Trump

[RegisterMe]

What I know in addition to this is that it began as a leak to Schiff. He knew before it went to the IG and lied about knowing.

For the sake of argument let's assume you are correct in the following:-

1. That it "began as a leak to Schiff".
2. That "he (Schiff presumably?) knew about it before it went to the IG".
3. And that "he (Schiff presumably?) lied about knowing".

Re 1. So what? That doesn't invalidate the whistle blower policy. Nor does it have any impact on the Trump appoint IG validating the concerns raised by the whistle blower.
Re 2. So what?
Re 3. First, is there any evidence for that? Second, so what?

But even if you're correct none of the above really matters - the Trump administration released a transcript of the call that validates everything the whistle blower claimed, and clearly demonstrates criminal behaviour by Trump. The impeachment inquiry is valid regardless of the whistle blower or events surrounding them.

[Bishop149]

This article is from 2016

Its all relevant but this bit is perhaps the most topical:

In other words, Trump would be in direct financial and political conflict with Turkey from the moment he was sworn into office. Once again, all his dealings with Turkey would be suspect: Would Trump act in the interests of the United States or his wallet? When faced with the prospect of losing the millions of dollars that flow into the Trump Organization each year from that Istanbul property, what position would President Trump take on the important issues involving Turkish-American relations, including that country's role in the fight against ISIS?

Another conundrum: Turkey is at war with the Kurds, America's allies in the fight against ISIS in Syria. Kurdish insurgent groups are in armed conflict with Turkey, demanding an independent Kurdistan. If Turkey cuts off the Trump Organization's cash flow from Istanbul, will Trump, who has shown many times how petty and impulsive he can be, allow that to influence how the U.S. juggles the interests of these two critical allies?

This is honestly the most infuriating things about the whole Trump (and Brexit) phenomena. IT'S ALL SO FREAKING OBVIOUS!!!!
Trump is behaving EXACTLY as he was predicted to do, he's 100% true to form, behaving as he has his entire life: As a selfish over-privileged, amoral and rather stupid confidence trickster.

He is UNFAILINGLY proving all his pre-election critics to be entirely correct, their dire warnings to be entirely valid.
And yet was elected anyway.
He was correct with his "shooting someone on 5th Avenue" comment, his inadequacy and corruptibility were already so transparent a mere bit of murder in broad daylight would barely make a dint in the running total.

[Chips]

This is the text of the whistleblower complaint. You in particular need to read this.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploaded ... nclass.pdf

This is the text of the transcript.

https://www.scribd.com/document/4273988 ... from_embed

What I know in addition to this is that it began as a leak to Schiff. He knew before it went to the IG and lied about knowing. The IG has just changed it's rules to allow secondhand reporting which this is. In their own words this accuser admits they did not hear the call and that is right there in that first link. Hearsay and Schiff. When you have listened to Schiff repeatedly lie about Russia hysteria the pieces fall into place to view it as a manufactured crisis from an organization that profits from the resulting chaos and interference in next years campaign.

As for the text messages did you read them all? And with context? You quote an exchange between Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondland but only one side of it. I noticed that. It advances your aims here and leaves out the part where the reply was Trump was clear on not offering a quid pro quo.

I kind of admire your resilience, but can we put some context on two different scenarios here and what's being defended/refuted with whataboutery.

1) There's an allegation, which has now been corroborated by several different countries (the President asking for investigations into a political opponent) let alone by the White House itself publishing some text, and you do not seem to condemn the behaviour nor agree it's bad.

2) There was a tweet from Trump /supporters about Clinton being behind the death of a guy in prison - which you accept without any other evidence as being accurate/likely and argue in support of it.

I am amazed at how the US appears to soldier on with him in the lead though - it's certainly remarkable. In the UK this sort of thing sinks our leaders in days. Unless you're Boris. Maybe it's the hair.

[Vertigo 7]

lol well Boris and Trump are practically the same person, though Boris has an ability to mask his contempt with humor that Trump lacks. They're both equally slimy, from all accounts.

