Impeachment

[River]

My parents were visiting Ukraine while the Manafort trial was happening. They said the Ukrainian people they met were taking a keen interest and openly wishing their own government could be as capable of rooting out corruption.

[Frelga]

If you rooted our corruption in the Ukrainian government, there'd be no government left.

That may be one of the reasons why American media rarely reports on the largest European country. Americans want to have good guys and bad guys, when there are, as Vetinari said, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

But to a rather scary extent, everything that happened in the last four years has been about Ukraine.

[RoseMorninStar]

But to a rather scary extent, everything that happened in the last four years has been about Ukraine.

Yes. At least four or five years, since at least 2014. It's all about Ukraine & sanctions, with many of the same players. Putin. Manafort. Trump. To weaken the US position on support for Ukraine was the only thing Trump asked to be put in the Republican party platform at the convention in 2016. Wanting Russia back in the G8 would weaken Ukraine's position. Withdrawing agreed upon defense would weaken them as well. I was listening to a timeline with the tug of war involving Ukraine in the last 5 years and it was pretty interesting.

Frelga, why is this? What is it about Ukraine that has that made it such a political football? I am guessing it has to do with gas/oil/pipelines. Deals with Exxon maybe?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If you rooted our corruption in the Ukrainian government, there'd be no government left.

Next thing you know, they'll be electing a comedian as president!

[RoseMorninStar]

If you rooted our corruption in the Ukrainian government, there'd be no government left.

Next thing you know, they'll be electing a comedian as president!

[Cerin]

This reminds me of what I've read about the beginnings of the Russia investigation, which reportedly involved rampant speculation in the media based on the fallacious Steele dossier, which had been leaked to the press by an intelligence official for the very purpose of beginning rampant media speculation that would undermine the President and eventually lead to an official investigation and hopefully, his downfall.

The Russian investigation started because George Papadopoulos got drunk and bragged to an Australian diplomat about the Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Steele dossier, or media speculation about the Steele dossier, which didn't even exist yet. The only role the dossier had was in being used as one potentially corroborating source for FISA warrant against Carter Page and even there it's status as a politically-funded document was made clear.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

The Steele dossier (written in 2016, FBI investigation was begun in 2016) was published two weeks before Trump's inauguration. There certainly would have been rampant media speculation from that point on (months before the Mueller investigation began). I don't know if there was media speculation on Trump-Russia before the dossier was published. What I was saying was that the rampant speculation around the whistle-blower complaint reminded me of the speculation that must have begun around the publishing of the Steele dossier, which I would consider early days in the Trump-Russia saga. My underlying point is, how much damage unfounded speculation can do because it is that much harder to sort out facts after everything has been muddied by partisan rumor mongering, which you can never undo the effects of even after the truth is known.

[Frelga]

Frelga, why is this? What is it about Ukraine that has that made it such a political football? I am guessing it has to do with gas/oil/pipelines. Deals with Exxon maybe?

There are economic reasons, sure. More importantly, Putin considers the former Soviet republics as his own backyard, and any attempts by the Western powers to exert influence there as an act of aggression and a personal affront.

With that as a starting point, you may consider what steps he might take and compare them to the events that actually unfolded since 2013.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Mr. Trump admitted over the weekend that he spoke with President Zelensky about the Bidens and corruption, and referenced the aid that the U.S. was giving to Ukraine, but denied that there was any promise of any kind of quid pro quo. But it is indisputable that the $250 million in aid that was being held up was suddenly released, and apparently the Ukrainian government is claiming that they are expecting an additional unexplained $140 million.

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and even smells like a duck, it is a goose, right?

[Cerin]

I find it curious that this question of Trump/Ukraine/Biden (did the Pres. pressure and withhold aid, etc.) emerged as if it were big, shocking news last week, and yet the Dems had already initiated an investigation into the question a couple of weeks earlier. They already knew about this phone call that is supposedly just coming to light through a whistle-blower. So why are media outlets presenting the idea as if it were newly discovered?

This article is from Sept. 9 (not familiar with this website):

WASHINGTON ― House Democrats will investigate whether President Donald Trump’s decision to delay security assistance to Ukraine was part of a pressure campaign to benefit him in the 2020 presidential election, potentially violating a host of legal and ethical rules.

