Trump whistleblower brewing scandal

acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Funny how some people claim to be against Trump but call every accusation against Donnie a nothingburger.
 
varwoche said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
dudalb said:
Funny how some people claim to be against Trump but call every accusation against Donnie a nothingburger.
Click to expand...

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:
xjx388 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
varwoche said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...

That would be unconstitutional from what I can tell. A trial is called for even if it is a sham.
 
JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
acbytesla said:
That would be unconstitutional from what I can tell. A trial is called for even if it is a sham.
Click to expand...

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.
 
acbytesla said:
That would be unconstitutional from what I can tell. A trial is called for even if it is a sham.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Cain said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Beeyon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cain said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!


 
acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course I think it is just another guy overdoing the contrarian routine....
 
JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
varwoche said:
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.
Click to expand...

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".
 
fishbob said:
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.
Click to expand...

No Republican currently holding office, that is. A number who are retired have been pretty rough on Trump.
 
acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
fishbob said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well there was McCain, but now he's dead.
 
JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
dudalb said:
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".
Click to expand...

Trump has a slew of trial balloons out there, looking for anything that will stick.
 
JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Skeptic Ginger said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
WilliamSeger said:
So the White House will release the transcript with many 18-minute gaps? Screw 'em; get the whistleblower to testify, ASAP.
Click to expand...

*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?"
 
JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom