Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2801  
Old 10-15-2019, 07:04 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 16,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Legitimately curious, I would expect Rudy to assert client-attorney privilege and possibly prevail on matters not directly related to criminal charges arising from the arrests.
IANAL, but this article (written during the Mueller investigation) lays out several situations in which attorney-client privilege would *not* apply, which may be relevant in regards to what Giuliani was doing. The article notes:

Quote:
The attorney-client privilege shields from disclosure confidential communications between a person and an attorney, where, essentially, the communication is for the purpose of procuring legal advice and intended to remain confidential. The purpose of the privilege is to promote uncensored communication between client and attorney, so the attorney can develop the best legal advice and strategy for the client and the client can develop an accurate appreciation of her legal situation and decide how best to respond to it.

The privilege, however, is not unlimited - a legal reality Donald Trump, Jr., might not understand. First, as many clients unhappily learn, it doesn’t cover all their communications on every subject with their lawyers.
Some specific things which the article calls out, that would apparently *not* be covered by attorney-client privilege, include:
- communications between a client and attorney for the purpose of committing, continuing, or advancing an illegal or fraudulent act
- presence of "non-clients" during such conversations/communications

It also notes that a "government attorney" would not be bound by attorney-client privilege if called to testify about potentially illegal activities. Of course, Giuliani isn't a government attorney, but Trump's personal attorney.
  #2802  
Old 10-15-2019, 07:26 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Do you know if anybody reported white house sources saying Rudy knows where bodies are buried? Legitimately curious, I would expect Rudy to assert client-attorney privilege and possibly prevail on matters not directly related to criminal charges arising from the arrests.

~Max
IANAL, but can an attorney cite "privilege" if he is covering up his own crimes, or those of his client? If an attorney and his client are believed to be engaged in criminal activities, and the attorney is refusing to provide documents that have been subpoenaed, I really don't think that can just be handwaved away by "privilege"
  #2803  
Old 10-15-2019, 07:53 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
IANAL, but can an attorney cite "privilege" if he is covering up his own crimes
Not to my knowledge, also not a lawyer. This is one of those exceptions to privilege.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
can an attorney cite "privilege" if he is covering up... [crimes] of his client?
It depends. If the documents are text messages showing the client talking with his attorney about their legal strategy, then yes, that would generally be privileged. Ostensibly the confidentiality is to be encouraged so that the client is honest so that the attorney can best represent the client. If the documents show the client and attorney conspiring to commit some crime or tort, then privilege is waived.

Normally there is a special master or neutral judge who can view the messages in camera to determine whether they are privileged or not. You may remember that federal prosecutors brought in a special prosecutor to go over Michael Cohen's documents and sort out the privileged ones.

Notably, the Congress can't really call itself a neutral special master. So if we're talking about potentially withholding documents from Congress based on attorney-client privilege, I think it's ridiculous for Congress to charge Mr. Giuliani with contempt over that. They could very well ask the courts to appoint a special master.

~Max
  #2804  
Old 10-15-2019, 07:56 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
Is it Pence yet?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ts/3991036002/

He's refusing to cooperate.

Last edited by drad dog; 10-15-2019 at 07:57 PM.
  #2805  
Old 10-15-2019, 07:57 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,277
Well, also on point is the little thing where Rudy went on record numerous times stating that in his Ukrainian dealings, he wasn't acting as Trump's attorney.
  #2806  
Old 10-15-2019, 08:06 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Well, also on point is the little thing where Rudy went on record numerous times stating that in his Ukrainian dealings, he wasn't acting as Trump's attorney.
He corrected it each time by saying the opposite immediately after.
  #2807  
Old 10-15-2019, 08:21 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Normally there is a special master or neutral judge who can view the messages in camera to determine whether they are privileged or not.
Well, I guess normally there is no occasion to question a claim of attorney-client privilege. The only exceptions I can think of are like, Cohen and mobsters.

And the privilege is the client's to claim or waive, not the attorney's.

~Max
  #2808  
Old 10-15-2019, 09:07 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
He corrected it each time by saying the opposite immediately after.
Says who?

