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

Sondland's opening testimony

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.

Also Kent's opening testimony specifically refers to "Giuliani’s efforts to gin up politically motivated investigations" and says that "I did not witness any efforts by any U.S. official to shield Burisma from scrutiny. In fact, I and other U.S. officials consistently advocated reinstituting a scuttled investigation of Zlochevsky, Burisma’s founder, as well as holding the corrupt prosecutors who closed the case to account."

It's pretty clear that the accusations against Biden aren't credible and that the quid pro quo for a public announcement of an investigation into Biden is politically motivated.

“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.

I don’t mind the speculation, but there is a lot of mind-reading involved in your screed. I’ll dismiss much of it as just that, but I can tell you at least one of my feelings that you failed to address—I tire of critics telling me how Trump and his supporters feel, their desires, their concerns, what matters to them, their hopes and intentions, and the limits of their intelligence on real issues.

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.

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. These are the facts according to DHS, the border patrol and the pentagon. Increasing funding for personnel and border patrol would be nice, but that is up to Congress.

This sort of flippancy towards what goes on at the southern US border is routine anti-Trumpism. Of course it makes no sense to insert your psychoanalysis of Trump in such a scenario, unless it was to pooh-pooh Trump’s efforts or to signal virtue to those who already hold the same opinions.

“I want nothing. No quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing.“

- Donald Trump according to Sondland.

What he says over the phone and what he actually has his subordinates (such as Giuliani) do are two very different things.

Case in point: he says “I want nothing. No quid pro quo.” but then withholds the aid and refuses a meeting until an investigation is announced. The facts show that he was lying.

But he didn't want a quid pro quo, he just wanted the Ukraine to do the right thing, which was to publically announce the launch of a fake corruption investigation into the guy who happened to be his main political rival for the presidency and 12 points ahead of him in the polls. What on earth could Trump possibly have to gain from that? :lol:

The he said/she said doesn’t really matter in the absence of any high crime and misdemeanors. What is the high crime and misdemeanors?

Ken Starr has suggested bribery.

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 claiming that it isn’t impeachable?

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?

No, I do not accept that the aid was held back on the condition of a political favor.

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?

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.

I don't accept that it was on condition of political benefit or to influence an election. — NOS4A2

Then could you make sense of this?

“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? 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.

The exact show that you accuse the Democrats of with respect to the impeachment proceedings is in fact the show that Trump is guilty of with respect to aid to Ukraine.

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.

There are other possible explanations. Ukraine is and has been a very corrupt country. It makes sense for its country's leaders, in order to receive vast sums of foreign aid, to publicly express a commitment to rooting out corruption. Not only that but for messaging purposes, it shows our European allies that the US is doing more for Ukraine than they are, and for domestic audiences, that we aren't throwing foreign aid to the wind.

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.

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.

If I wanted to steal a bunch of items but didn't would you try to convict me for theft?

Well, Gordon Sondland's testimony has sealed it beyond any possible argument. Trump engaged in a corrupt scheme to withhold congressionally-approved aid in order to force them to conduct an investigation into a politically-motivated right-wing conspiracy theory, for his political gain. Guilty as charged. As Trump often says when he has no idea what will happen, 'let's see what happens'.

I don’t mind the speculation, but there is a lot of mind-reading involved in your screed — NOS4A2

Really, you think so? Ok, then a reference you can find in many articles besides this one:

"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.

See Trump 'surprised' by Mattis waterboarding comments

So it really isn't speculation at all. Trump is so clear to interpret. As clean water. When you read books about Trump they paint the same picture.

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

No. What my point is that actual effective policies are typically multifaceted and complex and cannot be put into one simple sentence.

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

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:

More 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.

See President Trump orders 5,200 active duty troops to US-Mexico border

I think I'll listen to the words of the commander of NORTHCOM in this case. And then let's just look at what Operation Faithful Patriot is said to be about by US Northern Command: the operation is being conducted in order to block a potential border crossing of migrants from Central America.


It was all about the caravans back. The classic mid-term campaign spoof. And btw, just look what was asessed even at the time above on how many will reach the border.

So we're still fighting the Cold War? — frank

We're protecting our ally against Russian invasion...

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

America is in a very complicated strategic relationship with its allies, but in short, Europe's defense is actually America's defense. Allowing Russia to swallow Ukraine would be a stupendously bad strategic decision for America...

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

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.

But more importantly, domestic stability cannot be achieved without international stability. Our economies and societies are so interconnected that "working out stability for ourselves" just doesn't make sense unless you want to be an isolated nation of farmers.

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

And do not that former Warsaw pact countries wanted to join the US alliance. Of course there are exceptions.

