It wasn’t the entire Senate. It was, I think 3 Senators (probably democrats). You seem to have an odd perspective of how US Senators behave. My source was in the middle of a video awhile back. Sorry, but searching videos isn’t worth it for this discussion (you are never going to change your attitude regardless of what you see).
That is only from your perspective. Believe it or not, officials in other countries have plenty to do besides attend to US politics. Zelensky didn’t even know the phone call had become an issue in the US until Mr Trump asked if it was okay to release it to the public. And even then still didn’t understand the whole quid quo pro complaint.
Everything that you have been saying has been nothing but your speculations about Mr Trump’s intentions and other people’s attitudes. And Zelensky didn’t say anything about making a public announcement. He promised an investigation. Once again, you act like Ari Melber on MSNBC twisting and misrepresenting (fake news) about what you see to suit what you want seen.
That only applies to budgeted moneys being deferred toward different purpose. The moneys that Mr Trump reassigned were unused and all within the National Defense purpose. The totally partisan Supreme Court agreed that it was Constitutionally compliant.
Trying to deny or veto the Trump votes of 2016, is 100% Unconstitutional, which is what you and the Demorats are trying to do.
If you want to impeach and remove a duly-elected President, then there must be Bi-Partisan support (there wasn’t, at all). There must be a High Crime and Misdemeanor (there wasn’t, at all).
Because of these two facts, you and yours, are wrong. You are damaging the US Constitution, the Republic, and Western Society as a whole, with your Corruption.
The real problem is that I don’t watch youtube videos as a source of news.
And honestly, until you change your attitude in reaction to something you see here, let’s all climb down of our high-and-mighties, yes?
So no one in Zelensky’s orbit had like googled “Biden” while they were being asked to announce an investigation into him? Or remembered that Joe Biden had personally been to Ukraine in his official capacity as vice president?
Bill Taylor testified that Zelensky was planning to make an announcement, which matches what Fareed Zakaria has said about Zelensky’s plans for an interview on his show, and those are corroborated by statements by Zelensky’s staff and ex-staffers to Ukrainian media.
See the definition of “deferral of budgetary authority” in the same law. It includes “delaying the […] expenditure of budget authority”.
What does this mean? What case are you referring to? What was compliant, and what was the challenge?
Also, tangentially, what do you see as the Supreme Court’s partisan bias?
You can talk about “Foreign Election Interference” all you want, Carleas.
The real truth though? It’s domestic election interference when you and yours actively, openly, willingly, try to void, invalidate, and veto the Will of the 2016 Presidential Election.
You are doing more damage than the claims you make. You are the interference.
I watch or listen to cable news because I can do that while doing other things (typing here is a different problem). Youtube provides a means to relay what has happened on cable news into this forum.
Sondland was trying to find out what was necessary to get the aid released. Mr Trump told him that the only thing wanted was that Zelensky was really cleaning up their corruption by doing what he already said that he was going to do and that there was no quid quo pro concerning it. He merely wanted verification. Giuliani suggested that a public announcement would convey that Zelensky was really trying to clean up their corruption.
Yes, they were just going to go ahead and make the announcement. But that is when the US Senators stepped in threatening a loss of US support from the Senate and the show was cancelled.
Other Senators spoke to Mr Trump, along with Giuliani, telling him that Mr Zelensky was a straight shooter so Mr Trump took their word (He is a really lousy judge of character on his own) and released the aid.
Were you referring to merely the delay? Perhaps I misunderstood.
Congress had already granted 90 days to comply with the delivery (I think it was 90 days). Mr Trump was within the Congress granted time frame. There was nothing illegal about it. And he had a good reason - to help get Europe onboard. Zelensky understood that, although I’m sure didn’t like the need for it.
I have nothing against Youtube videos per se, I’ve seen good independent political analysts on Youtube, and it’s still pretty good for primary source material. But for basic news coverage it’s weak, and the signal-to-noise ratio is abysmal.
Cable news is just trash. Informative only to the extent that it tells you a bit about why and how the public is so poorly informed.
