Donald Trump impeachment investigation over Ukranian phone call...

[Hanafuda]

This......lol

"We need a cleaning in that White House ... and we need a woman to clean it!"

That's sexist.

 

[billapong]

"We need a cleaning in that White House ... and we need a woman to clean it!"

That's sexist.

Yes, but totally acceptable some years back. I wonder in we should call the cancel counter people to deal with these Hillary supporters. I mean, it's okay to ruin someones life over something they said many years ago that wasn't considered "bad" at the time, right?

 

[Foxi4]

I'm sensing a double-standard here - I'm pretty sure Biden withheld over a billion dollars in loan guarantees until Kyiv fired a prosecutor working on the Burisma case, Hunter Biden was on the Board of Directors of Burisma Holdings at the time, that was a clear conflict of interests. Hunter joined the board while the company was already under investigation, that much is correct, but the Biden family could only financially benefit from Burisma no longer being under scrutiny. As far as contacting foreign powers in order to gain leverage against political opponents is concerned, I seem to remember the DNC funneling money into a shady private intelligence firm in order to obtain a dossier from a former MI6 operative, I believe we called that "opposition research" at the time. If the DNC is so sure of its footing, they should stop mincing words and draft the Articles of Impeachment already instead of engaging in yet another stunt that only has the word "impeachment" in it and has nothing to do with actual impeachment procedure. Not that it matters since the real deal wouldn't pass through the Senate anyways, not unless Trump was caught drowning kittens in a pond.

 

[Xzi]

One think i thought was weird from reading the trtanscript of the call (and yes its still just as bad) was the whole "mafia shakedown" thing, he asked for a favor to investigate crowdstrike, and tossed a bit about biden at the end, its still just as bad, but I really hate how everything has to be over sensationalized, I really think this is just so democrats can say "see we tried to impeach him!". I am not defending trump in any way, just saying.

I'll remind everyone again that this was a selectively edited transcript released by the White House. That even they couldn't whitewash it to make Trump look entirely innocent speaks to the fact that the unreleased portions are likely a lot more damning. Nearly all of the whistleblower complaint that sparked this entire thing is set to be made public soon, and should shed more light on everything.

 

[Foxi4]

I'll remind everyone again that this was a selectively edited transcript released by the White House. That even they couldn't whitewash it to make Trump look entirely innocent speaks to the fact that the unreleased portions are likely a lot more damning. Nearly all of the whistleblower complaint that sparked this entire thing is set to be made public soon, and should shed more light on everything.

It's not a "selectively edited transcript", it's not even a transcript - there's no recording of the call, the White House stopped recording conversations like this decades ago due to security concerns. It's a recollection of the conversation based on the notes made at the time by witnesses who were in the room while the conversation took place. Meanwhile, the whistleblower was apparently not in the room and only heard about the exchange from third-hand sources.

 

[billapong]

It's not a "selectively edited transcript", it's not even a transcript - there's no recording of the call, the White House stopped recording conversations like this decades ago due to security concerns. It's a recollection of the conversation based on the notes made at the time by witnesses who were in the room while the conversation took place. Meanwhile, the whistleblower was apparently not in the room and only heard about the exchange from third-hand sources.

"Dude, I heard that some people said that your girl fiend said she's really doesn't like you."

 

[Hanafuda]

I'll remind everyone again that this was a selectively edited transcript released by the White House. That even they couldn't whitewash it to make Trump look entirely innocent speaks to the fact that the unreleased portions are likely a lot more damning. Nearly all of the whistleblower complaint that sparked this entire thing is set to be made public soon, and should shed more light on everything.

Find me a non-partisan source that says it was selectively edited, with their proof of same.

Here's the disclaimer on the cover page.

The transcript released is a complete recording of the conversation, as recorded by written notes as the phone call took place. Staff, including NSC employees, do this and they're trained to do it well. But they don't record translator delays, belches, farts, clearing of throats, and they don't guarantee 100% verbatim. But it is not selectively edited down. There are no redactions.

