White House Ukraine expert to testify he reported concerns about Trump-Zelensky call
"I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen,
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Washington (CNN)The National Security Council's top Ukraine expert plans to tell House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that he was so troubled by President Donald Trump's July phone call with Ukraine's President that he reported his concerns to a superior, according to a copy of his opening statement obtained by CNN.
"I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government's support of Ukraine," Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman plans to tell lawmakers, according to his opening statement. "I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained."
"This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC's lead counsel."
The New York Times was the first to report on Vindman's planned remarks.
That phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is at the heart of the Democrats' impeachment inquiry, following a whistleblower complaint alleging that Trump had solicited foreign interference to dig up information on a political rival and the White House tried to cover it up.
US officials have previously told CNN that standard operating procedure suggests Vindman also would have been listening in on the July 25 conversation and likely played a role in the handling of the call's transcript.
In addition to questions about the content of that conversation, Vindman is likely to be pressed on how the transcript of the call was handled by White House officials who moved to contain the fallout in its aftermath.
CNN previously reported that the scramble that occurred in the hours and days after the call, described by six people familiar with it, parallels and expands upon details described in the whistleblower complaint.
The anxiety and internal concern reflect a phone conversation that deeply troubled national security professionals, even as Trump now insists there was nothing wrong with how he conducted himself. And it shows an ultimately unsuccessful effort to contain the tumult by the administration's lawyers.
Tags
Who is online
104 visitors
Another bad witness for Trump.
He heard with his own ears that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden,. which is abuse of the president's power.
This is idiotic John. We already have the details of the call, regardless of what this Intelligence official plans to say today. I'm sure Schiff will tell us what was said.
BTW let's see if you can add:
question from USAToday-Suffolk impeachment poll:
We know that about 30% of Americans would support Trump if he shot a nun in Times Square, so that explains C).
The 21% in the middle and the undecideds are who the impeachment hearings are meant for.
Since an admission of the offense exists (Trump, Mulvaney) the hearings are more than justified.
21% plus 30% = 51%.......It's a minor point. I STILL OWE YOU!
Lets not forget Rudy.
37.9 % + 21.1 % = 59% It's a MAJOR point.
You own no one.
So you think B are people claiming it is an impeachable offense. No wonder the Democrats are pulling this shit. Their supporters can't read!
We have the details of a 12 minute call, not the 30 minute one Trump made to Erdogan.
No, I think that B can be EDUCATED to understand that the conversation was not only wrong but impeachable.
I note that you don't seem to have an issue with Vic adding B into those that believe there was nothing wrong with the conversation. Why not?
PROVE IT
Since you're shouting (CAPS LOCK), I assume you know the details of Trump's conversation with Erdogan.
Please post the link to that call.
You made the claim - now prove it. Iv'e called you out!
Wow! WTF? You called me out, tough guy?
What claim did I make?
Oh yeah, I claimed you used "CAPS LOCK".
Here's the proof:
It's hilarious when they loose the thread and then get indignant.
Uh-oh.
Be careful.
You might get "called out".
You claimed that there was a 30 minute call to "Erdogan". Kind of odd in many ways. So fill us in on the 30 minutes! What was said? Are you sure this is a call to the leader of Turkey? Or the Ukraine?
Are you that unable to look for yourself???? Directly from the White house itself.
Ukraine Transcript
From the 1st page of the "transcript" memo.
CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a
discussion.
No worries, I'm no ordinary rabbit:
That's a fucking lie.
I never said that.
BTW, your pants are on fire.
Could you give us a link to that testimony?
Here you go:
Not that you'll read it or acknowledge it's content.
The trouble with witnesses in these particular investigations is that 40% of the electorate is conditioned to disbelieve them. Putin's SVR, CSR and FSB do their work very well.
What the public thinks is a misnomer. To many times in history, popular public sentiment ended up not being good for the public. Example; By late 1944 the Allied bombing
campaigns were simply bouncing rubble more often than not.
Watched several GOP representatives today commenting on testimony and depositions. General consensus was standard fare witch-hunt.
Well I think we now have an idea of who it was that whined to the so-called WB and may have leaked secret information. And he showed up for testimony in his military uniform! I guess that was to make an impression on the 40%.
Do you never tire of spewing false innuendo?
Lt. Col. Vindman EARNED the right to go wherever the fuck he wants in his uniform.
I've quickly tired of those here who demean a man who has fought and bled for this country merely because he is testifying truthfully about what he witnessed Trump do in office.
Bullshit! Only when they are trying to screw the President. We saw what happened with former Lieutenant General Michael Flynn.
The unregistered foreign agent that Trump made his National Security Advisor.
Lock him up!
WTF are blathering about Vic?
What's part of my comment is bullshit?
What's 'only when' and who are 'they'?
Flynn LIED and the DOJ let him off easy. At this point, his 'star' legal team might get him jail time if they're not careful.
Really? Link?
Oh and I'll say bye now since that's the last I'll hear from you on this...
So by 'just' you mean 6 MONTHS ago. Sheesh.
You know that the link that you posted is about a victory for Flynn's PARTNER'S lawyers right?
The date on it is 4/10/2019 and Flynn didn't fire his lawyers until June.
Try harder.
Laura Ingram (on Faux Noise) accused Lt. Col. Vindman of "espionage".
Are there any 'nekked' pictures of Laura Ingraham?
Probably not.
There is this though.
Geeze, I hope not.
They were so dumb that when they raised their arms as a sign of loyalty to Trump they didnt realize it would look exactly like the Nazi salute to Adolf Hitler.
The fucking Nazis saluted Trump too.
Hey, I used to be a GOPER, remember? Nekkedness is next gawdliness.
Well if Fox News called Vindman an un American traitor, you can be sure Trump wont be far behind in saying it. Probably by morning.
Politico called him the "breakout witness"....Shhhhhhh....he may even be the other WB!
So I guess this distinguished 20 year veteran is a traitor, too?
What's that got to do with the price of rice in Arkansas?
I guess someone who has immigrated to this country to escape totalitarianism, starvation, and poverty, became a citizen, served his country in the Armed Forces....yeah he's the guy we need to worry about.
I find that comment by Ingram to be at best disgusting. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman is a decorated US Army combat veteran.
His expertise is so far beyond anything that Ingram could ever hope to attain.
As for our service people that have served and were not born in the US or in many instances were not citizens a bit of research is due.
In WWII 14 Medal of Honor recipients were born outside of the US.
Korean War 2 Medal of Honor recipients were born outside of the US.
Vietnam War 8 Medal of Honor recipients were born outside of the US.
Afghanistan 1 Medal of Honor recipient that was born outside the US.
The Medal of Honor is the highest award that is given for bravery under fire. I wonder if Ingram would question their patriotism.
The list of MoH non-US born citizens is hundreds of servicemen dating back in all of our wars.
This does not include the tens of thousands of foreign-born members of the US military that have served with distinction.
The decorations and unit insignias that Lt. Col. Vindman is wearing are not for sitting on his ass in some Washington hotel.
To attack this man is beyond the pale. When any of the attackers have served in combat and have accomplished what he has then they can carry duffle bag. Until then they should STFU.
Kavika, I have a question about the Purple Heart. If you wounded more than once, does one get a device for one's medal?
Yes, for each additional wound they receive an Oak Leaf Cluster to attach to the original Purple Heart.
I thought so. Thanks.
I'm still not convinced it's worthy of impeachment on grounds of abuse or corruption, but I do think it was sloppy. Unfortunately, that has been a feature of the Trump administration because he - and several people in his administration - really don't have any experience in government. It shows in events like the Ukraine thing.
If Trump was genuinely concerned about Biden's doings while VP, he definitely has a right to pursue it, but he should do everything he can to avoid making it look political. It seems to me that an independent counsel would have been the most appropriate agent of investigation. There still might have been a need to discuss the matter with Ukrainian leadership, but that might have been better left to the Senate or the State Department.
So Tacos, you're good on both points:
1.) Emboldening a known national security threat to the United States know as Russia by weakening Ukraine's ability to defend itself against the same.
2.) Involving foreign entities to involve themselves in our election system.
Neither rise to the level of impeachment for you eh?
So I guess Obama's failure to send any arms at all to Ukraine as it was fighting off an actual invasion was a super impeachable offense.
But that's right, in the Obama years, Dems mocked anyone who said Russia was a threat, gladly took millions from Putin's cronies and sent foreigners to get fake propaganda about the Republican candidate from Putin's officials.
Are you ever going to stop making excuses for Donald Trump?
Your reflexive attacks on anyone who disparages the abominable Trump presidency is disconcerting.
Ok, you know that didn't happen, right? Putin HATED Clinton, pretty sure he wouldn't give dirt on trump, (who he said he wanted to win the election). Just trump once again blaming his enemy of that which he was guilty of.