And frankly, it barely matters. How in the world is Giuliani lobbying foreign government officials the act of a personal lawyer?
  #2809  
Old 10-15-2019, 09:20 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
IANAL, but can an attorney cite "privilege" if he is covering up his own crimes, or those of his client? If an attorney and his client are believed to be engaged in criminal activities, and the attorney is refusing to provide documents that have been subpoenaed, I really don't think that can just be handwaved away by "privilege"
IANAL either, but attorney-client privilege has a number of exceptions AIUI.

You are correct that a party cannot cite privilege for a corrupt purpose, such as covering up his/her crimes. A lawyer cannot assert privilege for aiding his/her client to commit crimes. It's known as the crime-fraud exception. That's why State Department employees are ignoring Trump's assertion of blanket privilege: First, there is no such thing as blanket privilege, and second, they are citing the crime-fraud exception.

A party cannot cite privilege for information that is already in the public record. The privilege is waived as soon as the information is put out for public consumption. This is why Trump is going to lose his executive privilege assertion with respect to Don McGahn's testimony. The information is already in the public record via the Mueller report.

A party cannot cite privilege just because a conversation was had. Example: You meet your lawyer in an elevator. You say, "Nice day!" Your lawyer replies, "It is!" That is not privileged communication. So in the context of Rudy and Trump, anything they are doing that is not specifically related to Rudy advising Trump on how to respond to legal jeopardy has no basis for privilege -- as CarnalK notes. The communication must be for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.

I'm sure a Doper attorney can expand on all this further, but I'm fairly sure there is no privilege that can attach to Rudy's shenanigans for Trump in Ukraine.
  #2810  
Old 10-16-2019, 08:52 AM
DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 6,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Just as a point of information, those are IOC dates (basically, the point at which the services have a full squadron of combat-ready aircraft capable of performing the basic mission duties, with trained pilots and maintainers). The first F-35s were delivered to the military years earlier.
One or two, sure, and they tinkered with them until they felt confident a whole squadron's worth was worth buying. Plus you didn't address my comment that the attempted purchase of Turkey's squadron was vetoed by Trump.
  #2811  
Old 10-16-2019, 10:43 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,578
Congress should add Trump's connections to Reza Zarrab onto the pile:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/15/us-c...sanctions.html
  #2812  
Old 10-16-2019, 11:19 AM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,847
Who would have ever suspected that his tax documents contain inconsistencies?
__________________
It's chaos. Be kind.
  #2813  
Old 10-16-2019, 11:36 AM
jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 6,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
Who would have ever suspected that his tax documents contain inconsistencies?
I wonder what inconsistencies were in the documents that were shredded in Panama? In an even earlier report - Report: Trump Panama Tower ‘Riddled’ With Drug, Mob Money.
  #2814  
Old 10-16-2019, 12:53 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Railer13 View Post
Oh, bullshit. Remember what you said in post #2707 when you first brought up the delay in delivery of the F-35s to Turkey:

"And less than 10 weeks later that request was approved by the White House. That sounds pretty reasonable for the normal bureaucratic mess that is foreign military sales. For comparison, Turkey joined the F-35 program in 2002. It took them 16 years to get their first jet, and even now, over a year later, we won't let them take it (or any of the other F-35s they ostensibly own) home to Turkey."

(bolding mine)

It's painfully obvious that you were implying that the F-35 delivery delay was analogous to the delay in the Ukrainian deal. It's been established that is certainly not the case. But I'm quite sure you won't admit to intentionally being misleading.
The F-35 topic has become a distraction. I intended to offer up another data point about how messy and bureaucratic foreign military sales can be, but at this point it's become a distraction from the main topic of the thread. I'd suggest we drop that particular example (unless you want to open up a separate thread to discuss it) and focus on my central points, which were:

1) Less than 10 weeks from "we are almost ready to buy more Javelins" to "Trump admin approves new sale of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine" seems pretty reasonable to me.

2) There is no evidence of "the president putting the brakes on a $39 million dollar Javelin purchase".
  #2815  
Old 10-16-2019, 12:56 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,615
But he did have the aid stopped, speaking of thread back on track.

