Talk:Trump-Ukraine scandal

Thoughts
Ready for the mainspace?--RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Good job on the first cut. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If ya'll wanna re-add the pictures.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Reversion
You should have not removed my edits. Especially without giving any explanation (each of my edits was explained) and especially because one of my edits added important information about Sondland's testimony. Tokyo (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your edits consisted mostly of whitewashing. — Oxyaena Harass  15:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's a non-explanation and ignores Sondland's testimony. Let's hear what the moderators think of my last edits: E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, and E6. I ask since it's the last moderator that touched the page. Tokyo (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the Sondland edit is bullshit too. The defense didn't "criticize", they lied. The Ukraine Quid pro quo happened, and any denial that it didn't is a lie. 17:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What you said makes no sense related to the edit E1, which does not consists of a denial from the defense that the Quid pro quo happened, but consists of a transcript of Turner interviewing Sondland preceeded by a description from CBS news (that used the term criticize). Tokyo (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The E1 edit is factually correct because it primarily quotes the inquiry, but Sondland's testimony about what he knew in this regard is still contradictory and he could face charges of making false statements because of this. Inclusion of this text needs to also include context. E2: I don't see the point of removing the added emphasis. It furthers the explanation in the next paragraph. E3: This is clear intent, Trump's former lawyer/fixer Michael Cohen has stated in his description of Trump's code language. If a mobster asks you for a favor, they're making a demand: that's what Cohen's testimony was about in part. E4: Snark removal: unwarranted in my view. E5: Trump was indeed a racist landlord and this was well-documented (Rhetoric of Donald Trump, Fred Trump) regarding the 1973 lawsuit against The Trump Management Corporation. E6: A minor point, it could use a reference. Overall, I agree with Oxy's reversion. Bongolian (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "The E1 edit is factually correct because it primarily quotes the inquiry, but Sondland's testimony about what he knew in this regard is still contradictory and he could face charges of making false statements because of this. Inclusion of this text needs to also include context."
 * I'm fine with more context being added, but I'm not sure of what (since there's a lot of things) you think it should be added. I re-added Turner-Sondland exchange and a sentence linking the WP article you provided.
 * "E2: I don't see the point of removing the added emphasis."
 * As I wrote: if almost everything is underlined, then it's like nothing is underlined.
 * "E3: This is clear intent, Trump's former lawyer/fixer Michael Cohen has stated in his description of Trump's code language."
 * Then it should be added that such claim is supported by Cohen's statement.
 * "E4: Snark removal:"
 * I sincerely have no idea of what that mean.
 * "E5: Trump was indeed a racist landlord..."
 * That's not the point. I removed it because I don't see how that is related to such paragraph.
 * "E6: A minor point, it could use a reference."
 * I added "citation needed". Tokyo (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be good if gave us his opinion, since he wrote most of the text, is better versed in the details, and knows the intent of what he wrote. Bongolian (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You know how I know that edit is bullshit, it isn't objective. Because objectively sondland made it clear: Trump wanted investigations announced that would benefit him and hurt Biden, Mulvaney/Pompeo/Giuliani were all in on this effort, and when Trump got caught, he tried to lie. Will someone delete this contribution, I don't want to fuck up on my tablet. RipCityLiberal (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is objective, there's even a link to the video with Sondaland interview. Do not remove factual information just because you don't like it.--A678 (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You guys, that's not a proper use of the word "objectively". What's objective is that there's an interview and it contradicted another point. What isn't objective is that it's "clear". This doesn't mean it's wrong, but it's a conclusion derived from facts and interpretation. I'm pedantic sure but people toss that term around as if subjective is a dirty word. 16:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced you actually know what the fuck you're talking about. It linked to the Sondland interview yes, but that isn't the point of contention. The point of contention is whether Sondland is lying about Trump, and... No, he isn't. Trump was very clear that he didn't care about an actual investigation, merely the rumor of one. He was very clear that it was to fuck with Biden. He was very clear that he was extorting Ukraine to pressure them to do so, going outside his power as president to do so. This, in layman's terms, is called a crime. Unless you have something to add other than damage control attempts for Trump, shut up. 16:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * To Reason Fetishists, the word "subjective" is indeed dirty. After all, it weakens their argument(s). Also emotion is bad, because as we all know only psychopaths Vulcans  machines people who reject any form of emotion and deliver their conclusions (or lack thereof) in the most monotone voice possible can objectively come to any reasonable and objective conclusion. (Or lack thereof.)  16:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Turner-Sondland