Ok, you know that didn't happen, right?
Of course it did. Haven't you read the Steele dossier?
What's disconcerting is the inability of many here to keep their attacks on Trump grounded in reality.
Obamaites claiming Trump deserves impeachment for "emboldening Russia" after 8 years of Obama's foreign policy is simply too much to stomach. History remembers the Obama Presidency, even if his most devoted supporters don't.
Nope, fox news said it was all lies, so no need to read it. Besides, why would putin give up dirt to someone he hates, in an effort to discredit the person he wanted to win the election?
In no way shape or form does that make any sense at all.
At least you admit your ignorance.
hy would putin give up dirt to someone he hates
Think real hard. I'm sure you can come up with it! Why would Putin give millions to someone he hates?
Anyone who votes for Trump in 2020 after four years of watching this shit show on an hourly basis is not a conscientious American citizen.
You dont like Democrats or liberals? then nominate a conservative in place of Trump as the GOP presidential candidate. There are hundreds of "respectable" conservatives out there who would like to run for president. There must be at least a few of them that you think can beat Elizabeth Warren or Pete Buttigieg.
To continue on with this utter absurdity known as the Trump presidency for one second longer than necessary is a travesty.
As are yours to any that do not share your views.
So, in your view, conscientious citizens should lie and make things up to take down a President who lies and makes things up.
The right really needs to sort out their talking points.
Before the election: "Don't vote for Hillary she will start WWIII with Russia!!!!!!"
After the election: "Hillary got dirt on trump from Putin because they are friends!!!!"
Hillary got dirt on trump from Putin because they are friends!!!
Who said that? Why do you need to make things up?
Do you really need help figuring out what Putin was doing?
Won't happen John, several red states have already said there will be no republican debates in those states.
She won the nomination because she got the most votes. No payment necessary. But it's nice to see that the cons want to make sure the lying con man gets the nomination by canceling debates, I mean, because it's just not cool to give Americans a choice. [eye roll]
Obama....! Her Emails....! Deflection is all you and MUVA have since nether of you can argue the facts of the day.
If your stomach is bothering you Sean, I suggest you lay off the Trump/GOP Koolaid you've been drinking for the last decade. It's already proven to cause brain damage given how badly you remember or interpret historical details. Why risk your G.I. track as well?
Besides comrad.... Putin is going to need you to be strong in coming days when his Trump sock-puppet is exposed for the Russian enabling bastard that he is.
Maybe he prefers "Fool-Aid".
I see no evidence that the exchange between Trump and the Ukrainian president emboldened Russia in any particular way. And even if it had, what is the significance of that? "Emboldening?" That's pretty vague. Almost anything could embolden someone.
Any ability Ukraine has to defend itself has only been enhanced by American involvement. The aid is still there.
The potential consequence of an investigation could be that Biden's chances to win the election would be damaged. But that's his fault if he did something wrong. You don't blame the cops for investigating a crime.
And such an investigation - in no way - messes with our election system. All it does is expose information the voters have a right to know. If Biden was improperly using his power and influence as Vice President, voters absolutely have a right to know that.
Neither of those things happened in the comment you replied to.
Trump isn't even mentioned.
Nobody was attacked either.
And you complain about others reflexively attacking anyone who disagrees with them. Amazing. Look in a mirror.
You Just Can't See It? What the bloody hell? Just exactly how could Trump withholding the military aid that Ukraine needed badly for its fight against the Russian Incursion into Ukraine not embolden Russia?
o cause brain damage given how badly you remembe
Nothing but gas lighting the forum and name calling from you. No surprise. An honest person would probably point out an actual fact I had wrong before alleging brain damage. But you just skipped to the name calling.
Sad.
So come on, chief. Redeem yourself. What lethal aid did Obama provide Ukraine when it was attacked? Trump supplied Ukraine with lethal aid, Obama didn't.
Where were your calls for Obama's impeachment for "emboldening Russia?" If you actually argued from principle rather than from simple partisanship, you could respond substantively. But of course, partisanship is really all you have, isn't it?
It's a good thing you stick to pictures.
Arguments aren't your thing.
In a very robotic way, you continue to justify Trump asking the president of a foreign government to investigate Trump's election rival for 2020.
HE'S NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT. THAT IS WHY HE IS BEING IMPEACHED.
Yet you just go merrily along, arguing "nothing to see here".
It borders on strange.
All you have to do is prove it; which the transcripts released of the phone conversation don't.
Funny, the left have no problem with Ukraine helping out Hillary against Trump. Nor Ukraine releasing information to the media that was damaging to Trump's campaign. Material they admit shouldn't have.
Nor do you have a problem with the US intelligence agencies being used to spy on a political opponent during an election. So long as they are spying on a Republican that is.
But you sure as hell have a problem when Trump calls for an investigation of loud mouth Biden for bragging about extorting Ukraine, and claiming Obama backed him up, to fire the lead prosecutor that was investigating the company his son works for!
Hypocrite much?
No weakening like holding up aid for his own personal benefit.
You realize that asking Ukraine to get involved is the OPPOSITE of telling Putin to Stop it right?
[deleted]
No, he asked the president to help investigate the former Vice President when he was using his power as Vice President. Now that that man is no longer Vice President, he has chosen to run against Trump for president, but that does not excuse him from accountability while he was in office. The fact that you want his potential wrongdoing ignored because he is running against Trump (whom you hate) is pretty disturbing.
All you have to do is prove it.
Why? Why should the President be able to investigate Americans for no other reason than that they were a former elected official? There was no whistleblower who came forward to complain of some corruption or illegality in regards to Biden. There is no evidence Biden did anything wrong. Trump is instigating an investigation into a political rival not based on some known evidence, if he had the evidence of a crime he'd already be telling everyone about it, not asking a foreign leader to find some for him.
The fact that you want "potential wrongdoing" investigated without any evidence of wrongdoing is pretty disturbing. I have yet to hear an actual claim of any crime committed by Biden, all I hear so far are ethereal claims of needing to investigate "corruption". NO one has presented any evidence of a quid pro quo in regards to Biden, but we have a transcript of Trump clearly asking for something he can use in the upcoming election in return for over $300 million in military aid.
The President should not have free reign to use the federal governments resources to investigate any and all of his political or business opponents. It should not be allowed for a President to dislike someone like Jeff Bezos, then send the power of the FBI or justice department after him because he didn't like the unflattering portrayal of himself in the WAPO. We should not allow a President to see poll numbers where he's losing miserably by double digits to Joe Biden then decide to withhold millions in congressionally approved military assistance till a foreign leader at least announces that they'll be investigating the Presidents political rival which is obviously something the Trump campaign would use as an attack on Biden.
We simply cannot allow this kind of behavior to go unaccounted for as it will set a precedent for all future Presidents. Trump should be impeached and then have the trial in the Senate, whether they end up removing him will be immaterial.
Yet it was based false innuendo.
Trump said that Biden 'stopped the prosecution'. That is false. PERIOD full stop.
Secondly, Biden was acting in the benefit of the Ukraine, NOT against it. The EU, the IMF and other Western countries wanted Sorkin, who was enabling corruption, gone. Pretending that it was all about what Biden wanted is just a fabricated load of bullshit used to try to gaslight the willfully obtuse.
That's just throwing shit at the wall. Cite a cogent allegation. Other that what has already been debunked, WHAT are you or they alleging that Biden did that requires investigation?
What's actually disturbing is that Trump and his sycophants used the excuse of a debunked conspiracy theory to withhold a WH meeting and military aid to Ukraine.
As you said, IF Trump was 'was genuinely concerned about Biden's doings while VP' he has innumerable venues to investigate. It strains credulity that on one hand Trump and his sycophants point at Ukrainian corruption and on the other they insist that Trump just wanted to rely on Ukraine to do a transparent investigation of American citizens. It's a ridiculous posit.
Oh and IF Trump and his sycophants 'genuinely' wanted Ukraine to assist AG Barr in a DOJ investigation there is a LAW that Trump is sworn to uphold to make that official request. Ambassador Taylor documented the fact that Zelensky's assistant told Volker that the US should follow that law. To this day, as far as anyone knows, Trump has yet to do so.
IMHO, the thing that PROVES that all of this wasn't actually about Trump want in the Ukraine to investigate corruption is that Trump kept demanding that Zelensky name Burisma PUBLICLY. It really didn't matter if an investigation actually occurred, as long as it could be reported on Fox news and tweeted ad nauseum.
He shouldn't. Fortunately, that's not the reason Trump gave when he said he wanted Biden investigated. He wasn't just fishing around for something. He had a specific thing in mind and he said so.
Various forms of wrongdoing are investigated every day without a "whistleblower" coming forward.
