MovieChat Forums > Politics > eYe Insight and Update ... Annihilating ...

eYe Insight and Update ... Annihilating Ambassador Taylor Deposition to House Investigators 10/22/19

posted 5 years ago by eYeDEF (5050)
28 replies | jump to latest

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vUI__sxL_fgzy5JYqaxB9cysOHwwQSE4/view

Devastating beyond words. This is the point in a movie where Trump resigns, but ours is a longer miniseries. Every week is more surreal than the week before and every day we learn they did something even more stupid than the day before.

The smoking guns from the Taylor statement…starting page 10:

“Sondland told Mr. Yermak that security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Bursima investigation.”

page 11:

Sondland said “Everything” was dependent upon such an announcement, including security assistance ... Trump wanted President Zelenskyy “in a public box”

Sondland confirmed the conversation to Taylor (admission against interest, so not hearsay as to Sondland) and announced the plot to Taylor. I also expect Morrison will confirm this as he is a Russia hawk brought to the NSC by Bolton.

And this:

the “President doesn’t want to provide any assistance at all”

Holy shit! Putin almost got Trump to leave the Ukrainians out to dry the same way he did the Kurds!

And this:

if President Zelenshyy did not “clear things up” in public, we would be at a “stalemate”.

Trump saying the phrase “not a quid pro quo”, even when it was clear it was a quid pro quo is his MO as described by Michael Cohen earlier this year to House Oversight on how Trump gets his underlings to lie for him:

"Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress. That’s not how he operates. In conversations we had during the campaign, at the same time I was actively negotiating in Russia for him, he would look me in the eye and tell me there’s no business in Russia …"

And again, the Quid by itself is a crime (52 USC § 30121) since it is illegal to solicit a thing of value (Biden oppo) from a foreign national for personal political benefit even without conditions. The Quid Pro Quo withholding military aid UKR depended is prima facie evidence of extortion and nails both the criminal claim of a campaign finance violation and bribery by way of extortion.

A few things really stand out:

1) Sondland is a fucking liar and traitor and needs to resign and be prosecuted.
2) Trump should be called to testify. He orchestrated this whole thing.
3) Bolton should tell the public what he knows. My money is on him that when he does he'll be ready with the goods to stick the shiv in.
4) Pompeo must resign and testify.
5) There is no reason for SDNY to keep focusing on only the Parnas/Fruman side of the equation. SDNY should immediately open a criminal investigation into the shakedown and sideline AG Barr. They should work with the House to take all the criminal referrals and prosecute all of them.

But this week's neutron bomb actually exploded weeks ago but had a delayed domino effect. The key to the Trump removal train is to explain the Parnas/Fruman link. They are Russian mob. This has become more clear by the day as the evidence on these two from the Chicago prosecutors trying to extradite Firtash become clear. They also work for Trump. That means Trump works for the mob (b/c the mob doesn’t work for you. You always work for them!).

Parnas/Fruman are paid by the Kremlin's claw in UKR, Dmitry Firtash. He's the notorious oligarch front man for the Russian mob and Kremlin on UKR matters that Putin installed as his UKR middleman in 2014. That means Trump has a direct relationship to the Kremlin and this demonstrates he is a Russian asset. That should be enough to get him out and send him into exile.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

And this is why every congressman who left the meeting at different intervals throughout the day and night said they were left 'speechless' and 'in shock' after listening to his testimony.

I can't wait for the White House to 'accidentally' send the right-wing talking points on this to Dems today. Let's see how they try to smear Taylor.

[–] elcamino (15540) 5 years ago

After the Mueller thing it will well be 6 months from now before they will say this is a waste of time also.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

I'm not sure how this can be true seeing as how so much evidence has emerged by Trump administration officials’ hearings that the whistleblower's in-person testimony and unmasking has been determined to be no longer necessary.

[–] elcamino (15540) 5 years ago

Your just recycling the speal the democrats put out to make them look good.This will end up another waste of time.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

What spiel?

[–] dteam6 (5073) 5 years ago

Actually, eYeDEF has been listing out well-written facts about these situations. You just spew little turd pellets in literally every post. You're like chillone's twin.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dteam6 (5073) 5 years ago

LOL! Wow...being a peg lower than chillone is like going from dry, stale toast to a stale, mushy cracker: both are boring, devoid of flavor and appalling but the mushy cracker is the worse of the two.

