Donald Trump impeachment investigation over Ukranian phone call...

[smf]

Wasn't it the verifiable fact that they tried to hide it, the most damning part?

Nothing says guilt more than someone who behaves like they are guilty.

 

[billapong]

This has already been discussed. Please refer to my previous post that I quote below for your convenience. If you want to debate from there we can but I'm at a loss how this needs further explanation.

You can discuss it ten ways to Sunday, it doesn't change the fact that Biden isn't running against Trump right now for anything. If he is the winner of the Democratic primaries then he will be Trump's opponent in the 2020 Presidential Elections. As of his now he's not Trump's opponent so the allegations that Trump was going to use any evidence he uncovered against a political opponent wouldn't apply in this situation.

Hell, the call never implies that Trump was going to use any information found against Biden in an election. So even if Biden was Trump's opponent it wouldn't apply. Furthermore, both Trump and the Ukrainian President are saying there was no pressure and that there was no aid being held due to Biden. I'll take the word over two Presidents than someone that overheard some people talking about the situation. So you have the 3rd party interpretation of the 2nd party who has their own interpretation about the events when the actual people involved have their own views and those two people are the only two that matter.

So it's a crock of shit. Plus, Biden wasn't even Trump's main target. His administration has been investigating the corrupt people who accused him of collusion. The motivation behind the call was that investigation. Throwing one of their own to the wolves is pretty common for Liberals to do so it makes sense that they would use Biden and taint their own election and interfere themselves to try to shift the public's attention away from the fact that Trump's legal team is getting close to nailing the sons of bitches to the wall that tried to tie him to any collusion.

Right now Biden is just someone that did something.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Yeah, I've tried to explain to @Xzi that polls are never correct, but he just doesn't get it(like most liberals). Liberals use every little bit of info they can to prove their points even if the data is incomplete or just wrong. Maybe you can get through, but I know I never could. He'll still use polls to back up nonsense points.

Seems Xzi is never wrong and if you bring up direct evidence to the contrary he ignores it and mentions something complete unrelated to what you said. We all know Liberals are dishonest. They don't deny it. Hey, as long as they're really nice to you and don't hurt your feelings it's totally okay to kill babies or take your money and give it to criminals while your own fellow citizens starve to death, are being raped, drugged and murdered.

I mean, they're so nice. Why would anyone actually do anything against such kind and gentle beings. Meh, you can't trust liars, especially when they don't even try to hide the fact that they're dishonest. Anyway, it's in It seems to be in Xzi's nature to never admit he's wrong. It's all good to be intolerant and hate on Trump, but the sames rules don't apply to us.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Wasn't it the verifiable fact that they tried to hide it, the most damning part?

Nothing says guilt more than someone who behaves like they are guilty.

What hiding? Do you mean keeping transcripts of conversations between the world leaders on a secure server? Okay, well, if that's the case what's your email password? What's your password on this forum? Clearly, we don't need any sort of security in our lives. What's your bank account PIN code? Keeping information protected, especially from people in your own office that would spy on you is sorta fucking common sense. He should be keeping stuff that's need to know between the people that only need to know. At least he didn't run Bleachbit on the private server before he physically destroyed it (hmmm, I wonder who did that). He handed over the transcript and the transcript shows jack shit.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

This is about Trump not Clinton. Or are we in agreement that Trump was seeking assistance from a foreign national involving an aspiring political rival in an upcoming election?.

No, we're not in agreement. However, it would be appropriate to point out that precedent has been set by not prosecuting people in your own party who have committed similar or worse crimes, when Trump didn't even commit any. If he did, according to your own house rules, then it wouldn't be appropriate to proceed.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Seems Trump has run out of ideas on how to defend against the allegations being thrown his way, so he's circled back around to doubling down by publicly calling for China and Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. Apparently he thinks it's impossible to commit a crime in plain sight. I also find it amusing that, in the midst of a trade war, he thinks China would grant a request from him. I don't think this tweet was quite enough on its own to put him back in their good graces.

