Too rich! Never fails. They are the ones doing the exact thing they accuse others of.
And YET AGAIN you mischaracterize facts.
You say the senators' letter - available in full HERE (apparently because it was NOT hidden on a code word classified server!) - is "the exact thing" of which the president is accused. Let's examine the claims of the Townhall.com article to which you link and the specifics of the two situations to learn more:
As to your claim, reformed, that the senators' letters is "the exact thing" of which the president is accused:
So, no threat, no authority to issue a threat, no aid hold going on at the same time, no request for a "favor though," no invitation to meet with personal representatives, and no mention of past or forthcoming domestic election opponents. That's not "the exact thing" of which the president is accused. As you would say, try again.
Oh you don't read between the lines on their letter? That's rich too. OH THE DOUBLE STANDARDS
Nice evasion of basically every assertion of fact in my previous post, including my contention of the townhall.com article's and Sen. Paul's mis-characterization of the senators' letter, and the many specifics differences between their letter and President Trump's phone call. One thing I can count on from you, reformed: In your reply posts, you won't mention, let alone engage, a fact or question that damages your arguments. You might do so once I raise it a fifth or sixth time, but in your initial response? Not a chance. It's hard to underestimate your forensic bravery.
"Between the lines" of the senators' letter? Cite for me specific words and phrases from their letter that in your view justify your assessment of their intentions.
From Trump's phone call trancript/summary I cite...
...as support for my claim. Please cite equally specific words and phrases from the senators' letter, and/or actions of the senators' and/or their aides' that support your claim.
You read between the lines on the President's call. In the letter they talk about they have been supportive of aid BUT are disheartened. It implies they will push to have aid withheld.
What does failure to mention corruption have anything to do with anything?
What does a non-governmental attorney matter? I don't see the issue.
Again, the server is a red herring.
You read between the lines on the President's call.
As demonstrated in the specific citations I offered in my previous post, there's not much distance to read between the lines of the president's call! It's all pretty much out in the open and obvious.
You, on the other hand cite this:
In the letter they talk about they have been supportive of aid BUT are disheartened. It implies they will push to have aid withheld.
... which contains yet ANOTHER mischaracterization of facts (the tell that your statement likely was false or misleading was that you didn't quote from the letter).
In their letter, the senators express support for a "capacity-building process," which has to do with what earlier in the paragraph they call Ukraine's recent years' "significant progress in building these (democratic) institutions." That's not a reference to financial or military aid; that's a reference to support for efforts in pursuit of democratic reforms.
In addition - and this is something I should have added to the list in my previous post - remember that prior to his ask for a "favor though" from Zelenskyy, Trump reminded the Ukrainian of how much the United States had done for his nation:
"I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it's something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she ·doesn't do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine."
THEN Zelenskyy referred to anti-tank weapons. THEN Trump said, "I would like you to do us a favor though." So for that moment, the course of the conversation was...
There is NOTHING in the senators' letter that even whispers of that kind transaction. NOTHING.
And as for the senators' disheartenment? In their letter, they make clear that they are "disappointed" by Ukraine's reported abandonment of the principles of "the rule of law and accountable democratic principles," and the "worrying signal" their actions send about the Ukrainian government's "commitment more broadly to support justice and the rule of law." Where is there ANYTHING close to such a principled stand in Trump's engagement with Zelenskyy? There isn't anything, of course, because Trump wasn't pursuing democratic reforms or improved corruption fighting. He was asking for a "favor though" that had to do with his domestic political rivals.
The senators had every right to "strongly encourage" the Ukrainians both to cooperate with a duly authorized DOJ investigation and to pursue democratic institutions and the rule of law. Do you argue that the American president had every right to ask a foreign leader to investigate matters connected to two of his domestic political rivals? Do you see NO appearance of conflict of interest there?
"The president was simply asking Ukraine to root out corruption!" remains a trumpster talking point (I heard it from a GOP member of Congress today). But how could he have been pursuing corruption in Ukraine writ large and NOT have mentioned the word? And how was it that the ONLY two examples of "corruption" he raised BOTH had connections to his domestic political rivals?
Since when do personal, non-governmental attorneys represent the government of the United States in its business with other governments? Trump's involvement of Giuliani was an obvious attempt to keep some of the matters off the record, and that's NOT okay.
And again, you're wrong about that. A decision made in haste by White House officials to secrete an obviously NON-code word classified conversation in a code word classified server is a flashing red light, not a red herring.
The bottom line here is that you are batting 0 for 2 in this thread. The Townhall.com article to which you linked mangled facts, and your efforts to draw lines of equivalence between the senators' letter and the president's phone call have failed badly.
