Trump

[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..

[Bishop149]

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.

You think they'll stand up to him over this? Why?
Why wouldn't they over, say, his failure to divest, his obvious breaches of the emoluments clause, his violations of the fundamental human rights of migrants?
Why the hell would Senate Republicans drop their partisan loyalties over an illegal attempt to dig up dirt on a Democrat of all things?

[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.

You think they'll stand up to him over this? Why?
Why wouldn't they over, say, his failure to divest, his obvious breaches of the emoluments clause, his violations of the fundamental human rights of migrants?
Why the hell would Senate Republicans drop their partisan loyalties over an illegal attempt to dig up dirt on a Democrat of all things?

Several reasons.

A) he's been caught red handed. His own admissions are evidence of law breaking. There's no amount of weaseling or double talk that can be done to negate that fact.
B) polls show a majority of voters are in favor of the impeachment
C) While his base is painfully ignorant, I have to trust that senators, most of them former prosecutors, when faced with evidence in a trial setting won't pander to politics and do what is right. There will be exceptions to this, I'm well aware, but some of them are there out of a sense of duty and patriotism and not for personal profit.
D) This is my conjecture, but, I think that most of the republican senators are not as thrilled with Trump as is generally shown in the media. Most of them were there prior to Trump and most didn't support him in the run up to the 2016 election. Most of them are also being eerily silent about this Ukraine business. He has been a disaster for the GOP and now they have an out. If they ever wish to regain control of it, the only way that's going to happen is if they remove Trump. I'm sure the GOP would love to get one or two more SCOTUS nominations in, but I think they will be content with the 2 they've appointed and cut their losses with Trump.

I'm betting that when the articles of impeachment are ready to go for a vote, Trump will resign ala Nixon due to an offer from the GOP to resign and get a pardon from Pence or be convicted and tossed out.

Lets not forget, at this time, the GOP is furious with Trump over his decisions in Syria. As well, he's pissed off the evangelicals over it.

Trump is reportedly contacting Moscow Mitch 3 times a day to tell him to make sure the rest of the senate republicans "remember their loyalty" - certainly not the behavior of an innocent man, and most definitely not the behavior of a confident one.

I realize it may seem like a lot for the GOP to turn against one of their own, but I still believe in democracy and I still believe that not every republican is as disgraceful as Trump is.

edit*
One more reason
E) Trump's brazen attempts to deny the power of congress affects republicans and democrats alike. Recall a few posts of mine back to dangerous precedents being set by Trump and he's opening the doors wide for the next democrat president to tell republican senators to ESAD and completely ignore them. The smart thing to do would be to support the impeachment and quickly use the opportunity to draft bipartisan legislature to prevent this abuse of power in the future, regardless of who is in the WH.

[Vertigo 7]

dun dun dunnnnnnnn
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/11/appeals ... turns.html

appeal denied. He has no choice now but to turn over his tax returns to congress.

*edit
Wups, thought that was the appeal for NY... so many cases against him.

[Vertigo 7]

Former US ambassador to Ukraine opening statement to the house committee:

https://www.scribd.com/document/4298124 ... from_embed

It's a helluva read and really highlights the struggles Ukraine has been facing since 2014 to move to a democratic government.

I must say I am in awe of this person's ability to articulate. And might I add:
"Our efforts were intended, and evidently succeeded, in thwarting corrupt interests in Ukraine, who fought back by selling baseless conspiracy theories to anyone who would listen. Sadly, someone was listening, and our nation is the worse off for that."

-Daaaammmn

She is now my new favorite person.

[felter]

Former US ambassador to Ukraine opening statement to the house committee:

https://www.scribd.com/document/4298124 ... from_embed

It's a helluva read and really highlights the struggles Ukraine has been facing since 2014 to move to a democratic government.

I must say I am in awe of this person's ability to articulate. And might I add:
"Our efforts were intended, and evidently succeeded, in thwarting corrupt interests in Ukraine, who fought back by selling baseless conspiracy theories to anyone who would listen. Sadly, someone was listening, and our nation is the worse off for that."

-Daaaammmn

She is now my new favorite person.

Interesting read. Sounds like she was sacked from the Ukrainian position because she was not corrupt and Trump only wants corrupt employees to do his corrupt biddings.

[Vertigo 7]

Yeah, I can't come to any other conclusion. Granted, we only have her testimony, but given her service, I have no reason to doubt it. I would be interested to see her official record, if it were ever to be made available. I'm sure the house committees have access to it.

[Vertigo 7]

oh great... https://www.foxnews.com/world/us-troops ... rabia-iran We're moving into Saudi Arabia to counter Iran now to protect oil, but our Allies in Syria can go piss off while they're embroiled in an actual war... now on 2 fronts.

[RegisterMe]

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019 ... -phonecall

Well worth a read if you can get past the pay wall. Whilst it's damming of Trump, it doesn't paint Hunter Biden (and therefore by inference Jo Biden?) in a flattering light. More stooges than architects, but stooges nonetheless.

Just thought it worth posting to provide some balance .

[RegisterMe]

https://www.scribd.com/document/4298124 ... from_embed

That is an extremely powerful piece of writing, and I cannot wait to see if anybody dares challenge it.

Incidentally, and apropos of nothing more than its Americanness (ugghhh), I had drinks tonight with an old friend, a Rear Admiral in the US Navy, his wife, and a school friend of hers, a DC policeman for the last thirty years.

The admiral is obviously a friend of mine, but he's on a very, very short list of people I trust implicitly. Completely, utterly, without question, ever. The cop I'd never met before. I had a good chat with the cop, who was a) open and honest about voting for Trump, b) and his reasons for voting for Trump (his 401k) and c) understood, clearly, how bad Trump was for the reputation of the US. And yup, he found that difficult.

From what I can divine (and it's tough) the Admiral and I differ on Trump. At least in as much as I thought Obama was brilliant, and he didn't trust him. But he's a professional warrior, and would never be drawn on what he thought of the current incumbent.

Just a minor example of how trust, instinct, understanding and knowledge can all conflict, and be challenged and discussed, and people can still be friends at the end of it. Much like most of this thread if I am honest .

[Vertigo 7]

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019 ... -phonecall

Well worth a read if you can get past the pay wall. Whilst it's damming of Trump, it doesn't paint Hunter Biden (and therefore by inference Jo Biden?) in a flattering light. More stooges than architects, but stooges nonetheless.

Just thought it worth posting to provide some balance .

can't read past the first paragraph, sadly. let me know if this pops up somewhere else.