Trump Ukraine whistleblower scandal

Page 3 of 10 [ 152 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

26 Sep 2019, 11:49 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:

The base is pro impeachment no doubt, and at this point of probable no return the expectations are so high if they do not impeach it might be worse then if they do. And since Trump can’t or won’t expand his base the Democrats will probably win and win big no matter what they do. The Trump 2016 voter, congressional democrat 2018 voter might be a small group but they could decide or more likely turn a landslide into a close election.

I am willing to play almost any game that will result in a clear rejection of Trump and Trumpism and deal with the rest later. Right now their best play since they are on this path is impeach him fast and try and get the conversation back to economics and to a lesser extent thier candidates ASAP. Peoples opinion of Trump are baked in and a significant majority don’t like him. Economics worked for them in 2018 in a “good” economy in a big way so what I am advocating is do not fix what worked.

As far as fear if everybody that did not like Trump had more of it we would not be where we are.

I'm glad we can agree.

Here is the text of the declassified whistleblower complaint against Donald Trump:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics ... index.html

Here's the beginning part:

Quote:

Dear Chairman Burr and Chairman Schiff:

I am reporting an "urgent concern" in accordance with the procedures outlined in 50 U.S.C. §3033(k)(5)(A). This letter is UNCLASSIFIED when separated from the attachment.

In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President's main domestic political rivals. The President' s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.

_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

26 Sep 2019, 11:57 am

Here is some of the meat of the complaint:

Quote:

Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid. According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to, inter alia:

- initiate or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden;

-assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election originated in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike, which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the DNC's networks in 2016; and

-meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem.

_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

26 Sep 2019, 12:01 pm

Here's some more meat:

Quote:

The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the phone call. They told me that there was already a "discussion ongoing" with White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the officials' retelling, that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain.

The Ukrainian side was the first to publicly acknowledge the phone call. On the evening of 25 July, a readout was posted on the website of the Ukrainian President that contained the following line (translation from original Russian-language readout):

- "Donald Trump expressed his conviction that the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve Ukraine's image and complete the investigation of corruption cases that have held back cooperation between Ukraine and the United States."

Aside from the above-mentioned "cases" purportedly dealing with the Biden family and the 2016 U.S. election, I was told by White House officials that no other "cases" were discussed.

Based on my understanding, there were approximately a dozen White House officials who listened to the call -- a mixture of policy officials and duty officers in the White House Situation Room, as is customary. The officials I spoke with told me that participation in the call had not been restricted in advance because everyone expected it would be a "routine" call with a foreign leader. I do not know whether anyone was physically present with the President during the call.

And then there were efforts to restrict access to records of the call, in an apparent cover-up:

Quote:

In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to "lock down" all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced -- as is customary -- by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.

- White House officials told me that they were "directed" by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level officials.

- Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.

I do not know whether similar measures were taken to restrict access to other records of the call, such as contemporaneous handwritten notes taken by those who listened in.

There's a lot more in there.

_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin

Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

26 Sep 2019, 12:14 pm

beneficii wrote:

ASPartOfMe wrote:

Since it does not look likely that the Senate will convict Trump, finding things about Democrats increases the chance of him being reelected. In that scenario the progressives made a statement whoopdee do, America would have elected Trump not once but twice. That can’t be written off as a horrible error of judgement. The hard core MAGA’s including the MAGA in chief will feel so vindicated, so much a sense of schadenfreude that the amount and intensity of their bullying and norm breaking and more will ramp up a lot.

The priority ought to be not only the election but having something to put together afterwards. Everything needs to be thought of in that context. The election really can’t be close. There will always be hardcore MAGA’s Trump probably included that won’t accept the results and will act out no matter what. But there are a lot of others probably most other MAGA’s that will slink quietly away in the face of a decisive loss. A close loss will be widely pinned on a conspiracy and Trump’s post election ravings will still dominate political discussion, not as much after a decisive loss. If Trump has to be physically carried out obviously that would make things very difficult and dangerous.

