But remember what Sondland said when he asked Trump “What do you want with Ukraine?” According to Sondland, Trump replied “I want nothing. No quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing.” Could it be possible that Trump wanted Zelensky to do the right thing, instead of this convoluted story about political dirt and future elections? — NOS4A2
Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.
...
I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a “quid pro quo?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.
Mr. Giuliani conveyed to Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, and others that President Trump wanted a public statement from President Zelensky committing to investigations of Burisma and the 2016 election. Mr. Giuliani expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians. Mr. Giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us. We all understood that these pre-requisites for the White House call and White House meeting reflected President Trump’s desires and requirements.
But you’re jumping around here. We were discussing whether or not Trump conditioned the aid and a meeting on what amounts to a political favour. Are you now accepting that he did but that it isn’t impeachable?
Because you don’t accept that it was conditioned on the announcement of an investigation or because you don’t accept that the announcement was wanted to personally help Trump?
I don't accept that it was on condition of political benefit or to influence an election. — NOS4A2
“He had to announce the investigations, he didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it,” Sondland said.
“I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or be completed. The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form. And that form kept changing,” Sondland said, before confirming that the “form” did, in fact, have to be public. — https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/sondland-confirms-announcement-more-important-probes
What purpose does a public announcement serve? Why would Trump want a public announcement? And why is the announcement itself sufficient, rather than an actual investigation?
I think I'm right to infer from this that Trump was interested in the optics. He wanted to damage his political rival and help his own re-election chances. The U.S. doesn't benefit at all.
That would be assuming corrupt intent without evidence. That's a dangerous and unjust game to play, especially when there is no such announcement nor any investigation. — NOS4A2
Wanting a public aannouncement is the evidence. If you don't believe me, I encourage you to walk into a shop, take a bunch of items and leave without paying. You can then experience first hand how well the defense of "no evidence for criminal intent" will go.
Really, you think so? Ok, then a reference you can find in many articles besides this one:I don’t mind the speculation, but there is a lot of mind-reading involved in your screed — NOS4A2
See Trump 'surprised' by Mattis waterboarding comments"General Mattis is a strong, highly dignified man. I met with him at length and I asked him that question. I said, 'What do you think of waterboarding?'" Trump told The New York Times on Tuesday. "He said -- I was surprised -- he said, 'I've never found it to be useful.' He said, 'I've always found, give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I do better with that than I do with torture.'"
Trump added, "I'm not saying it changed my mind. Look, we have people that are chopping off heads and drowning people in steel cages and we're not allowed to waterboard. But I'll tell you what, I was impressed by that answer."
The President-elect said he would be influenced by Americans' views of waterboarding.
"It's not going to make the kind of a difference that maybe a lot of people think. If it's so important to the American people, I would go for it. I would be guided by that," he said.
No. What my point is that actual effective policies are typically multifaceted and complex and cannot be put into one simple sentence.I think it’s clear that you and other critics equivocate between border hopping and overstaying visas as a means to discredit the idea of a wall, as if the wall was intended to end illegal immigration in general, and not to alleviate the border crisis in particular. — NOS4A2
Again really? Before the midterms? Your simply being silly now. Or an apologist.The troops were brought to help with logistics, administration, surveillance and barrier construction. It wasn’t for drama or political reasons, but because DHS was at a breaking point under the current surge of illegals, facing a system-wide breakdown. — NOS4A2
See President Trump orders 5,200 active duty troops to US-Mexico borderMore than 5,000 U.S. active-duty forces will be used to “harden” points of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border to confront what officials said is now two caravans of more than 6,000 migrants from Central America making their way toward the border, U.S. Northern Command Commander Air Force Gen. Terrence O’Shaughnessy said Monday.
“We’re bringing in military police units. We’re bringing in strategic airlift,” O’Shaughnessy said. “As we sit right now, we have three C-130s and a C-17 that is ready to deploy with Customs and Border Protection personnel wherever they need to be.” The 5,200 active duty troops would join about 2,100 National Guard forces sent by Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona earlier this year to bolster the border. - Mattis' orders last week expressly prohibit the troops from engaging with any of the migrants or conducting law enforcement activities, which would run those troops afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits federalized troops from conducting domestic law enforcement. Under exceptions to the law, those forces are allowed to support border patrol in administrative, surveillance or air-support roles.