Last edited by bobot; 10-16-2019 at 12:56 PM. Reason: p
  #2816  
Old 10-16-2019, 01:07 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
1) Less than 10 weeks from "we are almost ready to buy more Javelins" to "Trump admin approves new sale of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine" seems pretty reasonable to me.

2) There is no evidence of "the president putting the brakes on a $39 million dollar Javelin purchase".
Maybe - just maybe -- this White House views giving out $400 million in foreign aid differently than Ukraine putting down $39 million cash on the barrel to buy something from the American defense industry.

Crazy idea, huh?
  #2817  
Old 10-16-2019, 01:27 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
But he did have the aid stopped, speaking of thread back on track.
There were two separate financial transactions at issue. I tried to make this clear in post #2659. The first one, the $391M in aid, was not mentioned on the call and it's been reported that Ukraine wasn't even aware it was being delayed. The second one, a purchase of $39M worth of Javelin missiles, was referenced on the call and appears to have proceeded without any obvious delay, or at least no evidence has been presented that "the president [was] putting the brakes on a $39 million dollar Javelin purchase".
  #2818  
Old 10-16-2019, 01:30 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The first one, the $391M in aid, was not mentioned on the call ...
You can't revise history like that. Trump talked about how generous the US was in relation to Europe. It's laughable that this was not a reference to the aid that Congress directed to be provided to Ukraine. I mean, like out-of-this-planet whackiness to suggest that the comments were about something else.

And, of course, true to form, Trump was lying on the phone call when he talked about the U.S. being more generous than Europe.


Quote:
...and it's been reported that Ukraine wasn't even aware it was being delayed.
It's been reported that Ukraine knew that the aid was contingent on several things. Corrupt things.
  #2819  
Old 10-16-2019, 01:38 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You can't revise history like that. Trump talked about how generous the US was in relation to Europe. It's laughable that this was not a reference to the aid that Congress directed to be provided to Ukraine. I mean, like out-of-this-planet whackiness to suggest that the comments were about something else. ...
You're obviously entitled to your own opinions about what is "laughable" or "out-of-this-planet whackiness", but I'll repost my thoughts on the relevant portions of the call 'transcript' here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No, nothing there mentions the $250M / $391M in aid that was supposedly President Trump's leverage in his quid pro quo.

"I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time." "Effort" & "time"; he didn't mention the money.

"... the United States has been very very good to Ukraine." Again, no mention of aid money. The US was helping Ukraine in lots of ways: sanctions on Russia, condemning Russia's aggression on the global stage, etc. You are imagining that he must be referring to the aid money because that's what you want it to be about. You're hearing something that's not there, that you badly want to be there. Try to take another look at the bit you quoted through a less partisan lens, and then consider again my statement: "He didn't even mention the financial aid at all on the call"
It seems neither one of us is likely to change our mind about this point, so perhaps its best if we just drop it.
  #2820  
Old 10-16-2019, 01:49 PM
MulderMuffin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 159
I'm watching the President now. He's giving a speech in connection with a meeting with the Italian president. An observation:

"We're sending some additional troops to Saudi Arabia, that's true. I appreciate the fact that I negotiated for a short period of time, a matter of minutes, with Saudi Arabia and they've agreed to pay for the full cost of all of that deployment and more, much more. Is a very rich country, they should be paying and so should many other countries be paying if they want this kind of protection." -- President Trump

Good lord. Does he not think about how these things will sound before he says them out loud? The world needs to pay the US for protection?

Wow. I can't believe that's legal.
  #2821  
Old 10-16-2019, 01:52 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
I'm watching the President now. He's giving a speech in connection with a meeting with the Italian president. An observation:

"We're sending some additional troops to Saudi Arabia, that's true. I appreciate the fact that I negotiated for a short period of time, a matter of minutes, with Saudi Arabia and they've agreed to pay for the full cost of all of that deployment and more, much more. Is a very rich country, they should be paying and so should many other countries be paying if they want this kind of protection." -- President Trump

Good lord. Does he not think about how these things will sound before he says them out loud? The world needs to pay the US for protection?

