Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Outlaw Pete

Penn wrote: »

That in no way, shape or form excuses or absolves Trump from what he's accused of doing. If these allegations against Trump are true, it's a criminal act worthy of impeachment. Would you agree?

Of course.

derb12

maximoose wrote: »

listermint wrote: »

Just to point this out 'so called' isnt some sort of term you can throw at everything

Transcript means what it says its a written copy of a verbal conversation.

Its either a transcript or its not.

Its not so called.  :rolleyes:

It's being widely referred to and reported as being a transcript, which suggests by most definitions of the word transcript that it is a written copy of an actual conversation - despite the document having it's own health warning stating that "A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion."

So-called indeed.

Penn wrote: »

listermint wrote: »

Just to point this out 'so called' isnt some sort of term you can throw at everything

Transcript means what it says its a written copy of a verbal conversation.

Its either a transcript or its not.

Its not so called.  :rolleyes:

Not exactly true. For instance there are a few points in the transcript where ellipses have been used, indicating a portion of the verbal conversation was removed/omitted.

Plus, Nixon released transcripts of his calls and they were found to have been doctored. A falsified (or "so-called") transcript is still a transcript.

It is a partial transcript of a 30 minute call (9:03 to 9:33) which took me barely 10 minutes to read through. Ok so conversations probably go slower, but still, there could be anything between those ellipses.
The WSJ reported 8 occasions that Trump brought up Biden on the call (or possibly on this and other calls) so it does seem that important parts are missing.
That said, what he read today is damning. I'm surprised that we got it, I would have expected a nice summary from Barr instead.

derb12

It is a partial transcript of a 30 minute call (9:03 to 9:33) which took me barely 10 minutes to read through. Ok so conversations probably go slower, but still, there could be anything between those ellipses.
The WSJ reported 8 occasions that Trump brought up Biden on the call (or possibly on this and other calls) so it does seem that important parts are missing.
That said, what we read today is damning. I'm surprised that we got it, I would have expected a nice summary from Barr instead.

Cody montana

If this is the white House’s transcripts, can you imagine what the reality is?

This is hopefully the beginning of the end.

PropJoe10

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

First of all, if Trump could choose his opponent in 2020, he would pick Biden out of all the other democrats in the running, as he would eat him alive. Warren on the other hand would pose far more problems for him, and so he has no motive to destroy Biden, quite the opposite in fact.

Secondly, are you for real? An ex-vice president of the United States has boasted in public that he threatened to refuse to give a $1bln loan to the Ukraine if they didn’t immediately fire a Prosecutor (General Viktor Shokin). That Vice President also implicated the President at the time (Obama, remember him, oddly quiet of late) in what appears to have been a quid pro quo, as he intimated that Obama would agree with what he was doing.

Now, might all be just a big nothing burger, but for you to suggest that Trump shouldn't be asking the Ukraine to work with the United States Attorney General in an effort to see if there is any truth to it, is laughable.

Imagine Trump lost to the democratic candidate in 2020, and video surfaced shortly afterwards of Trump saying what Biden had (that he had strong armed Ukrainian officials to a fire a prosecutor and used an approved $1bln loan as leverage) would you condemn the new president if they were to then ask for the cooperation of the Ukraine when it came time to investigate Trump's comments? Especially if it was revealed that the prosecutor was investigating corruption at a company in the Ukraine which Trump's son, Donald Jnr, had been working for and made a fortune from?

I certainly can't imagine any of those that have been criticizing Trump having any problem whatsoever with a democrat POTUS doing so anyway and again, yes, Biden might be not have done what he appears to have done, but on the face of it, it sure suggests pay for play went on and that has to be investigated, as does a hell of a lot of other things which went on in 2016 with regards to the Ukraine and the DNC. Hopefully the Durham report will bring clarity there.

This is utter nonsense. If Biden (or son) did something wrong then they should rightly be damaged in the 2020 election race.

That has absolutely squat to do with Trump doing something wrong. If you use that logic, everyone can do whatever they like because others have done wrong. Biden acting inappropriately should be looked at through the proper channels and does NOT excuse Trump trying to enlist a foreign country to help him to discredit a political rival.

duploelabs

Ok there are two Intrinsic issues as far as I know.

There's the single call where Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden and threatened to withhold aid if they didn't.

Secondly, there is the whistleblower report of 8 (or is it 9) separate incidents by Trump that posed a threat to national security. The first point/call being one of them.

Now it seems to me that Trump is releasing the transcript of One of the calls in some piece of innocent, but what about the other 7 incidents and why is Trump blocking them (and the senate unanimously overturning it) from being released

peddlelies

It is comical that he's still trying to get his hands on the DNC server, the bane of his existence.

Outlaw Pete

listermint wrote: »

Firstly

Trump asked for dirt on Biden from the ukrainians and threatened to withhold money.

The end.

He asked the Ukraine to cooperate with an investigation of improper conduct by specific officials of the previous administration. To characterise that request as looking for 'dirt' is absurd. I also know of no 'threat' made by Trump to the Ukraine. Do you have proof this occured, or are you speculating?

duploelabs

peddlelies wrote: »

It is comical that he's still trying to get his hands on the DNC server, the bane of his existence.

Or that he thinks the server in question is a physical entity

listermint

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He asked the Ukraine to cooperate with an investigation of improper conduct by specific officials of the previous administration. To characterise that request as looking for 'dirt' is absurd. I also know of no 'threat' made by Trump to the Ukraine. Do you have proof this occured, or are you speculating?

The level of double speak is outstanding


Congrats

The Phantom Jipper

Does an audio recording or actual transcript exist that can be released eventually, or is this the best we can get?

Christy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

First of all, if Trump could choose his opponent in 2020, he would pick Biden out of all the other democrats in the running, as he would eat him alive. Warren on the other hand would pose far more problems for him, and so he has no motive to destroy Biden, quite the opposite in fact.

Secondly, are you for real? An ex-vice president of the United States has boasted in public that he threatened to refuse to give a $1bln loan to the Ukraine if they didn’t immediately fire a Prosecutor (General Viktor Shokin). That Vice President also implicated the President at the time (Obama, remember him, oddly quiet of late) in what appears to have been a quid pro quo, as he intimated that Obama would agree with what he was doing.

Now, might all be just a big nothing burger, but for you to suggest that Trump shouldn't be asking the Ukraine to work with the United States Attorney General in an effort to see if there is any truth to it, is laughable.

Imagine Trump lost to the democratic candidate in 2020, and video surfaced shortly afterwards of Trump saying what Biden had (that he had strong armed Ukrainian officials to a fire a prosecutor and used an approved $1bln loan as leverage) would you condemn the new president if they were to then ask for the cooperation of the Ukraine when it came time to investigate Trump's comments? Especially if it was revealed that the prosecutor was investigating corruption at a company in the Ukraine which Trump's son, Donald Jnr, had been working for and made a fortune from?

I certainly can't imagine any of those that have been criticizing Trump having any problem whatsoever with a democrat POTUS doing so anyway and again, yes, Biden might be not have done what he appears to have done, but on the face of it, it sure suggests pay for play went on and that has to be investigated, as does a hell of a lot of other things which went on in 2016 with regards to the Ukraine and the DNC. Hopefully the Durham report will bring clarity there.

If Biden was pay for play that should be investigated.

Right now we have whether Trump was pay for play. Right now we need to see if Trump was offering anything. Trump's own transcripts don't really help him out either.

I mean was he asking for Manafort to also be investigated given everyone knew he was dirty in the Ukraine or was he just targeting those linked to political opponents.

I mean Biden is the front runner so he could have simply sat on any info till after Biden had won the nomination so your assertion that it wouldn't hurt Trump is obviously false. It would be a massive blow right after Biden had been nominated.

Trump is historically unpopular so any help would be welcomed by him in any case.

Zubeneschamali

derb12 wrote: »

I would have expected a nice summary from Barr instead.

That was the nice version from Barr.

Igotadose

Rudy apparently is flipping out. This is kind of special, calling a fellow Fox Newsian a liar and threatening to sue him for libel. Said Fox newsian was was on Fox the other day blasting some creepy Fox newsite who was banging on about Greta Thunberg.

Basically, Rudy says "Yes, I spoke to Ukraine at the request of the State Department." When asked, "Did you speak to the Ukraine" Rudy then vacillates between "Liar! I never said that" to "I spoke to Ukraine."

They need to get Rudy away from the camera. He's lost it.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1176697111695507457

Penn

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He asked the Ukraine to cooperate with an investigation of improper conduct by specific officials of the previous administration. To characterise that request as looking for 'dirt' is absurd. I also know of no 'threat' made by Trump to the Ukraine. Do you have proof this occured, or are you speculating?

A week before the call, Trump ordered $400m in military aid that was supposed to be given to the Ukraine be withheld. This was also said in the memo that was released:

Zelenskyy:
We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

Trump:
I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.

