Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[Sam]

Sam I have a question or two. That letter from Giuliani talking about going to meet Zelensky in the Ukraine was in May. But Trump's phone call to Zelensky asking him to investigate the prosecutor was in July and in it he says he will be sending over Giuliani to discuss the matter.

So how can Giullani's trip in May be about the Bidens before Trump even brought it up in July? And if he did do so, then why was Trump bringing it up in July as if for the first time and talking about sending Giuliani over to discuss it if he already did?

Fair question with a quick answer: Giuliani didn't go to Ukraine in May 2019. After the NYT article, Giuliani got significant heat for embarking on a personal political errand for Trump and canceled.

Giuliani had been piggy-backing on Manafort's Ukraine connections with the previous presidents. When Zelensky was elected and put a halt to Lusensko's efforts, Giuliani and Trump had to start over. Giuliani's planned May trip was the original plan to get Zelensky to reopen those investigations, along with getting rid of thea ambassador. When he couldn't make the trip, we start seeing how Giuliani, Parnas, Trump and others maneuvered to avoid the "official channel" while still getting this meeting with Zelensky. Eventually, Trump just made the ask explicitly on his July 25 call.

--Sam

[Sparko]

Fair question with a quick answer: Giuliani didn't go to Ukraine in May 2019. After the NYT article, Giuliani got significant heat for embarking on a personal political errand for Trump and canceled.

Giuliani had been piggy-backing on Manafort's Ukraine connections with the previous presidents. When Zelensky was elected and put a halt to Lusensko's efforts, Giuliani and Trump had to start over. Giuliani's planned May trip was the original plan to get Zelensky to reopen those investigations, along with getting rid of thea ambassador. When he couldn't make the trip, we start seeing how Giuliani, Parnas, Trump and others maneuvered to avoid the "official channel" while still getting this meeting with Zelensky. Eventually, Trump just made the ask explicitly on his July 25 call.

--Sam

Ah. OK. Thanks. I couldn't find the timeline on this.

[JimL]

If you are that willing to read into the texts such dire threats, I'm not sure dialogue with you is going to be productive. They are clearly trying to get her fired. I don't at all approve of the language they used or their disparagement of her, but when you believe that the other side is literally plotting to murder people.... Dude.

Wrong, Trump could have fired her at any time for any reason, but instead he had his gang over there tracking Yovanovitch while telling Zelensky that she is going to go through some things. Yovanovitch, a long time ambassador dealing with corruption was obviously in the way of Trumps corrupt scheme and he probably felt he couldn't legitimately fire her without raising questions and risking the possiblity of that scheme being exposed. When Robert Hyde said I guess anything can be done for a price in Ukraine, or words to that effect, I highly doubt that he meant the price required was for help in tracking her. It seems they were already tracking her every movement with no problem. I wonder what else you think he could have meant by that remark? Whatever it was, it wasn't legal, and it was obviously under the direction of Trump since they were working for him.

[Sam]

Ah. OK. Thanks. I couldn't find the timeline on this.

It's a complicated one. JustSecurity keeps theirs pretty well updated (doesn't look like the recent Parnas/Giuliani documents have been added yet). Two events that bracket the Giuliani letter:



April 24: Ambassador Yovanavich is suddenly recalled to USA.

May 10: Giuliani letter to Zelensky (Giuliani cancels trip on May 11)

May 13: Trump orders Pence to not attend Zelensky inauguration.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

Pelosi uses two dozen souvenir pens to sign the articles of impeachment and then eagerly hands them out to Democrat congressmen afterwards. But she's very saddened by this solemn occasion (giggle giggle).

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...f-impeachment/

[JimL]

Pelosi uses two dozen souvenir pens to sign the articles of impeachment and then eagerly hands them out to Democrat congressmen afterwards. But she's very saddened by this solemn occasion (giggle giggle).

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...f-impeachment/

Ah, don't let it get to you, MM. Using multiple pens is a bit of a tradition in Washington. And souvenirs are nice to have. Can you imagine what they'll be worth, I mean personally of course, after the lawless wannabe dictator is convicted?

[Mountain Man]

Even CNM says Pelosi's theatrics were "jarring" and "off message".

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethba...rring-n2559599

[Mountain Man]

CNM = CNN. That's what I get for trying to post from my phone without my glasses.

[MaxVel]

CNM = Cable News Mafia?

[Sparko]

It's a complicated one. JustSecurity keeps theirs pretty well updated (doesn't look like the recent Parnas/Giuliani documents have been added yet). Two events that bracket the Giuliani letter:



April 24: Ambassador Yovanavich is suddenly recalled to USA.

May 10: Giuliani letter to Zelensky (Giuliani cancels trip on May 11)

May 13: Trump orders Pence to not attend Zelensky inauguration.

--Sam

OK I admit that the whole "personal attorney" bit looks bad and I am taking a second look at all this. But I still don't see any evidence of quid pro quo there. Nor any actual admission that it was regarding Biden. Or to aid Trump in the election.

But if the House Intelligence had all this evidence, and it does convict Trump, why wasn't it brought up at the impeachment hearing? Why didn't they actually subpoena Giuliani? It seems to me that they didn't do a proper job of presenting evidence at the impeachment. And now they want to do it at the Senate and they leaked it because the Senate was saying they were not going to allow witnesses.

[Mountain Man]

OK I admit that the whole "personal attorney" bit looks bad...

Not really. There is a long tradition of presidents using unofficial advisors and ambassadors going all the way back to George Washington. The following article is worth the time to read as it documents the fascinating history of "shadow diplomacy" in US presidential politics:

https://www.realclearinvestigations....ry_120883.html

[Mountain Man]

Senator Marsha Blackburn:

"The impeaching process took place in the House. If they wanted to call these witnesses, they could have called them. It is not our job to expand the impeachment. It is our job to review what they have sent forward, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do.

"We’re going to do it in an expedient manner, we’re going to be fair to the president and to the process, and we’re going to get this behind us."

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020...-sent-forward/

[Sparko]

Not really. There is a long tradition of presidents using unofficial advisors and ambassadors going all the way back to George Washington. The following article is worth the time to read as it documents the fascinating history of "shadow diplomacy" in US presidential politics:

https://www.realclearinvestigations....ry_120883.html

I meant that Giuliani making a point of telling Zelensky he was going over there as a personal representative of Trump instead of as a representative of the President/Government. Looks bad given that the democrats are accusing Trump of doing it for personal reasons.

[firstfloor]

The reputation of the SCOTUS is in his hands;

“Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?” Grassley asked.
“I do,” Roberts said.

[Mountain Man]

I meant that Giuliani making a point of telling Zelensky he was going over there as a personal representative of Trump instead of as a representative of the President/Government. Looks bad given that the democrats are accusing Trump of doing it for personal reasons.

In that case, yes, Guilianni was acting as a personal representative of his client, and he never presented himself as anything else as far as I know. He never claimed to be establishing official policy, or speaking on behalf of the United States government.