Cenk is wrong the anti Trump people fearful of impeachment are fearful of angering hardcore Trump voters, they are fearful of alienating the Trump 2016, congressional democrat 2018 voter. Why would Cerk argue against focusing on policy, while AOC is getting all of the publicity the blue wave was created by candidates ignoring the Trump outrage of the moment and focusing on policy specifically healthcare.

The timing of this is ironic. Until now Biden was the Trump of this season committing gaffe after gaffe and never losing his large lead. There is now significant signs of change, Warren has persisted(pun intended) and has gained significantly if not drawn even with Biden.

So again, you want us to act based on fear. You want us to sweep everything under the rug, and pretend everything with the Democrats is just hunky dory. Boy, where can this go wrong? :roll:

And what makes you think that the Democratic victory in 2018 was because of remorseful Trump voters? And what makes you think they'd be turned off by impeachment? I believe in 2018, there were a lot of new, younger voters, making it the midterm with the highest turnout in decades.

Turnout is still abysmally low in America compared to other developed countries. How about, we work on fighting voter suppression, and how about we actually excite younger voters? How about we talk about how younger voters may actually be able to retire, about how we will take care of climate change, leaving a better future for them and their children?

Why instead do we have to keep playing the same old sad and cynical political games?

What if you're wrong? What if Trump beats the impeachment charges, the democrats look like partisan power-brokers, the center is turned off by efforts to energize the left and he wins re-election?

It's not acting out of fear to consider these possibilities and weigh them against the possibilities of other courses of action. It's being prudent.

The democrats campaigned in 2016 on primarilly "Trump is evil you can't elect him." That strategy failed. I know, I lived in a swing state that ended up voting for Trump. Every Hillary ad was attacking a different Trump controversy, every Trump ad was talking about how we was going to bring back manufacturing jobs and make America great again.

I think the democrats would win on a campaign that focused on 2 things:

1) The less extreme versions of the Democratic platform. Dump Medicare for All, and embrace a true public option. Dump the New Green Deal, and say how we'll rejoin the Paris accords and invest in green technology. Focus it on building for the future and looking out for hard-working Americans.

2) "Trump can't get it done." Point out how there's no new China trade deal. How farmers are being hurt, while manufacturing plants are still closing. Show how the North Korea talks collapsed. Keep the focus on these international failures where Democratic obstruction is not a factor.

I agree with AsPartOfMe that we're probably past the point of no return and that not impeaching would look weak and probably do more harm than impeaching, but it is idiotic to say that impeaching is not a risk. It is, and a pretty big one.

_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

26 Sep 2019, 12:18 pm

Antrax wrote:

beneficii wrote:

ASPartOfMe wrote:

So again, you want us to act based on fear. You want us to sweep everything under the rug, and pretend everything with the Democrats is just hunky dory. Boy, where can this go wrong? :roll:

This impeachment would be different than the Clinton impeachment. They impeached Clinton for telling a lie about a sexual relationship he had which was immaterial to the criminal investigation they were conducting; this made it clear to anyone who read about it that it was a witch hunt.

What's going on here is a whistleblower filed a complaint to the Inspector General's office, which complaint was then sent to the chairmen of both the Senate and House intelligence committees, about hearing from multiple White House officials of the President trying to pressure a foreign leader to do things to benefit him personally and politically.

It would be irresponsible not to act based on it, and if you have probable cause, you have to move forward with impeachment.

_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin

vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

26 Sep 2019, 12:26 pm

I just read the newly released whistleblowers complaint.I would call it moderatly convincing.The evidence they have may get an impeachment but senate republicans are saying they don't see a quid pro quo in any of the released transcripts.
So this means a lack of support for conviction in the senate and Trump will go down like Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton as those that survived impeachment.Whether or not this leaves egg on the face democrats or hurts them in the 2020 election I don't know.

_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

26 Sep 2019, 12:29 pm

vermontsavant wrote:

Quid pro quo is irrelevant as to whether it's a crime.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... pt-vpx.cnn

I would say holding the impeachment trial, and making the formal case, has a good chance of making clear to the American people Trump is in the wrong, even if Republicans refuse to vote to convict. Also, a lot of Republican senators are not happy with Trump, and if they see an advantage to doing so, they'll turn on him in an instant.

_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin

Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

26 Sep 2019, 12:39 pm

beneficii wrote:

vermontsavant wrote:

As I've always said, you know that Ted Cruz would knife Trump in the back in an instant if he saw a way it would help him. If the Republicans turn on Trump, they'll do it all at once.

_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

26 Sep 2019, 12:42 pm

Antrax wrote:

Nate Silver's take: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/im ... different/

Some things he writes about that I agree with:

On why impeachment is unpopular while approval of Trump is low:

Quote:

Why this gap has persisted isn’t entirely clear. Pelosi’s reluctance on impeachment undoubtedly dissuaded some Democratic voters from getting on board; the most recent Quinnipiac poll found only 61 percent of Democrats in favor of impeachment and 29 percent opposed. Those numbers may increase now that House leadership is coming around to impeachment.

The same poll, however, found independent voters mostly against impeachment — 62 percent opposed it to 28 percent in favor. That’s despite Trump having only a 35 percent approval rating among independents in the poll. So impeachment has given Democrats problems among swing voters as well.

Another explanation may simply be that the public has a high threshold for impeachment, especially for an elected president and especially especially when that president will be on the ballot again soon.

On why public opinion matters:

Quote:

The politics of impeachment on Ukraine may be different than on Russia. But Democrats should take public opinion seriously. That doesn’t mean you always have to do the poll-driven thing. But don’t wish the numbers away because you don’t like them, or presume that they’ll change in your favor, or assume there won’t be consequences for taking an unpopular action.

More specifically for Democrats, their failure to persuade the public that Russia warranted impeachment offers several potential lessons if they are to proceed on Ukraine:

On the importance on sticking to Ukraine:

Quote:

Even worse for Democrats than combining Ukraine and Russia would be to offer a laundry list of impeachment charges, involving the emoluments clause or Trump’s general conduct in office or what not. The public has a high threshold for what constitutes impeachable conduct, so reasons that are below that threshold might weaken the overall case for impeachment rather than being additive.

Furthermore, such a strategy would tend to play into the White House’s strengths. The White House is fairly skilled at muddying the news cycle and navigating its way through the swampy thicket of a story in ways that can fatigue the public. It isn’t a perfect analogy, but in the Kavanaugh hearings, the sheer volume of accusations against Kavanaugh eventually helped him; the less credible allegations allowed Kavanaugh and the White House to cast doubt on the more credible ones, such as Christine Blasey Ford’s. Throwing more accusations or alleged reasons for impeachment at Trump could likewise allow the White House to focus on the weakest ones.

Democrats look bad because before they knew any facts, entirely based on second hand speculation, they called for impeachment.

The night before Trump released the transcript, Democrats were suggesting their own facts (anticipating the transcript would support Trump).

Facts don't even matter here.

_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

26 Sep 2019, 12:45 pm

beneficii wrote:

vermontsavant wrote:

The US Justice department already cleared Trump of this, so it was determined to not be a crime.

_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.

Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

26 Sep 2019, 12:47 pm

beneficii wrote:

Circumstances are different for sure, but remember that Bill Clinton was caught red-handed having committed a felony, and when the Republicans impeached him they suffered politically for it.

Certainly there needs to be an investigation, to not investigate would indeed be irresponsible. But the Democrats would be in a much stronger position if they weren't backed into having to impeach.

_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."

vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

26 Sep 2019, 1:35 pm

beneficii wrote:

vermontsavant wrote:

Quid pro quo may be irrelevent as to whether it's a crime but it is relevent to the state of mind of the republican MAJORITY in the senate who will ultimately decide if Trump is convicted.Good video though and the video may have proved quid pro quo but tell that to senate republicans who I don't see turning on Trump

_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

26 Sep 2019, 1:47 pm

An often overlooked piece of the scandal is Giuliani's role. The President said multiple times he wanted the Ukraine President to contact Giuliani, in addition to the Attorney General. Giuliani is the President's personal attorney; he is not actually a member of the Administration or the State Department. If this really were an international investigation to the interest of both the USA and Ukraine, then the State Department should be involved.

