newt, so it will be tossed aside as useless information.

Pretty much, and rightly, too. He's a walking, talking homage to .



The woman is fickle /
What a feather in the wind /
Mutable of accent /
and of thought ...

A lot has changed since March, whence Newt quotes Nancy, hence this thread.

Much more will change before next November, by which time Newt's prognostications will have changed many times over again, as Pence battles Warren for the election.

Waiting, with or without appeals from our favorite amphibian, and whoever he's married to by then.

[oxmixmudd]

Not Getting a Single Republican Is a Bad Omen for Pelosi



Of course, this is Newt, so it will be tossed aside as useless information.

It is bad. But it says more about the Republicans than it does Pelosi. And this is one lifelong Republican that will vote accordingly in 2020. As far as I am concerned, their refusal to stand up to Trump's abuse of our constitution is a violation of their oath of office.

Jim

[firstfloor]

Schiff tweet on Republicans is spot on:

[Mountain Man]

There is already ample evidence this president operates in a lawless manner.

False.

[Mountain Man]

All I have done is lay out the actual testimony and the logical implications of it.

You've described some of the testimony, yes, but you stopped short of any critical analysis, and the so-called "implications" are so colored by your bias and what you so desperately want to be true that they're not even worth discussing.

On that note, i's baffling to me that you and others who share your thinking are bitterly disappointed every time it's proven that our President is innocent of any crimes. Surely any rational person would consider that cause for celebration, but perhaps you're simply not a rational person.