Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

everlast75 · 25-09-2019 12:16pm

aloyisious wrote: »

Pompeo has been around the Washington block more than once as an insider for Rudy to have much chance of catching him with his pants down, he'd be on to a hiding for nothing to think he can throw Pompeo under the bus for the boss.

It is fun to see them turn on each other..

https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1176812992819814400?s=20

peddlelies · 25-09-2019 2:23pm

I want to read this so called transcript, isn't it meant to be released today?

Can't find much online about it.

duploelabs · 25-09-2019 2:26pm

peddlelies wrote: »

I want to read this so called transcript, isn't it meant to be released today?

Can't find much online about it.

It'll be released with sharpie scrawlings all over it

Kermit.de.frog · 25-09-2019 2:37pm

I have a sneaking suspicion the game may be up for Trump here. Think this is one calamity too far.

Here is the thing - I don't even think he is a criminal.

I just think he is too stupid to know the difference between right and wrong.

And being stupid is not a crime.

peddlelies · 25-09-2019 2:39pm

duploelabs wrote: »

It'll be released with sharpie scrawlings all over it

Maybe so, still want to see it though.

Igotadose · 25-09-2019 2:43pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I have a sneaking suspicion the game may be up for Trump here. Think this is one calamity too far.

Here is the thing - I don't even think he is a criminal.

I just think he is too stupid to know the difference between right and wrong.

And being stupid is not a crime.

ehh. He's had a long lifetime of involvement with shady characters (Roy Cohn being his mentor early in life), litigation and lawsuits. He knows more than we think. He projects stupid and seems very stupid, but he's pretty damn genius when it comes to manipulating the media. He's *never* *ever* had any particular talent, not as a realtor, a gambling entrepreneur, a real-estate developer, nothing. But he could manipulate people to further his brand.

Penn · 25-09-2019 2:44pm

peddlelies wrote: »

I want to read this so called transcript, isn't it meant to be released today?

Can't find much online about it.

Transcript will probably have something small on it which they can bat away as "Okay, shouldn't have done that, but it's insignificant and it's just the Dems blowing the whole thing out of proportion"

As most commentators online have been saying; the transcript will be like Barr's summary of the Mueller Report. Carefully worded in such a way as to give the illusion of truth while hiding the actual truth.

spacecoyote · 25-09-2019 2:46pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

And being stupid is not a crime.

True, being stupid is not a crime. But, being stupid is not a defence if you've committed a crime

Quin_Dub · 25-09-2019 2:48pm

duploelabs wrote: »

It'll be released with sharpie scrawlings all over it

peddlelies wrote: »

Maybe so, still want to see it though.

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

He's a hideous looking creature but yesterday at the UN he looked particularly sh1t - puffy eyes and a fake tan like he was off to the debs. It seems like he knows this isn't good.

##Mod Note##

We've talked about the one liners and the glib responses.

Substantive input only please..

Outlaw Pete · 25-09-2019 3:04pm

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

Cody montana · 25-09-2019 3:17pm

So trump did do it!

PropJoe10 · 25-09-2019 3:22pm

Cody montana wrote: »

So trump did do it!

Asking another country to investigate a political opponent is a clear and obvious effort to have other countries interfere in the US electoral process. Exactly what Trump has been fighting Mueller about for the last two years. How dumb/arrogant is this guy?

Kermit.de.frog · 25-09-2019 3:23pm

Being reported that that is NOT the full transcript Congress has demanded and it is based on verbatim staffer accounts.

one armed dwarf · 25-09-2019 3:24pm

Yeah, he asks for help in exposing Biden there. I guess the question of withholding military aid in return for that remains unanswered though.

But certainly seems like grounds for investigation here. I don't really understand the definition of nothingburger here, unless it was supposed that the phone call alone would provide a complete picture of these two men's relationships and their countries'

Outlaw Pete · 25-09-2019 3:25pm

All this ultimately has done (/ will do) is open a big can of worms for the democrats as it reveals how certain individuals close to the Ukraine worked with the DNC in a concerted effort to smear the Trump campaign in 2016, with the obvious objective of influencing the outcome of the presidential election.

Another backfire.

Igotadose · 25-09-2019 3:27pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

All this ultimately has done (/ will do) is open a big can of worms for the democrats as it reveals how certain individuals close to the Ukraine worked with the DNC in a concerted effort to smear the Trump campaign in 2016, with the obvious objective of influencing the outcome of the presidential election.

Another backfire.

Eh. You've nothing to base that on. What it'll do, is force the GOP in the Senate to fish or cut bait when it comes to Trump, once the trial starts. I wonder what they'll be subpoenaing for this beyond the whistleblowers information - taxes?

listermint · 25-09-2019 3:29pm

peddlelies wrote: »

I want to read this so called transcript, isn't it meant to be released today?