Three House committees ― Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight and Government Reform ― sent letters to the White House and State Department on Monday seeking documents about whether Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, tried to get Ukraine to target a 2020 presidential candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden. The three panels announced the requests as part of a broad probe.

-----------------

The letters came after The Washington Post’s editorial board wrote that it was “reliably told” the Trump administration suspended $250 million in U.S. military aid to get Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to relaunch a corruption probe into Biden and his son. Reportedly, a prosecutor previously investigated Biden’s son, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm.

The committee chairmen allege Trump focused on the investigation in a July 25 call with Zelensky, saying Ukraine’s corruption had inhibited its dealings with the United States. From there, Ambassador Kurt Volker, U.S. special representative for Ukraine, arranged a meeting between Zelensky and Giuliani.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/20 ... get-biden/

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The reason why it has become such a big deal is because before it was an issue of journalists saying that they were "reliably told" something, and now it is an issue of an intelligence official making an whistleblower complaint that was deemed by the Trump administrations own intelligence community inspector general to be urgent and credible and which by law unambiguously needs to be provided to the appropriate congressional committees and is nonetheless not being provided to them.

So while they were already investigating the Ukraine issue (as Frelga mentioned previously) this whistleblower complaint ratcheted up the stakes tremendously. The administration is of course still stonewalling, and may continue to do so, but it will be more difficult for them to do so than it would have been when it was just the Washington Post saying that they have "reliably heard" something as opposed to an official whistleblower complaint.

Does that make sense?

[Cerin]

Thanks, Voronwë, that does make sense.

I would point out that the administration is asserting that the complaint doesn't fall under the whistle-blower act because it doesn't refer to an intelligence activity. So while the law may be unambiguous, it appears that the nature of the complaint is not.

[River]

The IC IG found otherwise.

The Trump Administration has been caught lying so many times I'm not sure why anyone gives any credence to anything that comes from the White House.

[Cerin]

In this case, it isn't coming from the White House. My understanding is, the Pres. hasn't seen the complaint.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Do you have a source for that? My understanding is that while it is clear that the Justice Department (which in this administration tends to act as the President's personal lawyers) advised the acting DNI that the complaint did not need to be provided (despite the finding by the IC IG, and the fact that the law does not appear to grant any discretion on the part of the DNI once the IC IG has made the determination), but that according to Adam Schiff (the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, of course), it was not clear whether the White House itself was also directly involved. So I'm curious to know if you have a credible source for your statement that the White House was not involved.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

At least according to the Washington Post, the White House has been directly involved in blocking the complaint.

The disclosure comes amid new details about the White House’s role in preventing acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire from complying with congressional demands for the material in the complaint.

White House counsel Pat Cipollone has been engaged in the matter since shortly after the whistleblower action surfaced, officials said, helping to identify legal obstacles to the sharing of information that could be politically damaging to Trump.

Cipollone’s involvement reveals a more direct White House role in the dispute than has previously been reported.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Cerin]

Voronwë, one of the articles I was reading on Friday said that the Pres. had not seen the complaint. It did not mention the White House counsel. When River said 'the White House' I took that to mean the Pres.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If Mr. Trump has seen the complaint, it is because he doesn't want to see the complaint.

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi, who has steadfastly opposed impeachment proceedings, is expected to announce this afternoon that the House will in fact be opening an impeachment inquiry. And Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has tweeted:

"We have been informed by the whistleblower’s counsel that their client would like to speak to our committee and has requested guidance from the Acting DNI as to how to do so.

We‘re in touch with counsel and look forward to the whistleblower’s testimony as soon as this week."

I'll believe it when I see it. I have a hard time believing that the Acting DNI (acting on 'advice' from the Justice Department and the White House Counsel) will allow that to happen. Certainly not in public. But if it does, that could be a watershed moment.

[elengil]

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/trump ... ates-2019/

"Today I'm announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," Pelosi said at the Capitol late Tuesday afternoon.

Looks as if impeachment has now become a reality.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Chuck Schumer just tweeted that the Senate approved his resolution calling for the whistleblower complaint to be provided to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees by unanimous consent. If that is true (and I can't imagine he would lie about such an easily provable thing), not a single GOP senator objected. That is big.

[RoseMorninStar]

I understand why some would rather wait it out, but I think there have been egregious and inappropriate and unacceptable behavior from this administration since the beginning (and before). It shouldn't be allowed to slide & set precedent.