Trumpanzies aren't ever going to give up on Trump. He gives them targets to vent their hatred at. Yesterday it was brown people, today it's democrats, tomorrow it'll be the Kurdish. His entire platform was built on hatred and so long as these people want to have someone to hate, Trump will happily point them at his target.

Seriously, that is Trump's true power. He took all of the people that have a ton of pent up negativity and said "Follow me! I'll show you who to point it at!"

[felter]

WOW and I mean WOW, it looks like even FOX news has started to get in on the impeach Donald Trump and you will never guess what, Trump ain't happy about it. Turns out FOX did a poll and it turned out that 51% are in favour of impeachment and him being thrown out of office, while 4% want him to be impeached but left in office. So it looks like FOX agrees with my 55% in favour of impeachment, and I never thought FOX news would agree with me on anything related to Trump. So who is Trump going to turn to now that even his safe place FOX news is turning their back on him.

I can't believe I'm going to do this but here it is, the FOX news poll story.

[Vertigo 7]

WOW and I mean WOW, it looks like even FOX news has started to get in on the impeach Donald Trump and you will never guess what, Trump ain't happy about it. Turns out FOX did a poll and it turned out that 51% are in favour of impeachment and him being thrown out of office, while 4% want him to be impeached but left in office. So it looks like FOX agrees with my 55% in favour of impeachment, and I never thought FOX news would agree with me on anything related to Trump. So who is Trump going to turn to now that even his safe place FOX news is turning their back on him.

I can't believe I'm going to do this but here it is, the FOX news poll story.

Thats what I said earlier lol but yeah, Trump has turned to Breitbart. https://www.axios.com/trump-breitbart-f ... 9a812.html

[Vertigo 7]

Trump's pit gets deeper:

https://www.chron.com/news/crime/articl ... 506705.php

2 Ukrainian nationals have been arrested for campaign finance violations, both associates of Rudy. And both have been subpoenaed by the house inquiry.

[felter]

There is no end to Trumps corruption, here's a TIME news article on how he asked Tillerson to get charges dropped for one of Giuliani's clients.

[Vertigo 7]

He's done. There's just no way any among the Senate can overlook any of this and still pretend to be faithful to their oath of office or the American people.

[RegisterMe]

Some will. The more rabid and delusional like Devin Nune, Matt Gaetz (boy is he batshit crazy) and that guy with the jaw, ermm, ah yeah, Jim Jordan (boy is he batshit crazy), will overlook anything, but yeah, I think the wheels are coming off.

[Vertigo 7]

Oh, I don't doubt there will be a few that will still treat Trump as if he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. But they will face the judgments of the American people for doing so. We're a rather unforgiving sort =p

[Masterbagger]

What I know in addition to this is that it began as a leak to Schiff. He knew before it went to the IG and lied about knowing.

For the sake of argument let's assume you are correct in the following:-

1. That it "began as a leak to Schiff".
2. That "he (Schiff presumably?) knew about it before it went to the IG".
3. And that "he (Schiff presumably?) lied about knowing".

Re 1. So what? That doesn't invalidate the whistle blower policy. Nor does it have any impact on the Trump appoint IG validating the concerns raised by the whistle blower.
Re 2. So what?
Re 3. First, is there any evidence for that? Second, so what?

But even if you're correct none of the above really matters - the Trump administration released a transcript of the call that validates everything the whistle blower claimed, and clearly demonstrates criminal behaviour by Trump. The impeachment inquiry is valid regardless of the whistle blower or events surrounding them.

Back to the transcript then. Trump did two things on that phone call. He asked Ukraine to look into whether the DNC server that the Russia hoax was constructed on still existed. He asked about an act of corruption by Biden. The basis of the outrage here is that both of those things are bad for the dems. If they want to go to impeachment as they have whined about since the day Trump beat them they need to have a vote and do it. I think what they are doing is partisan scumbaggery and meant to taint the next election. I don't think they are confident about beating Trump honestly. Just wait and see. It took Russia hysteria years to fall apart. This is the replacement. It will last as long as it does and then something else will replace it as long as Trump is in office.

