Donald Trump impeachment investigation over Ukranian phone call...

Deleted User · Sep 27, 2019

WD_GASTER2 said:
again, corroborate from various sources. dont cherry pick my statement. Read what i said... slowllyyyyy. There are more legal experts than Napolitano saying the same thing. Also if that counts as fallacy, I worry that you will not listen to your doctor if god forbid he gives you a diagnosis. Seek a second and third opinion if you want but you should take it seriously.
I would say if 10 lawyers from different firms say yes go ahead and sue, I would say youd be the fool to not listen to them

Again, I don't care how many there are saying it. I don't care if every doctor on the face of the planet told me to stab myself in the chest to cure my cold. I would need to see a darn good argument and reason for doing so.

Xzi said in response to someone, that said someone should argue with Napolitano. Xzi claims that he researched Napolitano's arguments, and I believe him. But it's a bit silly to turn the argument towards Napolitano instead of arguing the actual logic behind Napolitano.

Xzi · Sep 27, 2019

Foxi4 said:
I can happily take it up with you - in order to violate campaign law Trump would have to stand to gain either a monetary contribution or "a thing of value", this usually refers to valuable objects. While seeing Joe Biden scramble to cover up a scandal involving his son (again) would be a "thing of entertainment", it's highly questionable whether it has any monetary value.

Aid to his campaign in any form is clearly a "thing of value," it doesn't need to be monetary value. The whistleblower complaint was declassified nearly in its entirety today, and not only does it allege he used his position of power to leverage assistance to his campaign, but also that Trump attempted to move (or in fact did move) foreign phone call logs to a separate server in order to cover up this activity.

Additionally, it turns out that the former Ukrainian prosecutor in charge of investigating Burisma told Bloomberg News back in May that his office had found "no evidence of wrongdoing against Hunter Biden or his father, Joe Biden, who'd helped to oust Lutsenko's predecessor."

NBCNews said:
"From the perspective of Ukrainian legislation, he did not violate anything,” Yuriy Lutsenko told The Washington Post.

Lutsenko, who served as Ukraine's prosecutor general from May 2016 until last month, closed the investigation into the gas company Burisma and its oligarch owner in 2017, The New York Times has reported. Earlier this year, Lutsenko met with President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and discussed Burisma, Lutsenko's spokeswoman told Bloomberg. Then in March, according to the Times, Lutsenko reopened an investigation into the company, though his spokeswoman has disputed that.

In May, Lutsenko told Bloomberg News that his office had found no evidence of wrongdoing against Hunter Biden or his father, Joe Biden, who'd helped to oust Lutsenko's predecessor.

That prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, had been accused of failing to act in numerous corruption cases, including the investigation into Burisma. In addition to the United States government, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund have demanded that Shokin be replaced.

It's too bad because I was hoping there might be a little more to these accusations, but it doesn't surprise me to find out that they're entirely baseless, either. Looks like Trump bit hard on some 4chan bait.

In another more popcorn-worthy story today, Trump threw his vice president under the bus by encouraging the media to ask questions about Pence's calls to Ukraine.

WD_GASTER2 · Sep 27, 2019

TerribleTy27 said:
Again, I don't care how many there are saying it. I don't care if every doctor on the face of the planet told me to stab myself in the chest to cure my cold. I would need to see a darn good argument and reason for doing so.

Thats intellectually dishonest. Nobody is advising self harm. They are saying that things may have been done in bad faith and it should be looked in to it. That is all an "inquiry" (which is where we are at right now) is. Not more, not less.

It seems at this point you are arguing just not to lose an argument for the sake of just not losing it. Not good man.

seany1990 · Sep 27, 2019

Why do conservatives gaslight themselves? How much evidence do you need before you begin to question your worldview?

Deleted User · Sep 27, 2019

WD_GASTER2 said:
Thats intellectually dishonest. Nobody is advising self harm. They are saying that things were done in bad faith and it should be looked in to it.

It seems at this point you are arguing just not to lose an argument for the sake of just not losing it. Not good man.

You've claimed that if ten lawyers told me to sue, I should probably do so. All I was doing was making it clear that they would need a good reason. Ignore the example then. If ten doctors told me I should take a particular medication, I would still want to know what the reasoning behind it is.

In a similar way, Xzi explicitly said that Foxi4 should take up his argument with Napolitano and the other judges who advocate this position. I think it would've been much better if Xzi had simply explained Napolitano and co.'s position and why he himself believes that they are correct.

WD_GASTER2 · Sep 27, 2019

TerribleTy27 said:
You've claimed that if ten lawyers told me to sue, I should probably do so. All I was doing was making it clear that they would need a good reason. Ignore the example then. If ten doctors told me I should take a particular medication, I would still want to know what the reasoning behind it is.

In a similar way, Xzi explicitly said that Foxi4 should take up his argument with Napolitano and the other judges who advocate this position. I think it would've been much better if Xzi had simply explained Napolitano and co.'s position and why he himself believes that they are correct.

Please tell me in which world would 10 experts in their field that have no reason other than to give their expert opinion to give advice in bad faith.

That flies in the face of reason. If the reason does not sound ok to YOU, then more then likely it would be your own biases as opposed as the expert advice from different sources.

as an analogy: doctor says take medication because you have fever and cold symptoms. Lawyers/judges saying: This may meet the criteria for proceedings, The Inquiry makes sense (as ALL it means, is it should be looked into)

Furthermore, this is an INQUIRY. NOTHING has been done yet. This is by definition "Lets look into it" nothing more nothing less.

Hanafuda · Sep 27, 2019

TerribleTy27 said:
Yes, Trump has an onorthodox style, but in the end, he gets things done. Plenty of new jobs, a great economy, progress with North Korea, gives his wage away to charity...

D34DL1N3R said:

The red circle marks the election.

Deleted User · Sep 27, 2019

WD_GASTER2 said:
Please tell me in which world would 10 experts in their field that have no reason other than to give their expert opinion to give advice in bad faith.

That flies in the face of reason. If the reason does not sound ok to YOU, then more then likely it would be your own biases as opposed as the expert advice from different sources.

as an analogy: doctor says take medication because you have fever and cold symptoms. Lawyers/judges saying: This may meet the criteria for proceedings, The Inquiry makes sense (as ALL it means, is it should be looked into)

Furthermore, this is an INQUIRY. NOTHING has been done yet. This is by definition "Lets look into it" nothing more nothing less.

So if ten 'experts in their field' such as a doctor told you to take a certain kind of medication, you would do so blindly, without question?

If that's the case, I would suggest we stop this now. We would clearly have totally irreconcilable perspectives, and it would be a waste of time to argue more.

Also, I truly didn't know the background behind Napolitano and co. I was merely commenting on Xzi basing his opinion of Napolitano when he hadn't explained his viewpoint further.

WD_GASTER2 · Sep 27, 2019

@Hanafuda
Now the question is, Do you have stocks?
Quite frankly, all i have seen is 80 dollars more in my paycheck. I happen to be as average as a person as it gets.
Not worth the 1 trillion hole in the debt, however I still do not see how this is on topic.
(I will see myself out of this again to avoid derailment) feel free to summon me if anybody wants to.

TerribleTy27 said:
So if ten 'experts in their field' such as a doctor told you to take a certain kind of medication, you would do so blindly, without question?

If i was prescribed cold medicine for a cold, i would.
Same case here, They are not even telling anybody impeachment. I will repeat for the 4th time. Their advice is an inquiry.
The argument is dangerously close to what anti-vaxers make. "screw medical professionals in general, they have not convinced me"

Deleted User · Sep 27, 2019

WD_GASTER2 said:
i was prescribed cold medicine for a cold, i would.
Same case here, They are not even telling anybody impeachment. I will repeat for the 4th time. Their advice is an inquiry.
The argument is dangerously close to what anti-vaxers make. "screw medical professionals in general, they have not convinced me"

That's different, that's just intuitive logic. I've had cold medicine before, so clearly the doc is right when he says that cold medicine will fix my cold.

And again, I don't know the background behind Napolitano. I was merely pointing out that Xzi should've better explained why he agrees with Napolitano and do.

And anti-vaxers? Seriously? They're detached from reality. There have been hundreds of studies which- shock of all shock- show that there is virtually no correlation between autism and vaccination.

Xzi · Sep 27, 2019

Hanafuda said:
The red circle marks the election.

The stock market is not the economy, and the average citizen has no investment in the stock market. It's also worth noting that the market shot up after impeachment proceedings were announced.

Granted, unemployment has been consistently low under Trump (and under Obama), but wages have been very stagnant. Trump has also done a fair amount of harm to the economy with his trade war, as well as failed to live up to his promises that he made to specific groups of workers in the Midwest (farmers, coal miners, auto workers). These things taken into account, his overall economic track record is at best a mixed bag.

WD_GASTER2 · Sep 27, 2019

TerribleTy27 said:
That's different, that's just intuitive logic. I've had cold medicine before, so clearly the doc is right when he says that cold medicine will fix my cold.

The last post i will make as a reply to this as I dont want it to be considered bickering (I just want my point to be clear and not taken as contentious.

If a group of experts told you, you should look into it, To me, that would be intuitive logic.
Not a single legal expert worth 2 cents has said "IMPEACH" while foaming at the mouth.
They have said that it does meet the criteria for an inquiry. Which without the legal jargon, means "YES, this situation should be looked into"
All I am saying. I dont want you to take it personal just merely de-constructing why I believe your argument was odd to me.

Still cheers for remaining civil. I appreciate it.

Deleted User · Sep 27, 2019

WD_GASTER2 said:
The last post i will make as a reply to this as I dont want it to be considered bickering (I just want my point to be clear and not taken as contentious.

If a group of experts told you, you should look into it, To me, that would be intuitive logic.
Not a single legal expert worth 2 cents has said "IMPEACH" while foaming at the mouth.
They have said that it does meet the criteria for an inquiry. Which without the legal jargon, means "YES, this situation should be looked into"
All I am saying. I dont want you to take it personal just merely de-constructing why I believe your argument was odd to me.

Still cheers for remaining civil. I appreciate it.

I think you've been misunderstanding me this whole time. I was never critiquing Napolitano in particular. I agree that if a team of legal experts tells you to look into something and they've explained why they came to that line of reasoning, it's best to do so.

But I disagree with the general idea that if a team of experts told me to do something, I should do so without examining their motivations and reasoning. Maybe I'm just a paranoid idiot, who knows?

RationalityIsLost101 · Sep 27, 2019

So I really tend to lurk instead of... injecting in these conversations. Really because most people who care enough to discuss usually have already made up their mind about what facts they will entertain and/or dismiss, so the premise of an actual discussion is usually a farce/sham. The fact why this impeachment inquiry is dangerous to the Trump Administration is because the President has lived an entitled life where money was enough to escape a vast majority of consequences that those without inherited fortunes would quickly fall victim to. It's just not hard to believe if anyone is familiar with his upbringing all the way up to his election for the presidency. When looking with that context it's not hard to see why he is often entangled in a stream of legal blunders since in the past he was able to act with impunity. See his charity foundation for an appropriate example of this.

I predict that his current stance is to involve/implicate enough people critical to his survival to ensure they have enough skin in the game to keep in line with the current narrative, hence why Pence is mentioned. Trump wouldn't even state that he would endorse Pence in 2024, I presume this is an ego issue attributing to his desire to be the best and can't allow anyone an opportunity to potentially surpass him. God only knows what his thoughts are once he saw Pence's campaign team asking about Pence's favorability as a Presidential candidate in polling that was conducted within the past few months.

Okay, all that is to lead up to this: If he is facing impeachment and he knows someone who would be his successor has a higher favorability among republicans in battleground states. It is to be expected that he will ensure Pence's political survival is tied to his. Time will tell if this amounts to anything significant. It would be near impossible to root out Pence as that would actually make Pelosi president. Fun fact to those who aren't US citizens. But seriously that's not happening, Pence is not a moron, he is an overly cautious career politician, I mean he doesn't even go out to eat alone w/ female colleagues to protect his integrity.

As for other comments relating to the OP topic at hand (Ukraine call), the appropriate way to investigate a former VP who also is a potential political rival in an upcoming public election is via a bi-partisan congressional committee. Not using a private lawyer and an attorney general to mediate with a foreign government. There's not much else to say. If people are willing to ignore law in favor of a political party that's their prerogative, just be honest about it with yourself and others.

§ 110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510). Is the law in question.

I don't think democrats will actually take a vote in the house because it's a great fundraising/political weapon. They have the sitting president from the opposition party under scrutiny and will eventually erode a portion of independents to lean left as long as they keep clear and simple messaging. Meanwhile, if I'm wrong and the house does hold a vote to impeach... I'm not sure if the senate would hold a vote to convict. I mean damn, that really is something most senate republicans, that are career politicians mind you, would like to avoid. If public support sways to begin supporting the investigation it is likely to be a campaign issue vulnerable republican senators are going to have to manage.

Also mentioned in the Ukraine call transcript - Great to see CrowdStrike get so much... attention. They are a real pain in the ass to fend off in penetration tests via red team engagements. Considering they just went public this summer, those who were following that company prior made a good investment. Time will tell if they continue to innovate or will become mediocre like black hills. I hear they are purchasing startup companies to invest in other sectors beyond IT Security consulting which is a good sign.

TLDR: Well this was fun. Enjoy the rant.

Deleted User · Sep 27, 2019

RationalityIsLost101 said:
So I really tend to lurk instead of... injecting in these conversations. Really because most people who care enough to discuss usually have already made up their mind about what facts they will entertain and/or dismiss, so the premise of an actual discussion is usually a farce/sham. The fact why this impeachment inquiry is dangerous to the Trump Administration is because the President has lived an entitled life where money was enough to escape a vast majority of consequences that those without inherited fortunes would quickly fall victim to. It's just not hard to believe if anyone is familiar with his upbringing all the way up to his election for the presidency. When looking with that context it's not hard to see why he is often entangled in a stream of legal blunders since in the past he was able to act with impunity. See his charity foundation for an appropriate example of this.

I predict that his current stance is to involve/implicate enough people critical to his survival to ensure they have enough skin in the game to keep in line with the current narrative, hence why Pence is mentioned. Trump wouldn't even state that he would endorse Pence in 2024, I presume this is an ego issue attributing to his desire to be the best and can't allow anyone an opportunity to potentially surpass him. God only knows what his thoughts are once he saw Pence's campaign team asking about Pence's favorability as a Presidential candidate in polling that was conducted within the past few months.

Okay, all that is to lead up to this: If he is facing impeachment and he knows someone who would be his successor has a higher favorability among republicans in battleground states. It is to be expected that he will ensure Pence's political survival is tied to his. Time will tell if this amounts to anything significant. It would be near impossible to root out Pence as that would actually make Pelosi president. Fun fact to those who aren't US citizens. But seriously that's not happening, Pence is not a moron, he is an overly cautious career politician, I mean he doesn't even go out to eat alone w/ female colleagues to protect his integrity.

As for other comments relating to the OP topic at hand (Ukraine call), the appropriate way to investigate a former VP who also is a potential political rival in an upcoming public election is via a bi-partisan congressional committee. Not using a private lawyer and an attorney general to mediate with a foreign government. There's not much else to say. If people are willing to ignore law in favor of a political party that's their prerogative, just be honest about it with yourself and others.

§ 110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510). Is the law in question.

I don't think democrats will actually take a vote in the house because it's a great fundraising/political weapon. They have the sitting president from the opposition party under scrutiny and will eventually erode a portion of independents to lean left as long as they keep clear and simple messaging. Meanwhile, if I'm wrong and the house does hold a vote to impeach... I'm not sure if the senate would hold a vote to convict. I mean damn, that really is something most senate republicans, that are career politicians mind you, would like to avoid. If public support sways to begin supporting the investigation it is likely to be a campaign issue vulnerable republican senators are going to have to manage.

Also mentioned in the Ukraine call transcript - Great to see CrowdStrike get so much... attention. They are a real pain in the ass to fend off in penetration tests via red team engagements. Considering they just went public this summer, those who were following that company prior made a good investment. Time will tell if they continue to innovate or will become mediocre like black hills. I hear they are purchasing startup companies to invest in other sectors beyond IT Security consulting which is a good sign.

TLDR: Well this was fun. Enjoy the rant.

I'll be honest here, there were some parts I agreed with and some I found interesting, but I'm only commenting because I wanted to mention I love your username.

RationalityIsLost101 · Sep 27, 2019

TerribleTy27 said:
I'll be honest here, there were some parts I agreed with and some I found interesting, but I'm only commenting because I wanted to mention I love your username.

Thanks, It's my favorite to use ever since I had to forgo traditional social media for professional reasons. Nothing in that should really be taken too seriously other than to watch/consider CrowdStrike if you dabble w/ investing in IT stocks as the more name recognition they garner = more investment, higher stock price. After the election, if they don't take any significant contracts or produce any notable products/services with the startups they recently purchased, then I'll probably sell and move on to something else. Who knows, they've surprised me more than once in recent events so I'm optimistic.

Xzi · Sep 27, 2019

RationalityIsLost101 said:
Okay, all that is to lead up to this: If he is facing impeachment and he knows someone who would be his successor has a higher favorability among republicans in battleground states. It is to be expected that he will ensure Pence's political survival is tied to his. Time will tell if this amounts to anything significant. It would be near impossible to root out Pence as that would actually make Pelosi president. Fun fact to those who aren't US citizens. But seriously that's not happening, Pence is not a moron, he is an overly cautious career politician, I mean he doesn't even go out to eat alone w/ female colleagues to protect his integrity.