Trump/Fox/GOP appear to be going with the defense that "There was no direct quid pro quo". However, there is very much a case of implied quid pro quo.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-can-t-be-prosecuted-ukraine-call-about-biden-rudy-ncna1058196

As explained by my colleague, former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade, in the Daily Beast, it is a crime under the federal bribery statute for a public official to demand anything of value in exchange for performing an official act. Additionally, the Hobbs Act defines extortion as "obtaining property from another, with his consent, under color of official right." McQuade continues:

The essence of both crimes is a demand by a public official to obtain something for himself to which he is not entitled in exchange for performing an official act of his office. Here, if the reporting is correct, Trump may be similarly committing bribery and extortion by using the power of his office to demand a thing of value, dirt on Biden, in exchange for an official act, the provision of military aid. This is precisely the kind of old-fashioned corruption scheme that the bribery and extortion statutes were designed to punish.
And, if Giuliani assisted or agreed to assist this scheme — even if he did not fully adopt the entire plan — may have aided and abetted or conspired to commit those same crimes. In addition, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act makes it illegal for a U.S. citizen to corruptly offer “anything of value” to a foreign official to retain business or influence an official decision.

Giuliani defended himself by claiming that “no money was mentioned, no quid pro quo,” in the call between Trump and the Ukranian president. Let’s see if that’s true. But more important, Giuliani — a former mob prosecutor — surely knows that most crimes don’t happen so explicitly. In 16 years of listening to criminals on wiretaps, I rarely heard anyone say, “If you don’t give me X, I will do Y.” That’s not how mafia bosses work. They make a “request” and others follow up with the demand. The law is very clear that a quid pro quo need not be explicit for a crime to have taken place. It can be inferred from the facts as a whole.

Outlaw Pete

Shelga wrote: »

How would the PM of Ukraine be able to help uncover dirt on Biden?? I’m just catching up on this story now, it all seems very bizarre.

It seems bizarre because the mainstream media have largely ignored this story favouring the Russian Collusion side show that was really nothing but a distraction. Indeed there have been investigations going on for quite awhile now into all these events, which of course is why Trump is asking the Ukraine to cooperate with AG Barr.

It's not just the Biden situation by the way (although what Biden said sure suggests pay for play went on during the Obama administration) as there is also the suggestion that certain individuals within the previous Ukrainian admin interfered in the 2016 presidential election (with the cooperation of the DNC) and under the watch of the FBI / CIA.

Remember, it was Serhiy Leshchenko (a member of the Ukrainian parliament) revealing the existence of the so-called black ledger which saw Paul Manafort taken down.

Like I said earlier, calls to produce this transcript has just opened a whole can of worms now and played into Trump's hands really, as finally the mainstream media are going to have to start discussing things which they have been ignoring for a long time. The Durham & Horowitz reports are soon to drop also and that will undoubtedly see many members of the Obama administration called to give testimony regarding their actions in 2016/17.

Will there be indictments? We'll see.

Zubeneschamali

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Will there be indictments? We'll see.

Yes, as soon as Trump is impeached, there will be lots and lots of indictments, starting with everyone with last name Trump or Kushner.

mcmoustache

Worth remembering in all this obfuscation.

These are just the notes, not a full transcript which probably doesn't even exist.

Also, this is just one part of the complaint.

Zubeneschamali

mcmoustache wrote: »

Worth remembering in all this obfuscation. These are just the notes, not a full transcript which probably doesn't even exist

And it is already enough to impeach Trump, just the relatively harmless stuff he has released as cover and distraction.

What the hell is in the full whistleblower complaint? Something to make Nancy Pelosi open impeachment hearings directly after years or resisting the temptation...

one armed dwarf

The thing is, the 'can of worms' this opens could implicate and indict the entire Democratic party but even still I don't even see how that would play into his hands if it is found that he has been coercing a foreign leader into conducting a politically motivated investigation for him.

I don't see the 4D chess there.

peddlelies

I'm not that familiar with US politics, but from what I've read you need a two third majority in the senate to impeach a President. Currently there's 45 Democrats, 2 independents and 53 Republicans. So let's assume the 45 + 2 vote in favour, that's 47. You'll still need another 20 Republican votes from the 53.

It's possible it would be successful but given the stance the GOP have taken since the document was released it's not very likely.