[Vertigo 7]

Back to the transcript then. Trump did two things on that phone call. He asked Ukraine to look into whether the DNC server that the Russia hoax was constructed on still existed. He asked about an act of corruption by Biden. The basis of the outrage here is that both of those things are bad for the dems. If they want to go to impeachment as they have whined about since the day Trump beat them they need to have a vote and do it. I think what they are doing is partisan scumbaggery and meant to taint the next election. I don't think they are confident about beating Trump honestly. Just wait and see. It took Russia hysteria years to fall apart. This is the replacement. It will last as long as it does and then something else will replace it as long as Trump is in office.

*yawn* no it's not. I'm guessing you didn't read volume 2 of the Russia investigation released by the Senate Intel Committee. Well, no, I'm not guessing. You didn't read it.

You can't defend Trump by regurgitating his lies. Seriously, just stop. No one is buying it.

[Vertigo 7]

In other news.

Back in the real world, Trump was quick to deny knowing the 2 Ukrainian associates of Rudy's that were recently arrested for douchebaggery for the Trump campaign. In his comments, he asserted that there may be photos of them together because he "takes pictures with everybody". Which, of course, there are. Several, in fact. Quite the twist of irony considering he tried to tout a photo of Biden with the gas company executives at a golf course as evidence of corruption.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-le ... 9da0441429

[RegisterMe]

What I know in addition to this is that it began as a leak to Schiff. He knew before it went to the IG and lied about knowing.

For the sake of argument let's assume you are correct in the following:-

1. That it "began as a leak to Schiff".
2. That "he (Schiff presumably?) knew about it before it went to the IG".
3. And that "he (Schiff presumably?) lied about knowing".

Re 1. So what? That doesn't invalidate the whistle blower policy. Nor does it have any impact on the Trump appoint IG validating the concerns raised by the whistle blower.
Re 2. So what?
Re 3. First, is there any evidence for that? Second, so what?

But even if you're correct none of the above really matters - the Trump administration released a transcript of the call that validates everything the whistle blower claimed, and clearly demonstrates criminal behaviour by Trump. The impeachment inquiry is valid regardless of the whistle blower or events surrounding them.

Back to the transcript then. Trump did two things on that phone call. He asked Ukraine to look into whether the DNC server that the Russia hoax was constructed on still existed. He asked about an act of corruption by Biden. The basis of the outrage here is that both of those things are bad for the dems. If they want to go to impeachment as they have whined about since the day Trump beat them they need to have a vote and do it. I think what they are doing is partisan scumbaggery and meant to taint the next election. I don't think they are confident about beating Trump honestly. Just wait and see. It took Russia hysteria years to fall apart. This is the replacement. It will last as long as it does and then something else will replace it as long as Trump is in office.

Come in off the ledge Masterbagger .

1. Russia was not a hoax. Every security agency the US possesses agrees on the fact that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections. Ignoring the copious evidence of obstruction of justice I accept that the Mueller inquiry found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, but that is not the same thing as saying that "blah Russia blah" was a hoax.
2. What DNC server? There is no evidence that any such thing ever existed. Even if there were, there is no evidence that Ukraine possesses it. If you hang your belief in this on your confidence in Trump's IT infrastructure knowledge I'd suggest you're on pretty thin ice .
3. Firstly whilst I agree with you that Hunter Biden's involvement with Burisma looks hookey to date there is no evidence that he has done anything wrong (compare and contrast with the Trump children). Secondly the "act of corruption by Joe Biden" doesn't and didn't exist. At the time Biden was carrying out, above board, US policy (and EU, IMF and World Bank policy). Third Trump's request was to benefit himself personally. Fourth you conveniently left out the fact that Trump made military aid to Ukraine (which I don't need to remind you is in a hot war with.... Russia) contingent on their help with investigating these issues, for his personal benefit. Issues which have been debunked by everybody who has looked into them. Fifth, why did Trump have his personal lawyer involved?


