The Trump Impeachment Inquiry

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.

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.

Former Pompeo aide Mike McKinley is testifying before the House impeachment committees today.

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?

Thanks, and I can see how it looks somewhat suspicious since it came on the heels of a significant furor over Ukrainian aid.

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)

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.”

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.

Yup, and if one of them is KIA, well, he “knew what he signed up for”.

Which “facts staring them right in the face” do you think “some folks” are “deny[ing]”?

His brain/mouth filter broke a long time ago and his supporters love him for it.

The ones that you deny.

Why don’t you tear off your fucking blindfold? And pull out the earplugs?

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.

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.

I"m sorry, that’s privileged information, and protected by attorney-client confidentiality.

But don’t we have a long history of abandoning the Kurds in order to appease our allies?

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.

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?