I'd encourage you to try again, but there's nothing else there for you to try. So, instead I'll say better luck next time.
Never did the president say that the sale of weapons is dependent on the favor. That is the part that is completely made up.
I don't think he had to say it. In fact, it would have been (more) unwise (than usual) for him to have said it. But what he DID say, in the context in which he said it, clearly constituted a dejure quid pro quo.
Unsurprisingly, you have yet to deal with the actual course of events in this matter - what Trump said and the circumstances under which he said it. I'll try one more time to get you on the record ABOUT THESE SPECIFIC FACTS:
Given THAT fact pattern, please answer this question DIRECTLY AND WITHOUT EVASION: (If you made anything resembling a habit of answering questions directly and without evasion, I wouldn't have to ask you to do so. But you don't, so I have to.) OTHER than to link the anti-tank weapon purchase with the "favor" for which he was about to ask, what purpose did the word "though" serve in Mr Trump's response? In other words, what was the meaning of the word "though" IN THAT SPECIFIC CONTEXT?
It is only clear if you are biased toward believing that. I don't read that in the conversion. Would not have even crossed my mind reading that conversation. Still doesn't cross my mind reading that conversation.
No, the hold on the aid doesn't give me pause, especially since Ukraine did not even know about it. It's all again reading things that are not actually there. We routinely withold aid from countries all the time. Honestly I don't think we should be giving any countries aid because we can't even pay for our own things.
Do you have any actual evidence that the President was witholding aid from Ukraine for this conversation? No you don't. I know you think you do but all you have is a timeline and reading into soething that happened, but not actual evidence.
In the days when wood and coal were used to cook, it would leave black residue on the bottom, equally, of the cookware. The saying the pot can't call the kettle black. This OP is just that, "the pot calling the kettle black" when they both are the same hue. Don't lose any sleep over it. CM
Says the guy who is biased beyond belief.
Who might that be? CM
You for one. Not to mention you have proven time and time again that I don't think you know what you believe on many topics. You are wishy washy but with politics you are liberal through and through.
There, you go again, name calling. This is why evil is spoken of about several of your posts, even, when you seek to do good. I am disappointed to read what you said of me. Do you have proof of such conclusions? I am "wishy washy" because I ask biblical questions? Have you evaluated all the other posters in these forums? By what standards or on whose authority you do such? Frankly, I don't think anyone would agree with you when it come to my posts on matters of the Bible.
You appear to be too closely bound to a political party. Sometimes you get too emotional about the news of the day. Step back from both parties and you will be able to "call a spade, a spade". CM
As is all too usual in our exchanges, you didn't answer the question I asked, so I will ask it again: Other than to link the anti-tank weapon purchase with the "favor" for which he was about to ask, what purpose did the word "though" serve in Mr Trump's response? In other words, what was the meaning of the word "though" IN THAT SPECIFIC CONTEXT?
I don't know that your claim is true. Please provide evidence that "we routinely withold [sic] aid from countries all the time." Specifically, provide evidence that we "routinely withold [sic] aid from countries all the time" without consulting either the Defense or State Departments.
Have you read the text message exchanges between Kurt D. Volker (former special U.S. envoy to Ukraine), William B. Taylor Jr. (former top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine), and Gordon D. Sondland (U.S. ambassador to the European Union) that were released earlier this month? You can find them HERE. Here's a collection of texts that, taken together, for me make a compelling case:
That's a long answer to your question. YES, I DO have evidence - powerful evidence - that Trump withheld the aid money for his phone call with Zelenskyy.
A BLANK TEXT POSTED BY ACCIDENT. SORRY!
AND THEN THERE'S THIS FROM SEN CHRIS MURPHY OF CONNECTICUT, SUMMARIZING A BIT MORE OF FIONA HILL'S BOMBSHELL TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS LAST NIGHT:
Granted, that's a quid pro quo about a Zelenskyy visit to the White House and not about financial aid, BUT IT IS A QUID PRO QUO.
Fiona Hill will turn out to be a critically important witness in the impeachment inquiry.
What name calling was in that post?
A collection of texts selectively released by Adam Schiff. NO thanks.
Hear no evil. See no evil. Speak no evil. Read no evil.
You ARE consistent, reformed. If a question does damage to your argument, you don't answer it - my goodness, you won't even acknowledge it. And now we learn that if there's evidence that does damage to your argument, you won't read it.
I admire your consistency.