That's your opinion. Obviously Trump feels differently. Consider broadening your idea of what constitutes evidence. You probably already have regarding Trump's activities.
Many people, for example, are convinced there must be some proof of criminal wrongdoing to be found in Trump's tax returns, but their only "evidence" for this is that he hasn't released them to the public. That's pretty thin as evidence goes, but it's plenty good enough for many people to demand that Congress acquire the records through the force of their authority.
Here, Trump sees the son of a VP getting a high paying job that - on the surface - he doesn't appear qualified for. He hears there may be some kind of investigation connected to it and then he sees Biden bragging about using his power to get an investigator (who may or may not be connected) fired. That's relatively, thin, too, but it's at least as suspicious looking as the evidence driving the mania over Trump's taxes.
That's a valid point of view and I would say the same is basically true for Trump.
What's "clear" to you is not clear to very many other people.
A lot of things are. That's why you conduct the investigation: to see if it's true or if it's false. If it's false, then investigation will exonerate Biden and he will march triumphantly into the White House in January 2021.
Trying to stop the investigation kind of looks suspicious, doesn't it? At least, that's what you'd probably say if we were talking about Trump instead of Biden.
It certainly is the general rule in Washington, where they often investigate pointless, ordinary behaviors or - contrariwise - blissfully ignore obvious red flags that point to corruption.
Really? Is your posit that innuendo is a reason why you withhold a WH meeting and military aid to a desperate country? Again, that stretches credulity.
WHO tried to STOP the investigation Tacos!? Seriously, there is documentation from Taylor's opening statement that shows that they spent MONTHS trying to MOTIVATE an investigation.
The fact that we now KNOW about it isn't about STOPPING the investigation, it's about STOPPING Trump from using his office for his own benefit.
Thanks so much for trying to normalize the actions by Trump. Well done. /s
Why yes, YES Trump did and it was a conspiracy theory that has been debunked. Here is what Trump said:
Now unless you have some evidence that Biden stopped a prosecution or bragged about stopping a prosecution, you should just ADMIT that Trump is FULL OF SHIT.
Oh and PLEASE don't post the debunked video because Biden DOES NOT say a fucking thing about stopping a PROSECUTION. Period, full stop.
How many of those investigations are motivated by withholding desperately needed military aid?
Why, you haven't.
You'd be wrong.
Those 'many people' are in a dwindling minority.
Your repeated ability to simultaneously misunderstand simple language and create straw men is what strains credulity. And yet, there it is.
You're advocating that right now (like many people). Or will you now support the investigation?
How fascinating. You measure what you should do based on what I am doing. There's hope for you after all.
Argumentum ad populum is a common logical fallacy. I am not surprised to see you try it.
I see no evidence that the exchange between Trump and the Ukrainian president emboldened Russia in any particular way. And even if it had, what is the significance of that? "Emboldening?" That's pretty vague. Almost anything could embolden someone.
I'm guessing its for the same reason that so many have problems assembling Ikea furniture, or Tinker-Toys.
Keep putting party over country Taco's. You've got that skill nailed comrade.
OBTW..... We've located the "Deep State" the right-wing conspiracy theorists have been talking about for so many years now. They are the career patriots in this country that took to heart their oath to "uphold and defend the constitution" and put it ahead of themselves. It is a shame those that support Trump at every turn can't seem to align themselves with that same thinking.
Here is the simple language:
Of course, your statement utterly ignores the timeline of events.
The phone call happened on July 25, 2019.
The deadline for disseminating the military aid was Sept. 30, 2019.
Which gives Ukraine just over 2 MONTHS to conduct an investigation that Trump and his sycophants have been working on for YEARS.
Secondly, you don't address the cognitive dissonance of insisting that Ukraine is steeped in corruption yet Trump thinks they can conduct a fair and transparent investigation into American citizens.
My question, based on your 'a lot of things are' comment :
I didn't 'misunderstand simple language' OR post a strawman.
I note that instead of answering my question, you tried to pretend that is was baseless. It isn't.
What I am advocating for is for the US to make it clear to Ukraine and the rest of the world that we will NOT base military aid on whether they investigate Biden or any other American.
That in the future, if and when the US desires assistance in legal investigations, we will FOLLOW THE LAW and DOCUMENT the allegations we want them to investigate rather than throwing out innuendo created in a Trump fever dream.
That in the future, the US will NOT remove a eminently qualified and effective Ambassador based on the testimony of private partisan hacks.