[–] chilone (17913) 5 years ago

You are so delusional and hateful.

[–] dteam6 (5073) 5 years ago

Given all this in mind, it's amazing this criminal is even still in office.

If the republicans continue to stand behind/defend him then they are basically painting themselves as supporters of a criminal president/Russian asset/traitor. When do they get to the "disavow to save my own ass" point? You'd think they'd reach that point by now.

Honestly, invoking the 25th would save them more face at this point than allowing impeachment to proceed.

That way you describe this makes it seem that there is no way to salvage Trump or their own reputations at this point. So...why not cut him out? It makes them look infinitely better at this point.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

"That way you describe this makes it seem that there is no way to salvage Trump or their own reputations at this point. So...why not cut him out? It makes them look infinitely better at this point."

I've heard this question a lot and just as often hear people say that Republicans always have an easy out whenever they choose to take it; if Trump becomes too radioactive, just cut him loose and move on to Pence. That way they'd have all the policy goodies they want and none of the constant humiliation and drama. That assumption misses the current make up of the GOP and American politics generally. There is simply no scenario in which the GOP can easily quit the President or do so without driving a lasting wedge through the center of the party.

Four years ago Slate author Will Saletan came up with the prescient metaphor the GOP is a failed state and Trump is its warlord. That still holds true today but you'd have to say the deal has worked out pretty well for Republicans so far. Trump's rule has been durable because despite his unpopularity he maintains the intense support of a large minority of the electorate. For a mix of demographic and geographical reasons it is a minority that generally over performs in electoral terms.

Of his average 40% support my guess is 30% and certainly more than 20% are deeply attached to him, not only for his few relative points of ideological heterodoxy (trade restrictions, isolationism, etc.) but much more for his embodiment of an authoritarian and illiberal worldview both at home and abroad. Those voters will have a very hard time forgiving any Republican leaders who turn on Trump and try to drive him from office. He has simply remade the party so thoroughly around an emotive ecosystem of dominance, obedience and betrayal that any attempt by Republicans to oust him will be seen as unforgivable.

[–] dteam6 (5073) 5 years ago

First of all, thank you for your detailed response.

Secondly...I just wanted to say something. I know FAR less about politics than you do. FAR less. I'm simply not a political person and only started even DISCUSSING politics after the shock of Trump winning in 2016. Regardless, I just have to say: I'm really not seeing anything in your post that dissuades me from my ongoing misgivings, namely two:

1. Republicans won't vote to remove Trump in the Senate via impeachment

and

2. The possibility of him winning the 2020 election

I appreciate your views but I'm not really convinced that 1 or 2 won't happen. Not yet, anyway.

Unless I'm mistaken (and correct me if I'm wrong) but it sounds like this all hinges on certain republicans of power to actually grow a spine and do something. It sounds to me that, if these people decide NOT to do their jobs, that's it. No removal via impeachment. No removal via the 25th amendment--nothing.

And this is my main problem with our government and what I've learned about it these past three years I've immersed myself into politics: we have a VERY flimsy and VERY flawed system that seems to allow both parties to just constantly war with each other, never get anything done and all it takes is one side to say "No, I'm not doing it" and that's that. Nothing happens.

No matter how many bombshell developments come down, I keep coming back to my original thought: the odds are never going to be good that they will agree to vote to remove him via impeachment, 25th or anything else. That will then pave the way to allow Donald to go on to the 2020 election and, by your own observations (and what we all know), he has a crazy and unwavering base of supporters who love his dictatorial, isolationist, one race, one rule, no trade policies. So, bearing all that in mind, he still has a pretty good shot at winning in 2020.

No matter how historically unpopular he is, he has a rabid base rallying around him like cultists AND has election tampering on his side.

Historically, the incumbent has the best shot at winning a second term. We all know this.

I love all these bombshells but all that I keep feeling from each one is the same thing every time: this relies on such and such to do his job.

So, again--I know little about politics and am more of an observer in all this, but you tell me: am I wrong about anything I said? I wish I was. I want to be wrong.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

I still say you should just relax and enjoy the spectacle of this treacherous administration in free fall getting exposed.