If Trump is removed from office then Pence doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, he'd be a lame duck for what little time he has left before being voted out. Though I agree he's a far more shrewd strategist than Trump, he can't rally the type of voter turnout that Trump did with a Mitt Romney-style personality.

RationalityIsLost101 said:
I don't think democrats will actually take a vote in the house because it's a great fundraising/political weapon. They have the sitting president from the opposition party under scrutiny and will eventually erode a portion of independents to lean left as long as they keep clear and simple messaging. Meanwhile, if I'm wrong and the house does hold a vote to impeach... I'm not sure if the senate would hold a vote to convict. I mean damn, that really is something most senate republicans, that are career politicians mind you, would like to avoid. If public support sways to begin supporting the investigation it is likely to be a campaign issue vulnerable republican senators are going to have to manage.

It could go either way as far as taking the vote to the Senate is concerned. Democrats may want to get those purple state Republican senators on the record as defending Trump's behavior in order to harm their re-election chances, but regardless I don't think that will come until much closer to November 2020.

Anyway, that was a cogent and thorough post, and I don't say that only because I agree with most of it. Thanks for your input.

D34DL1N3R · Sep 27, 2019

morvoran said:
I can't believe that the dems want to impeach our Great President Donald J Trump so much that they had to make up their own script. How low will these Democrat's in the House go before they just accept they aren't going to win and give up?

Are you really that ignorant? Made up their own script? Yeah, nice try. That one was already debunked. Did you even watch the hearing? Or nah. Cuz you guys have a very big tendency to know exactly what's going on without ever reading any reports or things of that nature.

Hanafuda said:
The red circle marks the election.

And? Your pretty little graph is 100% useless and pointless, as has already been pointed out.

Taleweaver · Sep 27, 2019

Hmm...I really shouldn't make threads when I've got barely time to read, let alone respond, to everyone.

I've added the transcript and the original whistleblower's complaint to the OP. I'll see if I can reply to some posts, but won't go into off-topic talk. But first I've got to read up on things (news evolves fast nowadays).

Foxi4 · Sep 27, 2019

Xzi said:
Aid to his campaign in any form is clearly a "thing of value," it doesn't need to be monetary value. The whistleblower complaint was declassified nearly in its entirety today, and not only does it allege he used his position of power to leverage assistance to his campaign, but also that Trump attempted to move (or in fact did move) foreign phone call logs to a separate server in order to cover up this activity.

Additionally, it turns out that the former Ukrainian prosecutor in charge of investigating Burisma told Bloomberg News back in May that his office had found "no evidence of wrongdoing against Hunter Biden or his father, Joe Biden, who'd helped to oust Lutsenko's predecessor."

It's too bad because I was hoping there might be a little more to these accusations, but it doesn't surprise me to find out that they're entirely baseless, either. Looks like Trump bit hard on some 4chan bait.

In another more popcorn-worthy story today, Trump threw his vice president under the bus by encouraging the media to ask questions about Pence's calls to Ukraine.

The whistleblower complaint is a big flop, if you cared to read it. Not only does the whistleblower specifically state that he was not a witness to the conversation, he also states that he did not have access to the transcript of the conversation that was published earlier. In other words, the whistleblower knew less about what has transpired at the time of writing the complaint than *you and I do right now*, after reading the transcript. The complaint consists of speculation based on what he was told from second-hand sources. Not only that, we've now established that there was no pressure from the White House - the Ukrainian government was completely unaware of the reason why aid was put on hold until August when President Zelensky met with Bolton.

https://time.com/5686788/ukraine-no-connection-aid-biden/

There was no explicit request made in regards to Biden and no threat coming from the Trump administration, and that's not according to me, it's according to Zenensky and his cabinet. It was a general conversation about corruption in Ukraine. The only real request that was made at the beginning of the call was in regards to a more in-depth investigation of the 2016 election hacking scandal. The allegations of any form of cover up fall flat on their face considering the fact that both the transcript and the complaint were published when requested - Trump and his cabinet had no obligation whatsoever to publish the phone call notes compiled into a transcript. It's another big Nothing Burger and the Democratic Party is proudly wearing egg on their faces again.

Donald Trump impeachment investigation over Ukranian phone call...

Deleted User

Guest

Time to fly, 621

Hated by life itself.

Well-Known Member

Deleted User

Guest

Hated by life itself.

Well-Known Member

Deleted User

Guest

Hated by life itself.

Deleted User

Guest

Time to fly, 621

Hated by life itself.

Deleted User

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted User

Guest

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Nephilim

Storywriter

Endless Trash

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum