Impeachment Investigation Is Underway, Judiciary Committee Says
POSTED BY: THG
UPDATED: Monday, February 3, 2020 01:19
VIEWED: 84495
PAGE 104 of 111
Quote:More Quid Pro Quo: Trump Gives U.S. Business the Ukraine Treatment
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Read the transcript. Extortion: Javelins for phony dirt on Biden. Gods, that's probably the least of it! Don't you want to know what other phone conversations have been shunted over to that super secret server?
"Hiya, Vlad! How's it hangin'? Ukraine did what? Really?!? I'll get Rudy on it, pronto."
Support him if you want a tariff break.
www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/opinion/trump-apple.html
The story that has emerged in the impeachment hearings is one of extortion and bribery. Donald Trump withheld crucial aid — aid Ukraine needed to defend itself against Russian aggression — and refused to release it unless Ukraine publicly said it was investigating one of his political rivals. Even Republicans understand this; they just think it’s O.K.
And remember, the Ukraine scandal made it into the public eye only because a single whistle-blower set an investigation in motion. I know I’m not alone in wondering how many other comparable scandals haven’t come to light.
Nor need these scandals involve foreign governments. What I haven’t seen pointed out is that Trump is quietly applying a Ukraine-type extortion-and-bribery strategy to U.S. corporations. Many businesses are being threatened with policies that would hurt their bottom lines — especially, but not only, tariffs on imported goods crucial to their operations. But they are also being offered the possibility of exemptions from these policies.
And the implicit quid pro quo for such exemptions is that corporations support Donald Trump, or at least refrain from criticizing his actions.
Consider, for example, what happened last week, when Trump toured an Apple manufacturing plant together with Tim Cook, Apple’s C.E.O. Trump used the occasion to make a political speech, attacking impeachment proceedings and falsely claiming that Nancy Pelosi has “closed Congress.” He also asserted that the plant, which has been operating since 2013, had just opened.
And Cook, far from correcting these falsehoods, expressed support, declaring that America has the “strongest economy in the world.”
Cook’s incentive to play along was obvious. Apple assembles many of its products in China; it’s seeking exemptions from Trump’s China tariffs. And there’s every reason to believe that the allocation of such exemptions is driven by politics, not the national interest.
For example, in 2018 a company owned by Oleg Deripaska — an oligarch close to Vladimir Putin, who is supposed to be under U.S. sanctions for activities that include interference in foreign elections — received a waiver from aluminum tariffs. The waiver was withdrawn only after Democrats in Congress noticed it, with the Commerce Department claiming that it had been granted as a result of a “clerical error.” Uh-huh.
By the way, if you’re wondering why the Trump administration has the power to play favorites, it’s because U.S. trade law gives the president a lot of discretion in setting tariffs. The purpose of that discretion was to diminish the power of special interests in Congress, based on the assumption that the president would be better at serving the national interest. But then came Trump.
And tariff policy isn’t the only area in which the administration seems to be using its power to punish corporations if they don’t show proper political fealty.
Recently the Pentagon granted the huge Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure contract for cloud computing (yes, JEDI) to Microsoft, shocking observers who expected it to go to Amazon. Amazon is challenging the decision, claiming that it was punishment for critical reporting in The Washington Post, now owned by Jeff Bezos — a claim that is entirely plausible, given Trump’s own repeated declarations that he was going to give Bezos “problems.”
Trump officials claim, of course, that the decision process was squeaky-clean, based on expert judgment untainted by any political influence. But seriously, is an
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Poor Jeff Bezos.
Go pay for another year of Amazon Prime. Only you guys can make sure he doesn't end up in the poor house.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Another sad attempt by jack to change the subject.
T 
Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No. It's in the article Second posted.
It's very relevant to show how Democrats in 2019 are pro war, pro censorship and pro large business monopolies.
You know who among you isn't? AOC. You'll notice nobody has heard a peep from her in quite a while now. Anything she had to say about Bezos or Amazon would not be welcome with the current narrative they're trying to push.
Only time will tell if that's a winning strategy for them. Especially since the impeachment will go nowhere.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
C'mon. Give me some of that sweet, sweet impeachment news.
Wasn't yesterday, yesterday?
What's going on here?
Why is Orange Man still President!???
WWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What happened is that Amazon was the low bidder, but Trump hates Amazon because its CEO owns the Washington Post, which Trump also hates, so Trump gave IBM, the high bidder, the contract. There was some sneakiness where the technicalities of IBM pricing are adjusted to an amount just below what Amazon bid. And all the details are kept sealed, at least until Congress starts subpoenaing those bids and adjustments. Obviously, Trump will fight Congress in court to prevent those documents becoming known, because then we'd have more proof Trump is crooked, as is IBM.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
No. It's in the article Second posted.
