UN Ambassador's Testimony...

So....The US ambassador to the UN made several points during his testimony.....

1; He said that Trump told him directly to promise meetings with himself (Trump) and the President of Ukraine to discuss Ukraine's military aid,and other issues, if, and only if, Ukraine delivered information on Joe Biden. (This constitutes quid pro quo)

2; He said that Trump ordered him and others to work with Rudy Giuliani, against the advise of his entire staff, to deal with Ukraine.

3; He testified that all of the major staffers including Pence, Pompeo, Bolton, and others, were made aware that he and his team had been ordered by the President to pressure Ukraine.

 

2 and 3 are irrelevant. We pressure governments all the time to get what we want.

1 there is nothing wrong with asking a foreign government to investigate corruption even into a political rival..

If you read the transcript it is unmistakably clear that he was asking for a favor on behalf of the American people. Not himself.

 

What if truump demands a country doesnt get one dime of us tax dollars unless said country starts eliminating pollution and cleaning up the envronment. He will send have a investigation to see if they are indeed cleaning up .and the biggest seller of garbage n pollutions is your political rival, and his son gets gold bars for nothing. What would u say?

 

The U.S. Ambassador to the UN is a woman named Kelly Kraft, so which "he" are we discussing here? Try linking in a source or two with the actual names of the people you mean.

 

I find it sad that so many actually believe that, even after such detailed testimony from people who heard that call.

 

Not sure why you want to play with what if's rather than face reality.

The testimony from the hearings made it quite clear that Trump and company were dangling the promise of a White House meeting if Zelensky would make a public statement that he was investigating what Trump wanted him to say he was investigating. Trump didn't ask for an investigation. He just wanted the public statement so he, and the folks on FOX, could use it for domestic political purposes.

This whole scandal exposes not only Trump, but also the corrupt nature of Republican messaging.

 

I think he is talking about Sondland, the EU ambassador.

 

Do you not mean to say the ambassador to the EU?

 

Common Robert. Testimony overwhelming demonstrated the quid pro quo was for himself, Trump, not the American people. How would the investigation of Joe Biden in any way be "for the American people?" Why, of all the rich targets for investigation of corruption in Ukraine, did Trump specifically focus on Joe Biden? There is one clear reason, Biden was a threat to Trump.

 

I find it sad that people made up their minds before they knew anything at all about the call and that pre determination taints everthing they hear.

 

If you apply that to both sides of the equation, I wholeheartedly agree.

 

No because he wanted to get to the bottom of what happened in 2016. As he clearly stated before any investigation into his actions began.

 

That's why we need a complete trial in the Senate. Instead of a lie fest like the house did.

 

What is your evidence that every single witness who testified was lying?

 

What could that be? Mueller went over Russian involvement in 2016 with a fine toothed comb. Russia attempted to corrupt 2016 elections. The "Ukraine did it for Hillary" wasn't worth debunking but they debunked it anyway as a Putin deflection. There is nothing there, no conspiracy. We need to get off this conspiracy train Putin loves so much. Right now, Russia is winning.

 

Robert E. Allen already said that 2 and 3 are completely irrelevant to anything and a no-op -- like Trump had eggs for breakfast. I don't recall the ambassador to the UN testifying but if you meant Sondland, ambassador to the EU, then you clearly missed the most significant testimony of the hearings. Sondland testified that he called the president directly and asked him, "What do you want?" Trump replied directly and succinctly, "I want nothing. I want nothing. There is no quid pro quo." You evidentially heard testimony that did not exist. Neat trick.

 

The people who investigated 2016 were not reliable due to political bias.

 

I find it sad that people interpret what they hear to be something that it is not. There is not a single definitive word in that conversation that suggests the president did anything wrong. This is a clear example of the media hyping something that isn't even marginally true until a certain segment of the population believes it. Alinsky 101. Conversely Obama had what he thought was a private conversation with the Russian president Medvedev that was crystal clear about doing "favors" for Russia that got a heavy glossing over by the media. The difference is that the president had an open conversation in front of witnesses, recorded and transcribed, who would be foolish enough to make an inappropriate request under those conditions? On the other hand weaselly Obama thought he was getting away with something, got caught but got a pass because he's a leftist god.

 

I agree. We should bring in the other side of the story. Bring in Giuliani, Mulvaney, Perry, Nunes, and Pompeo, all of whom were directly involved. Also bring in John Bolton who wanted nothing to do with what he called, "the drug deal Giuliani and Mulvaney were cooking up. It was John Bolton who blew up the deal and told the diplomats to go talk to the lawyers.

Or we could put Trump himself on the stand, make him answer questions he does not want to answer.

 

I prefer not to guess. I expect people with more than a few brain cells to be clear.

 

And the Bidens. Adam Schiff, and DNC operatives known to have been active in Ukraine in the run up to the 2016 election..

 

Speak for yourself.

While I wasn't surprised by the fact that Trump may have done something so untoward that an intelligence community member would feel compelled to blow the whistle on it, I had not immediately made up my mind. I don't work that way. I need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. I need to see/hear plenty of corroborating testimony from those involved. We've had that plenty, and more, including three people who were on that call. No predetermination required.

 

That's all i can do.

 

Tone of voice.

You and I didn't hear how he said it, we just read a dry and incomplete transcript. I trust the judgment of the three witnesses who heard the call in its entirety, all of whom came to the same conclusion.

As for "who would be foolish enough to make an inappropriate request under those conditions" -- Apparently, Trump would. He's been getting away with corruption his entire life. After the Mueller report, with its damning details of multiple atrempts to obstruct justice, resulted in nothing, I'm guessing he became quite certain that he could indeed do whatever he wants. As far as his base is concerned, that seems to be true.

On the other hand "but ... but ... Obama!" Got caught at what, exactly? What are the sheeple bleating about now? Please, entertain us with this particular piece of whataboutism. "Leftist god" my big American butt.

 

Since we are on to conspiracy theories.

Growing up my dad was into conspiracy theories. He listened to late night conspiracy theory radio and had subscriptions to magazines on the subject. I don't think he actually believed as much as he seemed to like the drama of it all.

Anyhow, a theme that ran throughout was this idea that the wealthiest in America were in cahoots with the Communist Party bosses, who became the Russian oligarch. That there would never be a nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union/Russia because the wealthy that control both countries would not allow it.

The logical direction of this line of thinking leads naturally to; that Trump and Russian Oligarchs are in cahoots with each other. And is that not what we have been seeing?