Biden isn't Trumps political opponent so he's not committing any crimes. I think I should turn that into a bedtime song so tonight when your mommy tugs you in tight it might resonate.

"Trade War" aka Liberals let's hate on Trump spin on simple trade renegotiation.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Hell, the call never implies that Trump was going to use any information found against Biden in an election. So even if Biden was Trump's opponent it wouldn't apply.

I guess this is a good time to segway to something I just posted for us to discuss this point of contention:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fm...em-led-house-committee-in-closed-door-session

"The texts with Volker, U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland and Chargé d’Affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine Bill Taylor indicate that the nature of a potential arrangement between the U.S. and Ukraine was a matter of dispute.

"As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign," Taylor said in a text exchange."

So why would Taylor (Who works in Ukraine) find this disturbing enough to discuss w/ a colleague?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top...curity-sasistance-political/story?id=66039011

""Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelenskiy promised during his campaign," Sondland says."
"Sondland then suggests to the group take the conversations off line, typing, “I suggest we stop the back and forth by text.”"

Why the strict PR response in return that then asked to not discuss in text? I feel as though there was much internal deliberation about the messaging that was given to the Ukrainian government.

Trump could go through proper channels to launch an investigation on Biden yet he chose a Private lawyer to mediate discussion with a foreign government instead. This is a really odd way to root out corruption right?

So it's a crock of shit. Plus, Biden wasn't even Trump's main target. His administration has been investigating the corrupt people who accused him of collusion. The motivation behind the call was that investigation. Throwing one of their own to the wolves is pretty common for Liberals to do so it makes sense that they would use Biden and taint their own election and interfere themselves to try to shift the public's attention away from the fact that Trump's legal team is getting close to nailing the sons of bitches to the wall that tried to tie him to any collusion.

How can you claim to know what Trump's main motivation is? Did you know that the lawyer (Rudy) has been asking about Biden for months? Have you been watching his interviews? If Biden "was just someone who did something" why does Trump himself keep discussing that this (Biden's conduct) is the major piece of news instead of talking about what you are proposing? Maybe it's what you care about but Trump seems to feel differently in priorities if messaging is any measurement.

Final note - since you continue to disgrace yourself by perpetrating a paper-thin defense: A foreign national was solicited to investigate a person who threw their hat in the presidential race of 2020 by the president seeking re-election. (Did you know that you don't even have to run under the democratic ticket - he could ignore the primary results and still run as an independent.) The point is he made a public statement that he is campaigning for presidential election of 2020. Still wish to debate that he isn't a political rival? Any dirt that would be released would impact the primary and would potentially impact who is on the democrat ticket for the general so it counts. (I outlined this already but repetition is the key to learning)

Once we move past this I'll gladly assist in addressing the rest of your confusion.

 

[Xzi]

Meh, you can't trust liars, especially when they don't even try to hide the fact that they're dishonest.

Careful now, you're teetering on the very edge of becoming self-aware.

 

[morvoran]

You're about a year late if you think any of this still matters.

Uh, 3 months is not equal to a year.

This is about Trump not Clinton.

Uh, maybe read what I posted again if you can see through your own smug breath.

Possible quid pro quo? Anyone else read this yet?

It's almost like you don't read what you type or stories you post.

Wasn't it the verifiable fact that they tried to hide it, the most damning part?

Nothing says guilt more than someone who behaves like they are guilty.

You mean the "mob boss" talk that Adam Schiff added to his own made up transcript?

Seems Xzi is never wrong and if you bring up direct evidence to the contrary he ignores it and mentions something complete unrelated to what you said.

Oh, I'm used to it by now. Just keep proving him wrong, and eventually, he'll get mad, say something about you not changing his mind, and he'll disappear for a couple of days to a week. I really don't take him seriously since everything he says is easily disputed, and he takes sides with that monkeydude whatever who thinks Obama is a republican due to some so-called "party switch" or whatever it's called after the civil war.

since you continue to disgrace yourself by perpetrating a paper-thin defense

"Sondland then suggests to the group take the conversations off line, typing, “I suggest we stop the back and forth by text.”"

