Tuesday, November 26, 2019

The great con

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-thinks-his-supporters-are-the-most-gullible-people-on-earth-are-they-really/2019/03/07/1e79a4c4-41

11/24/19  Testimony by State Department and the US ambassador Bill Taylor to Ukraine  November 13 confirmed  Trump used withholding military aid as a threat to force the Ukraine president to go before microphones and announce he would re-open investigations into the Bidens and find  evidence that Ukraine, not Russia, was to blame  for the 2016 US presidential election interference. In fact. Amb. Sondland, one of the schemers, testified that Trump did not require Zelensky to go through with the investigation, just to announce it. That was the purpose. 

 The dead-end investigations into Hillary Clinton's emails and Ben Ghazi hurt her badly. It should work against Biden, too...right?  That latter issue, that Ukraine, not Russia, hacked the DNC server is a conspiracy theory that contradicts the findings of Mueller,'s investigation,  all of the US intelligence services, and a bi-partisan Senate committee findings, not to mention they found it was a propaganda initiative of Russian intelligence agencies. NSC expert on Russia matters, Fiona Hill, calls the claim that Ukraine, not Russia,(Cloudstrike) invented and advanced by Russia." It is fiction", she testified in open hearings.. 
https://www.axios.com/impeachment-hearing-fiona-hill-trump-ukraine-testimony-49fbce41-bf1c-4b02-964c-701196d30d5c.html

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/sondland-trump-only-wanted-ukraine-to-announce-investigation-into-biden-not-a-real-inquiry

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/trump-followers-believe-lies-wall.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-thinks-his-supporters-are-the-most-gullible-people-on-earth-are-they-really/2019/03/07/1e79a4c4-41
 Cloudstrike:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/02/not-enough-pinocchios-trumps-crowdstrike-obsession

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-turn-gaslighting-response-justice-dept-report?cid=sm_fb_maddow&fbclid=IwAR3I509xX3alDX30zcXZ0Ce0LK8diBRYMs6RyvwpNCFpvF6rjFCdchhXi9E
Posted by at No comments:

Impeachment to date in tweet form

Democrat’s case
Trump did it. He tried to cheat in secret to help his 2020 re-election campaign. His own words and first-hand witnesses testified he used Congressionally approved taxpayer money to coerce a desperate ally fighting Russia to help Trump's re-election in 2020. He invited foreign interference in the 2020 elections to help his re-election. Trump was caught in the act and the scheme was aborted..

 Trump claimed he was fighting Ukraine corruption, but only mentioned Bidens. Ambassador Sondland, one of the three Amigos running the scheme, confirmed Trump "did not give a s...t about Ukraine, but cared about "big stuff" meaning investigations into Bidens and: Ukraine, not Russia hacked the DNC.

What did Trump know; when he froze the military aid to Ukraine? Per sworn testimony, the order was given directly to the Office of Budget and Management as early as July 18, a week before July 25 shakedown call with the Ukraine president and the official order was issued the evening of July 25. Because a violation of law was involved, two OMB officials refused to sign off on the freeze, resigned, and were replaced by Trump loyalists.
.
What did Trump know when he released the military aid to Ukraine? Two days before the release of aid,, the Whistleblower complaint was released to Congress and the public, but at the end of August White House attorneys told Trump about the Whistleblower complaint. Zelensky by then had agreed to comply with Trump's favors he asked, to announce publicly the investigations into Bidens and 2016, arranged an interview with CNN, and canceled it with the release of the aid. Ukraine and Amb. Sondland knew aid was dependent on Ukraine's compliance to announce the investigations by the end of August.

 Trump knew and approved the scheme.Trump ordered the suspension of military aid week before July25 telephone call where he listed favors and referred Ukraine president to Guiliani. Guiliani said he was working for Trump. Amb. Sondland reported updates to Trump and said all were in the loop.

 All US intelligence agencies, 125 pages of Mueller report, and Senate bipartisan committee report provide proof Russia, not Ukraine interfered in the 2016 elections. Russia intelligence services invented conspiracy theory Ukraine did it. Joe Biden advocated more vigorous prosecution of Ukraine's corruption, not less. Amb. Sondland testifies Trump only wanted Ukraine to announce investigations, not conduct them.

Trump emboldens Russian aggression, giving them a green light to exert control over Ukraine and other countries since they fear little resistance from the US. He does not care an expletive about Ukraine but how they could help his re-election. He promotes and repeats Russian propaganda and trusts Russian sources instead of US intelligence services and bi-partisan Senate committee findings.