Now, Giuliani claimed he was asked by the State Department to do it, but the State Department in response rebuffed him:

Quote:

Rudy Giuliani told Sean Hannity on Fox News Monday night that his recent dealings with Ukraine were initiated by the State Department.

"The State Department called me and said would I take a call from Mr. (Andriy) Yermak, who's No. 2 or three to the president-elect who is now the president," said Giuliani, one of President Trump's personal attorneys.

Giuliani said he then spoke with Yermak and that he then passed along the "enormously important facts" to the State Department.

When reached for comment, a State Department spokesperson said, "Mr. Giuliani is a private citizen and acts in a personal capacity as a lawyer for President Trump. He does not speak on behalf of the U.S. Government."

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... n-official

_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

26 Sep 2019, 2:05 pm

vermontsavant wrote:

beneficii wrote:

vermontsavant wrote:

Well, rest assured, it does look like there was quid pro quo. And remember, whether there was quid pro quo or not, the President was pressuring Ukraine to benefit Trump; any quid pro quo would be a benefit to Ukraine or its leaders. Keep that in mind.

The notes show the President was trying to hold the threat of withholding military aid over Zelensky's head. Shortly before his call with Zelensky, Trump suddenly withheld military aid from Ukraine. It was when Zelensky asked him to restore military aid, that Trump asked the President of Ukraine to "do us a favor". Then after Zelensky responds in the affirmative and basically grovels before Trump, Trump promises that Ukraine's "economy is going to get better and better I predict".

The quid pro quo is Trump's implicit promise to resume military aid to Ukraine in exchange for Zelensky doing him a favor. But either way, Trump pressured Ukraine's President to do him a favor.

_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin

vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

26 Sep 2019, 2:32 pm

beneficii wrote:

vermontsavant wrote:

beneficii wrote:

vermontsavant wrote:

I am aware of what the quid pro quo was or is and I am not a supporter of Trump,I plan to vote for Bill Weld in the republican primary.But I strongly feel that Trump is not impeachable and any such hearings would be a waste of time.When Trump is eventualy exonerated it will just make him stronger and we don't need 4 more years of Trump.There is little evidence in any of the several released transcripts that Trump lawyers couldn't poke holes in,for one the whistleblower himself admitted his complaint contained second hand accounts of what happened and that he was not a first person wittness to anything in the whistleblower complaint.Trump lawyers will have a field day with this even if the whistleblowers sources were vetted and reliable.There are just to many weaknesses to stand up to a conviction in the senate.Rebuplicans are all over the news both house and senate republicans saying there was no crime and no quid pro quo between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy.If a crime was commited senate democrats will never proove it,house democrats may prove it but that does not matter

_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined

ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York

26 Sep 2019, 3:46 pm

Yes Trump probably obstructed justice for the Russia conspiracy he apparently did not commit.

Trump clearly attempted to influence the 2016 election in the Stormy Danials matter that everybody basically ignored because they were fixated on Muller.

Ukraine-gate is a quid pro attempt to influence the 2020 election. We are not talking Autistic direct language but euphemism and hidden and not so hidden meanings in this case.

Impeachment is political matter with a legalistic sounding outer shell. It is not a legal matter.

Clinton was impeached because most conservatives despised that an ex hippie anti war protester beat them twice, lying to a grand jury was a cover as was the Starr investigation. Until Clinton it would have been unthinkable to even launch an investigation of a President over a extra marital affair. He survived because outside of conservatives he was strongly liked and the economy was great.

Nixon was never liked as a person, the economy was poor and that is why his approval ratings dropped to 25 percent and his support among Republicans collapsed.

Of course Trump is mostly loathed but also adored among a large minority.

_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”

Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 26 Sep 2019, 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Page 3 of 10 [ 152 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10 Next

Jump to:

Trump Ukraine whistleblower scandal Post Reply New Topic

Trump Ukraine whistleblower scandal