Why the strict PR response in return that then asked to not discuss in text? I feel as though there was much internal deliberation about the messaging that was given to the Ukrainian government.

What were you saying about a "paper-thin defense"? I guess paper-thin offenses are fine? hmmmmm.

 

[Xzi]

Just keep proving him wrong

FYI arguing in bad faith and using garbage tabloid sites for sources is not the same thing as proving me wrong. I've had productive discussions with other conservatives on this site, but there's no point in engaging with people like you and billapong who outright reject reality. Aside from pathetic attempts to score points for your "team," it's obvious you couldn't care less about any of the problems which affect average Americans. You're neocon scum who would just as soon pimp out your own mothers for a nickel as long as it makes massa Trump happy.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

What were you saying about a "paper-thin defense"? I guess paper-thin offenses are fine? hmmmmm.

Paper-thin offense: Speculating why trump picked staff is having internal deliberations about the messaging to a foreign government. This is in direct relation to proving even US embassy official was convinced aid was being withheld to pressure Ukraine to assist Trump's political election. Why would he think that? Was it because that was what the Ukrainian Government believed? (These are prompting questions where either you speculate back or provide evidence to acknowledge/refute this assertion-this is how you provide meaningful discussion)

The other is questions about whether or not Biden constitutes a political rival in an attempt to deflect from pursuing further conversation about Trump's actions.

The difference: I use a source to bring information to discuss speculation, the other tries to distort the present reality with an argument over an opinionated definition that isn't being discussed anywhere else. Find one other journalist/pundit or legal scholar that has made that case effectively. I prefer a centrist leaning outlet but I'm not too picky as I shouldn't raise the bar too high. There's a reason you both are discussing something in a vacuum, and it's not because the world just hasn't caught up to your 'brilliant defense'.

It's almost like you don't read what you type or stories you post.

Given that I provided arguments for my next post directly from both of those sources, good luck with that assertion. Given how much outside information I bring to each discussion in comparison to... I'm sorry what is it that you provide again? Drivel? Weak talking points from right-wing media with zero independent analysis? Oh that's right. No go ahead, carry on.

Uh, maybe read what I posted again if you can see through your own smug breath.

I had something I was going to say but after reading what I just wrote prior to tackling this quote I'll just concede to being smug. We all have our faults I guess.

Ah yes, the Clinton what-about! That's great! Wasn't she planning to run in the 2020 race again according to your 'legit source'? Here's why she won't be discussed:

This is about Trump not Clinton. Or are we in agreement that Trump was seeking assistance from a foreign national involving an aspiring political rival in an upcoming election?

If you concede to that point then we can discuss how this may relate to other requests other politicians may have made and speculate what precedent this may set... But, I can't let this impede our current topic of discussion.

I'm going to elaborate my decision a bit further. The reason I am treating other Politicians involvement (potential solicitations) with foreign nationals involving US elections is because we haven't concluded our debate on whether or not Trump solicited a foreign national to investigate an aspiring political rival in an upcoming election.

See the issue is we can't move on until the debate finishes. If we do then it's a branch point in the discussion that goes "here is where Clinton is similar with Trump" or "Here is what is different between Clinton and Trump".

Until then I'll continue to provide supporting evidence that he has: I've quoted FEC statutes, The call transcript, fox and abc news articles which contain texts from the Chargé d’Affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine Bill Taylor. Let's see some defense that involves more work than spouting nonsense over whether or not Biden is a political rival. Anything else?

I even went as far in previous posts to argue the other side. Do I seriously have to give you a hand just to have a real discussion that isn't talking points? I mean I know people need their handicaps but I feel as though you should find that insulting at this point. I'm starting to feel guilt that I'm not giving you a fair shot. Tell you what, I'll give you 24 hrs to breakdown an adequate defense. If you still have trouble I'll help raise a few points to get you started.

