Trump whistleblower brewing scandal

I think they may hope that. The problem is that it ISN'T a nothinburger. Trump and crazy Giuliani have already conceded the salient points. But that won't stop Republicans from trying to spi. It that way.

Funny how some people claim to be against Trump but call every accusation against Donnie a nothingburger.
 
I'm not sure we'll even get a fair impeachment, much less trial. There's a high likelihood that Trump will stonewall. Then it/various will go to the Supreme Court. Then who knows.

History unfolding before our eyes.

Which is why I think the should have impeachment hearings to get information.but hold off on actually voting impeachment until hopefully after the 2020 election.
In the US Army I was taught to always keep your eyes on the main objective. The main objective is to get Trump out of office. I don't think impeachment is going to work . And it might backfire.
 
Impeachment, should it occur, won't be limited to Trump+Ukraine. But as for Trump+Ukraine, what's the metric that defines a nothing burger...?

Senate fails to convict? That's a given no matter the facts, no matter the law.

Impeachment fails to move public opinion? Maybe even backlash? Who knows. Trump's robust portfolio of impeachable acts, including Trump+Ukraine, are in a different league entirely from Clinton's actions. But on the other hand, Trump's base is perfectly willing to interpret "Nice place you got, shame if something happened to it" as a genuine statement of concern. We're in uncharted territory and it's high risk for all concerned. I don't see a basis for exuding confidence -- in either direction.

Or maybe nothing burger means Trump actually did nothing improper. That's risible, given his and Guiliani's admissions, and the known facts concerning Biden.
 
Funny how some people claim to be against Trump but call every accusation against Donnie a nothingburger.

It is interesting, isn't it? This is worse than the issue involving Russia.Then he was the candidate trying to get a foreign country to smear a political opponent. This time as President he is doing it. Trump is a traitor and deserves the harshest penalty that can be meted out.
 
Last edited:
I did some reading about this. . . It all hinges on, essentially, a bribery charge. The proximity of the calls to the withheld aid transfer certainly lends credence to that charge in my view. I don’t really buy the “I wanted other nations to pay,” gambit, especially in conjunction with the “we have a right to withhold aid until Ukraine investigates its corruption,” gambit. Seems very much like this centers on investigating Hunter Biden.

Then again, there is a whole subplot in there where it’s alleged the Obama admin pressured Ukraine, with aid money, to fire a prosecutor who may or may not have been investigating Hunter Biden... It’s a tangled web and I do think 1)The bribery charge is serious enough to warrant an inquiry and 2)We obviously don’t have all the information... but that’s what investigations are for.

The Obama actions are well known and have been reported on. There is no there there. The prosecutor pushed out was corrupt and the EU was involved, not just Obama and Biden.

The prosecutor was not investigating Hunter Biden's company at the time.
 
Impeachment, should it occur, won't be limited to Trump+Ukraine. But as for Trump+Ukraine, what's the metric that defines a nothing burger...?

Senate fails to convict? That's a given no matter the facts, no matter the law. Impeachment fails to move public opinion? Maybe even backlash? Who knows. Trump's robust portfolio of impeachable acts, including Trump+Ukraine, are in a different league entirely from Clinton's actions. But on the other hand, Trump's base is perfectly willing to interpret "Nice place you got, shame if something happened to it" as a genuine statement of concern. We're in uncharted territory and it's high risk for all concerned. I don't see a basis for exuding confidence -- in either direction.

Or maybe nothing burger means Trump actually did nothing improper. That's risible, given his and Guiliani's admissions, and the known facts concerning Biden.
I think the public is moveable and the Republican Senators may decide it is not in their best interest to continue supporting Trump.

Yes, we could write off the Senate after the Mueller report reaction, but I don't believe in the idea there is nothing than can touch Trump. He's gotten more blatant and more careless flaunting the law.
 
McConnell will stone wall it. It will never even get to the vote in the Senate.

Yeah, yeah he "can't" do that... he'll still do it.
 
McConnell will stone wall it. It will never even get to the vote in the Senate.

Yeah, yeah he "can't" do that... he'll still do it.

That would be unconstitutional from what I can tell. A trial is called for even if it is a sham.
 
McConnell will stone wall it. It will never even get to the vote in the Senate.

Yeah, yeah he "can't" do that... he'll still do it.

Why would he do that? He'll hold a one day trial where all witnesses and exhibits are selected by the majority, and then they'll acquit before dinner. No need to stonewall when you can hold a sham trial.
 
Last edited:
You guys want to believe the lying, fake news, fine. I believe the president. He was the only one willing to tell the truth about the hurricane.
 
That would be unconstitutional from what I can tell. A trial is called for even if it is a sham.

He might never come out and say he won't do it. He just won't do it.

He might promise to do it eventually - but that event will never come to pass, it will always just be something he might do, someday....
 
Chuck Todd made a spectacular assertion tonight. Somehow the impeachment has to be tied up by the first primary vote or else, what were the Democrats thinking? :boggled:

Why?

Don't know why but for some reason that was Todd's talking point on the news tonight.
 
That would be unconstitutional from what I can tell. A trial is called for even if it is a sham.


Alas, the Constitution fails us yet again. While it mandates that the Senate shall conduct a trial after receiving a bill of impeachment from the House, no timeline is provided. The Chief Justice will preside, but can't compel the trial to begin. Moscow Mitch can just sit on the trial as long as he wants, much as he did with Supreme Court nominees. The framers never conceived that the Senate's "advice and consent" might be withheld by simple refusal to get around to it.



The Constitution anticipated bad-faith actions from any one of the three branches of government, and put in place checks and balances so the other two branches could remedy things. It never anticipated that one branch would collude with another, rendering the checks impotent. The House cannot compel the Senate to act. The Constitution has no timeline, so no one can possibly have standing to let the Judiciary compel action.
 
When things are complicated, and unlikely to succeed, I supported removing Trump with an election. Despite the Electoral College, elections are the ultimate legitimizer. But if this is not impeachable, then what is?

I've asked this question at least two or twelve times before, e.g. Is it impeachable when you conspire to violate federal election law? Is it impeachable when you repeatedly obstruct federal investigation into those who wage cyberwar against the United States? My GOP friends (what few I've left these days) don't much like to answer such questions, and I’m not seeing them coming around any time soon.
 
Why would he do that? He'll hold a one day trial where all witnesses and exhibits are selected by the majority, and then they'll acquit before dinner. No need to stonewall when you can hold a sham trial.

It won't be up to McConnell. The Constitution is very clear that the trial is to be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This is not a ceremonial position.
 
WAPO is saying the Giuliani has been the lead guy on the Ukraine project from almost day one.
Which makes Giuliani the number one guy on the "who can we throw to the wolves" list.
 
You guys want to believe the lying, fake news, fine. I believe the president. He was the only one willing to tell the truth about the hurricane.

Alabama is in ruins and the lying media cover it up!
 
Wow! A whole singular phone call transcript will be released...



Gawd bless the Mercifully Generous Messiah™ in all his glorious display of cooperation and transparent honesty.


We shall dance in celebration of His holiness-ness!


 
It is interesting, isn't it? This is worse than the issue involving Russia.Then he was the candidate trying to get a foreign country to smear a political opponent. This time as President he is doing it. Trump is a traitor and deserves the harshest penalty that can be meted out.

Of course I think it is just another guy overdoing the contrarian routine....
 
So would a temperate or mainstream Republican in 2020 actually have certain advantages long term over going straight to either a mainstream or far progressive Democrat? Would that... calm waters at all?

I mean nobody freak out and start thinking I'm actually proposing this as a solution or hoped for goal, but it's an interesting line of thought.

Not a single prominent Republican that you have ever heard of has stepped forward to criticize Trump. Temperate or not, mainstream or not. By their silence they have been complicit and this aspect of their record will be hammered on. Nothing to calm the waters in 2020, and maybe not by 2024.
 
Impeachment, should it occur, won't be limited to Trump+Ukraine. But as for Trump+Ukraine, what's the metric that defines a nothing burger...?

Senate fails to convict? That's a given no matter the facts, no matter the law.

Impeachment fails to move public opinion? Maybe even backlash? Who knows. Trump's robust portfolio of impeachable acts, including Trump+Ukraine, are in a different league entirely from Clinton's actions. But on the other hand, Trump's base is perfectly willing to interpret "Nice place you got, shame if something happened to it" as a genuine statement of concern. We're in uncharted territory and it's high risk for all concerned. I don't see a basis for exuding confidence -- in either direction.

