Leon Troutsky

Pure Football
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Leon Troutsky

  1. Given Sondland’s amended testimony that he told Ukraine that they wouldn’t get the aid without agreeing to an investigation, I don’t think this is a exculpatory as the GOP thinks. But it’s notable... Former special envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker told lawmakers that the Ukrainians didn’t know about the holdup of military assistance until after the Trump administration stopped pressing them to announce an investigation into the Bidens. His testimony, released today, bolsters a key tenet of Trump’s defense – that there was no “quid pro quo” with Ukraine because the new government in Kiev was not aware that military aid was being withheld. Their position cuts against Democratic allegations that Trump used the $400 million aid package as leverage. “To my knowledge, the news about a hold on security assistance did not get into Ukrainian Government circles, as indicated to me by the current foreign minister, then diplomatic adviser, until the end of August,” Volker said. “And by the time that we had that, we had dropped the idea of even looking at a statement.”
  2. The entire Sondland transcript... https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/05/politics/sondland-transcript-impeachment-doc/index.html ^^^350 pages or so
  3. “Help our team”, not “find out the truth... According to three Republicans familiar with the talks, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is considering placing Jordan on the panel, as well as others — such as Reps. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), who have been involved in the depositions but do not sit on the Intelligence Committee. A McCarthy spokesman confirmed comments that McCarthy made to Politico indicating that he planned to “make adjustments to that committee accordingly, for a short period of time” during the impeachment proceedings. In a Fox News interview Tuesday, Jordan said the shuffle would be a “call for Leader McCarthy” “I just want to help our team,” he added.
  4. I’ve not seen that. Here’s some more from Volker... Mr. Giuliani was “interested in Biden” and “Vice President Biden’s son,” but Ambassador Volker “pushed back” because Mr. Giuliani’s theory had been debunked. (Page 331-332) Q: So is it your testimony that you understood that Rudy Giuliani’s desire for the Ukrainian Government to investigate Burisma had to do with potential money laundering or other criminal conduct by the company itself, and not in connection to either Joe or Hunter Biden? A: No. I believe that Giuliani was interested in Biden, Vice President Biden’s son Biden [sic], and I had pushed back on that, and I was maintaining that distinction. Q: So you were maintaining that distinction, because you understood that that whole theory had been debunked and there was no evidence to support it, right? A: Yes.
  5. In his supplemental declaration, Ambassador Sondland stated that “by the beginning of September 2019, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement” and “it would have been natural for me to have voiced what I had presumed to Ambassador Taylor, Senator Johnson, the Ukrainians, and Mr. Morrison.” Ambassador Sondland acknowledged telling one of President Zelensky’s advisors in Warsaw that “resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.” (Decl. Page 2)
  6. Here are excerpts from the Volker and Sondland testimony: https://www.motherjones.com/impeachment/2019/11/read-the-transcripts-of-gordon-sondland-and-kurt-volkers-testimonies/ ^^^Interesting that these are not complete transcripts. Instead, they are excerpts broken down by major topics. So instead of the 350 pages of raw transcripts like yesterday, we have about a dozen pages with relevant excerpts. Presumably the complete transcripts will be released at some point.
  7. Welp, there goes yet another Trump talking point.... Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo In a substantial update to his initial account, Gordon D. Sondland recounted how he told Ukrainian officials military aid was tied to their commitment to investigations President Trump wanted. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html
  8. Excerpts from Sondland testimony is getting released. Early reporting is that Sondland confirms that a quid pro quo existed regarding a meeting with Zelenskyy.
  9. Sounds like transcripts of Sondland and Volker could be released today. Those could be really interesting.
  10. Popeyes is the new Waffle House... OXON HILL, Md. (AP) — Police are calling on a suspect to surrender in a fatal stabbing over a chicken sandwich at a Popeyes restaurant in Maryland. One man accused the other of cutting in front of him in the chicken sandwich line at an Oxon Hill Popeyes on Monday night, Prince George’s County police spokeswoman Jennifer Donelan told news outlets. Their fight then spilled outside where one of the men stabbed the other.
  11. Yeesh, this could get ugly... An associate of Rudolph W. Giuliani who was involved in a campaign to pressure Ukraine into aiding President Trump’s political prospects has broken ranks, opening a dialogue with congressional impeachment investigators and accusing the president of falsely denying their relationship. The associate, Lev Parnas, had previously resisted speaking with investigators for the Democrat-led impeachment proceedings, which are examining the president’s pressure attempts in Ukraine. A former lawyer for Mr. Trump was then representing Mr. Parnas. But since then, Mr. Parnas has hired new lawyers who contacted the congressional investigators last week to notify them to “direct any future correspondence or communication to us,” according to a copy of the letter. The lawyers also signaled on Monday that Mr. Parnas, who was arrested last month on campaign finance charges, is prepared to comply with a congressional subpoena for his documents and testimony. Mr. Parnas, a Ukrainian-born American citizen who was central to Mr. Giuliani’s efforts to dig up dirt on Mr. Trump’s rivals, could offer Congress a vein of information about the efforts in Ukraine. “We are willing to comply with the subpoena to the extent that it does not violate any appropriate privilege that Mr. Parnas may properly invoke,” said Joseph A. Bondy, who along with Edward B. MacMahon, Jr. now represents Mr. Parnas. Mr. Bondy said that given the federal criminal charges, his client may invoke his right under the Fifth Amendment not to incriminate himself. The turnabout occurred after Mr. Trump denied knowing Mr. Parnas when he was arrested. “Mr. Parnas was very upset by President Trump’s plainly false statement that he did not know him,” said Mr. Bondy, whose client has maintained that he has had extensive dealings with the president.
  12. I gave you another like because I like what you’re doing re: Bernie Bro’s. Keep up the good work and twerk like JPowors on a (legal) medicinal weekend bender. In other words, shake what Wokezone forbid your momma to give ya’.
  13. I trust boat drinks, not boat shoes.
  14. Yaz queen, you too? It’s legal where I live. What about you?
  15. I don’t know, EuroSnak giving PG a taste of his own “poison the well and s*** on people no matter how credible it is” medicine is the zen harmony back rubs on my soul that I need right now.
  16. Yep, that’s about the right percentage based on decades of political science empirical evidence. If you’re curious, I would recommend James Stimson’s book “Tides of Consent” for a more thorough explanation of this phenomenon.
  17. Ahhh, they are keywords. Okay. So if I only read the capitalized words in your post then it reads... PEOPLE BELIEVE PRESSURING SENATORS REMOVING INCLUDES GOP POTUS COMPELLING COMPELLING WRONG REMOVAL POTUS. Well, it all makes sense now. Why did I ever doubt you?
  18. Capitalizing every other word doesn’t strengthen your argument.
  19. Hannity might want to hire a lawyer not named Cohen or Giuliani, because it looks like he’s neck deep in the entire Ukraine scandal right now.
  20. So instead of accusing him of an offense that’s actually listed in the Constitution as impeachable, you go with some convoluted argument about “extortion” and have to explain that falls under “high crimes and misdemeanors”, which doesn’t refer to actual crimes but you’re accusing him of violation of a criminal statute, which you then have to prove all the elements of like it was a court of law. And you think that’s the stronger argument? If a quid pro quo is proven then bribery is the easier one to explain. It’s clearly listed in the Constitution, it doesn’t involve a federal statute, and it’s easy for almost everyone to understand.
  21. He can argue that. But the fact remains that Trump was swapping military aid with a foreign government in exchange for political dirt on his opponent in the upcoming election. Trump was using foreign military aid to tamper with the 2020 election. Edit: Also, Trump has said that it was a “perfect call”. The public isn’t buying it. Trump said he did nothing wrong. The public isn’t buying it. And if there’s proof of a quid pro quo, then Trump can deny it all he wants but the public isn’t buying it. I said awhile back that there will be serious consequences for Trump’s incessant lying. We’re seeing that now. The public at large doesn’t believe his denials and they view him as a liar. So what Trump tries to say doesn’t really matter anymore if the public doesn’t buy into his bulls***.
  22. Menendez was tried under current bribery statutes. As I’ve stated numerous times, those statutes don’t apply to the Constitution and impeachment because they didn’t exist at the time. But again, you keep dodging a simple question — between extortion and bribery, which one is listed in the Constitution?
  23. The problem with emoluments is that there’s not a detailed history nor case law defining what is and is not an emolument. It’s also not a term that most people have ever heard of, let alone understand. Bribery, on the other hand, is something almost everybody understands. Try again.
  24. Right, it’s not a court of law. Yet you want to accuse him of a criminal offense (extortion) that requires all elements be proven instead of an offense listed in the Constitution (bribery) that wasn’t a criminal offense at the time and doesn’t require any of the elements of the crimInal statute to be proven. So I’ll ask again, between extortion and bribery, which one is listed in the Constitution as a reason for impeaching the president?