Leon Troutsky

Pure Football
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Leon Troutsky

  1. Nah, just the way you worded it was confusing. No big deal.
  2. Turkey got “exactly what they wanted” out of the meeting with Vice President Mike Pence, a senior Turkish official told CNN today. ^^^Is this the winning we were going to get sick of?
  3. Ah, you were talking about Sondland. I thought you were saying the Ukranian ambassador -- the ambassador for Ukraine -- had made a statement. Yeah, Sondland's testimony is very revealing. But Mulvaney's confession kind of makes a lot of it moot. Mulvaney said outright there was a quid pro quo.
  4. CNN reporting that Trump's legal team is "baffled" by what Mulvaney said. Edit: How long until Mulvaney gets marched out to recant what he said? Or maybe gets fired?
  5. I doubt many Republicans are going to outright defend the quid pro quo. However, I think IF they want to stick with Trump that they're going to shift to "this wasn't right, but it's not impeachable" and "impeachment will divide the country so we should put this to voters". I'm not convinced those arguments are going to work. But we'll see where public opinion stands next week.
  6. That doesn't hold up when they confessed to the whole thing.
  7. Oh yeah, great point! That's going to make it a lot easier/faster for the House impeachment inquiry to get the documents they want.
  8. Let's see what happens with public opinion in the coming weeks.
  9. Republican responses to Mulvaney's presser is going to be interesting. I'm sure there will be spin, but they can't hide behind "no quid pro quo" or other talking points. They can't hid behind "process" complaints. They are going to have to publicly say that it's okay for the President to exchange military aid for dirt on a political opponent. That's why I think this is going to hit hard and might shift the impeachment numbers even more.
  10. I think this Mulvaney revelation is going to land hard with the public. So far it's been a question whether there was a quid pro quo. Mulvaney admitted it -- we held up military aid in exchange for Ukraine digging up dirt on political opponents. So the only question now is whether the public think that's appropriate. Very few of them are going to buy the "nothing wrong here" argument.
  11. The timeline regarding Mulvaney's "it wasn't about Biden" is important. The aid was held up just a week or so before the phone call with Ukraine's president. In the phone call, Trump specifically mentions Biden. So it WAS about Biden, by Trump's own words.
  12. JFC, I want to see what he said specifically, but that's him admitting to the whole thing out in public. Who thought that was a good idea?
  13. The G-7 summit will take place June 10-12 next year... ...about a month before the Democratic National Convention. Like that's not going to be a talking point for Democrats. The "drain the swamp" speeches are going to write themselves. Also, how funny would it be if he gets removed from office this year and Pence moves the location to a different hotel?
  14. But let's talk about Hunter Biden!!!!
  15. Their talking points haven’t been working so far.
  16. Except Trump mentioned Biden by name in the phone call and told Zelensky to talk with Rudy and Barr. So Trump can’t deny knowing that it was all about Burisma and DNC server. And Trump himself just yesterday went on a rant about the DNC server in Ukraine.
  17. Except that Sondland directly says that there was a quid pro quo. He said that public announcing the investigation was a “pre-condition” for a presidential meeting. Sondland threw Trump and Rudy under the bus.
  18. Nope. The prosecutor was fired because he failed to prosecute corruption. And Biden’s effort was part of a push from numerous countries as well as the UN (I believe). The years that Burisma were being investigated were also not while Hunter was on the board of the company. And there is no evidence that Hunter broke any laws. Nice try, but again you should get the facts before commenting.
  19. Also, this takes us well beyond the arcane area of campaign finance laws regarding “donations”, which require putting a value on the dirt Trump wanted from Ukraine. Help with the campaign is unquestionably a thing of value. Diplomatic relations is unquestionably a thing of value. Trump offered diplomatic relations in exchange for help with the campaign. Bribery.
  20. The problem is that there’s no way to get Zelensky under oath, and his public statements are compromised given that he still needs US help and foreign aid. I’d love to see messages from Rudy and others to Ukraine officials. That needs to come out and probably will.
  21. The fact that Trump was using a private individual — Rudy, his personal attorney — to do this and was actively keeping this away from the NSC and State Dept., even hiding the phone transcript, proves they knew this was wrong. People have been referring to this as “pressuring Ukraine”. What Sondland proves, however, is that it was an expressed quid pro quo...you help our campaign and we’ll have a presidential meeting that you want.
  22. I don’t think we need to hear Zelensky’s side. Rudy/Trump offered a presidential meeting in exchange for help with Trump’s 2020 campaign. Sondland himself called it a “pre-condition” for the meeting. I don’t know how that’s not attempting to bribe a foreign official.
  23. So I don’t think Sondland intended to do this, but I think he just accused Trump and Rudy of bribery. But not in the way we traditionally understand bribery. Specifically, Trump and Rudy were offering something of value — diplomatic relations regarding a meeting with Zelensky — in exchange for dirt on Biden, which is something of value to Trump personally. So Trump/Rudy were trying to bribe Zelensky — offering diplomatic relations in exchange for help with his campaign. That’s unequivocally impeachable. The Constitution outright lists bribery as a basis for impeachment.
  24. And still you’re dodging. The President of the United states offered diplomatic relations to a foreign government in exchange for dirt on his political opponent.