No, I do NOT support an investigation without a cogent predicate. Why do you?
How fascinating that you don't recognize the difference between critique and embracing.
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it
Or don't believe it, like this:
Well done.
BTW, are you going to address my questions or just post comments about me?
That is already clear to Ukraine. Their president has said so.
The only people who think differently are those who are foaming at the mouth to impeach the president - and have been since before he was even sworn in. You know, these people:
From your link:
Yet we now KNOW, that is false. The text messages document that Trump was DEMANDING that Zelensky state PUBLICLY that Ukraine would investigate Burisma [Hunter Biden] AGAIN.
I can't help but wonder how Zelensky feels now that he's had the chance to review the evidence of the US conspiracy.
Actually, the people that KNOW that are those that have READ and acknowledge the facts in evidence released by witnesses. You're obviously not among them.
[Deleted]
How bout SHOWING us, in the "Transcript", where Trump DEMANDED that Zelensky state PUBLICLY that Ukraine to investigate ANYTHING - Biden, taxes, coffee, cost of rice in China - ANYTHING.
I and thousands of other folks, I'm sure, have read and re-read the "Transcript" numerous times and nowhere in the document are there any demands placed on Zelensky other than ????????? Even with the "Expert" who so diligently "filled in the gaps" in the conversation.
Gonna show us or blow it off?
You really need to refrain from making personal comments about members. It is a CoC violation and uncalled for.
How about you READ MORE CAREFULLY. I said that proof is in the TEXT MESSAGES. Go READ them for yourself.
Here 1st, I'll hold your hand and give you a link to the TEXT MESSAGES I cited;
For a chronological context, READ Ambassador Taylor's opening statement. Start on page 5. Here is what Taylor said on page 6:
This is on page 10/11:
After MONTHS of trying to force Zelensky to make a PUBLIC statement, this is what he wrote on page 12:
Hand holding OVER, or do you need to spoon feed you the link to Taylor's statement TOO?
Oh and BTFW, pretty damn cogent comment for someone you claim is under the influence don't you think 1st?
Uhhhh . . . noooo. We don't know any such thing. What a ridiculous and absurd claim with zero support offered.
Even if that was true or relevant (it is neither ), that would tell us nothing about what was "clear to Ukraine" - your words.
Yeah, that's obvious.
READ my comment to 1st 4.1.49 for evidence that they DID ask Zelensky FOR something for MONTHS.
The only 'WE' that don't know any such thing are those that refuse to educate themselves on the issue. ALL of the evidence is readily available online.
Oh butt it IS true AND relevant Tacos! and the text messages INCLUDE texts to and from Ukrainians.
You see, unlike you, I have actually invested the TIME it takes to know the FACTS provided by the existing evidence. All you've done is sit here and offer ZERO support for YOUR posits and spew snark.
Why do you and your fellow travelers make snarky replies to truncated block quotes? Do you think it makes you look cool or sound intelligent or even funny?
Hint: It doesn't.
Why not try some adulting instead?
De Nile is not a river in Egypt, I guess. The single best source for what was "clear to Ukraine" is the president of that country saying it for himself. That evidence you want to ignore. I mean, WOW!
Right Tacos!.
Trump has Zelensky's nuts in a vice but he should tell the truth and admit that Trump was extorting him. No reason to worry about how that will look to his own people that he's under Trump's thumb. That's a hell of an example of authority and strength. Ya, that's the ticket...
Hell, Zelensky couldn't even call Trump out for releasing the call summary without his permission. He just had to sit there with the prick and let him babble and suck it up. It's amazing what kind of crap one will take when faced with loosing 400 million in military aid.
You're desperate to ignore the testimony of 14 people that refute what Trump and Zelensky said. So much so that you don't even bother to READ it. Wow!
That's okay, you'll be HEARING all about it quite soon so you'll have to wear your blinders AND ear plugs.
Ya know, when you put a smiley face behind a comment, most - no - the vast majority of people who have a sense of humor would recognize it as a joke or a statement meant to have humor involved.
Terribly sorry 'bout your misunderstanding Dulay. The only transcript I have seen or read was the one, supposedly, transcribed by completely professional transcribers/recorders of President Trump's call with Zelensky. And that's the only transcript that I have or will make regarding this matter.
First of all, that isn't a 'transcript', it's a summary of the conversation. Is says so right on the document. It also states that it may NOT be accurate. Lt. Col. Vindman's statement says that he was on the call and the summary is NOT accurate.
Second of all, I haven't misunderstood a fucking thing.
I didn't cite a transcript, I cited the TEXTS that Volker submitted to the Committees. Ignore them if you must.
QUICK, cover your eyes.
State Department Officials Discuss White House Visit and Ukraine Statement: On
August 9, 2019, Ambassador Volker had the following exchange with Ambassador
Sondland about arranging a White House meeting after the Ukrainian President makes a
public statement:
19, 5: 35:53 Gordon Sondland: Morrison ready to get dates as soon as
Yermak confirms.
[8/9/19, 5: 46:21 Kurt Volker: Excellent! How did you sway him?
[8/9/19, 5: 47:34 Gordon Sondland: Not sure i did. I think potus really wants
the deliverable
[8/9/19, 5: 48:00 Kurt Volker: But does he know that?
[8/9/19, 5: 48:09 Gordon Sondland: Yep
[8/9/19, 5: 48:37 Gordon Sondland: Clearly lots of convos going on
[8/9/19, 5:48:38 Kurt Volker: Ok then that's good it's coming from two
separate sources
[8/9/19, 5: 51:18 Gordon Sondland: To avoid misundestandings, might be
helpful to ask Andrey for a draft statememt (embargoed) so that we can see
exactly what they propose to cover. Even though Ze does a live presser they can
still summarize in a brief statement. Thoughts?
[8/9/19, 5: 51:42 Kurt Volker: Agree!
Ukrainian Aide Seeks White House Date First: On August 10, 2019, President
Zelensky's aide, Andrey Yermak, pressed Ambassador Volker for a date for the White House visit before committing to a statement announcing an investigation explicitly referencing the 2016 election and Burisma:
[8/10/19, 4:56:15 Andrey Yermak: Hi Kurt. Please let me know when you
can talk. I think it's possible to make this declaration and mention all these things.
Which we discussed yesterday. But it will be logic to do after we receive a
confirmation of date. We inform about date of visit and about our expectations
and our guarantees for future visit. Let discuss it
[8/10/19, 5:01 :32 Kurt Volker: Ok! It?s late for you?why don?t we talk in
my morning, your afternoon tomorrow? Say lOam/5pm?
[8/10/19, 5:02:18 Kurt Volker: I agree with your approach. Let?s iron out
statement and use that to get date and then PreZ can go forward with it?
[8/10/19, 5:26:17 Andrey Yennak: Ok
[8/10/19, 5:38:43 Kurt Volker: Great. Gordon is available tojoin as well
[8/10/ 19, 5:41:45 Andrey Yerrnak: Excellent
[8/10/ 19, 5:42:10 Andrey Yermak: Once we have a date, will call for a press
brie?ng, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of US-
UKRAINE relationship, including among other things Burisma and election
meddling in investigations
10/ 19, 5:42:30 Kurt Volker: Sounds great!
Thanx!
That exchange of text messages is very incriminating.
The wingers will have to ignore them.
Well someone other than I didn't think that your smiley face excused your slanderous comment. Looks like a mod agreed. If you have an issue with that, contact the RA.
Oh butt there's much more.
That's just the part about them demanding a PUBLIC declaration that Ukraine would open an investigation into Burisma and the server. Later Yermak reads the Politico article about Trump withholding the military aid. They were NOT happy. By mid August, the Ukrainians KNEW that it was a public announcement or no aid and no meeting. It's all in the TEXTS.
I love it when they put it in writing.
It's undeniable.
I hope we get to hear from John Bolton.
Bolton's lawyer said that he 'invited' a subpoena. I told my mom that Bolton would never testify. I think I jumped the gun.
Bolton's testimony along with Lt. Col. Vindman's will fry The Donald.
They were both appalled by hotel owner, oops I mean Ambassador Gordon Sondland's insistence that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky publicly announce an investigation into the Bidens if they wanted the $391 million aid package.
I get the impression that Bolton will enjoy throwing Trump under the bus.
Don't forget Morrison. Morrison is a key player in Taylor's opening statement. He just quite the WH and will be deposed tomorrow. I hope he releases an opening statement.
From Taylor's statement:
Sondland LIED to Congress and is in deep shit.
Maybe Michael Cohen will get a new roommate.
The Ukrainians were QUITE clear about the WH demands for a PUBLIC statement about an investigation into Burisma and the server:
And they were clear about the military aid was also being withheld once the Politico article came out:
The Ukrainians were QUITE clear about what Trump wanted and what he was withholding to get it.
The texts go one and get worse but I think that's enough 'substance' for you tonight.
Still think that it wasn't clear to Ukraine EXACTLY what Trump wanted Tacos!?
Where is your argument based on the ACTUAL substance?
You know that in Morrison's sentence 'substance' means "the most important part of what someone has said or written" right XD?
You know what's actually pretty obvious? That red lights went off in Morrison's head when he heard the call.
I find it utterly disingenuous that Morrison pretends to have 3 political concerns but the first fucking thing he did was to ask the NSC LEGAL Advisor and his Deputy review the call.
In short, his slip is showing.
Wow, talk about conspiracy theories.
One would think that when giving testimony in the House SCIF it would be the PERFECT time to out a WH mole. I mean, Trump's lap dogs are in the SCIF too. Nunes and Jordan would kiss Morrison square on the lips for information like that.
Yet NADA, nothing, NOT A WORD that would support your conservative wet dream.
Fail.
Oh I believe that is what Morrison believes. Yet it doesn't matter whether anything 'illegal' was discussed. Most abuse of power isn't 'illegal'.
From Federalist 65, Hamilton:
So the sooner you and your fellow travelers get it into your heads that Articles of Impeachment need NOT include illegal activity or crimes, the less silly it will look.
Bingo!
How long before trump testifies under oath? Never. He couldn't be honest if he tried.
He will refuse and head for the golf course.
You should be happy when Trump is golfing. He isn't tweeting, giving press conferences, or setting leftists' hair on fire.
But he said he would be too busy working to golf. He complained that Obama golfed too much for 8 years. He gets elected and golfs 4x as much as Obama did and the right wing? Completely silent, not one complaint at all.
Maybe, but his handicap in golf is a helluva lower than Obama's.
Sure if you subtract all the shots into the weeds.
Nothing wrong with weeds - helping the grounds keeper.
Why are Democrats engaged in a neo-con revival? The intelligence agencies and military are 'leaking' their concerns about Ukraine and Russia. Yet no one has made the case for Ukraine being pivotal to the national security of the United States. However, the intelligence agencies and military are expending a lot of political capital to protect their relationship with Ukraine. Why?
The neo-cons are engaged in gaslighting the public again. The attempt made by intelligence agencies to take down Trump with allegations of conspiracy with Russia failed. Now the intelligence agencies and military are directly involved in overt activities to manipulate political Washington into accepting the importance of Ukraine for the national security of the United States. Why?
The big unanswered question if 'why'? The intelligence agencies and military are showing greater concern over Russia than over foreign terrorism, Chinese economic domination, or destabilization of Europe. Why?
The intelligence agencies engage in investigation of citizens of other countries all the time. That was a core activity of the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. And Mueller's investigation utilized intelligence obtained from foreign governments. The claimed concern by Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman are disingenuous. Surely Vindman is aware that the United States frequently seeks intelligence from foreign governments concerning people living in the United States. Attempting to obtain intelligence from foreign governments concerning US residents and citizens is just business as usual.
Would there have been such overt public concern by the intelligence agencies and military if Trump had sought an investigation of Tony Podesta's activities in Ukraine (or, even, the activities of Paul Manafort in Ukraine)? The apparent concern centers around the involvement of Joe Biden following a policy towards Ukraine that was obviously built upon manipulation by the intelligence agencies. Biden actually did more than Trump and Biden has publicly boasted about it. Are we to believe that Biden was anything other than a tool used by the intelligence agencies?
The intelligence agencies appear to be very concerned about changing the relationship with Ukraine. Why?
"I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen"
Hahahahahaha !
Who the Heck "Doesn't" have some "Concern" about one politician or another.
Maybe he (The Real #I'LLWhistleblowanyone?) shoulda said …….. "I knew it was against the law" …… instead ?
That woulda made him (The real #I'llWhistleblowanyone?), more relevant, at the "Most" !
" CONCERN " ?
Are you fucking kidding me ?
Because he isn't a lawyer?
Are you fucking kidding me?
At least he was able to think he was …… "CONCERNED".
Has he ALWAYS been so ……. so ……. "wishywashy"...…. as a "Lieutenant Colonel" in the Military?
So, you know what he was thinking? Do tell, how do you know what he was thinking?
At least he served, unlike your coward messiah with the bone spurs!!!
The "Reporting" says it all....doesn't it ?