 

[morvoran]

FYI arguing in bad faith and using garbage tabloid sites for sources is not the same thing as proving me wrong.

Let me guess, arguing in bad faith means proving you wrong everytime without letting you win on anything? I tried letting you think you won during that whole global warming hoax thread, but you just went with personal attacks afterwards.

I'm going to elaborate my decision a bit further.

Wow, ok, now you're quoting yourself to have a debate with yourself? You might want to try some reading glasses. Are you going to have a comeback for yourself in 24hours, too?

The rest of that stuff you typed was just mess not worth responding to.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Wow, ok, now you're quoting yourself to have a debate with yourself? You might want to try some reading glasses.

I quoted myself so that you would be able to reference what I've already stated that you just didn't address properly. I choose to elaborate on what was already stated as I felt you were struggling. The fact this is your only reply... well that speaks volumes of the degree of severity.

 

[morvoran]

I quoted myself so that you would be able to reference what I've already stated that you just didn't address properly. I choose to elaborate on what was already stated as I felt you were struggling. The fact this is your only reply... well that speaks volumes of the degree of severity.

No, I replied to the rest when I said it was just mess. It's like you just banged your forehead on your keyboard and hit post reply.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

No, I replied to the rest when I said it was just mess. It's like you just banged your forehead on your keyboard and hit post reply.

That's all? no other defense available? I'll take this as another concession then. Don't worry, I'll be true to my promise. I'll provide a defense in tomorrow evening in the event you still come up short. I suggest you do some reading in the meantime as you don't seem very knowledgeable in the current affair and far too eager to assert an opinion. Have a good night.

 

[smf]

You mean the "mob boss" talk that Adam Schiff added to his own made up transcript?

No, I mean that there was an attempt to hide it by highly classifying it.

Donald Trump thinks that taking the fifth amendment means you are definitely guilty, highly classifying something just to hide it is the same.

If this had happened to Obama then Trump would have said it was a clear sign he was guilty.

 

[Ev1l0rd]

So here's an element that hasn't been brought up in this thread yet, suprisingly.

Rudy Giuliani seems to want to prove to the world that Trump is totally innocent and that he didn't do shit, whilst at the same time contradicting himself by pulling up evidence that he did do shit.

--
The first gaffe I saw: https://theweek.com/speedreads/8674...t-cable-news-after-trumps-impeachment-setback

Seems to be a summary: https://theweek.com/articles/867634/24-hours-rudy-zone

*note; i didn't vet these sources, they're just the first articles i found that talked about it. The actual origin for me finding these comes from Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah and Seth Meyers who obviously milked these bits for comedy.

 

[chrisrlink]

I just saw on yahoo some of trump's inner circle are fleeing to Italy I wonder what the extradition laws are there if this house of cards collapses

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Yesterday I created a thread devoted to discussing Clinton - Steele legality in attempt to provide earnest discussion without derailing this thread by inviting in red herrings or tu quoque fallacies in attempt to distract or absolve Trump's actions.

The other day, I also asked those who argue in Trump's favor to provide an ample defense beyond the ones provided (IE Biden isn't a political rival). Given a lack of response I will take the silence as a concession. I also gave my word to assist in entailing what an appropriate defense for Trump would entail. I briefly discussed this in passing when I first entered this discussion:

The best defense I've seen so far is just saying the President is trying to root out corruption. But there's no evidence I've seen to support him 'investigating corruption' outside of his own areas of interest in reelection. His involvement of personal lawyers in state department matters doesn't help either.

A possible defense: Trump is trying to clear his name with 2016 election interference whilst exposing corruption and conflicts of interest.

DISCLAIMER: This still has significant holes and it also took over a week for the Trump administration to being to align to this defense by using trial and error.