I've been saying I see impeachment as the least likely method of his removal for all the reasons you mentioned. If he doesn't complete his term I think most likely it'll be because he resigns to avoid criminal prosecution once he leaves office by cutting a deal.

That's why it's all contingent on marginalizing Barr. That's where the real action is going on and why I've been so laser focused on Barr. Only with him out the the way can the heat of a potential criminal prosecution after he leaves office be turned up, at which point he'll feel pressure to resign from office to stay out of jail.

So the Barr story is the real story behind the shitshow of the impeachment inquiry. That's really all I'm worried about and where you need to keep your eyes peeled.

As for winning re-election, IMO that's VERY unlikely. I just don't like to say that too often to guard against complacency. :)

[–] dteam6 (5073) 5 years ago

Well, like I said: you know more than I do about this stuff and I won't even deny it.

You've been right about almost everything in this process thus far.

Your last statement really encourages me. I had no idea you felt that way. Interesting.

Thanks for the information update! It's hard to keep track of on the news, to be honest.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Yeah maybe I should emphasize more often just how strongly I feel about the unlikelihood of his re-election chances. Especially now that impeachment proceedings are well underway.

I've said from the start the benefit of impeachment was never that Republicans were going to convict him in the Senate. It was always that the impeachment process will put his crimes front and center before the American people and make his chances for re-election all the more unlikely. That finally appears to be exactly what is happening.

And historically speaking a president with a strong economy at his back yet hovers at 40-41% of approval is DEVASTATING. I put his chances for re-election at about 9.5% right now and sinking. And we're barely through the impeachment process that will most certainly deliver more evidence of this shithead's insane criminality. I expect it to sink to a fraction of that by the time it's all said and done.

I mean the very fact that polling shows 55% of the public supports impeachment and the Fox News poll that revealed 51% supported impeachment AND removal when we've only just begun really speaks for itself.

[–] dteam6 (5073) 5 years ago

Well, I'm certainly eager to see Donald sputtering, stuttering and melting down on the stand. :)

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

That should be the healthy way of looking at these bombshells going forward. The more bombshells, the more crimes and wrongdoing will be showcased before the American people during this impeachment inquiry and trial, the more lopsided the landslide victory we can expect against him in 2020.

I've said before that I really don't see how he can win re-election with the one caveat of the election being fair. But if the Russians have it locked up for him, he sure isn't acting like it given all his attempted shenanigans and blatant lawbreaking to dig dirt on his expected 2020 opponent Biden.

[–] dteam6 (5073) 5 years ago

Good point. I'll try to be more patient.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

So here's a theoretical question you've heard before that I want you take literally for a moment. If Trump really did decide to take aim and gun someone down on fifth avenue, do you really and truly believe he wouldn't be impeached and removed from office?

I know the cliched and common response is "no" given where we are right now. But lets take the question literally, do you really think this? I couldn't fault anyone for really believing it given all that's happened, but I respectfully disagree. And FWIW, when Trump's lawyer tried make this very argument before the Second Circuit this past week that Trump had immunity even if he gunned someone down on 5th Ave he was literally laughed right out of the courtroom.

If you believe like I do that such a line would force Senators to realize they had no choice but to remove him from office immediately then you'd have to concede that such a theoretical line does exist and it forces you to reflect upon just where that line is. What evidence of crime makes his removal imperative even for GOP? During Nixon it was only the indisputable evidence of the tapes that forced the issue. Until that moment the brazen abuses of power by Nixon were rationalized away by Republican congress members just like we're seeing today by the GOP.

I believe there is a similar smoking gun that could theoretically be uncovered which would force the issue like with Nixon, the key question is whether it will be uncovered in the course of this House investigation. There is so much evidence of crime being uncovered that there's no doubt GOP Senators today aren't where they were a month ago. I still think 1) impeachment is least likely with 2) resignation more likely and 3) losing re-election most likely but what gives me hope impeachment isn't impossible are articles like this:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/senate-republicans-impeachment-remove-trump-ukraine-graham-mcconnell.html

[–] dteam6 (5073) 5 years ago

I have never seriously believed that Donald could do that and not be removed, so yes, I believe he'd be removed; HOWEVER, I do believe with all my heart and soul that most of his base would still defend him if he did it and would still riot if he was removed. No doubt in my mind about that much, at least.

