Trump whistleblower complaint

[_EAllusion]

The other thing that comes to mind is that if not for this one whistleblower, all these people who had access to all this evidence would've been sitting on it. Some of them because they themselves are morally compromised people, but others because they think being in a position to maneuver around it is the greater good over informing the public.

One wonders what other things careerists in the Trump admin could be giving testimony on, but aren't are out there.

[_EAllusion]

Republicans staged a Brooks Bros riot style attempt to break into the SCIF where impeachment proceedings are happening, then after that failed, those Republicans were caught illegally bringing cell phones into the secured area.

Cool.

[_Dr Exiled]

When the details of the testimony from all of the witnesses are finally pieced together, coupled with the public utterances of Mick Mulvaney and the President's transcript of his call with Zelensky, I'm not sure how a reasonable person would determine that a quid pro quo did not take place.

You may be correct, but we don't have all the testimony and the democrats want to continue to pursue secrecy/selective disclosure, which is troubling. This is a problem with hearsay. Those who testify about what others supposedly said might have an agenda to twist what they heard for their own ends. Nunez, McCarthy and Meadows are currently saying that Taylor's testimony was supposedly destroyed by Rep. Ratcliffe. Are they full of s___ here or is there something to this? How about we see the entire testimony. Surely if Taylor's testimony was that damning, there shouldn't be any fear of showing the public the entire thing. If Trump is guilty as you allege, secrecy will undermine this and continue to fuel the Republican argument that there is more to the testimony that isn't being disclosed. It could then lead to a motion to dismiss being granted in the Senate, especially if the democrats impeach without disclosing all the testimony and don't allow the Republicans/Trump to put up a defense.

[_Chap]

You may be correct, but we don't have all the testimony and the democrats want to continue to pursue secrecy/selective disclosure, which is troubling. This is a problem with hearsay. Those who testify about what others supposedly said might have an agenda to twist what they heard for their own ends. Nunez, McCarthy and Meadows are currently saying that Taylor's testimony was supposedly destroyed by Rep. Ratcliffe. Are they full of s___ here or is there something to this? How about we see the entire testimony. Surely if Taylor's testimony was that damning, there shouldn't be any fear of showing the public the entire thing. If Trump is guilty as you allege, secrecy will undermine this and continue to fuel the Republican argument that there is more to the testimony that isn't being disclosed. It could then lead to a motion to dismiss being granted in the Senate, especially if the democrats impeach without disclosing all the testimony and don't allow the Republicans/Trump to put up a defense.

There are 15 pages of Taylor's opening statement available in which he sets out his core testimony very fully and in great details. It does not seem to be the kind of thing that could be 'destroyed' in a few words. Have you read it? If not, please see the link to the pdf in my post quoted below, and do so.

Has your view changed after reading it?

As has already been explained on this thread, what is taking place now is not a trial. It is, in effect, the prosecutors' initial questioning of potential witnesses who might later testify at a trial. It's normal for that to be confidential, is it not? Open testimony comes when the formal trial proceedings start.

Bill Taylor drops a bomb:

"Amb. Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President [Volodymyr] Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election."

Check, and mate.

But tomorrow the news will be all about Gabbard and Hillary.... again.

Download the PDF of Ambassador William B. Taylor's opening statement here:

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/no ... 714783.pdf

The whole document is a multi-barrelled smoking gun showing the President's grossly improper use of his powers for personal political ends, with no regard for the national interests of the US or (as usual) of a US ally, and to the dismay of the career diplomats who watch this happening and see how disgraceful and damaging for the US Trump's behaviour is.

But here are some extracts (I have added the bold emphasis; I have OCRd the PDF and have not corrected all the resultant glitches):

Page 1:

Opening Statement of Ambassador William B. Taylor - October 22, 2019
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to provide my
perspective on the events that are the subject of the Committees' inquiry. My sole
purpose is to provide the Committees with my views about the strategic
importance of Ukraine to the United States as well as additional information about
the incidents in question.

I have dedicated my life to serving U.S. interests at home and abroad in both
military and civilian roles. My background and experience are nonpartisan and I
have been honored to serve under every administration, Republican and
Democratic, since 1985.