To think I wasted my time dealing directly and point by point with the townhall.com article to which you linked and the false claim you posted with it. I could have said, "A collection of assertions selectively assembled by Townhall.com? NO thanks!" Why didn't I think of that?!
No, I just don't trust Schiff who has been known to twist things. It hasn't damaged my argument at all.
Let's talk about the invite to Washington. That's not quid pro quo. If they have nothing further to discuss, why bring him to Washington? You seem to think that an invite to Washington is some sort of payment or service. It's not.
On the text dated 8/9. You read a lot into this. Simply put. You assume, it means to make sure he doesn't say something to incriminate the POTUS on something yet that is nowhere to be found in the text.
The witholding of aid LOOKED like something to one aid. Yet he was assured that it was not the case in what he suspected. So no, you do not have proof of anything. Just fantasy land.
No, I just don't trust Schiff who has been known to twist things. It hasn't damaged my argument at all.
How could Schiff have "twisted" the content of those text messages? None of the authors of those texts has objected to the content as published by the House committees. On what basis do you?
Have you read the text messages? Are you well enough informed about the Ukrainian situation to know how important a meeting at the White House was to the newly-elected Ukrainian president? OF COURSE that was a quid pro quo! "You agree to investigate Biden. You'll get your invitation to the White House." Why bring him to Washington? Because he wanted/needed to go to Washington! HERE'S a thoughtful analysis of why such a meeting mattered to Zelenskyy.
That's NOT the point of Volker's August 9 text at all. His concern about Zelenskky's statement had NOTHING to do with President Trump's conduct, and EVERYTHING to do with whether Zelenskyy would publicly and sufficiently declare his nation's intentions to open Crowdstrike and Biden investigations.
This stuff has been all over the news since the text messages were released. I'm surprised that you, someone who claims to be well informed about these matters, seems not to be aware of these well-publicized details.
Again, did you read the text messages? Did you notice that BEFORE Sondland issued the reassurance of which you write, his FIRST response to Taylor's inquiry was "Call me"? Did you notice that Taylor obviously then called Sondland, but their phone call did NOT change Taylor's view of a quid pro quo? And when Sondland received THAT text, it took him more than four hours to get back to Taylor, having spoken to Trump? And after issuing the assurance of no quid pro quo, Sonland asked that they stop texting about the quid pro quo?
And have you seen the reporting that says Sondland will testify this week that Trump told him to respond that way to Taylor, but that he, Sondland, does not know whether it's actually true?
That set of facts doesn't at all catch your attention?! I bet it would were Obama's people the principals. (I hope to high heaven it would catch MY attention were Obama's people the principals.)
Again, you and the rest of the liberal alice in wonderland gang are reading in things that aren't there because of your bias. That's fine but it doesn't make it true.
I'm reading the same information you are. No red flags go up. In fact, if Obama was doing the same thing I would hope I wouldn't go into the frenzy you are in because there would be nothing wrong if he did it either. What you claim to be present in the texts and the transcript simply aren't there. Sorry.
I agree. That you and I interpret texts - SMS and biblical both - the way we do does not, in and itself, make our interpretations accurate. But such an observation of the obvious doesn't change the fact that Sondland DID respond with "Call me" when Taylor asked whether aid and a White House visit were tied to Ukraine's investigating Biden and Crowdstrike. And it doesn't change the fact that AFTER his call to Sondland, Taylor SEEMED TO CONCLUDE that aid and the visit were tied to those investigations. Alice and her Wonderland aren't needed to read the words of those texts.
Given that you completely misunderstood the meaning of Volker's August 9 text to Giuliani about Zelenskyy's forthcoming public statement, I question the value of your insights into the texts. But prove me wrong. Explain the Sondland/Taylor exchange I described above.
Explain THAT sequence of events, starting AFTER the Sondland-Taylor phone call prompted by Sondland's "Call me." \What does Taylor's "As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign" text to Sondland sent AFTER their phone call on the matter, but BEFORE the four-plus hour intermission during which Sondland got a talking point from the president tell you about what Taylor must have heard from Sondland during their phone call? And if the question of a quid pro quo was so easily answered - "The president's been quite clear: NO quid pro quos!" - why did Sondland ask Taylor to stop texting about it?
So one person wonders about quid pro quo and it is a national crisis even though they were told that is not the case? And it obviously is not the case since aid was released?
In this particular circumstance, it wasn't just any person who wondered whether there was a quid pro quo. It was the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine (Taylor), for sure, and quite possibly, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union (Sondland) whom Trump had appointed to his post because he donated $1 million to the Trump inauguration fund. So a seasoned diplomat and, quite possibly, a strong Trump ally wondered whether there was a quid pro quo, a wonder that clearly was NOT resolved when the two of them spoke by phone after Sondland asked Taylor to call him once Taylor raised the concern.