Stop removing the transcript of Turner-Sondland exchange. It is factual information. I ask the moderators, , , , , and to put back the transcript. Tokyo (talk) 12:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm prepared to listen to both sides to see what's going on here. Spud (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's really simple: I added a transcript of Turner-Sondland exchange to the "Day 4" section. The transcript is truthful, as everyone can see from the link of the video of CBS news that I also added. And the transcript is preceded essentially by CBS news description ("Republican Congressman Mike Turner criticized..."). After Bongolian's advice, I also added a link to a Washington Post's article highlighting Sondland contradictory testimony. All I added is factual, relevant, and supported by sources.
 * RipCityLiberal and Oxyaena keep removing these material. Tokyo (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How convenient that you locked the page exactly after your revert. By the way, you violated the three-revert rule, making three (one, two, three) reverts on the same page in less than 24 hours.--A678 (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I do believe you've already been told that sentences such as "Republican Congressman Mike Turner criticized Ambassador Gordon Sondland for his "presumption" that the release of military aid to Ukraine was conditioned on announcing investigations." give more credibility to the accused than they deserve.
 * This rule? 13:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't we just say the accused "claimed" something just to weaken the confidence of that statement? There's no need to revert everything just because the word choice isn't quite accurate? 16:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The edits consisted of whitewashing, I stand by my original (and subsequent) reversions. — Oxyaena Harass  16:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but is the interview whitewashing? How so? If it isn't is it already debunked? The article is a bit of a read so I can't immediately say. I'm asking only for this recent reversion, the earlier ones I think has more reason to it. 16:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "I do believe you've already been told that sentences such as "Republican Congressman Mike Turner criticized Ambassador Gordon Sondland for his "presumption" that the release of military aid to Ukraine was conditioned on announcing investigations." give more credibility to the accused than they deserve."
 * That sentence is taken from the description of the video of CBS news and it is accurate. Turner indeed criticized Sondland for that reason.
 * "The edits consisted of whitewashing"
 * First, this thread is about one edit. So do not divert the conversation to the other edits. Second, that fact that you see reporting factual, relevant, and supported by sources information as "whitewashing" has zero value. Tokyo (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Mainstream media describes it as such because it's a typical bland, neutral stance. It's not always more accurate; note that media uses "climate change skeptic" and "vaccine skeptic" to describe what's more accurately deniers. I still think changing it to "claim" (as in Turner claimed that Sondland did so and so) rather than "criticize" should at least add to the dubious nature without tilting the language too much. 17:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * BOTH SIDES!! THIS IS COMPLETELY NORMAL!! Newsflash. Turner lied. He straight up attempted to obfuscate the issue. Trump took money Congress had already approved, then halted it, WHICH AGAIN IS OUTSIDE HIS FUCKING POWER OF OFFICE GODSMOTHERFUCKING DAMNIT, to get Ukraine to announce that they would investigate Biden junior, and is on record as saying he didn't actually care if there was an actual investigation or not. He committed the crimes of: Extortion, obstruction (two counts), going outside of his power of office. I mean, really? Your going to fucking carry water for a guy who got caught red handed? If he was some street level crook this wouldn't even make it to trial, he'd just end up taking a plea deal and/or being convicted. This is as open and shut as it fucking gets. Trump, broke, the, law. He's a criminal. Get the everloving fuck over it. 17:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that as a compromise, though the verbatim transcript is unnecessary in my opinion, given we have a link to a video of the relevant testimony. 17:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like we can go ahead. I think we can keep the transcript in the source while we make it clear that Turner is acting obtuse, JAQing off as the cool kids call it it. If that's already present in the text, then the reversion is correct all along. 17:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Your last post has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. My edit doesn't claim anything about Trump taking money etc. My edit reports what Turner and Sondland said. Did they lie? Well, then prove it and add an explanation and a source.