It's very relevant to show how Democrats in 2019 are pro war, pro censorship and pro large business monopolies.
You know who among you isn't? AOC. You'll notice nobody has heard a peep from her in quite a while now. Anything she had to say about Bezos or Amazon would not be welcome with the current narrative they're trying to push.
Only time will tell if that's a winning strategy for them. Especially since the impeachment will go nowhere.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
"Where does JEDI go from here? Potentially to court."
www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2019/10/28/where-does-jedi-go-from
-here-potentially-to-court.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Two OMB officials resigned voicing concerns over Ukraine aid hold, official testifies
Two officials at the White House Office of Management and Budget recently resigned while voicing concerns over the holdup on Ukraine aid, a career employee of the agency told impeachment investigators, according to a transcript of his testimony released Tuesday.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/two-omb-officials-resigned-voi
cing-concerns-over-ukraine-aid-hold-official-testifies/ar-BBXnNoe?ocid=spartandhp
T
Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:What happened is that Amazon was the low bidder, but Trump hates Amazon because its CEO owns the Washington Post, which Trump also hates, so Trump gave IBM, the high bidder, the contract. There was some sneakiness where the technicalities of IBM pricing are adjusted to an amount just below what Amazon bid. And all the details are kept sealed, at least until Congress starts subpoenaing those bids and adjustments. Obviously, Trump will fight Congress in court to prevent those documents becoming known, because then we'd have more proof Trump is crooked, as is IBM.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
No. It's in the article Second posted.
It's very relevant to show how Democrats in 2019 are pro war, pro censorship and pro large business monopolies.
You know who among you isn't? AOC. You'll notice nobody has heard a peep from her in quite a while now. Anything she had to say about Bezos or Amazon would not be welcome with the current narrative they're trying to push.
Only time will tell if that's a winning strategy for them. Especially since the impeachment will go nowhere.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
"Where does JEDI go from here? Potentially to court."
www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2019/10/28/where-does-jedi-go-from
-here-potentially-to-court.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
Orange Man Bad!
IBM is crooked!
But Bazillionaire Bezos is our guy! He owns the WaPo and the WaPo says Orange Man Bad!
Once again...
AOC's voice is strangely absent over the past few weeks, isn't it?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So far I've listened to the entire testimonies of Taylor and Kent (sounds like a men's clothing store, doesn't it), Yovanovitch, and Williams and Vindman.
As I mentioned earlier, neither Taylor nor Kent ever heard anything directly about anything from anybody. And I have NO idea why Yovanovitch was even in the process. She was even less involved than Taylor and Kent. Listening to all that testimony was a lot of hours completely wasted.
Both Williams and Vindman were direct witnesses to the July 25, 2019 phone call in question. Both recall hearing 'Burisma' in the conversation, but oddly, they recall it being in different places in the call. Well, eyewitness - or in this case, earwitness - testimony isn't all it's cracked up to be. As I learned from the PBS NewsHour 5 separate people listen in to the calls and are transcribing furiously. They later get together and compare notes to synthesize a complete text. Then others review it, including in this case Vindman, who felt that the omission of the name wasn't a critical problem. He called the released phone call text correct.
Williams characterized Trump's request for a favor was unusual and inappropriate, but not culpable or criminal. Vindman felt it was a demand despite all the modifying phrases like 'favor', 'ask', 'if you could', and so on. His interpretation was based on his military experience of leader to subordinate, and apparently he couldn't - or didn't - adjust for the fact that the phone call was between two civilian presidents.
So, a few things I've observed do far
1) The closed door testimonies are dress rehearsals that the democrats are running before they trot out their dog and pony show. This is especially apparent in the smooth, well-rehearsed testimony of the witnesses when answering the democrats' questions, and the stumbling the witnesses sometimes display when getting unanticipated republican questions.
2) It's quite obvious that the republicans have had zero opportunity to either call witnesses of their own, or to elicit testimony to their own lines of inquiry.
3) Apparently there are only *3* witnesses in this whole parade who heard the actual call. Since by now I've already heard 2, unless someone new and different blows this process out of the water, there's no 'there' there.
4) Every single one of the witnesses, and many of the democrats, admonish that Trump's request of Zelensky was inappropriate because a government shouldn't pursue politically motivated investigations. Always said without a trace of irony or self-recognition.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump already manipulated them into putting all of this on the fast track a year before the election occurred.
He's going to force them to either cancel the whole thing or to put it to the Senate where it will be struck down immediately, long before Trump even debates somebody one on one for the first time. I'm hoping the Senate doesn't do that though. I want them to drag it out for the next year, all the way up until the election. Republicans will be able to get all of their own witnesses at that point and the ball will be in their court.
Trump's already said that he wants to testify. lol
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME