Trump whistleblower brewing scandal

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Where? Can you quote it? I'm not seeing it.

I see Trump/Guilani confessing to asking the Ukraine to investigate Biden, but not promising anything in return, or threatening to withhold the aid if they refused...

Sorry, you misunderstood. What I found was where I'd posted something before.

If it's not too late I'll edit my post.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm betting money that the House will start impeachment proceedings. Trump isn't giving them any choice.

How about a signature bet? Cheaper than money.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm betting money that the House will start impeachment proceedings. Trump isn't giving them any choice.

It's a good bet: My $0.30 shares on predictit.org for impeachment are now at $0.54 and climbing, and my recommendation is "strong hold."

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

He told Mulvaney to withhold the money, and now he's saying it was withheld to put pressure on Ukraine to "fight corruption," by which both he and his personal lawyer made clear to Zelinskyy meant he wanted an investigation of Hunter Biden. That's a confession in my book.

Can you quote that part?

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Can you quote that part?

Trump suggests he tied Ukraine funding to corruption, cites Biden allegations

Quote:

"We want to make sure that country is honest. It's very important to talk about corruption. Why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?" the president asked Monday, when asked what he had spoken about during his summer call with Ukraine's leader.

“It’s very important that, on occasion, you speak to somebody about corruption,” he said, moments after telling journalists: "Let me just tell you — let me just tell you. What Biden did was wrong."

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Trump suggests he tied Ukraine funding to corruption, cites Biden allegations

Thanks!
Yeah, that does look like a confession.

[The Great Zaganza]

Seems to me Rudi broke the law in negotiating with a foreign power on behalf of Trump without being part of the administration.

[The Great Zaganza]

The absolute worst thing about all this is that it proves Snowden was right: there is no legitimate way to call the whistle on people in an administraton.
You think the next IC Whistleblower will follow procedure and go through the DNI?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Trump suggests he tied Ukraine funding to corruption, cites Biden allegations

Well! Who needs a whistleblower when Trump can't keep his mouth shut.

[Minoosh]

Why is there supposedly an offer of $250M to begin with? Is this something Congress passed? I keep thinking the artillery will fire Nerf balls and the guns will spit out blobs of paint. The Ukrainian president says his first priority is peace. Well, that's easy: Just give Putin what he wants.

I wonder: Were these funds appropriated in another era, when the U.S. (even Republicans in Congress) was trying to look stern with Russia? Is Trump just trying to score points domestically by looking tough on Putin? Because Trump is not the least bit interested in providing weapons to kill Russians.

This is one of those areas where I believe there's some discord between GOP senators and Trump.

ETA: I'll try to educate myself but if anyone knows more about this financial aid please point me in the right direction.

[llwyd]

A useful primer on the Biden smear - that prosecutor in the question refused to investigate corruption and that's why the West and international organizations pressed for his removal. Got to hand it to the republicans, they are pretty damn brazen...

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...aine-narrative

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The absolute worst thing about all this is that it proves Snowden was right: there is no legitimate way to call the whistle on people in an administraton.
You think the next IC Whistleblower will follow procedure and go through the DNI?

The Snowden way seems to have worked out.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The Snowden way seems to have worked out.

Well, that's the message the acting Director of National Intelligence is sending out.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm betting money that the House will start impeachment proceedings. Trump isn't giving them any choice.

Meh. I've heard this before with the Russia investigation.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The Snowden way seems to have worked out.

Worked out for Snowden? He is living in exile, at the whims of the Russian government. Yes, he may have managed to reveal what he wanted, but his life significantly changed for the worse.

Sent from my LG-K121 using Tapatalk

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Worked out for Snowden? He is living in exile, at the whims of the Russian government. Yes, he may have managed to reveal what he wanted, but his life significantly changed for the worse.

Sent from my LG-K121 using Tapatalk

See. It all worked out. The timeline didn't cease to function or anything.

[BadBoy]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

The Major: You couldn't do that, Fawlty, he wouldn't be able to breathe!
Basil Fawlty: He could try, Major. He could try...

superb. Made my day just then.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

So, uh....what statute did the President violate? What crime did he commit?


He may very well have committed one, and I'm all for having an investigation to rake all the muck that we can to come up with something, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. So far, we know that he said something about Joe Biden's kid during a phone call. That's it.

I listen to right wing yappers, and they are quite happy with recent events on this subject. They think the Democrats look stupid. If nothing comes of it, they'll be right.

Meanwhile, there's Joe himself, and his bragging about getting the the President of the Ukraine to agree to fire a prosecutor. Why? Of course Trump and the right wing yappers say that it's because he was investigating Biden's son, but I've also read that that investigation wasn't going on at the time Biden requested it. Does anyone happen to know why Biden tied the money to firing the prosecutor? Devin Nunes was on the tube yesterday saying this will be the end of Biden. Is there reason to believe he's right, or was the request by Biden unrelated to his son or other American business interests?

Yep all fine. This is why Trumps fake complaints about Obama ordering investigations of him ring so hollow that is a clear presidential prerogative and normal expected actions.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

...in terms of his effect on the country, he's no worse than GWB or Reagan, and somehow we survived them.

Originally Posted by varwoche

... I'm even occasionally gobsmacked.

This would be one of those times.

[thaiboxerken]

Right? Reagan's policies are still killing the middle-class.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by dudalb

You know, I am getting suspicious of this "I don't Like Trump but" routine you have doing here for some time.

A reasonable suspicion but let's not go down to "he should be with us or he's against us."

[varwoche]

* Aid to Ukraine put on hold a week before the phone meeting
* Blatantly phony reason provided
* Won't release the whistleblower report, against the law
* Guiliani dispatched to Ukraine to stir up trouble for Biden, admittedly

And the absolute topper from comedy standpoint: We're asked to believe that Trump is concerned about corruption in Ukraine, or anywhere else for that matter.

How ever many laughing dogs reaches the max capacity for a post, picture that many.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Trump today: "What Biden did deserves the electric chair."

WTF?

From what I can see that's not what he said. He said a Republican would get the chair if they did what Biden did.

It's still monumentally stupid a thing to say, but it's not what you wrote.

[varwoche]

If you think a POTUS should be allowed to do the things this POTUS has done (see post 235), you don't give a rat's ass about democracy and rule of law.

[SuburbanTurkey]

What a strange scandal. No doubt that it happened, Trump is standing up on TV red handed and saying he did it. Republicans have no interest in stopping him, so that's that.

Failure of the constitution in a neat diorama. Legislature totally subservient to the executive and there's nothing that can be done.

Vote blue, no matter who. Republicans are unfit for any office anywhere. Maybe a new party can rise up to represent conservatives, but this one is permanently stained to my eye.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by varwoche

If you think a POTUS should be allowed to do the things this POTUS has done (see post 235), you don't give a rat's ass about democracy and rule of law.

The rule is all executive power is vested in a president.

This is the application of that rule.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The rule is all executive power is vested in a president.

Yep if the president wants to have his political opponents shot that is within his authority.

[The Great Zaganza]

Trump criming in the open makes him righteous in the eyes of his supporters - which is much better than just being in the right

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Yep if the president wants to have his political opponents shot that is within his authority.

The president is allowed to be concerned about corruption and use executive power as he sees fit. If it just so happens to involve a political opponent, he isn't required to be demure. He is the fount of all executive power. There isn't another source of authority for someone else to make this decision.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm betting money that the House will start impeachment proceedings. Trump isn't giving them any choice.

Yeah... because he wants to get impeached. He knows within a metaphysical certainty he's untouchable and he knows it hands him 2020 on a sliver platter.

And this isn't some crazy neo-con fantasy. CNN, you know that conservative mouthpiece, is running an op-ad piece right now saying the exact same thing.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/24/polit...ice/index.html

We need to stop thinking in terms of "LOL it's like he wants to be impeached" as joking bit of irony and start actually realizing that he probably actually literally does.

And when the enemy is standing there going "Come at me bro, attack me, I dare you, I double dog dare you" that's almost never the best time to attack, even if it is a "moral imperative to do so."

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Yep if the president wants to have his political opponents shot that is within his authority.

That's pretty much where we stand. Forget the "have his" part. He can do it himself in plain sight if Mitch McConnell is ok with it. Even if McConnell opposes, it takes time to impeach / remove. Trump could go from rally to rally over a period of days and gun them down one by one and there's not a thing anyone can do about it, according to the AG.

And according to Trump, he can't even be investigated.

An honor system democracy depends on there being honorable people in power.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The president is allowed to be concerned about corruption and use executive power as he sees fit. If it just so happens to involve a political opponent, he isn't required to be demure. He is the fount of all executive power. There isn't another source of authority for someone else to make this decision.

Yes like blocking congresses sanctions on russia, and being for the murder of reporters who after all are enemies of the people. Basic republican values there.

Unless the president is a democrat then things like russian corruption with political opponents are right out and a huge abuse of power.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The president is allowed to be concerned about corruption and use executive power as he sees fit. If it just so happens to involve a political opponent, he isn't required to be demure. He is the fount of all executive power. There isn't another source of authority for someone else to make this decision.

Going after Biden or coaxing others to do so is a violation of Biden's rights.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Going after Biden or coaxing others to do so is a violation of Biden's rights.

As the executive power, he is the source of power for all federal cops and prosecutors. They go after people. That is what they do.

The bar for an preliminary investigations is extremely low. Even if Biden has never done anything illegal he probably still is eligible.

Also, can still be directly targeted non criminally.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yeah... because he wants to get impeached. He knows within a metaphysical certainty he's untouchable and he knows it hands him 2020 on a sliver platter.

I believe that failure of the house to impeach him hands him 2020 on a silver platter.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I believe that failure of the house to impeach him hands him 2020 on a silver platter.

I'm not sure either would hand him the election.

[The Great Zaganza]

Bob, no one buys your fundamentalist view of the Powers of the Presidency.
If they did, Barr would have investigations into every Democrat and half of the Republicans on the Hill going.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Bob, no one buys your fundamentalist view of the Powers of the Presidency.
If they did, Barr would have investigations into every Democrat and half of the Republicans on the Hill going.

It isn't my view. I didn't invent unitary executive theory. There is a cohort of legal minds that have these ideas.

I'm not bringing anything novel here.

[JoeMorgue]

Okay so honest question. (And this is honest, no snark, not gotcha.)

We impeach Trump. And we'll say that either leads to removal of office OR political damage enough to cost him 2020.

But, let's say, the Dems still don't win. Another, more mainstream Republican, a "Romney" or a "McCain" let's say, wins 2020.

How much of a win would we consider that? Better then nothing?

Again serious question. It's not a likely scenario but... well have watched the last few years? Unlikely scenarios are pretty popular.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yeah... because he wants to get impeached. He knows within a metaphysical certainty he's untouchable and he knows it hands him 2020 on a sliver platter.

And this isn't some crazy neo-con fantasy. CNN, you know that conservative mouthpiece, is running an op-ad piece right now saying the exact same thing.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/24/polit...ice/index.html

We need to stop thinking in terms of "LOL it's like he wants to be impeached" as joking bit of irony and start actually realizing that he probably actually literally does.

And when the enemy is standing there going "Come at me bro, attack me, I dare you, I double dog dare you" that's almost never the best time to attack, even if it is a "moral imperative to do so."

I'm sympathetic to this argument. There are a few flaws though:

(1) The person doing the double dog dare is a dimwit.
(2) A rep who believes in the quaint notion that their oath of office is actually meaningful might be compelled to impeach as a matter of constitutional duty, never mind moral imperatives.
(3) We may be assigning too much weight to the Clinton history lesson.
(4) Despite Clinton's surge in popularity after impeachment, Republicans retained control of both houses of congress in the election one month later.