Or maybe nothing burger means Trump actually did nothing improper. That's risible, given his and Guiliani's admissions, and the known facts concerning Biden.

Oh, I think Trump's lawyers are already preparing a "Yeah, Trump commited improper actions, but it does not rise to the level of something he should be removed from office for".
 
Not a single prominent Republican that you have ever heard of has stepped forward to criticize Trump. Temperate or not, mainstream or not. By their silence they have been complicit and this aspect of their record will be hammered on. Nothing to calm the waters in 2020, and maybe not by 2024.

No Republican currently holding office, that is. A number who are retired have been pretty rough on Trump.
 
It won't be up to McConnell. The Constitution is very clear that the trial is to be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This is not a ceremonial position.

Show me in the Constitution how long the Senate has to begin the trail after the House passes the impeachment proceedings on to them.

Also let's check to see what tribe the Chief Justice belongs too... oh he's a Republican.

True John Roberts, to his credit, has fairly routine moments of sanity but still.
 
Trump finally hands over the tapes, demanding only that they are played for the first time on National TV. Halfway through the tapes we hear a record scratch and "Never Gonna Give You Up" starts playing.

Ladies and Gentleman... the entire Trump Campaign has just been the most elaborate Rickroll in history.

Anyway thank you for coming to my TED Talk...
 
Not a single prominent Republican that you have ever heard of has stepped forward to criticize Trump. Temperate or not, mainstream or not. By their silence they have been complicit and this aspect of their record will be hammered on. Nothing to calm the waters in 2020, and maybe not by 2024.
Well there was McCain, but now he's dead.
 
McConnell will stone wall it. It will never even get to the vote in the Senate.

Yeah, yeah he "can't" do that... he'll still do it.

For the more skittish Dems, that might be a better outcome than voting against conviction -- it will look like they think he's guilty but are shielding him. Which is the truth, of course.
 
Oh, I think Trump's lawyers are already preparing a "Yeah, Trump commited improper actions, but it does not rise to the level of something he should be removed from office for".

Trump has a slew of trial balloons out there, looking for anything that will stick.
 
Show me in the Constitution how long the Senate has to begin the trail after the House passes the impeachment proceedings on to them.

Also let's check to see what tribe the Chief Justice belongs too... oh he's a Republican.

True John Roberts, to his credit, has fairly routine moments of sanity but still.

Roberts has demonstrated at least once that he cares more about the SCOTUS than Republican causes.

If Roberts is in charge of the trial, maybe McConnell loses his delay tactic.
 
Last edited:
Roberts has demonstrated at least once that he cares more about the SCOTUS than Republican causes.

If Roberts is in charge of the trial, maybe McConnell loses his delay tactic.

Fair point, but even Roberts can't make 20 Republicans jump ship to support impeachment. 67 is the magic number. We've got 47.

This is all still so much... just nothing. Nothing is going to happen. It's just a matter of how long we're going to go through the steps before realizing that nothing is going to happen.
 
McConnell will stone wall it. It will never even get to the vote in the Senate.

Yeah, yeah he "can't" do that... he'll still do it.

Doesn't matter much. The house makes their findings public as they go, and the vote in the Senate will be irrelevant by November 2020. Some Republican senators may even develop a spine as investigation results are released. It will be too much like cowardice not to. If that happens, McConnell will become irrelevant.
 
So the White House will release the transcript with many 18-minute gaps? Screw 'em; get the whistleblower to testify, ASAP.
 
So the White House will release the transcript with many 18-minute gaps? Screw 'em; get the whistleblower to testify, ASAP.

*Congress is listening to the tapes for the first time*

"That's weird. There's nothing about Biden or the Ukraine on here. Wait... Watergate... H.R. Haldeman... Vernon A. Walters.... he just gave us the Nixon tapes didn't he?"
 
Fair point, but even Roberts can't make 20 Republicans jump ship to support impeachment. 67 is the magic number. We've got 47.

This is all still so much... just nothing. Nothing is going to happen. It's just a matter of how long we're going to go through the steps before realizing that nothing is going to happen.

I wasn't talking about the final vote, I was referring to the delay tactic.

Upon reading a bit, it seems the law leaves McConnell all kinds of gaps to pull his unethical BS to delay the trial.
 

Back
Top Bottom