Wow. I can't believe that's legal.
We used to be the world's police force. Now we're straight up mercenaries. Hired goons.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #2822  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:02 PM
YamatoTwinkie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
no evidence has been presented that "the president [was] putting the brakes on a $39 million dollar Javelin purchase".
Beyond the context of the call itself, and the president's phrase of "...a favor, though" there is not any additional hard evidence that it was actually being witheld, I agree.

Although the timing of the sale approval announcement (after the call was released), and the refusal of the admin to comment about said timing is somewhat suspicious.
  #2823  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:03 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,869
Former Pompeo aide Mike McKinley is testifying before the House impeachment committees today.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/16/p...ley/index.html
  #2824  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:08 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You're obviously entitled to your own opinions about what is "laughable" or "out-of-this-planet whackiness", but I'll repost my thoughts on the relevant portions of the call 'transcript' here:

It seems neither one of us is likely to change our mind about this point, so perhaps its best if we just drop it.
You are always free to drop out of the thread, but the idea that Trump was not referencing aid to Ukraine is bonkers.

Do you suppose Trump was perhaps making a reference to the free room upgrades he gives to Ukraine diplomats staying at Trump hotel properties?
  #2825  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:12 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by YamatoTwinkie View Post
Beyond the context of the call itself, and the president's phrase of "...a favor, though" there is not any additional hard evidence that it was actually being witheld, I agree.

Although the timing of the sale approval announcement (after the call was released), and the refusal of the admin to comment about said timing is somewhat suspicious.
Thanks, and I can see how it looks somewhat suspicious since it came on the heels of a significant furor over Ukrainian aid.
  #2826  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:20 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You are always free to drop out of the thread, but the idea that Trump was not referencing aid to Ukraine is bonkers.

Do you suppose Trump was perhaps making a reference to the free room upgrades he gives to Ukraine diplomats staying at Trump hotel properties?
I've already told you that there are a number of ways, aside from the $391M, that the US was assisting Ukraine, and I don't see any reason to conclude that some generalized "we do a lot for Ukraine" and "the United States has been very very good to Ukraine" language is specifically referencing that $391M in aid money. Aside from the $391M, just off the top of my head, the USA has:
- imposed sanctions
- condemned the Russian annexation of Crimea and the quasi-invasion of eastern Ukraine
- sold Javelin missiles to Ukraine
- provided loan guarantees (Biden's infamous $1B, among others)

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-16-2019 at 02:20 PM.
  #2827  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:31 PM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
I'm watching the President now. He's giving a speech in connection with a meeting with the Italian president. An observation:

"We're sending some additional troops to Saudi Arabia, that's true. I appreciate the fact that I negotiated for a short period of time, a matter of minutes, with Saudi Arabia and they've agreed to pay for the full cost of all of that deployment and more, much more. Is a very rich country, they should be paying and so should many other countries be paying if they want this kind of protection." -- President Trump

Good lord. Does he not think about how these things will sound before he says them out loud? The world needs to pay the US for protection?

Wow. I can't believe that's legal.
In Trump's mind, there is no diplomacy. There is no strategy. All agreements are mercenary.

It's perfectly OK to bug out on the Kurds....they got paid. And it makes sense to move troops into Saudi Arabia, because...we're getting paid.

So remember this next time someone suggests we should thank our troops for their service. "Why? They got paid."
  #2828  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:31 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,724
I must say, I really do appreciate this thread, as it points out with startling clarity just how far some folks are willing to go to justify repugnant, unacceptable behaviour. They can deny facts staring them right in the face, and do so with nary a qualm.

If Trump tweeted tomorrow that he was selling Alaska to Russia for one dollar, because Russia is our friend.... They would have no problem - NONE - in telling us what a wonderful statesmanlike decision this was.

Not surprising really, but all in all, quite educational.
  #2829  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:43 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1953 View Post
So remember this next time someone suggests we should thank our troops for their service. "Why? They got paid."
Yup, and if one of them is KIA, well, he “knew what he signed up for”.
  #2830  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:45 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
I must say, I really do appreciate this thread, as it points out with startling clarity just how far some folks are willing to go to justify repugnant, unacceptable behaviour. They can deny facts staring them right in the face, and do so with nary a qualm.

If Trump tweeted tomorrow that he was selling Alaska to Russia for one dollar, because Russia is our friend.... They would have no problem - NONE - in telling us what a wonderful statesmanlike decision this was.

Not surprising really, but all in all, quite educational.
Which "facts staring them right in the face" do you think "some folks" are "deny[ing]"?
  #2831  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:55 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
Good lord. Does he not think about how these things will sound before he says them out loud? The world needs to pay the US for protection?
His brain/mouth filter broke a long time ago and his supporters love him for it.
  #2832  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:55 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Which "facts staring them right in the face" do you think "some folks" are "deny[ing]"?
The ones that you deny.
  #2833  
Old 10-16-2019, 03:06 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Which "facts staring them right in the face" do you think "some folks" are "deny[ing]"?
Why don't you tear off your fucking blindfold? And pull out the earplugs?
  #2834  
Old 10-16-2019, 03:08 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I've already told you that there are a number of ways, aside from the $391M, that the US was assisting Ukraine, and I don't see any reason to conclude that some generalized "we do a lot for Ukraine" and "the United States has been very very good to Ukraine" language is specifically referencing that $391M in aid money. Aside from the $391M, just off the top of my head, the USA has:
- imposed sanctions
- condemned the Russian annexation of Crimea and the quasi-invasion of eastern Ukraine
- sold Javelin missiles to Ukraine
- provided loan guarantees (Biden's infamous $1B, among others)
So at the time that Trump was putting a hold on military aid to Ukraine -- which at one point after this came to light, Trump explained that the hold was to try to get other countries to give more aid to Ukraine -- Trump was NOT referencing the military aid the Congress had approved for Ukraine, but WAS referencing the huge loan guarantee package that Joe Biden had given.

Plus, when Trump said that Europe was "all talk," you assert that "condemning the Russian annexation of Crimea" (not something Trump really condems, BTW) is evidence of U.S. generosity?

You've got to be joking.
  #2835  
Old 10-16-2019, 03:11 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
The ones that you deny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Why don't you tear off your fucking blindfold? And pull out the earplugs?
I don't think I'm denying facts, nor wearing a blindfold nor earplugs. For example, YamatoTwinkie and I have, I think, come to fairly substantial agreement on some significant factual matters while maintaining fairly divergent opinions on some of the more subjective / opinion-based issues, all while being respectful of each other.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-16-2019 at 03:12 PM.
  #2836  
Old 10-16-2019, 03:16 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Which "facts staring them right in the face" do you think "some folks" are "deny[ing]"?
I"m sorry, that's privileged information, and protected by attorney-client confidentiality.
  #2837  
Old 10-16-2019, 03:17 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,844
But don't we have a long history of abandoning the Kurds in order to appease our allies?
  #2838  
Old 10-16-2019, 03:29 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't think I'm denying facts, nor wearing a blindfold nor earplugs.
Do you deny the very simple fact that Trump was withholding aid to Ukraine, and do you deny that he asked Ukraine for a favor, while withholding those funds? You seem to think that Ukraine didn't notice that the money was not in their bank account, as that is the only way to make the claim that Ukraine would not have had very good reason to try to please Trump in any way they could in order to get access to these funds that they were already allocated and expecting to have recieved.
  #2839  
Old 10-16-2019, 03:39 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,615
Hey, how could Ukraine have known that congress approved the aid when the guy with the camera crew and giant check had yet to show up at the door?
  #2840  
Old 10-16-2019, 04:01 PM
Intergalactic Gladiator's Avatar
Intergalactic Gladiator is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 12,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
But don't we have a long history of abandoning the Kurds in order to appease our allies?
Kurds aren't going to be staying at Trump Hotels, ya know.
  #2841  
Old 10-16-2019, 04:32 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I've already told you that there are a number of ways, aside from the $391M, that the US was assisting Ukraine, and I don't see any reason to conclude that some generalized "we do a lot for Ukraine" and "the United States has been very very good to Ukraine" language is specifically referencing that $391M in aid money. Aside from the $391M, just off the top of my head, the USA has:
- imposed sanctions
- condemned the Russian annexation of Crimea and the quasi-invasion of eastern Ukraine
- sold Javelin missiles to Ukraine
- provided loan guarantees (Biden's infamous $1B, among others)
I see these points as suggestive of the possibility that Trump wasn't talking about the $391M. Money is the language Trump knows best, and he is not known for subtlety. We have seen what Trump will say in public. Is it that far a stretch to suggest that Trump would have been much more clear in this case, on a private call? I am always wary of trying to read minds of politicians, unlike every Tom, Dick, and Harry pundit on FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and the like. So I am not saying I think Trump definitely was not talking about the cash. Maybe he was, but I don't think it's a forgone conclusion. But in either case, it is using his office for personal gain, and that is really the issue for me.
  #2842  
Old 10-16-2019, 04:39 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,697
From the transcript:

Quote:
Well it is very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it's something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she ·doesn't do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.
He could have even been a bit subtle, and said, "I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time, and quite frankly, money..."

Something like this, for instance. That would clearly get his message across, and clearly be about the dough.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 10-16-2019 at 04:42 PM.
  #2843  
Old 10-16-2019, 04:46 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
From the transcript:He could have even been a bit subtle, and said, "I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time, and quite frankly, money..."

Something like this, for instance. That would clearly get his message across, and clearly be about the dough.
Maybe this is why he thought the call was "perfect" -- because he so subtly got his demands across without saying the word "money." Such a clever devil, he.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #2844  
Old 10-16-2019, 04:56 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Do you deny the very simple fact that Trump was withholding aid to Ukraine...
No, I think it's pretty clear from the public record that the $391M was being withheld.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... do you deny that he asked Ukraine for a favor, while withholding those funds? ...
No, again, I think the record is pretty clear that he asked the President for a favor:
Quote:
Originally Posted by President Trump
"I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible."
I think that second question leaves out an important bit of context, in that while it was indeed "while withholding those funds", Ukraine was reportedly unaware the funds were being deliberately withheld.


Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... You seem to think that Ukraine didn't notice that the money was not in their bank account, as that is the only way to make the claim that Ukraine would not have had very good reason to try to please Trump in any way they could in order to get access to these funds that they were already allocated and expecting to have recieved.
I think they were unaware it was being withheld at the time of the call:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuzzFeed
When Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke with President Donald Trump in the now-infamous July 25 phone call, he believed $391 million worth of military aid was already on its way to Kiev, two Ukrainian officials and a US official told BuzzFeed News.

The Ukrainian government didn’t know it was being held up in Washington by Trump, according to the two Ukrainian officials. Nearly a month after the call — which Zelensky has since described as “good” and Trump has called “perfect” — the Ukrainian government was left stumped when they received word that the aid had in fact been suspended. ...
But a broader point you touch on is, I think, accurate: Ukraine (just like most countries, perhaps even more than most countries) has a lot of reasons to want to stay in the good graces of the military and economic superpower that is the USA. Regardless of the status / knowledge of the specific $391M aid package, Ukraine was in fairly dire straights and rather desperate for assistance from Washington on a number of fronts.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-16-2019 at 04:57 PM.
  #2845  
Old 10-16-2019, 05:06 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No, I think it's pretty clear from the public record that the $391M was being withheld.


No, again, I think the record is pretty clear that he asked the President for a favor:
Okay, then we are agreed that he was withholding funds in exchange for a favor. We just don't agree whether or not that is something that is illegal?
Quote:
I think that second question leaves out an important bit of context, in that while it was indeed "while withholding those funds", Ukraine was reportedly unaware the funds were being deliberately withheld.
Not sure what you are trying to get at here. Your cite even says that they knew that they didn't have the money and were desperately scrambling to figure out why. Now, they didn't know why they had not yet received the money that they had been told that they would be receiving, I'll agree. Which is why I find Trump's phone call even more damning. If someone agrees to pay you money for something, and the time for that money to have been paid comes and goes, and your bank account is still empty, then they call you up and ask you for a favor, would you think that that favor would have anything to do with that money that you have been expecting?
Quote:

I think they were unaware it was being withheld at the time of the call:
They may not have known why, but they certainly knew it was.

IMHO, the reason for the phone call was to give them the reason why.

Quote:
But a broader point you touch on is, I think, accurate: Ukraine (just like most countries, perhaps even more than most countries) has a lot of reasons to want to stay in the good graces of the military and economic superpower that is the USA. Regardless of the status / knowledge of the specific $391M aid package, Ukraine was in fairly dire straights and rather desperate for assistance from Washington on a number of fronts.
And if the United States wants to take advantage of their desperate situation to get some particular concession or favors out of them, great(-ish. I don't think that it's entirely ethical, but if its open and above board, then it's not more or less underhanded then most international diplomacy.) But if an individual uses the power of his office to get personal concessions and favors, then that is open abuse of power, and exactly the sort of things that the founders were thinking when they penned the words "High Crimes".

Last edited by k9bfriender; 10-16-2019 at 05:07 PM.
  #2846  
Old 10-16-2019, 05:11 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post



And if the United States wants to take advantage of their desperate situation to get some particular concession or favors out of them, great(-ish. I don't think that it's entirely ethical, but if its open and above board, then it's not more or less underhanded then most international diplomacy.) But if an individual uses the power of his office to get personal concessions and favors, then that is open abuse of power, and exactly the sort of things that the founders were thinking when they penned the words "High Crimes".
Good post.

And it's particularly damning when the "favor" the individual asks for is for the country to investigate his political opponent.

And it's worse if the individual directs the country to work on this "favor" with his own personal attorney who holds no position in the government.
  #2847  
Old 10-16-2019, 05:28 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Okay, then we are agreed that he was withholding funds in exchange for a favor. We just don't agree whether or not that is something that is illegal? ...
No, we agree that he was withholding funds. We agree that it was happening at a time that coincided with him asking for a favor. But we do NOT agree that "he was withholding funds in exchange for a favor." (emphasis mine). I hope that's clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... Not sure what you are trying to get at here. Your cite even says that they knew that they didn't have the money and were desperately scrambling to figure out why. ...
My cite says "he believed $391 million worth of military aid was already on its way to Kiev". It's essentially the difference between believing that "the check is in the mail" and being told "I'm not going to pay you".
  #2848  
Old 10-16-2019, 05:29 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
... it is using his office for personal gain, and that is really the issue for me.
Could you elaborate on this point a bit? A couple of days ago, I posted this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
... For example, if a fictional president were to ask a fictional foreign government for a favorable trade agreement sometime before his re-election bid, perhaps even planning on touting in campaign commercials how he had arranged a favorable trade agreement with this foreign government and it had brought benefits to the working class, I suppose by the strict letter of the law, one might try to claim that he had "solicited" an "other thing of value" from the foreign government, but I find that interpretation ludicrous. As the NPR article pointed out, the President needs some latitude to conduct foreign policy without any favorable thing being interpreted as an "other thing of value" for purposes of campaign finance laws. Your thoughts?
Is pursuing any policy objective that might benefit the president in a re-election campaign "using his office for personal gain" in your eyes?
  #2849  
Old 10-16-2019, 06:52 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No, I think it's pretty clear from the public record that the $391M was being withheld....
Ukraine was reportedly unaware the funds were being deliberately withheld...

I think they were unaware it was being withheld at the time of the call:.
So your point here is that Trump is a backstabber?

No argument here. Kurdish deaths underscore his perfidy.
  #2850  
Old 10-16-2019, 06:54 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No, we agree that he was withholding funds. We agree that it was happening at a time that coincided with him asking for a favor. But we do NOT agree that "he was withholding funds in exchange for a favor." (emphasis mine). I hope that's clear.
Come on? Seriously? This is where the goalpost is now? It's not quid pro quo, it's quid (wink, wink) quo, so that's fine?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017