In reference to the Transcript, there were two people that were called to assist in mediating the requests made to the President of Ukraine. The US Attorney General Barr and a personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.

When it comes to Barr's involvement - This is legit due to the US Ukraine Treaty established under President Bill Clinton:

Article 2 provides for the establishment of Central Authorities and defines Central Authorities for purposes of the Treaty. For the United States, the Central Authority shall be the Attorney General or a person designated by the Attorney General. For Ukraine, the Central Authority shall be the Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Prosecutor General. The article provides that the Central Authorities shall communicate directly with one another for the purposes of the Treaty.

Rudy's involvement is much harder to explain. But if we continue with the Presumption that Trump doesn't trust his intelligence services to properly root out corruption it would follow that Rudy is his 'point-man' in his 'election interference investigation'.

I think this is sufficient enough. I'm not going to continue down a rabbit hole on behalf of those who wouldn't it themselves. If someone who wants to defend Trump expands further and details each part of current events under this line of defense then I'll continue discussion.

Just one of the biggest holes is why start now instead of during 2017-2018 when republicans held both the house and the senate.

 

[Xzi]

Trump is now calling for Mitt Romney's impeachment for some reason, and also attempting to pin the blame for his Ukraine call on his Energy Secretary Rick Perry.

For those keeping track, this is his eighth different excuse about the phone conversation. Two more and I think we get a free sub sandwich.

Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/TheRealUbboUbbo/status/1180598436090929153

 

[Taleweaver]

Meanwhile, a second whistleblower has stepped forward with a formal complaint. Presumably with first hand knowledge of the phone call rather than second hand information.

Not really sure what that means, though. Sure, it was revealed that Pompeo was in on that call as well. But still...doesn't this mean that Pompeo or Zelenskiy (or even Trump himself ) is the second whistleblower?


EDIT: more interesting news (though probably already mentioned): Kurt Volker, a former US diplomat in Ukrain, has made an interesting testification. If true, it shows that the diplomats were very aware of how dangerous it would be to keep from meddling in the election. The texts:

"Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?" Bill Taylor, a senior US diplomat in Ukraine, texted US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland on September 1.
"Call me," Sondland responded.
Taylor later texted it was "crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign," which Sondland then responded was "incorrect about President Trump's intentions."

Basically: Volker (and, it would seem, Taylor) tried to stop any potential new scandal from happening by asserting that the war on corruption should be handled delicately as to not be seen as meddling in the election. Trump, however, went with a different narrative that Ukraine was some sort of enemy of the US ("It was clear to me that despite the positive news and recommendations being conveyed by this official delegation about the new President, President Trump had a deeply rooted negative view on Ukraine rooted in the past. He was clearly receiving other information from other sources, including Mayor Giuliani, that was more negative, causing him to retain this negative view.")

So Trump outright wanting to have an investigation on Hunter Biden goes directly against the advice of his own (now former) diplomat. So even if we take the Mueller investigation out of the picture, Trump has no way to claim that he didn't know this request was illegal. Yet he requested it nonetheless. Therefore, he is guilty.


Yeah...I know guys like @Hanafuda and @billapong like to argue on this point. It's an open discussion forum, after all. But as for me: I'm starting to see why this case is more damaging than his last one. If this case is true - and I'm aware this hinges on two anonymous witnesses and a former diplomat (versus the president) at this point - then it's abuse of presidential power.

 

[IncredulousP]

Every day my mind is blown that this traitorous fuck is still in office. Then it's blown again that a significant portion of our country supports him. Kinda puts in perspective how such atrocities like the holocaust could have even happened. Where is our sad world headed?

 

[chrisrlink]

i have so many thoughts and theory's in my head that is too damn dangerous for here (for my legal safety)

 

[Hanafuda]

Yeah...I know guys like @Hanafuda and ... like to argue on this point.

Sorry I'm not even following it anymore. If/when the House actually votes on an impeachment inquiry, perhaps I'll tune in again.