For 50 years, I have served the country, starting as a cadet at West Point, then as an
infantry officer for six years, including with the 101' Airborne Division in
Vietnam; then at the Department of Energy; then as a member of a Senate staff;
then at NATO; then with the State Depaiiment here and abroadin Afghanistan,
Iraq, Jerusalem, and Ukraine; and more recently, as Executive Vice President of
the nonpartisan United States Institute of Peace.

While I have served in many places and in different capacities, I have a particular
interest in and respect for the importance of our country's relationship with
Ukraine. Our national security demands that this relationship remain strong.
However, in August and September of this year, I became increasingly concerned
that our relationship with Ukraine was being fundamentally undermined by an
irregular, informal channel of U.S. policy-making and by the withholding of vital
security assistance for domestic political reasons. I hope my remarks today will
help the Committees understand why I believed that to be the case.
At the outset, I would like to convey several key points. First, Ukraine is a
strategic partner of the United States, important for the security of our country as
well as Europe. Second, Ukraine is, right at this momentwhile we sit in this
roomand for the last five years, under armed attack from Russia. Third, the
security assistance we provide is crucial to Ukraine's defense against Russian
aggression, and, more importantly, sends a signal to Ukrainiansand Russians
that we are Ukraine's reliable strategic partner. And finally, as the Committees are
now aware, I said on September 9 in a message to Ambassador Gordon Sondland
that withholding security assistance in exchange for help with a domestic political
campaign in the United States would be "crazy." I believed that then, and I still
believe that.

Pages 10-11:

On September 1, just three days after my cable to Secretary Pompeo, President
Zelenskyy met Vice President Pence at a bilateral meeting in Warsaw. President
Trump had planned to travel to Warsaw but at the last minute had cancelled
because of Hurricane Dorian. Just hours before the Pence-Zelenskyy meeting, I
contacted Mr. Danyliuk to let him know that the delay of U.S. security assistance
was an "all or nothing" proposition, in the sense that if the White House did not lift
the hold prior to the end of the fiscal year (September 30), the funds would expire
and Ukraine would receive nothing. I was hopeful that at the bilateral meeting or
shortly thereafter, the White House would lift the hold, but this was not to be.
Indeed, I received a readout of the Pence-Zelenskyy meeting over the phone from
Mr. Morrison, during which he told me President Zelenskyy had opened the
meeting by asking the Vice President about security cooperation. The Vice
President did not respond substantively, but said that he would talk to President
Trump that night. The Vice President did say that President Trump wanted the
Europeans to do more to support Ukraine and that he wanted the Ukrainians to do
more to fight corruption.

During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a
conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at Warsaw.
Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would
not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation.
I was alarmed by what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak

conversation. This was the first time I had heard that the security assistancenot
just the White House meetingwas conditioned on the investigations.
Very concerned, on that same day I sent Ambassador Sondland a text message
asking if "we [are] now saying that security assistance and [a] White House meeting are
conditioned on investigations?" Ambassador Sondland responded asking me to
call him, which I did. During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that
President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly
that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the
2016 U.S. election.

Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a
mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White
House meeting with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement
of investigationsin fact, Ambassador Sondland said, "everything" was dependent
on such an announcement, including security assistance. He said that President
Trump wanted President Zelenskyy "in a public box" by making a public statement
about ordering such investigations.

[_Icarus]

You may be correct, but we don't have all the testimony and the democrats want to continue to pursue secrecy/selective disclosure, which is troubling.

Troubling why? This is how the process works.

Those who testify about what others supposedly said might have an agenda to twist what they heard for their own ends.

Giuliani had the ambassador fired because she was going to be a problem for him in his corruption schemes. So they replaced her with a Republican they assumed would be a loyalist. He has 50 years of experience as a non partisan, so there is going to be a big problem trying to paint him as a Democrat plant.

Nunez, McCarthy and Meadows are currently saying that Taylor's testimony was supposedly destroyed by Rep. Ratcliffe.

Of course they are. They're doing precisely what they're complaining about. But Nunes is the same guy who wrote a bogus memo that was debunked. These are the same people who believe there was no quid pro quo. These are the same talking head who show up on FOX with scripted defenses no matter what the evidence shows. So it is hardly surprising that they're going to claim to have destroyed the testimony.

Are they full of s___ here or is there something to this? How about we see the entire testimony. Surely if Taylor's testimony was that damning, there shouldn't be any fear of showing the public the entire thing. If Trump is guilty as you allege, secrecy will undermine this and continue to fuel the Republican argument that there is more to the testimony that isn't being disclosed. It could then lead to a motion to dismiss being granted in the Senate, especially if the democrats impeach without disclosing all the testimony and don't allow the Republicans/Trump to put up a defense.

You don't know how the process works. This is the investigation stage. If the cops are investigating Ted Bundy for the murder of a dozen women, are they going to keep him in the loop as to the details of what all the witnesses are saying? Of course not. Bundy and his attorney will have the chance to cross examine and face his accuser at the trial stage. That doesn't happen until it reaches the Senate. I can understand why some people don't know this, but it is concerning that the talking heads at FOX News are propagating this lie about it being illegally covert.

[_EAllusion]

The Trump admin released a call summary openly confessing to impeachable offenses. All subsequent investigation is coloring in the lines.

Along the same theme, merely pushing a foreign nation to pursue manufacturing the appearance of scandal is a gross abuse of office and impeachment worthy. There doesn’t have to be anything offered in return. That there was just makes it worse. That what was offered was to stop violating the law to release much needed military aid that was already appropriated, effectively extortion, makes it even worse still. But none of that had to happen for it already to be a high crime.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Republicans staged a Brooks Bros riot style attempt to break into the SCIF where impeachment proceedings are happening, then after that failed, those Republicans were caught illegally bringing cell phones into the secured area.

Cool.

Lock. Her. Up!

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Republicans staged a Brooks Bros riot style attempt to break into the SCIF where impeachment proceedings are happening, then after that failed, those Republicans were caught illegally bringing cell phones into the secured area.

Cool.

Lock. Her. Up!

- Doc

Calling it “failed” was a bit premature on my part as last I checked they were still daring to be forcibly removed. The mechanisms that promote so many of these lawless bastards to the heights of the party need to be dismantled.

[_Res Ipsa]

When the details of the testimony from all of the witnesses are finally pieced together, coupled with the public utterances of Mick Mulvaney and the President's transcript of his call with Zelensky, I'm not sure how a reasonable person would determine that a quid pro quo did not take place.

You may be correct, but we don't have all the testimony and the democrats want to continue to pursue secrecy/selective disclosure, which is troubling. This is a problem with hearsay. Those who testify about what others supposedly said might have an agenda to twist what they heard for their own ends. Nunez, McCarthy and Meadows are currently saying that Taylor's testimony was supposedly destroyed by Rep. Ratcliffe. Are they full of s___ here or is there something to this? How about we see the entire testimony. Surely if Taylor's testimony was that damning, there shouldn't be any fear of showing the public the entire thing. If Trump is guilty as you allege, secrecy will undermine this and continue to fuel the Republican argument that there is more to the testimony that isn't being disclosed. It could then lead to a motion to dismiss being granted in the Senate, especially if the democrats impeach without disclosing all the testimony and don't allow the Republicans/Trump to put up a defense.

In the normal case, the DOJ would have appointed a special prosecutor to investigate, similar to the Nixon and Clinton impeachments. That investigation would have been done in secrecy until it was complete. Then, a report would have been prepared and turned over to the House. Remember Ken Starr's report? In this case, however, the DOJ refused to open an investigation and we no longer have an independent prosecutor statute. That means the House has to conduct the investigation portion itself. What you are suggesting is tantamount to calling all the witnesses into a room and giving them a couple of hours to get their stories straight before their depositions are taken.

What you are looking for comes, not in the investigation process, but in the impeachment hearings. That's where the testimony becomes public and both sides can call witnesses and make arguments.

Secrecy at the investigative stage is important, just as it is in any criminal investigation.

[_EAllusion]

You can easily see Barr in the process of executing a worse version of Guillani/Ukraine in slow motion. And he clearly was wrapped up in that too. Congress probably should expand their inquiry and get on that ASAP.

I know it seems hysterical to people who don't ordinarily pay attention to political news, but there is a boatload of evidence the integrity of the 2020 election itself is under threat. If that succeeds, it's almost certainly the new norm for a semi-permanent authoritarian government.

The conservative caricature of Democrats collectively as weak-kneed surrender monkeys is way off base in matters of foreign policy, but it is dead-on when it comes to politics. They better find some courage soon. We're going the way of Hungary.