Typically those countries that the US has bombed don't have an urge to join NATO. So even if Milosevic was ousted by US help (and the covert help has been admitted), Serbia is still close to Russia and has not intension of joining NATO.


Unlike other countries, In Serbia people love Putin.

Putin is hated about as much as he is loved, as far as I can gather (and seems to retain power by assassinating his rivals). What makes him so popular in Serbia?

Leadership standards haven't risen much since the collapse of their union (maybe it's just a low bar?):



But Putin aside, allow me to rephrase: better war in Ukraine than allowing Russia to become a rival super-power once-again. Ukranians and other ex-soviet territories may admire Russia's prowess, and wish to (re)join their strengthening empire, but the west has reason to prevent that (the cold war).

Russia cannot be invaded or attacked directly due to their hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons. That reality is what created the cold war, and it is what allowed the Soviet Union to safely extend its caustic influence across the globe. It's why Russian assets in Ukraine and Syria are so difficult for America to attack directly (it risks escalation).

Maybe the Crimean people got what they truly wanted, but at some point it doesn't matter; the Soviet Union lost, and the west should not be expected to be so good a guy as to allow Russia to rebuild it for a round two.

Sondland gets it:

Ukraine'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.

- Sondland, earlier today

Europe's defense is actually America's defense. — VagabondSpectre

I thought our defense was a bunch of H-bombs.

The USA saves the world:

Trump wants to do what the American people want? What a tyrant!

But as for the mind reading, your assumption of people’s motives and desires and intentions is regnant. For example:

Building a wall is something that the simple Trump supporter can picture mentally in his or her mind.

This is an assumption regarding the mind-states of Trump supporters.

Especially for Trump the reality doesn't matter, what only matters is if his supporters think that is good.

This is an assumption of what matters to Trump.

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".

More assumptions regarding the mind-states of Trump supporters.

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.

Assumptions about what people learn.

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.

More assumptions about Trump “is most concerned about”, what he “doesn’t believe”, what these issues mean to him (just rhetoric).

I’m not saying these speculations are wrong; I’m just saying they are assumptions.

No. What my point is that actual effective policies are typically multifaceted and complex and cannot be put into one simple sentence.

Of course that’s true. So it makes no sense to equivocate between border hopping and overstaying visas. Some policies are for visa overstays, others are for security along the southern border.

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:

Trump was right; the news was wrong. When CNN and the like we’re claiming around election time that there was no crisis at the border, there was and still is a crisis.

Immigration official says US-Mexico border crisis not over

It wasn’t just a “campaign spoof”, but an ongoing humanitarian crisis. DHS Secretary Kirsten Neilsen reiterated this countless times within the following months to no avail.

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.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/01/09/dhs-we-face-humanitarian-and-security-crisis-editorials-debates/2531535002/

The CPB says much the same.

So while you and CNN pretend this was just a campaign spoof, people who deal with the border on a daily basis say quite the opposite.

Nukes only protect against other nukes, and maybe homeland invasions (nobody has dared to use them offensively since their debut). Essentially they're useless in day-to day and year-to year tactics.

America could abandon the rest of the world and turn to farming, but I don't think that's what it really wants. (And the rest of the world doesn't want that either, because it would just serve them up to whichever strong nation has the least moral scruples, such as Russia or China).

Otherwise, and if America wishes to maintain it's economic trajectory, it's inextricably entangled in matters of geo-political stability.

I too want a world where there is less violence and conflict, but in some cases violence is a necessary response to force.

Uh oh. Things are amiss in Ukraine.

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.

https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/625831-amp.html?__twitter_impression=true

It looks like Ukraine is in a Catch-22 as suspicions mount—Potentially help Trump or refuse to investigate possible of corruption to help Biden.

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.

Ukraine Wants to Probe the Company That Paid Hunter Biden. But It's 'Too Sensitive'

This will add a new layer to the impeachment witch-hunt.

Trump wants to do what the American people want? What a tyrant! — NOS4A2

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).

I’m not saying these speculations are wrong; I’m just saying they are assumptions. — NOS4A2

And above you just made the assumption that the American people want waterboarding (and hence are OK with torture). :smirk:

Totally irrelevant as it has no bearing whatsoever on the current case for Donald Trump. Even if the impeachment were entirely partisan motivated if it's true he needs to go.

EDIT: also this

If I wanted to steal a bunch of items but didn't would you try to convict me for theft? — NOS4A2

If you tried to actually do it, but failed, I'd try to get you convicted for attempted theft.

America could abandon the rest of the world and turn to farming, but I don't think that's what it really wants. — VagabondSpectre

Its either continue giving billions to Ukraine or give up and plant pumpkins.

You can do a lot with a pumpkin. I know what you're saying, though.