EltonJohn69

Rudi seems completely insane.

valoren

peddlelies wrote: »

I'm not that familiar with US politics, but from what I've read you need a two third majority in the senate to impeach a President. Currently there's 45 Democrats, 2 independents and 53 Republicans. So let's assume the 45 + 2 vote in favour, that's 47. You'll still need another 20 Republican votes from the 53.

It's possible it would be successful but given the stance the GOP have taken since the document was released it's not very likely.

That's the politics game. The members of the GOP who vote against impeachment will be marked for their own political cycles and you'd like to think they will get voted out after that cycle. Ideally, they break ranks and throw a toxic Trump under the bus. Alternatively, as mentioned, the headlines during the course of the impeachment process will be political death for Trump.

duploelabs

peddlelies wrote: »

I'm not that familiar with US politics, but from what I've read you need a two third majority in the senate to impeach a President. Currently there's 45 Democrats, 2 independents and 53 Republicans. So let's assume the 45 + 2 vote in favour, that's 47. You'll still need another 20 Republican votes from the 53.

It's possible it would be successful but given the stance the GOP have taken since the document was released it's not very likely.

Well considering the senate unanimously (yes even the republicans) voted to release the whistle-blower report, I wouldn't be so sure that they'll all row in behind Trump

Zubeneschamali

peddlelies wrote: »

I'm not that familiar with US politics, but from what I've read you need a two third majority in the senate to impeach a President.

No, that's what you need to convict him.

Clinton was impeached, all you need is a simple majority in the House. Then there is a trial before the Senate, that's when you need 2/3 majority. Clinton was acquitted, and Trump might well be too.

The point of impeaching Trump is not just to convict him and remove him, though, it is also to hold sworn hearings, subpoena evidence, an cross examine him.

If you drag all his crimes out into the light, the thinking is it won't help his re-election chances, and you also make Republican Senators go on the record by voting that it is A-OK to collude with Russia, extort dirt from Ukraine, use high office to enrich yourself and your family at the taxpayers expense etc. etc.

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The predicted nothing burger.


https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1176859293519405056


Democrats really need to stop using their positions to harass the president of the United States:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1176858735077154818

Unfortunately for Don, the transcript reveals he initiated the request for a Ukrainian investigation into his political opponent in the upcoming election to the Oval Office. He didn't raise the issue of his opponents son with the Ukrainians, despite the misleading spin put out to that effect.

This time, the attempt to get down and dirty with his political opponent [as in 2016] didn't start with some-one from the capital city of another nation coming to the Trumps saying we can give you dirt on your opponent. Don went to the Ukraine head of state with the intent to start the ball rolling. Ally that to the fact that his personal lawyer also got into the act by actually visiting Ukraine for the same purpose [as admitted by and on visual-audio record by Rudy himself] and the road leads back to the Trump stable.

No amount of spinning won't be able to evade the transcript words which came out of Dons mouth in his chat with Ukraine's president. Its his transcript issued to the public on his orders.

Edit. RTE 1 radio news is referring to the issued transcript as a summary so I don't know if what been published is the whole conversation between Don & Ukraine's president. I assume, maybe wrongly, that Don & Co are fully aware of everything the whistleblower revealed, cause if they aren't, that can be compared with what's in the transcript published by Don. If he had anything damaging redacted from the conversation, it'll show up in any comparisons made between both and cause him worse damage.

MadYaker

Whats the goal here since impeachment will never pass the senate?

Cody montana

MadYaker wrote: »

Whats the goal here since impeachment will never pass the senate?

To expose the crimes of Trump and his associates.

Penn

MadYaker wrote: »

Whats the goal here since impeachment will never pass the senate?

Hold hearings and subpeona documents/witnesses with greater authority. Any attempts by Trump or WH to block the Dems will be viewed as clear obstruction. If it does get to the Senate, the GOP Senators will either have to stand and defend Trump (which, given the likely only way the Dems will bring it to the Senate for a vote is if they're sure they've covered enough to make a very damning case against Trump) which, given many of them will also be up for re-election in 2020 could be used against them in those elections. Also means the bulk of the case made against Trump can be used against him in the Presidential election.

It might not ever make it to the Senate. But what can be achieved from the hearings and investigations could still be the key to damaging Trump and the GOP enough for the Dems to take the Senate and Presidency.

peddlelies

Trump is truly the catalyst of his own downfall in this situation and nobody can point the finger at anyone else. He went from a fairly favourable Mueller report and public infighting between Pelosi, Cortez et al. to this. It's really an astonishing downfall in such a short period of time, political suicide in a manner not seen before.