The basis of the outrage here is the fact that Trump made US military aid to an ally in a hot war with Russia contingent on them benefiting him personally. That is illegal and morally repugnant.

[Olterin]

Just to be clear and absolutely accurate: it seems that Trump might have made said military aid contingent on Ukraine investigating Hunter Biden and Burisma (again). Which is now being done I might add. Because that's what it seems like, there's every reason to properly investigate these claims, don't you think, Masterbagger?

Here are the absolutely undisputable facts including the release of the transcript, in chronological order:
1. US military aid was frozen for about a month before the fateful phone call between the two presidents.
2. The transcripts were released
3. Trump went on and asked China to do the same thing, on TV (investigate his political opponent's dealings)
4. Ukraine relaunched the investigation into Burisma this month (cnn article, easiest I could find, originally read about it in German news)

As far as I'm concerned, that's definitely reason for investigating just what the heck Trump was actually doing, because if he did actually withhold US military aid to pressure (or should I say, blackmail) the Ukrainian president for his personal political gain, then that's to my knowledge most certainly impeachable.

[Bishop149]

Back to the transcript then. Trump did two things on that phone call. He asked Ukraine to look into whether the DNC server that the Russia hoax was constructed on still existed. He asked about an act of corruption by Biden. The basis of the outrage here is that both of those things are bad for the dems. If they want to go to impeachment as they have whined about since the day Trump beat them they need to have a vote and do it. I think what they are doing is partisan scumbaggery and meant to taint the next election. I don't think they are confident about beating Trump honestly. Just wait and see. It took Russia hysteria years to fall apart. This is the replacement. It will last as long as it does and then something else will replace it as long as Trump is in office.

He also did a third rather important thing you neglected to mention
He recommended and pushed that the corruption probe (which he shouldn't have been asking for) be handled via his a AG (which is utterly inappropriate and probably corrupt) and personal lawyer (which is definitely corrupt) rather than the appropriate channels for such things.

I agree however that it is indeed ummmm interesting that out of all the multitude of impeachable things Mr Trump has done in plain sight that THIS is the one they chose to go for.
I think you are correct that the reason for this is partisan. It's only this particular example of flagrant corruption because it's a senior Democrat that is it's target.

[Vertigo 7]

Well, no, it's partisan in that the republicans have, thus far, not been willing to stand up to Trump. Who else was going to? And since Trump seemingly has control of the republican party, there was no other direction it could go but republican vs democrat. But if the republicans discovered their patriotism, or at the very least, their spine, this would no longer be a partisan issue.

Really, republicans have no one to blame but themselves. They created this mess and they're not willing to clean it up.

[felter]

As far as I'm concerned, that's definitely reason for investigating just what the heck Trump was actually doing, because if he did actually withhold US military aid to pressure (or should I say, blackmail) the Ukrainian president for his personal political gain, then that's to my knowledge most certainly impeachable.

This was not blackmail, I have seen that word used a couple of times about this story and it most certainly is not blackmail. Blackmail is where you use something bad that someone has done to get them to reciprocate normally with cash but it could also be goods, they want them to do something or even sex. An example could be, lets say I was a Russian agent and to Trump I could say, do what we want or we'll release the video of you and two hookers peeing on a bed in a hotel that President Obama slept in. That's blackmail. Do what we want or something bad will happen.

What you have here is Trump committing bribery, it's the total opposite, this is where you pay someone for them to do something for you. It's not always lawfully illegal but in the case with Trump and Ukraine it probably was. Trump used US military aid to try and get the Ukrainian president to do his bidding, in getting dirt on a political rival, now the bribery itself might not be lawfully illegal, certainly morally it was, but what he was using it to pay for most certainly was illegal.

[BugMeister]

I think the word you're looking for is "extortion"..
It's worth remembering that Trump is familiar with the term - he has a history of Mafia connections..

As Urqhart was fond of saying in "House of cards" : YOU might say that - I couldn't possibly comment..