If the big deal is with the word "criticized", I have no problem to change it. But I find difficult to rephrase it as "Turner claimed that Sondland did..." because Turner didn't make claims, he asked questions. It was Sondland that claimed that no one on the planet told him that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. What about this version? (I have to copy it below since the page is locked) Tokyo (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Day 4
November 20 featured three witnesses; Gordon Sondland, US Ambassador to the EU in the morning and Laura Cooper, deputy assistant secretary at the Defense Department, as well as David Hale, undersecretary of state for political affairs at the State Department, in the afternoon. Republican Congressman Mike Turner asked Ambassador Gordon Sondland how he knew if release of military aid to Ukraine was conditioned on announcing investigations.

Sondland's testimony about what he knew in this regard is still contradictory and he could face charges of making false statements because of this.

"I'm not going to dignify this level of stupidity with an actual response" Censorship is a response. The response of people so weak that they need to silence who contradicts them. If my post reached such a level of stupidity, why did you feel the urge to collapse it? People don't hide things that make other looks stupid. They hide things that make them look stupid. Tokyo (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're an idiot who's understanding of law stems from Hollywood movies and not actual study. "Extortion" does not specify that cash be exchanged in return for a threat being lifted, it describes the act itself of using a threat to get (extort) something. FURTHER, I did not censor you, I took your literary vomit and cleaned it up. Anyone, at any time, can read it and respond, you dishonest, willfully ignorant, pedantic, little shit. There, you baited, I responded. Now shut up. 18:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ban the fucker like we did UT. — Oxyaena Harass  18:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "You're an idiot who's understanding of law stems from Hollywood movies and not actual study. "Extortion" does not specify that cash be exchanged in return for a threat being lifted, it describes the act itself of using a threat to get (extort) something."
 * I never mentioned "extortion" in this thread or in my edit. You are again talking about things I never said. I never spoke of law either. My edit is just about what Turner and Sondland said, without any judgment about the legal implications.
 * Wow already talking about banning. What the irony! I just said that weak people resort to silencing who contradicts them, and you immediately gave an example.Tokyo (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're still salty about that, aren't you? — Oxyaena Harass  19:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "@GrammarCommie Your last post has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. My edit doesn't claim anything about Trump taking money etc. My edit reports what Turner and Sondland said. Did they lie? Well, then prove it and add an explanation and a source. " Right there. You tried to narrow the definition of "extortion" in passing. Turner is trying to do the exact same thing, because his party leadership told him to fall in line like a good little soldier, which he does on a dime. The transcript, one of the major documents in this case, proves Trump tried to extort the Ukraine. He got caught red handed. So Turner is trying to deflect, cast doubt, lie, and lie again. Because again, that's what his party leadership told him to do, and like a good dog, he obeys. I am not going to fucking play pedantic games where we debate what "extortion" means. I'm not going to pretend that Turner's actions happen in a vacuum. And I'm not going to ignore the larger context, just so you can try to smuggle your pedantic bullshit into the article. 19:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This isn't going anywhere. The revert stays. 19:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You said we can go ahead and GC was fine too. No actual reason against putting the Turner-Soldland exchange has been given, and GC is just acting insane, by talking about "extortion" and other things that have nothing to do with the edit which is the topic of this thread. Tokyo (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Sondland is a key witness. His testimony should not be omitted
Gordon Sondland testimony is pivotal to Trump impeachment (CNN, Reuters, Independent, Washington Post) and, obviously, the fact that during such testimony Sondland said that, other than his presumption, he has no testimony that ties Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange of an investigation (see below) is of great importance.

