Talk:Trump-Ukraine scandal

	This United States politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Thoughts

@LeftyGreenMario@Ikanreed@GrammarCommie@OxyaenaReady 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)

@DuceMoosolini@Bongolian If ya'll wanna re-add the pictures.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Reversion

@Oxyaena 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 @Bongolian 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. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie 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.[1] 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.[2] 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# "Look at my African-American over here!", Fred Trump#Views on race) 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.[3] Inclusion of this text needs to also include context."

@Bongolian 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 @RipCityLiberal 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. @Oxyaena@BongolianRipCityLiberal (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. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@A678 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. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario 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.) ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Turner-Sondland

@RipCityLiberal@Oxyaena Stop removing the transcript of Turner-Sondland exchange. It is factual information. I ask the moderators @Ace McWicked, @Bongolian, @GrammarCommie, @LeftyGreenMario, @RWRW, and @Spud 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)

@Spud 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)

@Oxyaena 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)

@Tokyo 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.

@A678 This rule? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 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? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 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. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 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."

@GrammarCommie 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"

@Oxyaena 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. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Tokyo 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. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario 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. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 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. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

"I'm not going to dignify this level of stupidity with an actual response" @GrammarCommie 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. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 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."

@GrammarCommie 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.

@Oxyaena 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. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

* dons Mod Hat * 

This isn't going anywhere. The revert stays. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario 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.

Turner: No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations, yes or no?
Sondland: Yes.
Turner: So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?
Sondland: Other than my own presumption.

Source: CBS news

Why on Earth are two users and two moderators preventing that this information goes on the RW page? @Ace McWicked, @Bongolian, @GrammarCommie, @LeftyGreenMario, @RWRW, @Spud --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. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 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. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 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 (first law broken) 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. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:04, 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. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 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. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 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)

@GrammarCommie "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.

@Soundwave106 "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 @Melody 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. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie 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. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 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. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 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. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 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." --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 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. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Keeping the Peace

Thanks @LeftyGreenMario @GrammarCommie@Soundwave106 @Bongolian and @Oxyaena 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)