However, the roles O’Shaughnessy suggested the forces would conduct, specifically in “hardening” points of entry, suggested the troops may end up in contact with migrants trying to enter the U.S. even if they had intended on remaining in a supporting role.
O’Shaughnessy said that his command has been careful to ensure that all of the roles undertaken by those forces would comply with the Posse Comitatus Act.
So we're still fighting the Cold War? — frank
Americans are suffering so that 1) Europeans don't have to pay for their own defense, and 2) so somebody in the US can live in the past. — frank
Moral premise. I think I understand the sentiment, but history shows that once the borrowed money is flowing into this moral project, the long term effects will be instability and bloodshed. I think it's time the US realized that each nation has to work out stability for itself. A culture has to evolve according to its own internal integrity. Trying to make USA mini-me's is not moral at all. — frank
And do not that former Warsaw pact countries wanted to join the US alliance. Of course there are exceptions.Better to have a bunch of American mini-me's than one giant Russia. Better for America, better for Americans, and better for the would be comrades. — VagabondSpectre
- Sondland, earlier todayUkraine's political and economic development are critical to the long standing, long lasting stability of Europe. Moreover, the conflict in eastern Ukraine and Crimea remains one of the most significant security crises for Europe and the United States. Our efforts to counter-balance an aggressive Russia depend in substantial part on a strong Ukraine.
Europe's defense is actually America's defense. — VagabondSpectre
Building a wall is something that the simple Trump supporter can picture mentally in his or her mind.
Especially for Trump the reality doesn't matter, what only matters is if his supporters think that is good.
Because that instills this idea in the Trump supporters that the President is doing something in a "dramatic" way in a "dramatic" situation. People can understand as a measure that "the Army is called in".
And these people have learned that from Hollywood: the no-nonsense hero willing to go the extra mile and who doesn't give a shit about protocol will by whacking the terrorist get him to spill the beans where the nuclear warhead is.
This is what Trump is most concerned about: if people could say that he has broke his promise. It all comes down to his own self centered narcissism and that he doesn't believe he could win over people that didn't vote for him. For Trump these issues are just rhetoric, a discussion he has to be on top with his tweets. Actual facts don't matter so much.
No. What my point is that actual effective policies are typically multifaceted and complex and cannot be put into one simple sentence.
Again really? Before the midterms? Your simply being silly now. Or an apologist.
Let's see how it was actually when Trump ordered troops to the border:
The situation cannot be ignored. Despite the facts provided by front-line DHS professionals, some public figures and commentators claim that there is no crisis, or that it is “manufactured.” There is nothing manufactured about children arriving at our borders dehydrated and sick, migrants being abused on a lawless pathway, deadly drugs coming across in droves, or criminals evading our defenses. Facts are stubborn things and tell a completely different story. The situation is serious. We hope Congress will get serious, too.
KYIV. Nov 20 (Interfax-Ukraine) – Ukrainian members of parliament have demanded the presidents of Ukraine and the United States, Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump, investigate suspicions of the legalization of $7.4 billion by the "family" of ex-President Viktor Yanukovych through the American investment fund Franklin Templeton Investments, which they said has ties to the U.S. Democratic Party.
During a press conference in Kyiv on Wednesday, Ryaboshapka told reporters that there are more than a dozen criminal cases in Ukraine that involve Zlochevsky or his company. They will all be reviewed in due course, he added.
Ignoring them is not much of an option for Ukraine. “We cannot not investigate it just because it will benefit Trump or hurt Biden,” says the official, who believes, “It’s a case of corruption.” But given how radioactive the Burisma case has become in Washington, the government is not eager to pursue it in the midst of the U.S. presidential race. “We can do it after the elections,” the official tells TIME. That might be one way to thread Volker’s needle.
No. He just doesn't care about torture... if the voters think that torture works, he goes with it. After all, in the debate the moral stand wasn't touched, just the effectiveness of the interrogation method (see the wording... by Trump himself).Trump wants to do what the American people want? What a tyrant! — NOS4A2
And above you just made the assumption that the American people want waterboarding (and hence are OK with torture). :smirk:I’m not saying these speculations are wrong; I’m just saying they are assumptions. — NOS4A2
America could abandon the rest of the world and turn to farming, but I don't think that's what it really wants. — VagabondSpectre
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.