The republicans would have no choice but to remove him after such a blatant display.

Still, while I understand where you're going with this analogy, the main difference between the shooting and this current situation is that there is no real way to claim Trump as the "victim the dems are going after" in the shooting scenario. What I'm seeing throughout this entire impeachment scenario is a "Dems have a vendetta against Trump" defense. It's the same defense they use during the Russia probe. They would only turn against Trump if they had absolutely no "defense" to offer. Trumpers do the same thing: they demonize the dems to try to make Trump look less guilty. All these republican officials currently defending Trump are doing that same thing.

My point is that the shooting example doesn't really apply here in my view because Trump is indefensible in that scenario whereas in THIS scenario he is still "defensible" in the manner that I noted.

I agree with you on your third point: losing re-election is our absolute BEST chance. No doubt about it.

[–] CharlotteXavier (2357) 5 years ago

Thanks for all of this. I love your updates!

[–] CharlotteXavier (2357) 5 years ago

Good post!

[–] dteam6 (5073) 5 years ago

Thanks!

[–] TexasJack (12516) 5 years ago

You do realize that SDNY is just a branch office of the Justice Department, right? They all report to Barr and are not free to "sideline" him.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Barr can't direct them to shutdown an active investigation without cause. That would be illegal. Should the SDNY investigation turn up evidence that directly implicates Barr (as I believe the UKR investigation inevitably has since he was named by the whistleblower as a co-conspirator and the President himself in the Zelensky call repeatedly said Barr is working with Giuliani! That makes it pretty obvious that Barr can't credibly oversee or make decisions about such an investigation. But it's also something he has already done) then the rules are unequivocal that he must recuse. But we saw what happened to Jeff Sessions. So recusal is obviously not going to happen on its own. Barr was nominated as a non-recuser. That was his mission: Whatever happens, don't recuse yourself and focus on protecting the President.

That's what I mean about sidelining Barr. But it would require someone at SDNY to stand up and be the face of that resistance by issuing a statement saying they are far along enough in the investigation that the ties to the WH are clear therefore Barr must recuse. But right now I'm doubtful the Trump appointed US Attorney for SDNY Geoffrey Berman is up for the task. He's already faced accusations from the mob that he's secretly out to get Trump. But I am hopeful that the evidence on the Firtash investigation now being shared by the Chicago prosecutors with SDNY will make Barr's complicity all but impossible for Berman not to take a stand.

And historically it's just not true that SDNY is "just another branch office" when they are known for their independence from Main Justice. Since NY is the home of Wall Street and the center of the financial universe that gives them jurisdiction over investigating and prosecuting not just financial crimes but international high crimes that involve US banks, which pretty much means all of them; like this case of international money laundering bribing Pete Sessions through Rudy's UKR stooges to get Yovanovitch fired. As an aside if you've ever watched the show Billions it makes this clear as SDNY is conducting investigations that are directly steered by the US Attorney of SDNY that the US AG did not approve but didn't have direct leverage to shut down.

[–] Gd5150 (11769) 5 years ago

It’s the “let’s watch eyetard twist himself into a bigger pretzel to rationalize illegal investigations based on zero evidence that continue to produce zero evidence”.

Russia collusion. Zero evidence. Hoax.

Ukraine whistleblower. Zero evidence. As proven by released transcripts. Democrat tampered Whistleblowers irrelevant.

Imagine what we could accomplish if the Democrat party cared as much about tackling the problems facing the American people as they do about acquisition of political power.

Unfortunately for the Democrat party those of us educated in politics already know this. We’ve been watching the same communist run Democrat party/media playbook since JFK. No ideas. No solutions. No platform. The Democrat party.

#HateIsNotAPlatform

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

WTF are you even talking about?

I bet you didn't know WSJ cited Sondland's lawyer yesterday saying Sondland himself, who was Trump's point man on the UKR issue, admitted it was a Quid Pro Quo in House testimony October 14th.

That means Game Over you sad Russian shill.

[–] ultravioletx (10237) 5 years ago

You need serious help.