Source: CBS news

Why on Earth are two users and two moderators preventing that this information goes on the RW page? ,, , , , --A678 (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I swear, if someone pings me one more time over this nonsense, Cthulhu help them... Quote mining, FUD, JAQing off, sealioning. Read up on those. 22:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also read up on how testimony, and evidence work in a court of law, since you seem to be ignorant of those as well. 22:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No one is making any claim about how testimony and evidence work in a court of law. The question is why Sondland's answer to the question: "No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations, yes or no?" must be removed from the RW page of Trump-Ukraine scandal (?). As already said, Sondland is a key witness, and how he got information on Trump tying aid to investigations is fundamental to the impeachment process. You said "Quote mining," but how is that quote mining? The question is unambiguous and Sondland's answer is reported entirely.--A678 (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Go back, look up how law works outside of movies and TV shows. No, no one told Sondland that the aide Trump illegally held up was dependent on Ukrainian President Zelensky announcing an investigation into Burisma Holdings (in reality that translates into an investigation into Hunter Bidon), they heavily implied it, because saying it outright goes on record and can be used in investigations like this. Why you're carrying water for these yahoos is beyond me, given they're already out and about lying their asses off.  14:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * What's the point of keep repeating "look up how law works" when nobody in this thread, except you, made any claim about law?
 * When you talk about no one talking explicitly to Sondland because that would go on record in investigations, you are completely missing the point of discussion. The issue is not why no one talks to Sondland, but why Sondland's answer must be removed from RW pages. Think about it the opposite way: If Sondland answered to the first question of Turner with: "No, actually Mr. XXX told me that President Trump was tying aid to investigations." Would you think that Sondland's answer should not be reported on the RW page? Because, on the one hand, if you believe that yes, neither if Sondland's revealed a new important witness, Sondland's answer should go on RW, than I frankly don't know what's your problem with Sondland; on the other hand, if you believe that no, if Sondland releaved a new witness then this should go on RW, then it's obvious that you want to include only answers that support impeachment.--A678 (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a "well it's up in the air as to whether he did the crimes or not" thing. Trump did the crimes, end of fucking story. He did them in such a textbook manner that some people including myself wonder if he based his little grift off an actual legal textbook, seriously. Fucking Wikipedia fucking admits he did the crimes for fuck's sake! Point one. Point two, you and Toyko seem to not understand the word "subtext", and I say this because you keep quoting Turner's question verbatim without seeming to put smidgen of actual thought into the phrasing used. Of course Trump never actually went on record with what in legal terms is calling a "smoking gun". He made passing comments, used euphemisms, used subtext, and all this bullshit about "did he say these exact words?" misses the motherfucking point that he fucking did the fucking crimes, he just didn't say it outright as far we know. Point three, and this is a doozy, the relevent information has been added, with the context that the GOP is trying to cover Trump's ass. Worry not about your precious orange overlord, he'll likely emerge without a scratch, given there is no such thing as karma or justice. 17:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * oh, and I should also add that for the record, these hearings are basically just the pre-trial motions for one massive RICO case. Just thought I'd point that out. 17:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Seeing the edits, it seems there is an attempt to over-emphasize one Republican-partisan point. The Economist take, for instance, is that this gives "chinks of plausible deniability" to Republican partisans (the claim that Sondland "did not... outline the quid pro quo to him personally".) But it is pretty much weaksauce in comparison to the rest of the testimony.
 * Most of the testimony was damaging. Mr. Sondland claimed that he directly heard about the quid pro quo from Rudy Giuliani, the president's lawyer. So one step removed, then. Furthermore, there was a laundry list of officials with close ties to Trump that Mr. Sondland discussed this with. The Economist mentions Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, and Mick Mulvaney.