The lack of a shared source of truth is something we haven’t talked enough about in the context of this thread, and in that spirit I will share how I shape my understanding of current events. Feel free to critique it. I’m aware of some of the ways in which it is or risks being bubbly (academy heavy, not a lot of “real america”, very customized). I’d be interested to know any other blind spots you see, and to know more about where you’re getting your news; given we disagree, I’d bet your sources would solve some of my blind spots.
For news I prefer the written word. I don’t think video is a very good medium for delivering information, because it’s slow (when I do watch, I watch at 2x), it’s at a set pace that doesn’t vary based on what’s important or what’s hard to follow, and it’s linear where learning is about building a web of connections. I watch big political events like debates and conventions and State of the Union addresses, though I’m always disappointed that they don’t use PowerPoint (#yanggang).
I favor larger institutions, because smaller shops are too unknown and too subject to the whims of their staff. But I try to get information directly from the journalists who do the reporting for those institutions and not just the articles that pass through the institutional filter. I rely a lot on Twitter as a starting point, where I follow mostly academics, journalists, specialists in various fields (tech, law, politics, philosophy) – I follow and unfollow liberally, and I use a few strategies to foster diversity of thought. Twitter gets a bad rap, and for good reason, but with diligent curation it can be a saline drip of expert opinion on everything you care about. Lots of news breaks on Twitter first (and not just because the president is making news on Twitter). The bubble is real, though, and needs to be scrupulously guarded against; I give myself a B on that.
I also check Google News regularly, but I find that less and less valuable as The Algorithm tries to guess what I want to see, and also because it includes so many shitty sources and so much junk news.
From those I get headlines, and from those I get the articles, either clicking through for good sources, or Googling to find the story in sources I trust, which include NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Financial Times, Economist, BBC, NPR, and many others. More than any one source, I trust reading the same story in multiple sources, or, if the story concerns some primary source material, reading or watching that instead. When I say I “trust” a source, it means I think they are not making up any of the facts and that I think I know what direction they’re spinning from.
For deeper analysis, I rely mostly on blogs, again mostly by academics or experts. None are particularly current events focused, but they touch on them. My Feedly (blog reader) says I follow 47 blogs, but only about 10 of those post regularly. The two that are most prolific are Marginal Revolution (written by Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok, economists at GMU), and the Volokh Conspiracy (a legal group blog, leans slightly right/libertarian (currently hosted at Reason, though that hasn’t always been the case), mostly law but that is often also politics, especially now). Those two are centered around econ and law, respectively, but end up being pretty generalist. The others are a bit more niche: science news, internet and tech law, SCOTUSblog, rationalism, a couple philosophers; not a lot of current events.
I do podcasts sparingly, and mostly follow the guests more than the hosts. A few I listen to regularly are Conversations with Tyler (Tyler Cowen again, probably the public intellectual who has influenced me the most in the past decade); Sam Harris (I was more into his work ~15 years ago, his current stuff is less interesting and I’ll often skip it if I don’t know the guest or care about the topic); and Joe Rogan (only because I follow the guests, and he gets everyone).
Podcasts and blogs get away from what I mean by ‘news’, but they do meaningfully influence my understanding of what happened (and not just how to put it into a narrative), so I included them.
I don’t see how this is responsive. As I understand the root of this question, I was saying that Zelensky changing his mind about the announcement once the aid was released shows that the withholding of the aid was motivating the announcement. You responded that he may have been trying to avoid getting involved in US politics, but I was skeptical because he probably knew who Biden was and that what he was being asked to do was deeply political.
Is your claim that, because it’s Giuliani asking, it might not seem political? I still think the fact that it’s Biden makes that unlikely, but even if so, wouldn’t the call in which he and Trump discuss the same investigation make clear that Trump is involved and that the political implications are probably not lost on Trump? It wasn’t Trump’s involvement, it was the release of the aid that killed the announcement.
An unnamed handful of Senators in the minority party, source = some video you don’t remember.
From a little research, this seems like it might be conflating two incidents: one from 2018, where Democratic senators wrote to the Ukraine about their cooperation in the Mueller investigation, and a meeting in September of 2019 where one Democratic Senator went to the Ukraine and discussed Rudy Giuliani’s role there. Neither appears to contain an explicit or implicit threat, and the source of allegations to the contrary appears to be Trump.
Under the law, a delay is a deferral.
I have heard the 90-day number, but I don’t know where that comes from. I see it in a more recent Ukraine spending bill, which might suggest that it was also in the bill that appropriated the that were withheld.
But given that the president withheld the aid for long enough that it literally could not be spent within the period for which it was appropriated, and had to be reappropriated as a result, it seems unlikely that Congress signed off on that.
Mate, please, just read the document. Control-F ‘impeach’.
DNC openly admits to calling to ‘Impeach’ from the moment Trump was elected. This is evidence, and proves, that it is emotionally based, irrational, without merit, and Unconstitutional due to the nature of it being without Due Process. DNC started with the conclusion/result (Impeachment) and worked backward, trying to gain Evidence to support the false charge (Top-Down thinking). There are many recordings of DNC operatives, congress people, and especially the News Mafia, with clips, recordings, and texts to verify this point.
The “impeachment” was purely partisan. Because of it’s vote down Party Lines, this was what former US Constitutional leaders, Presidents, Justices, etc. warned us about. They warned us of the DNC today, totally corrupt, and their backers (like Carleas). This is the “Deep State” and swamp, that needs to be drained. Because this was purely-partisan, and the DNC made zero attempts to work across party-lines, it can be invalidated and thrown-out on this reason alone. Furthermore, I believe, a further Constitutional Amendment is in order to require a 66% House Majority to launch future “impeachments”, to avoid such smearing the Constitution and staining our US Republic. Democrats have severely damaged our nation, and deserve to be voted out of power for decades to come.
There is no real, actual crime committed by Trump. The Ukrainian President admitted to this “no pressure”. Rather, the leaker/traitor funneled hyped-up information to the DNC (Schiff) who was looking, desperately, for any reason to push impeachment. They moved on something without merit, and without evidence. It is a very weak case, and legally, relies almost completely on Heresay testimony, inadmissible in court. Carleas should admit to this, if you had any backbone.
Because of this very powerful and obvious points, there’s not much more to be said. The Senate will strike down this Sham, coup-attempt, and hopefully work to restore the damage being done to our Republic and Constitution, by the DNC and their treasonous operatives.
This is verified Sedition, and again, I hope Democrats will be voted out of power for decades and decades to come. The Fake News Media–Mafia should be de-platformed. If such things do not happen peaceably (Democratically) then force maybe required.
More DNC liberal hackjobs and Partisan pundits, conjuring up “evidence” out of thin air.
I already went over that fallacy, if you forgot. By the time DNC charged him (even though no crime), he was damned to release aid and damned not to. Either way, he’s “guilty” according to DNC.
If you can’t see how logically fallacious that is, then take a few steps back from the ILP Log-in button.
It’s about as low as you can get, politically, to charge Trump for what he impossibly cannot do ‘right’ upon.
Trump would be indicted for releasing aid, and indicted for not.
It would be a High Crime to release aide to a corrupt country, such as Ukraine, who was paying Hunter Biden untold sums on a no-show job, appointed by Quid Pro Quo…Joe.
There is the High Crime, Misdemeanor, and Corruption. 100% proved, on tape. Yet you and the corrupt DNC, want to impeach Trump, for the crime you and yours committed?!
Just because the DNC owns the Media Mafia, doesn’t mean you can charge crimes however you want.
Fortunately for America, the courts are still owned by the Supreme Court Justices. Your impeachment coup will come to a quick end, soon enough. And hopefully your corrupt counterparts will soon be voted out of Washington permanently.
Can you see now what I meant by “media is a cabal” and the corporate media having more control over congressmen than congressmen over them? - a year ago.
If it isn’t obvious by now. You simply have no mind.
can we wait? im digging watching him melt down slowly as trump gets deeper and deeper into his downfall. dont u guys wanna see him spaz for the next week or so?
acting ag made a youtube video tonight just after youtube banned trump
sounds like the next batch of idiots who try and riot to overthrow the constitution will be met with significantly greater obstacles from law enforcement.