 

[Xzi]

As far as contacting foreign powers in order to gain leverage against political opponents is concerned, I seem to remember the DNC funneling money into a shady private intelligence firm in order to obtain a dossier from a former MI6 operative, I believe we called that "opposition research" at the time.

The intelligence firm where Steele was working at the time, Fusion GPS, is based in America. Both Republicans and Democrats have hired the firm for opposition research, which I'm sure you were already aware of.

It's not a "selectively edited transcript", it's not even a transcript - there's no recording of the call, the White House stopped recording conversations like this decades ago due to security concerns. It's a recollection of the conversation based on the notes made at the time by witnesses who were in the room while the conversation took place.

Indeed. What was released as a "transcript" was far too articulate to have been Trump's actual words.

Meanwhile, the whistleblower was apparently not in the room and only heard about the exchange from third-hand sources.

Purely speculative. From what I've read, the whistleblower is likely to be an intelligence official whose complaint has been called "credible and disturbing" by several Republicans as well as Democrats. The complaint also likely references more than just the single phone conversation.

 

[Foxi4]

The intelligence firm where Steele was working at the time, Fusion GPS, is based in America. Both Republicans and Democrats have hired the firm for opposition research.

Indeed. What was released as a "transcript" was far too articulate to have been Trump's actual words.

Purely speculative. From what I've read, the whistleblower is likely to be an intelligence official whose complaint has been called "credible and disturbing" by several Republicans as well as Democrats.

If you're so well-read, you should also know why it was rejected. I'm well-aware that Fusion GPS is based in DC, the DNC was also well-aware of where the information was coming from. Nellie Ohr testified before congress that some of the information gathered in the oppo research operation came directly from Ukrainian parliment officials, as well as former presidential candidate Tymoshenko. Of course the fact that Clinton and Tymoshenko were buddy-buddies is a complete coincidence. Seems like it all comes back to Ukraine, huh?

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...le-the-ohrs-and-tsa-workers-never-should-have

 

[Xzi]

If you're so well-read, you should also know why it was rejected. I'm well-aware that Fusion GPS is based in DC, the DNC was also well-aware of where the information was coming from. Nellie Ohr testified before congress that some of the information gathered in the oppo research operation came directly from Ukrainian parliment officials, as well as former presidential candidate Tymoshenko. Of course the fact that Clinton and Tymoshenko were buddy-buddies is a complete coincidence. Seems like it all comes back to Ukraine, huh?

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...le-the-ohrs-and-tsa-workers-never-should-have

It's largely irrelevant now since Clinton never used any info in the Steele dossier to smear Trump, and despite Republican talking points, the Steele dossier had nothing to do with the Mueller investigation. I do find it funny that the dossier has been proven mostly accurate bit by bit over time, and AFAIK nothing from it has been unequivocally proven false yet, but again, it's irrelevant to the legal quagmire that Trump finds himself in currently.

 

[billapong]

It's largely irrelevant now since Clinton never used any info in the Steele dossier to smear Trump

Yet, there's no proof that Trump ever intended to use the information that he asked for against his potential opponent. Hell, there's no proof there was an investigation or Trump has been given any information since the request, but there's all sorts of proof that the Democrats did. Where's the fake outrage?

In the end Biden has been smeared, but the Democrats did that themselves by investigating into something based on hearsay and then crying foul over it. They negatively impacted themselves as Trump may have never used any of the information obtained and that's if any information was obtained.

I do wonder what the executive branch does and how they go about doing it. I mean, what purpose do they serve? Oh wait, it's to enforce laws. It makes you wonder if you go around prosecuting crimes if you first investigate them.

 

[Foxi4]

It's largely irrelevant now since Clinton never used any info in the Steele dossier to smear Trump, and despite Republican talking points, the Steele dossier had nothing to do with the Mueller investigation. I do find it funny that the dossier has been proven mostly accurate bit by bit over time, and AFAIK nothing from it has been unequivocally proven false yet, but again, it's irrelevant to the legal quagmire that Trump finds himself in currently.

I don't know where you're getting your facts, but the dossier was the origin of the original FBI probe and it laid the groundwork for the Special Counsel's investigation - in contrast to what Mr.Mueller claimed it was not "beyond his purview". I also can't imagine how you would consider anything in the dossier to be "proven accurate" since it's uncorraborated and grossly inaccurate, not to say purposefully fictitious. That's not according to me, it's according to the FBI. You're welcome to believe in the Russian fairies though.

 

[Xzi]

Yet, there's no proof that Trump ever intended to use the information that he asked for against his potential opponent. Hell, there's no proof there was an investigation or Trump has been given any information since the request, but there's all sorts of proof that the Democrats did.

It. Doesn't. Matter. He requested campaign aid from a foreign entity, that request itself was a crime despite the fact that Ukraine refused.

Fusion GPS is not a foreign entity, they're an intelligence firm based out of Washington DC. Apples to oranges.

I do wonder what the executive branch does and how they go about doing it. I mean, what purpose do they serve? Oh wait, it's to enforce laws.

Painfully inaccurate. I can't even.

 

[billapong]

Painfully inaccurate. I can't even.

Yeah, they in no way carry out or execute the nations laws. I mean, the FBI doesn't fall under their branch and it would be really stupid of me to assume that people who enforce the laws would even remotely begin to investigate if the law has been broken.

 

[Foxi4]

It. Doesn't. Matter. He requested campaign aid from a foreign entity, that request itself was a crime despite the fact that Ukraine refused.

Fusion GPS is not a foreign entity, they're an intelligence firm based out of Washington DC. Apples to oranges.

Painfully inaccurate. I can't even.

I understand that this is difficult to wrap your head around, but a national intelligence agency, the FBI, was duped into investigating a political opponent of Hilary Clinton on the basis of an uncorraborated document compiled by a former British spy at the behest of the DNC, with some tasty treats from Ukrainian politicians as toppings. The "problem" here is state intervention into an election, an intervention aimed explicitly at the direct political opponent of the party in power.

 

[Xzi]

I understand that this is difficult to wrap your head around, but a national intelligence agency, the FBI, was duped into investigating a political opponent of Hilary Clinton on the basis of an uncorraborated document compiled by a former British spy at the behest of the DNC, with some tasty treats from Ukrainian politicians as toppings.

Or, just maybe, and hear me out: suddenly firing the director of the FBI and then inviting Russian oligarchs to the White House to laugh about it might've raised a few eyebrows within the agency. Shocker, I know.

 

[Foxi4]

Or, just maybe, and hear me out: suddenly firing the director of the FBI and then inviting Russian oligarchs to the White House to laugh about it might've raised a few eyebrows within the organization. Shocker, I know.

We already know that the investigation was politically motivated based on the exchanges between Strzok and Page. As for firing Comey, as the head of the Executive Trump had full authority over the branch. He could, and still can, fire anyone in it on a whim.

 

[Xzi]

We already know that the investigation was politically motivated based on the exchanges between Strzok and Page.

It was so politically motivated that they were fired immediately by lifelong Republican Robert Mueller.

As for firing Comey, as the head of the Executive Trump had full authority over the branch. He could, and still can, fire anyone in it on a whim.

On a whim, yes. To dissuade the FBI from investigating his ties to a foreign power, no. There's a reason the Saturday night massacre didn't play well for Nixon, but I suppose that was a time when Republicans still put country before party.

 

[billapong]

I understand that this is difficult to wrap your head around, but a national intelligence agency, the FBI, was duped into investigating a political opponent of Hilary Clinton on the basis of an uncorraborated document compiled by a former British spy at the behest of the DNC, with some tasty treats from Ukrainian politicians as toppings. The "problem" here is state intervention into an election, an intervention aimed explicitly at the direct political opponent of the party in power.

We're in deep shit. Trump's trying to get to the bottom of the 2 year long bogus crap we made up about him. What can we do? Let's try impeachment! That should distract our voter base. Heh, shiny objects distracts their user base so I'm neither surprised or impressed.

 

[Xzi]

We should probably stick with the topic at hand until it resolves itself. There will be plenty of time to re-litigate the Mueller report once it's mentioned in the articles of impeachment.