Can't find much online about it.

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:

Kiith · 25-09-2019 3:32pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

All this ultimately has done (/ will do) is open a big can of worms for the democrats as it reveals how certain individuals close to the Ukraine worked with the DNC in a concerted effort to smear the Trump campaign in 2016, with the obvious objective of influencing the outcome of the presidential election.

Another backfire.

Trump asked Ukraine to investigate the son of a political opponent, but it's somehow the Democrats that are bad?

Pedro K · 25-09-2019 3:33pm

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

On yer man's twitter, before he posts the document, he says "this is a word for word transcript."

He then posts the document, which has a caution at the bottom pointing out that it "is not a verbatim transcript."

peddlelies · 25-09-2019 3:33pm

What I don't get is why didn't the Trump campaign just hire a third party to investigate Biden's dealings with the Ukraine and China like Clinton's did in 2016?

He's a complete idiot to mention investigating Biden to the Ukrainian PM when he knows those calls are monitored and leaks have happened before. Rudy is an idiot too for getting involved with state department affairs.

This will drag on well in 2020, it's hard to see him being impeached though, the tone of the call ( if anyway accurate ) is cordial and there's no direct mention of funding etc.

Penn · 25-09-2019 3:33pm

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.

one armed dwarf · 25-09-2019 3:35pm

Like there's this habit in the US media these days of calling a 'nothingburger' something which raises questions but doesn't completely answer each one.

Like how Trump Jr's meeting with the russian lawyer in Trump tower was a 'nothingburger', yet it raised so many questions that were really dangerous for the president.

That 'nothingburger' there shows clearly that Trump wanted to expose Biden. The question is what motive has he really, given that Biden is the Dem's frontrunner it's not a stretch to conclude it's a selfish one.

Then the other question is why was the military aid delayed. We really don't know that it's connected to this or not but the two facts are uncomfortable when put side by side.

I'll admit though I only browse and lurk this thread occasionally and I'm not as plugged into this story as other users. In particular I don't really know what the process of impeachment is, if it is an investigation into a possible crime or if you actually need a slam dunk case to begin it. In which case, is this Ukraine thing that?

maximoose · 25-09-2019 3:37pm

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.

Shelga · 25-09-2019 3:47pm

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.

peddlelies · 25-09-2019 3:52pm

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's to do with a natural gas company that was being investigated for corruption which he and his son were involved in. Biden got the prosecutor fired by threatening to withhold funds.

Igotadose · 25-09-2019 3:55pm

Penn wrote: »

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.

Even better, Nixon offered to have Sen. John Stennis listen to them and transcribe.

Stennis was deaf. You can't make this up.
---

What's even more disheartening, is this is the 3rd impeachment saga in my lifetime. I very much remember Watergate being in US highschool during the period. I'll say this - Trump's not got anywhere near the smarts Nixon did. And Nixon went down despite a good economy and having finally ended Vietnam.
The economy went south with Ford, though there was the first OPEC embargo at the time, too.

What is also interesting is now that the p00p's hitting the fan, it's hitting Barr. Nixon's AG John Mitchell went to jail as part of Watergate (and who knows what other shenanigans that guy was involved with). I wonder if he'll take a bullet for the President, too. Not clear yet what his role was, he might've been involved in guiding Rudy. It'd be grand if Rudy was their sacrificial rat, if so I doubt he goes down alone.

listermint · 25-09-2019 4:00pm

peddlelies wrote: »

It's to do with a natural gas company that was being investigated for corruption which he and his son were involved in. Biden got the prosecutor fired by threatening to withhold funds.

That video is doing the rounds from right wing think thanks on twitter.
But it gives zero context as to why America wanted the prosecutor fired or for what reason.

You are joining dots there that we dont know of. Ive also heard the EU were looking for this guy to be removed to. What for ?

Outlaw Pete · 25-09-2019 4:03pm

Kiith wrote: »

Trump asked Ukraine to investigate the son of a political opponent, but it's somehow the Democrats that are bad?

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.

listermint · 25-09-2019 4:07pm

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) in what appears to have been a quid pro quo, as he intimated that he would agree with what Biden 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 this, 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 that 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.

Firstly

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

The end.

Penn · 25-09-2019 4:07pm

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.

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). He also implicated the president at the time (Obama) in what appears to have been a quid pro quo, as he intimated that he would agree with what Biden 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 this, 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 that 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.

There absolutely may be something substantial in the Biden accusations. Absolutely.

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?

Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Comments