We cannot trust Trump to look after ours or the nation's interests because he cares less for our national security than he does for his own political security. Trump lies to the public often. He uses fear of reprisals and tweets to intimidate opposition and claims he is above the law to get his way both in foreign affairs and domestic policy.

 White House refused to respond to subpoenas and obstructs justice by keeping administration officials with first-hand knowledge to produce documents and to testify. Still civil service and military and Amb. Sondland as first-hand witnesses testified.


If GOP Senators acquit him, they are complicit and give present and future presidents the green light to do it, too.

GOP’s case
He did wrong, but not wrong enough to justify impeachment or removal.

 The military was unfrozen; no investigations in Biden or 2016. No harm, no foul.

 President released aid because Ukraine president agreed to investigate Bidens and 2016 and announce it publicly.

 July 25 telephone call: perfect, nothing to see there.

 Guiliani did it, not Trump.

 No one knows if Ukraine didn't hack the DNC server.

Trump only wanted to fight corruption in Ukraine but only mentioned Bidens. GOP 
opens investigation Joe Biden’s connections with Ukraine to verify the theory.

 We need to check first to see if Ukraine interfered in 2016, not Russia. Who knows what happened. No one does.

President is more credible than anyone else in government. Everyone who disagrees with Donald Trump is a Never Trumper and not loyal. Professional diplomats and intelligence officials have hidden agendas or are mistaken. Trump is God’s chosen one.

All evidence presented in hearings was hearsay.
Democrats have been out to impeach Trump since he was elected.
Impeachment is an illegal act; it is a coup….so
Members of the executive branch should not obey or comply with Congressional subpoenas.
The executive branch has the power to defy all Congressional subpoenas. Executive branch has absolute immunity.
All excutive branch testifiers can claim executive privilege.

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, November 21, 2019

What were the "bombshells" on the impeachment inquiry open hearings"i

Update 12/3/19
House Intelligence Committee report to House Judiciary Committee 
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/read-full-text-trump-ukraine-impeachment-inquiry-report-n1095036?fbclid=IwAR0Ai0u_wVnUX_YDwkpZFF8qd92E7a5S3c_cIlMOkbt35YDedvF9lMx2C7M

 Update: 11/23.19
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/23/20979143/giuliani-lev-parnas-devin-nunes-biden-investigation-impeachment-inquiry
Nunes had been doing work in Ukraine on Bidens.

Update: 11/27/19
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/27/trump-knew-about-whistleblower-complaint-before-ukraine-aid-released.html

________________________________________________________________________________



11/24/19  Testimony by State Department and the US ambassador Bill Taylor to Ukraine  November 13 confirmed  Trump used withholding military aid as a threat to force the Ukraine president to go before microphones and announce he would re-open investigations into the Bidens and find  evidence that Ukraine, not Russia, was to blame  for the 2016 US presidential election interference. In fact. Amb. Sondland, one of the schemers, testified that Trump did not require Zelensky to go through with the investigation, just to announce it. That was the purpose. The dead end investigations into Hillary Clinton's emails and Ben Ghazi hurt her badly. It should work against Biden, too...right?  That latter issue, that Ukraine, not Russia, hacked the DNC server is a conspiracy theory that contradicts the findings of Mueller,'s investigation,  all of the US intelligence services, and a bi-partisan Senate committee findings, not to mention they found it was a propaganda initiative of Russian intelligence services. . NSC expert on Russia matters, Fiona Hill, calls the claim that Ukraine, not Russia,(Cloudstrike) invented and advanced by Russia." It is fiction", she testified in open hearings.. 
https://www.axios.com/impeachment-hearing-fiona-hill-trump-ukraine-testimony-49fbce41-bf1c-4b02-964c-701196d30d5c.html

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/sondland-trump-only-wanted-ukraine-to-announce-investigation-into-biden-not-a-real-inquiry

"The US uses withholding favors and aid often to get foreign governments to agree to US foreign objectives; Mulvaney: just get over it"
Numerous testifiers in both the deposition and public testimony..in fact, all, testified that Trump had never made fighting corruption in general in Ukraine as a mention in regard to the "quid pro quo" as being a legitimate use of his powers.  What all reported was that only corruption mentioned had to do with Bidens and Burisma.  As Ambassador Sondland reported after an overheard conversation with Trump while on his unsecured cell phone in a Kyiv restaurant, and verified by at least two first-hand witnesses and to some extent by Sondland himself, was that the President did not give a s....t about Ukraine; it was the big stuff.  Bidens".  Laura Cooper of the Pentagon testified that the stipulations placed on the release of the military aid to Ukraine, including acting on corruption, had been satisfied as of May and the aid could have been released after going through some administrative hoops could have been released in mid-June. July 18 the President via Mulvaney froze the disbursement with no reason given.  There were indeed inquiries to her staff around mid-July from Ukraine embassy wondering where their money for Javelins was.  They were aware of the freeze. It was not until later in summer that the weapon's freeze was connected to the pressure on Zelensky in addition to the Oval Office meeting and was verified by Sondland by August 31.


 Taylor was the successor to Ambassador Maria Yovanovitch who Trump had removed in May. Ambassador Yovanovitch testified November 15 she had known Rudy Guiliani had been active in Ukraine seeking her removal.  Yovanovitch's testimony revealed she was recalled and smeared for her efforts to rein in corruption in Ukraine that targeted a corrupt prosecutor who was a pal of Rudy Guiliani's circle of Ukraine contacts.
On November 21, in open hearings in the House, Will Hurd, retiring GOP representative from Texas, presented what will be the best argument the GOP Senators can use to vote against the conviction of Trump. After hearing the devastating evidence that indeed there was a "quid pro quo" , even verified by Amb. Gordon Sondland, one of the participants in the scheme, first hand, it does not rise to a reason to remove Trump. This is a judgment call. The Senators need to ask: why not? What are the rules going forward? Will this mean the standards set for future presidents that it is ok to ask foreigners to intervene in our own elections, in spite of laws forbidding that, and is it ok for future presidents to use taxpayer and Congressionally appropriated money for their own personal political benefit in order to pressure foreign leaders to help his re-election. Where do we draw the line on acceptable presidential behavior.


Zelensky had been reluctant to interfere in US domestic politics, fearing he would jeopardize bi-partisan support in the US Congress. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland in Wednesday, November 20 open hearing confirmed the quid pro quo, using exactly those words: Trump would give the Oval Office meeting Zelensky wanted to have for Trump to confirm continued America’s support of Ukraine, but only if Zelensky would commit to the investigations. Sondland's significance: first had knowledge as a participant in the scheme. This was no hearsay or circumstantial evidence. This was from the participant's horse's mouth. However, Sondland was slow to realize the military aid/Javelin release also was dependent on Zelensky’s agreement to investigate the two conspiracy theories and announce it publicly. He did understand that at the end of August. He was also slow to grasp that every time Burisma investigations re-opening meant Hunter and Joe Biden's activities. Under questioning, Sondland agreed opening the Biden investigation would benefit Trump in 2020. The issue that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 elections, contradicts the findings of Mueller,'s investigation, all of the US intelligence services, and bi-partisan Senate committee findings. Sondland also said all of the president's men, Pence, Pompeo, Mulvaney, etc. were in on the scheme. It was not just Rudy Guiliani going rogue; it was the mainstream of Trump and his closest advisors who were part of it. Laura Cooper, the point person in the Department of Defense, also testified that her staff had received inquiries from the Ukraine embassy on July 25 asking about the money for the javelins, indicating that Ukraine knew about the July 18 freeze on javelin money far earlier than the GOP charged. The
significance is that it shuts holes in the GOP argument that there was no quo there, i.e.how could
Ukraine knows that the release of the military aid was being used as the extortion hammer. They did know. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdIIMXibXoc Laura Cooper testimony 11/20

_______________________________________________________________________________
 There was also evidence Guiliani had been trying to get evidence against the Bidens since late 2018, before the election of Zelensky in April 2019. 

 Trump released the aid within 48 hours of the Whistleblower's complaint reaching Congress with public exposure of Trump's July 25 call. In that call in he asked Zelensky for "favors though "in response to Zelensky saying he was ready to buy Javelins, anti-tank missiles, critical to Ukraine's defense against Russian tanks. Trump referred Zelensky to Guiliani for followup.
GOP defense seems to be no harm no foul since Ukraine got the aid, but an attempted crime is subject to prosecution, as well, respond Democrats. The harm done was to throw doubt into Trump's commitment to Ukraine and emboldening Putin's power and attempt to control eastern Europe's former USSR's satellites. The GOP is claiming all evidence has been supplied by second-hand knowledge and hearsay, while Trump has attempted to keep anyone with direct knowledge from testifying. He has failed. First-hand witnesses have emerged , especially the participant in the scheme, Gordon Sondland, and Trump's own words are the best evidence against him. 
Another GOP defense is that Trump may have done wrong, but not wrong enough to warrant impeachment or removal from office. Prior impeachment attempts involved coverup and lying of a break-in to Democratic National Committee (Watergate/Nixon) and Clinton's lying about a sex affair with an intern.  This impeachment process and inquiry hearings concern national security and defense in the face of Russian aggression that could result in future hotter conflicts. If this is not enough to justify impeachment/trial what is or ever will be?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-inquired-about-aid-on-same-day-as-trump-zelensky-call-official-testifies-11574295133
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, November 19, 2019

Why impeach if the Senate will not convict and remove?




As of this date,   it appears all votes on impeachment in the House and Senate trial will be heavily partisan. In history, as this event is studied and written. this history will reflect that the Senate could not reach the 2/3 threshold to convict while the Democrats reached their simple majority needed to impeach.  That this will be a partisan vote is a given. History will note, however, that the evidence and proof supported the President's conviction in spite of the obstruction of the White House and their refusal to comply with subpoenas. If left to stand, this president and future presidents will be able to cite the precedent and know without repercussions they never have to reply to any Congressional oversight subpoena.  The destruction it will do to the balance and separation of powers and the ability to hold a president to be subject to the rule of law or to the constitution.  It is the fundamental first step to the end of democracy and the rule of an autocrat or a dictator who can claim he is above the law and can determine what the law is and who should be punished and prosecuted for opposing him.

Voting against impeachment in this case also invites foreigners to determine our future by participating in our election process and use their propaganda and social media or to hack our election machines to cause the outcome to be in their interest and not our own national interest that we, Americans, determine..  Foreigners who are our adversaries will have an agenda to weaken us and support their national goals,  not ours.

 So far, Trump supporters have not been able to refute the facts of the damning testimony of the impeachment inquiry witnesses and instead have resorted to reviving conspiracy theories. They have falsely claimed there were only hearsay witnesses when there were plenty of first-hand witnesses and the testimony of one of the scheme participants (Amb. Sondland). as well as the president's own words.  While in real life, there could be a court of appeals, but in this process that appeals court will be the voters in the 2020 presidential election.

Impeachment alone will leave Trump with an official black eye in history.  Even an impeachment vote without a conviction by the Senate is a degree of punishment. That asterisk by his name in the history books has meaning, particularly for one who has such a high opinion of himself. and carse history shares that high opinion. Whether this impeachment is because of partisanship and not because of facts and substance will only be a footnote in history books. Of course, partisan politics were at play. The facts and substance will still get top billing. Whether it is enough to deter future similar bad actors is yet to be seen. However, it may have meaning in the next election, too. For that reason, even if the chances of a Senate conviction are remote, impeachment in the House is worth it, setting the precedent that those behave as Trump has done will be called out and exposed to voters.

On November 21, in open hearings in the House, Will Hurd, retiring GOP representative from Texas, presented what will be the best argument the GOP Senators can use to vote against the conviction of Trump. After hearing the devastating evidence that indeed there was a "quid pro quo" , even verified by Amb. Gordon Sondland, one of the participants in the scheme, first hand, it does not rise to a reason to remove Trump. This is a judgment call. The Senators need to ask: why not? What are the rules going forward? Will this mean the standards set for future presidents that it is ok to ask foreigners to intervene in our own elections, in spite of laws forbidding that, and is it ok for future presidents to use taxpayer and Congressionally appropriated money for their own personal political benefit in order to pressure foreign leaders to help his re-election. Where do we draw the line on acceptable presidential behavior?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/11/21/gop_rep_will_hurd_i_have_not_heard_evidence_proving_the_president_committed_bribery_or_extortion.html

 A step three-question though is convincing voters is that we should not wait for the next election to remove him and that Trump is such a threat to national security and is trampling democracy, we cannot wait another year to get him out of the oval office before the next election. Democrats are making the case that we cannot wait to oust Trump until the 2020 elections because he is using his office for seeking and employing foreign interference to help him with the 2020 elections at the expense of our national security., our national interests. , Has seriously damaged the ability of those in both the intelligence, diplomatic corps to protect our security. and independence as a nation and sent messages to the rest of the world not to trust our past pledges of commitment to their peace, prosperity, and independence, either.

 We impeached a president for having a sexual affair with an intern and another for dirty political tricks and lying about his role in the coverup. This impeachment concerns national security interests and the ability to maintain some of the essential principles of the Constitution that stands between us as a republic and a democracy and a dictatorship of a person instead of a rule of law. If this is not enough reason to impeach, what is?
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)