 * I find some of this red-herring tactics strange anyways when Donald Trump himself has pretty much admitted that he committed a quid pro quo. It's not like those in the Trump cult are going to give a shit. But on balance, I would agree with removing that particular edit on RW, unless there is consensus to document the *rest* of the testimony (which pretty much slams Trump and many of his top advisers). (It is also, for the record, bullshit that Sondland said that there were *no* ties. He just didn't hear from Trump *personally*. There is a huge difference.) Soundwave106 (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * (Some more sources for balance: On one side, Vox and CNN, and on the other side, even friggin' Fox News. I have to stoop to the Daily Caller level to find something that overemphasizes the lack of personal communication. Usually, when I have to stoop to Daily Caller to find a reading similar to what is being expressed, it is bullshit.) Soundwave106 (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Trump did the crimes, end of fucking story." <- Nobody in this thread is claiming that Trump did or did not the crime. You are still misinterpreting the topic of this thread as a defense of Trump. I don't know other ways of telling you that's not the issue.
 * "I would agree with removing that particular edit on RW, unless there is consensus to document the *rest* of the testimony (which pretty much slams Trump and many of his top advisers)." <- Personally, I agree with adding the other parts of the testimony. I already saw that added the part about the quid pro quo, and I have nothing against such edit.--A678 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahem. Liar. Ahem, quote "Sondland said that, other than his presumption, he has no testimony that ties Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange of an investigation (see below) is of great importance. " end quote. That is from your very first post on this thread. it plainly contradicts "Nobody in this thread is claiming that Trump did or did not the crime. You are still misinterpreting the topic of this thread as a defense of Trump. I don't know other ways of telling you that's not the issue." Ahem, I'll be on my way to grab groceries now.  19:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. You're an idiot. "Nobody in this thread is claiming that Trump did or did not the crime." is obviously referring to the users who wrote in this thread: me, you, Soundwave106... not to Gordon Sondland! How can you not understand that reporting someone else's claim is different from making such claim? Oh, that's just pathetic...--A678 (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The revert stays. 18:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why?--A678 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Because you answered your own question from the very first comment in the discussion. You figure it out. 19:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Give an answer instead of playing Sphinx--A678 (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No. I'm tired of you practicing unlicensed stupid. 19:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Less than 200 keystrokes and you're already tired. Betta rest then.--A678 (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The quote could be included as an example of how the republicans were gaslighting the whole hearing. The short series of questions in no way exonerates Trump. Rather, it discloses that Trump, like any mob-boss, only implies the illegal acts he wants to happen. There's plenty of evidence of that. Other than that, the quote serves no purpose.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps but it shouldn't be on the page in full but rather as a single sentence like "Republicans were acting all sorts of anal such as asking questions on particular details while missing the whole picture, example." 19:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's just a small part of the gaslighting. The Trumpian gaslighting/stonewalling in general has been manifold, along the lines of didn't do anything, oops caught, it was perfect, there wasn't a transcript, you can't have the transcript, here's a redacted transcript, you can't have witnesses, it wasn't illegal, it wasn't illegal because I did it in the open, so what if it was illegal, you can't impeach me, unfair impeachment, I can't defend myself, I won't defend myself, the Senate won't convict me. Bongolian (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My view is that the Turner-Sondland exchange is ultimately a footnote in a larger picture. Trump is definitely guilty of conspiracy to defraud the U.S., and from the evidence put forward at the impeachment hearings he is probably guilty of criminal coercion, attempted blackmail, and attempted extortion, and that's assuming that conspiracy charges aren't tacked on for good measure. So, if the exchange were to go in, it should be (in my opinion) one to two sentences long, no quote, and contain multiple citations covering the angles and revealing the shallow ploy for what it ultimately is. 20:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Keeping the Peace
Thanks   and  for keeping the trolls at bay. I have been crazy busy at work and haven't had time to add the necessary stuff. I trust all of you are skilled enough see how I have formatted this and add to it to capture the moment. I hope to get into it this weekend. RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)