Leon Troutsky

Pure Football
  • Content count

    45,895
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Everything posted by Leon Troutsky

  1. From Vindman about edits he suggested making to the transcript of Zelensky call... A: Yeah. So page four, bottom of the first paragraph, let’s see, okay, so that ellipses where it ends with “it,” there was a comment about there are recordings from the President. He said that there are recordings of these misdeeds. ^^^Trump claims there are recordings related to Biden. Q: Okay. And that ellipses substitutes for there are recordings? A: Correct. Q: To your recollection? A: Yes. This is what’s in my notes also. ... Q: Okay. So “there are recordings” substitutes for the ellipses— A: Correct. Q: —that we see here? Okay. Was there anything else that was different? A: There’s one other substantive item in the next paragraph from Zelensky, where it says, “He or she will look into the situation specifically to the company”—it shouldn’t be “the company.” It should be “to Burisma that you mentioned.” Because I think, you know, frankly, these are not necessarily folks that are familiar with the substance. So President Zelensky specifically mentioned the company Burisma.
  2. From Vindman... A: So Ambassador Sondland relatively quickly went into outlining how the—you know, these investigations need to—or the deliverable for these investigations in order to secure this meeting. Again, I think, you know, I may not have agreed with what he was doing, but his intent was to normalize relationships with— between the U.S. and Ukraine, and this was – as far as I understand, this is what he believed the deliverable to be. Q: Who did he believe—or let me—withdrawn. Do you understand how he came to believe that this deliverable was necessary? A: So I heard him say that this had been coordinated with White House Chief of Staff Mr. Mick Mulvaney. Q: What did he say about that? A: He just said that he had had a conversation with Mr. Mulvaney, and this is what was required in order to get a meeting. Q: Did he explain what the investigations were that were needed? A: He talked about the investigations, which—I guess I’ll refer to my statement. So, I mean, it was the 2016—these things tended to be conflated at some point. So he was talking about the 2016 elections and an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma
  3. Dayum...more from Fiona Hill, about Bolton’s “drug deal” comment... A: Yes. He made it clear that he believed that they were making, basically, an improper arrangement to have a meeting in the White House, that they were predicating the meeting in the White House on the Ukrainians agreeing, in this case, based on the meeting on July 10th, to restart investigations that had been dropped in the energy sector. Q: And— A: —by which point it was apparent that this was code, at least, for Burisma. Because that had been mentioned, you know, in the course of Mr. Giuliani’s appearances on television...
  4. Also from Fiona Hill... A: And Ambassador Sondland, in front of the Ukrainians, as I came in, was talking about how he had an agreement with Chief of Staff Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians if they were going to go forward with investigations. And my director for Ukraine was looking completely alarmed. And I came in again as this discussion was underway. ... ... And I said: Look, I don’t know what’s going on here, but Ambassador Bolton wants to make it very clear that we have to talk about, you know, how are we going to set up this meeting. It has to go through proper procedures. And he started to basically talk about discussions that he had had with the chief of staff. He mentioned Mr. Giuliani, but then I cut him off because I didn’t want to get further into this discussion at all. Q: So it was you personally who heard Ambassador Sondland mention Burisma— A: Correct. Q: —in the Ward Room? A: Correct. And Wells had been sitting with me in Ambassador Bolton’s office when the initial meeting took place, and he also understood it was a redirect. Q: And Mr. Vindman was also there— A: Correct. Q: —and heard it? A: And Kurt Volker.
  5. Edit: From Fiona Hill’s testimony... Q: Did anything happen in that meeting that was out of the ordinary? A: Yes. At one point during that meeting, Ambassador Bolton was, you know, basically trying very hard not to commit to a meeting, because, you know—and, again, these meetings have to be well-prepared. They’re not just something that you say, yes, we’re going to have a meeting without there being a clear understanding of what the content of that meeting is going to be. ... A: Then Ambassador Sondland blurted out: Well, we have an agreement with the chief of staff for a meeting if these investigations in the energy sector start. And Ambassador Bolton immediately stiffened. He said words to the effect—I can’t say word for word what he said because I was behind them sitting on the sofa with our Senior Director of Energy, and we all kind of looked up and thought that was somewhat odd. And Ambassador Bolton immediately stiffened and ended the meeting.
  6. “Nobody is more transparent than I am.” He actually said that.
  7. Also, as I understand it there is a specific process for requesting an investigation by a foreign government that goes through the DOJ or maybe the State Dept. The fact that Trump wouldn’t send the request through that channel also points to corrupt intent — he knew there was a legal way to do it but hid those requests by using backdoor conversations with his personal attorney.
  8. George Kent reiterates that Sondland’s advice was to say positive things about Trump... Q: And what does the State Department do? It didn’t seem like the efforts were sufficient. A: There were exchanges at this point with officials, including, to the best of my recollection, Under Secretary Hale. It may have included the Counselor of the Department, Brechbuhl, at that point. And there was a suggestion made, and I can’t remember by whom, initially, but eventually, Gordon Sondland, our Ambassador to the E.U. also joined some of the back and forth that Ambassador Yovanovitch should issue a statement, or do a video or tweet declaring full support for the foreign policy of President Trump, essentially asking her to defend herself as opposed to having the State Department defend her.
  9. Much of this was already known, but the New York Times lays it out pretty clearly.. KIEV, Ukraine — It was early September, and Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, faced an agonizing choice: whether to capitulate to President Trump’s demands to publicly announce investigations against his political enemies or to refuse, and lose desperately needed military aid. Only Mr. Trump could unlock the aid, he had been told by two United States senators, and time was running out. If the money, nearly $400 million, were not unblocked by the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, it could be lost in its entirety. In a flurry of WhatsApp messages and meetings in Ukraine’s capital, Kiev, over several days, senior aides debated the point. Avoiding partisan politics in the United States had always been the first rule of Ukrainian foreign policy, but the military aid was vital to the war against Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, a conflict that has cost 13,000 lives since it began in 2014. By then, however, Mr. Zelensky’s staffers were already conceding to what seemed to be the inevitable, and making plans for a public announcement about the investigations. It was a fateful decision for a fledgling president elected on an anticorruption platform that included putting an end to politically motivated investigations. ...Mr. Trump wanted the Ukrainian president to speak on CNN, William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, testified. But aides to Mr. Zelensky, on high alert to avoid any move that might irritate Mr. Trump, wondered if that was such a good idea, in that Mr. Trump habitually called CNN “fake news” in his Twitter posts. They also uncovered a post from Mr. Trump attacking Fox News as “not working for us anymore!” ...Finally bending to the White House request, Mr. Zelensky’s staff planned for him to make an announcement in an interview on Sept. 13 with Fareed Zakaria, the host of a weekly news show on CNN.
  10. I’m glad you posted the original explanation about jury tampering. I still think behavior like Jones should carry some kind of legal/civil penalty. It’s obvious to everyone that he’s trying to intimidate jurors. Having such a high burden of proof is a huge problem. That law probably wasn’t intended for the modern technological era.
  11. Right, it’s shifted but has since tapered off. And it’s not high enough yet to actually threaten enough GOP senators. It’ll need to shift even more in order to get Reps to defect.
  12. At least that one acknowledges Pete was talking about Bernie supporters and not comparing Bernie to Trump. This is why discussion by Twitter is silly. It takes a nuanced point and boils it down to a deceitful headline.
  13. Except he didn’t do that, as clearly shown by the article itself.
  14. I think they care a great deal after Virginia and Kentucky this week. If the public shifts to the point that it endangers their reelections, they’ll toss him out in a heartbeat.
  15. I’m simply pointing out lies and propaganda that get posted here. Maybe people should stop posting lies.
  16. BO: Ignore the article, read these tweets from “Clark feels the Bern”!!!
  17. The public is the ultimate jury for impeachment. Without strong majority support for removing Trump, there will be no conviction in the Senate. Persuading the public to support (or oppose) impeachment is the entire game right now.
  18. Thank for perfectly demonstrating everything I’m saying about this... I posted the entire article showing that Pete never compared Trump to Bernie. You respond to a tweet telling the same lie as the tweet you originally posted...both linking to the article that I posted in full demonstrating that the tweets are false.
  19. False. Pete never compared Bernie to Trump. Not a single line in the article has him comparing Bernie to Trump. I actually posted the entire portion of his comments to the boards. Here’s the link. https://nypost.com/2019/04/21/pete-buttigieg-compares-bernie-supporters-and-trump-fans/ And here’s his comments... Democratic candidate Pete Buttigieg compared Bernie Sanders’ supporters with fans of President Trump — claiming that both camps include disaffected citizens who seek to change the status quo. The 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, was speaking at a campaign stop in New Hampshire on Friday when he drew a parallel between followers of the diametrically opposed politicians, according to the Washington Examiner. “I think the sense of anger and disaffection that comes from seeing that the numbers are fine, like unemployment’s low, like all that, like you said GDP is growing and yet a lot of neighborhoods and families are living like this recovery never even happened. They’re stuck,” Buttigieg told high school students in in Nashua, N.H. “It just kind of turns you against the system in general and then you’re more likely to want to vote to blow up the system, which could lead you to somebody like Bernie and it could lead you to somebody like Trump. That’s how we got where we are.” Buttigieg also tried to draw a distinction between himself and the 77-year-old Democratic socialist from Vermont. “Part of running for president is you wind up competing with people that you like or appreciated or admired many years back,” he said about Sanders. “I don’t have the same views on everything that he does.” ^^^The tweet you posted was BS propaganda and an outright lie. You don’t seem to care that you’re posting lies.
  20. That’s difficult to explain because most people don’t know what emoluments are. Most people clearly understand what bribery is.
  21. It can be both, but if they’re going to call it a crime then they have the burden (in the public’s eyes) of proving the criminality of it. That’s a higher and unnecessary burden that makes it much easier for Trump to defend — a lot of legal experts like Preet Bahara (or Renalto Marioto, I forget which) are saying that no prosecutor would bring bribery charges in this case. It muddies the message and it’s unnecessary.
  22. Still trying to distract and deflect from the BS tweet you posted that lied about what Pete said. Not falling for it. You posted a tweet claiming Pete compared Sanders to Trump. The article shows that Pete was talking about Bernie SUPPORTERS and how they were disaffected and angry at the system. Pete was sympathetic to Bernie’s supporters, not attacking Bernie. That tweet lied. And your response to me pointing out that it lied was three stupid memes in a row. Address that.
  23. Yes. But bribery isn’t defined in the Constitution and there would not be a federal bribery statute making it criminal for another 80-100 years. That’s the point. They don’t have to prove the elements of the federal bribery statute that exists today because that statute didn’t exist when the Founders wrote the Constitution.
  24. This is the legalese trap that I’ve been warning about. Bribery wasn’t a criminal offense when the Constitution was written. They shouldn’t get bogged down in trying to prove all elements of the federal bribery statute. It’s not necessary.
  25. ^^^This is what BO has become.