It's not normal for career and politically appointed American diplomats to wonder whether the president of the United States is engineering a quid pro quo with a foreign nation over that president's political interests. That's a VERY rare occurrence, one the Congress has every right and responsibility to review.
And who was it that told them "that is not the case"? The president who they believed might have been engineering the quid pro quo. If Mr Trump WAS using the aid money as leverage, how likely was it that he was going to say so to Sondland when Sonland called to ask how to respond to a seasoned diplomat's concerns? There was NO chance Trump was going to admit that over the phone.
And it's not a quid pro quo since the money was released? What about BEFORE the money was released? If terrorists begin planning and preparing to bomb a federal building - say they buy supplies, organize a team, and decide on an itinerary - but then decide not to follow through on their plan, are they no longer guilty of planning to blow up a federal building? Of course not. The fact that Trump released the money does NOT prove he didn't intend to use the hold on the money as leverage with Zelenskky.
There is no evidence of him having that intent other than someone "wondering" if that was his intent. Again, there is no evidence here Bill. Just a lot of reading into things. Kinda like what you do with Scripture.
There is no evidence of him having that intent other than someone "wondering" if that was his intent. Again, there is no evidence here Bill.
If there is "no evidence" of the president's intent to use the aid money as leverage against the Ukrainian president, why did a seasoned professional diplomat think there was? And why was the president's ally to whom that diplomat expressed his concerns not able to allay them in a subsequent phone call? And if there's "no evidence," why does that presidential ally reportedly intend to tell Congress that he doesn't know whether what the president told him to convey to the diplomat was true or not?
Courts and juries conclude the existence of "intent" all the time with less than the amount of evidence we have in this case. A president puts a hold on aid money, inexplicably without telling the relevant executive departments (State and Defense). Then when a foreign leader speaks of purchasing much-needed anti-tank weapons, that president immediately says "I would like you to do us a favor though," not once in the conversation even mentioning the weapons of whose purchase the foreign leader spoke. The president then asks for the foreign leader's help with securing investigations into two matters of his personal political interest, and requests that those investigations be aided by, among others, his personal, non-governmental attorney. THAT'S evidence of intent.
On the issue of the word "though," you have yet to answer the question I've asked you twice now (granted, I usually have to ask you a question three to five times to get an answer). So, I ask it again - for the third time, and again I ask for a direct, non-evasive answer:
Other than to link the anti-tank weapon purchase with the "favor" for which he was about to ask, what purpose did the word "though" serve in Mr Trump's response when he said "I would like you to do us a favor though"? In other words, what was the role of the word "though" IN THAT SPECIFIC CONTEXT?
Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney today ACKNOWLEDGED that aid to Ukraine WAS IN FACT held up as part of a quid pro quo. From the video that you can watch HERE...
ABC REPORTER JONATHAN KARL: So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding from Ukraine.
MULVANEY: The look back to what happened in 2016, certainly, was part of the things that he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate.
KARL: Withholding the funding.
MULVANEY: Yeah. Which ultimately then flowed....
KARL: But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo, it is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democrats’ server happens as well.”
MULVANEY: We do that all the time with foreign policy....
Mulvaney went on to claim that the money was held up ONLY to extract a Ukrainian promise to investigate the DNC server conspiracy theory, and not because of the the Bidens - a claim that is not believable, in my view - but the fact remains that he DID acknowledge what we all - or at least most of us - already knew: There WAS a quid pro quo. [View the video to its conclusion and you will hear Mulvaney make the astonishing contention that this quid pro quo was a product of the president's political views. Mr Trump believes quid pro quos are appropriate to get people to compel foreign governments to investigate domestic political rivals, while others do not believe they are. Because "elections have consequences," Mulvaney argued, such quid pro quos are legitimately the current policy of the United States government. Wow.]
As to the central question of whether there was a quid pro quo in the president's request for "a favor though" from the Ukrainian president, we now have the answer.
And of course, as I suspected, the media jumped the gun. He did not admit that it was held up for quid pro quo.
I give you credit for trying to rationalize yesterday's confession away, but only for trying.
Look at the flow and content of Mulvaney's responses yesterday, and explain FROM THEM how he possibly meant ANYTHING other than to confess to a quid pro quo.
Where in that flow of the press briefing do you find ANY reason to believe Mulvaney meant "there was absolutely no quid pro quo"?