Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Has a tape or transcript been published?

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1175026883274190848?s=19

As someone said earlier, this entire presidency has been basically a middle-finger salute to anyone who thinks that Congress really has any power or oversight regarding the executive branch. It really makes no odds what Trump does at this point, he's basically untouchable because the Republicans in the Senate will never be seen to act against a Republican president.

The Dems should at least attempt impeachment. If they don't do anything and just mess around with these endless "hearings" it's basically setting this as the standard for future US presidencies and for a full-blown fascist regime in the States. Get elected, and you can act with impunity. Wait til Trump gets into full campaign mode. This election is going to make the previous one look like a pleasant afternoon in the park.

PropJoe10 wrote: »

The Dems should at least attempt impeachment. If they don't do anything and just mess around with these endless "hearings" it's basically setting this as the standard for future US presidencies and for a full-blown fascist regime in the States. Get elected, and you can act with impunity. Wait til Trump gets into full campaign mode. This election is going to make the previous one look like a pleasant afternoon in the park.

Another potential benefit of impeachment hearings if they fail is that it will prove that the system is not working as intended and that there isn't really an emergency system for if the President is either a criminal and/or utterly incompetent.
That in turn might give the impetus to both houses (at least amongst those who aren't actively trying to create a fascist state) that measures need to be taken to give them some capacity for oversight.

If no impeachment takes place, you'd worry that even if the Democrats regain control of the government, excuses would be made that Congress never used the tools available to remove Trump.

Could you IMAGINE if Obama had done 0.00000000000000000000001% of what Trump has done since coming in to office what the republicans would have done!

This won't bring Trump down because the republicans are too scared he is going to light them up on Twitter.

So, the reporting since last night is zeroing in on a July call Trump had with Zelensky. According to most recent reports citing people familiar with the call, Trump asked specifically (8 times) for Ukraine to work with Giuliani on a Hunter Biden investigation. Those most recent reports say also that no mention was made of the $250 million.

So, the focus is on that July call. However, the Wall St Journal reported that when Atkinson met with the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday, "Mr. Atkinson declined to tell lawmakers the substance of the complaint or whether it involves the president, but he did say it involves more than one episode and is based on a series of events, according to several people who attended or were briefed on the meeting."

So Atkinson was updating the Committee on something that the whistleblower reported as having occurred multiple times within "a series of events" that "involves more that one episode". Based on last night's meltdown by Rudi on CNN, I reckon the whistleblower reported not just the Trump call, but also the multiple alleged meetings between Rudi and Ukranian officials. Now, Trump might not have referred to the $250 m in the July call, but given how he works (as detailed by Lewandowski in relation to the dictated notes for Jeff Sessions) I believe that Giuliani was the one who linked the promise (involving the $250m funding) with the demand for dirt on Biden. He was at pains last night to distance Trump from his dealings with Ukraine, thereby trying to provide POTUS with plausible deniability.

Rudi needs to be hauled up under oath by Congress to explain himself. And the bullying personal privilege and/or client privilege cannot be used, If he was acting on his own behalf and engaging with a foreign Government. I'd like to see Barry Berke getting a half hour with Rudi in front of the cameras on the Hill on this one...

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This won't bring Trump down because he has an (R) beside his name, and nothing, nothing will make Republicans in the Senate take down a Republican president.

It might not get him impeached but it might ruin his chances of winning re-election

How does this affect Biden's chances of selection/election?

amandstu wrote: »

How does this affect Biden's chances of selection/election?

Biden would be a horrible candidate for President. He's clearly suffering from some issues at the moment, forgetting who he's talking to, where he is and so on. We love to laugh at Trumps slip ups in his speeches, but Biden has been making a lot of them too.

One doesn't need any wrinkles, it is clear as day what happened.

TomOnBoard wrote: »

So, the reporting since last night is zeroing in on a July call Trump had with Zelensky. According to most recent reports citing people familiar with the call, Trump asked specifically (8 times) for Ukraine to work with Giuliani on a Hunter Biden investigation. Those most recent reports say also that no mention was made of the $250 million.

So, the focus is on that July call. However, the Wall St Journal reported that when Atkinson met with the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday, "Mr. Atkinson declined to tell lawmakers the substance of the complaint or whether it involves the president, but he did say it involves more than one episode and is based on a series of events, according to several people who attended or were briefed on the meeting."

So Atkinson was updating the Committee on something that the whistleblower reported as having occurred multiple times within "a series of events" that "involves more that one episode". Based on last night's meltdown by Rudi on CNN, I reckon the whistleblower reported not just the Trump call, but also the multiple alleged meetings between Rudi and Ukranian officials. Now, Trump might not have referred to the $250 m in the July call, but given how he works (as detailed by Lewandowski in relation to the dictated notes for Jeff Sessions) I believe that Giuliani was the one who linked the promise (involving the $250m funding) with the demand for dirt on Biden. He was at pains last night to distance Trump from his dealings with Ukraine, thereby trying to provide POTUS with plausible deniability.

Rudi needs to be hauled up under oath by Congress to explain himself. And the bullying personal privilege and/or client privilege cannot be used, If he was acting on his own behalf and engaging with a foreign Government. I'd like to see Barry Berke getting a half hour with Rudi in front of the cameras on the Hill on this one...

Two words box.office.

marno21 wrote: »

Biden’s issues are extremely mild compared to the wild incoherent ramblings from the current President, which seem to be getting worse as time passes by.

I wouldn’t be the biggest fan of Biden for President but it’s important to remember that if Biden does get the democratic nomination it really is a binary choice

Bidens failings will be exploited ten fold relative to Trump, the republican apparatus/ fox are very effective.... Biden is a very flawed candidate

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ah, that's the point. The only real problem the Dems have is it isn't one of them in the WH.

They don't want to be creating standards they will regret when they inevitably get back in the WH.

So hum and haw and lots of hand ringing, but don't rock the boat too much as their time will come.

I think that's very unfair.
The Democrats haven't had a president remotely like Trump in modern times.
The Republicans have had presidents like Reagan and Bush that viewed executive power as all encompassing. Think Iran Contra and Iraq war.

edi, for example, Obama could have filled the supreme court opening by recess appointment but didn't. I'd guess both Bush and Trump would have gone tha route.

As far as I know the Ukrainian read out had been widely circulated at this point

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Circulated where ?

Media, most of them including WSJ ran with the same story referencing the read out so I'd assume they all have if or have at least seen it.

8 occasions pressure was applied.

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I've seen repeated references to the Ukrainian 'readout' as being a basis for some reporting in the US.

This term is normally used to describe an agreed summary of a call, which tends to highlight agreed positives and either de-emphasise disagreements / areas of contention, or not refer to them at all.

While arguably better than nothing, a readout is no substitute for a transcript, (or even better, a "tape") which is what is needed to fully understand the content of the call. We'll never see that! Hopefully, at least the appropriate Congressional leads will get an un- abridged version in order to put this latest controversy to bed one way or the other!

ASAIK (I can try and find the reference to this) the whistleblower complaint comes from multiple incidences, not just one call