Trump whistleblower brewing scandal

CORed said:
That is correct (according to Wikipedia). I believe he is still on parole, which may qualify as "serving time" for certain definitions of "serving time".
Click to expand...

One thing I've picked up from this forum is that there's a cultural divide between the US and the UK on this topic. In the US, the general sense is that parole isn't quite the same thing as serving time. This might be mostly due to its portrayal in popular fiction, where criminals generally seem to treat it as a system to be gamed or simply ignored. Thus, culturally in the US, parole = "pro forma, not really serving time anymore". In the UK, being out on parole (or whatever the correct technical term for the equivalent) seems to be seen culturally as being a fully-featured part of the actual sentence.

In the US: "He served 5 years of a ten year sentence, and then got out on parole."

In the UK: "He served a ten year sentence, half in prison and half on parole."
 
Disagree.
There are plenty of aspects of this which are hidden by classification - it is presumptuous to assume that we would have all the facts to judge all aspects of this.
What we can judge is the degree to which Trump and other Republicans lie in order to gaslight the voters: the "hearsay" lie comes to mind.
Obviously, only Democrats have the will to actually investigate.
 
theprestige said:
I think Meadmaker has been making thoughtful, realistic arguments about the legal claims being presented.
Click to expand...

Meadmaker's argument only made sense to those completely unaware of Trump's extensive cover-up of a completely non-standard method of carrying out a supposedly proper investigation. That's neither thoughtful nor realistic.
 
Could Trump withhold aid to Ukraine while he asked the president about his company's legal proceedings there related to the acquisition or development of property? Would that be OK to those defending Trump?

It is not a crime for his company to build a resort in Ukraine.
It is not a crime for him to hold back the money a bit.
It is not a crime for him to ask about legal proceeding or development in a foreign country.
Surely it would not be a crime for him to ask about legal proceedings surrounding an acquisition or development of property by his company while talking to the president of Ukraine and withholding aid.

Or would it?
 
theprestige said:
Also known as rational debate.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you buy into the Alex Jones version of "rational debate", where you “just ask questions” so you can ignore all the answers so you can go along believe things that have no supporting evidence whatsoever.


Actual rational debate requires both sides to present their cases and decide which one best fits the facts.
 
lomiller said:
Maybe if you buy into the Alex Jones version of "rational debate", where you “just ask questions” so you can ignore all the answers so you can go along believe things that have no supporting evidence whatsoever.


Actual rational debate requires both sides to present their cases and decide which one best fits the facts.
Click to expand...

My apologies. I mistakenly thought this was Meadmaker's thread in Trials and Errors, which has an entirely different charter and tone than this one. Upchurch's post is totally appropriate to this thread, and my objection to it has no relevance. My defense of my objection even less so. Carry on!
 
Dr. Keith said:
Could Trump withhold aid to Ukraine while he asked the president about his company's legal proceedings there related to the acquisition or development of property? Would that be OK to those defending Trump?

It is not a crime for his company to build a resort in Ukraine.
It is not a crime for him to hold back the money a bit.
It is not a crime for him to ask about legal proceeding or development in a foreign country.
Surely it would not be a crime for him to ask about legal proceedings surrounding an acquisition or development of property by his company while talking to the president of Ukraine and withholding aid.

Or would it?
Click to expand...

It's not criminal in the sense there is a criminal law prohibiting it. Although there are laws that say it is wrong. However High Crimes does not mean "criminal". The question is, is it an abuse of power?

Is it an abuse of power for the President of the United States to influence branches of our own government and foreign governments to target specific individual American citizens?

I would argue it is. It would be one thing if the President had asked that the Ukraine do something about corruption. It's another if he picks out individual Americans for them to investigate. And it is doubly wrong if that individual is a rival to the President And even worse if that is a political rival.

To start with, POTUS would be getting in the weeds. There is no way the President should be involved in law enforcement on that level. Second, its oppressive to the specific target. Third, it is a conflict of interest. And finally, it subverts the integrity of his office and our election system.
 
theprestige said:
In that case, I have no idea what your point is.
Click to expand...

That's odd, since I made it clear that the point is that your characterisation of Upchurch's post is misleading. You said that what he describes is rational debate when it's clearly not.

For some reason you're getting increasingly confused by simple posts and points.
 
SOmeone in this fourm suggested that all Law Enforcement in the US should be brought under federal control. What is happening now with Barr is an excellent argument against that. It puts too much power in the hands of a few people. Despite the fact some local police forces are a long way from what they should be, I think the idea that police should be controlled at the local level is basic to the American system.
 
PhantomWolf said:
And by all the current evidence, Barr managed to act like a real AG for once and seems to have totally ignored any such orders. Most likely because as a lawyer he was fully aware of the consequences of getting involved with it.
Click to expand...

Maybe. And maybe he's just lying.
 
dudalb said:
SOmeone in this fourm suggested that all Law Enforcement in the US should be brought under federal control. What is happening now with Barr is an excellent argument against that. It puts too much power in the hands of a few people. Despite the fact some local police forces are a long way from what they should be, I think the idea that police should be controlled at the local level is basic to the American system.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it should. What I do believe though is it just needs to be more clear (as if it isn't clear already) that conflicts of interests must be avoided and that the power of the government is not to be used for political or personal interests.
 
Belz... said:
That's odd, since I made it clear that the point is that your characterisation of Upchurch's post is misleading. You said that what he describes is rational debate when it's clearly not.



For some reason you're getting increasingly confused by simple posts and points.
Click to expand...
Well, it's all moot now anyway.
 
Just came to the awful conclusion: maybe Trump is as dumb as he seems. He seems to be the typical conspiracy theory follower. He is not qualified to run the country. Is this high crimes and misdemeanors or just a flaw, like a physical flaw that one might have but still function, more or less.
 
theprestige said:
My apologies. I mistakenly thought this was Meadmaker's thread in Trials and Errors, which has an entirely different charter and tone than this one. Upchurch's post is totally appropriate to this thread, and my objection to it has no relevance. My defense of my objection even less so. Carry on!
Click to expand...

I love a happy ending.
 
Tero said:
Just came to the awful conclusion: maybe Trump is as dumb as he seems. He seems to be the typical conspiracy theory follower. He is not qualified to run the country. Is this high crimes and misdemeanors or just a flaw, like a physical flaw that one might have but still function, more or less.
Click to expand...

I would hold that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is anything that a majority of the House of Representatives" and two thirds of the Senate believe them to be. IMO, extreme incompetence qualifies.

After Trump won the election, I fervently hoped that there was more to him than meets the eye. The intervening almost three years has convinced me that there is actually far less.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
House releases some text messages from Volker and others.



I love the tone shift to CYA stating Trump wants no quid pro quo and to stop texting about this.
Click to expand...
Both of these texts are evidence IMO of consciousness of guilt. The person replying does not say, “What? No!” No denial, just a request to stop talking about the issue in writing. Twice that is suggested.

Pure anecdote: When I was 18 my boyfriend’s motorcycle was seized when cops found he was carrying a pound of weed. His PD called and offered a plea deal: If he agreed to sign the motorcycle over to the state, the drug charge would be dropped. I thought that was so improper-sounding I got on the line and had him repeat that to me. I then called the state AG’s office and reported a suspected extortion attempt. The next day the PD claimed the AG had made a big stink over it. I went so far as to get my father, a *very* respected attorney, to agree to witness the signing over of the bike and I had arranged for an attorney to file a civil extortion suit once that happened. (Believe me, Dad had no great regard for my pistol-packing 30-year-old drug-carrying boyfriend, but he knew I had a solid case.) The plea deal was rescinded and his PD filed a motion to suppress the evidence. His PD advised him of this proceeding on the day it occurred. He ordered my BF not to bring anyone to the proceeding, explicitly warning him not to bring ME. We called, panicked over missing the hearing and were told the whole thing had been dropped.

Throughout this saga a newspaper reporter wrote 3 stories (to my horror; naively I did not expect her to do this. I’d called her just to get the name of a lawyer who had filed a similar suit against the same county). She reported on the hearing. The charges (possession and CCW) were dropped because the cop could not detect an odor of marijuana (not smoke, but the weed itself) coming from his bedroll.

All of this is just to say it *immediately* started a ************* against that county DA and ultimately led to dismissal of all charges and return of .. bike & pistol. All on a tip from a teenager. Unlike the exchange in these texts I did get the PD to clarify the quid pro quo. I don’t know if the Trump admin ever did the same. But according to the Ukrainian foreign minister the aid was very much on the president’s mind and Mitch McConnell had called to find out what the holdup was. So if corruption was a concern Trump’s good buddy hadn’t heard that. Why? It had been appropriated to Ukraine without that condition (as far as I know) because Congress wanted Ukraine to have anti-tank missiles to counter the threat from Trump’s BFF, Vladimir Putin. I wouldn’t be surprised if McConnell already knew the details including presidential phone call(s). Maybe that’s the real reason that “transcript” was released. BTW Trump now claims to have a full transcript. Without it, how can we know there was no mention of a quid pro qho?

Long way of saying the whole thing stinks and I hope Trump fails to convince the American people otherwise.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm not sure it should. What I do believe though is it just needs to be more clear (as if it isn't clear already) that conflicts of interests must be avoided and that the power of the government is not to be used for political or personal interests.
Click to expand...
IIRC Trump said early in his presidency that “the law is totally on my side” with respect to conflict-of-interest and it was verified that indeed the president was not mentioned as an office bound by such laws. Maybe he got that from Sessions. Maybe Sessions recused himself to distance himself from personal legal exposure and NOT because he knew in his heart of hearts that it was the right thing to do.

And that makes me wonder if some of those GOP senators (McConnell, for example) already know, and possibly have for some time, the details of the whistleblower’s complaint. Don’t those senators have staff that liaise with State and the White House? Did McConnell just idly decide one day to look into the Ukrainian situation, or did he already know there was something fishy going on?

The funds were released quite soon after that, having been in limbo for some time. Did McConnell know the excuse for this delay would not hold up to any kind of scrutiny?

It behooves the GOP to act as if they believe all the Trump talking points, even if they know Trump’s full of ****. (Especially if they know.) But $400M may have a way of creating its own paper trail, regardless of how the delay is spun. Didn’t Barr expressly say that it was impossible to compute the value of dirt on Biden? Or is that some parody trope I’m repeating? Indicates to me this was discussed and Barr signaled he was still on board. Completely flouting the spirit of the law in order to say, but if the value can’t be quantified, it’s not a thing of value! But that would be mixing up excuses - I didn’t do it, but it would be legal if I DID do it. Sound familiar?
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
This reddit post collates a few news stories to demonstrate that this goes back further than it is commonly portrayed to, and that there was quid pro quo earlier than the phone call in question.
Click to expand...
This is quite disturbing given I had had some confidence in The Hill reporting:
Two weeks later, Lutsenko fabricated dirt on Yovanovitch and laundered it through a conspiracy theorist/pretend journalist at the Hill named John Solomon.
Click to expand...
 
BobTheCoward said:
What is he supposed to do?
Click to expand...

Follow the provisions of the MLAT with Ukraine. Provisions which adds records, transparency, and layers of bureaucratic abstraction which enable more points of failure for unlawful abuses of power.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
This is quite disturbing given I had had some confidence in The Hill reporting:
Click to expand...
Does The Hill have any response? The “fabrication” link doesn’t lead to a story that acknowledges fabrication. I didn’t read all the links. If The Hill was used to publicize a hoax expect them to correct the record.

Am I missing a key piece here? I’ll read all the links.
 
Tero said:
Just came to the awful conclusion: maybe Trump is as dumb as he seems. He seems to be the typical conspiracy theory follower. He is not qualified to run the country. Is this high crimes and misdemeanors or just a flaw, like a physical flaw that one might have but still function, more or less.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure he is dumb, maybe just uneducated, like he didn't pay much attention in college and didn't develop a respect for reality.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Could Trump withhold aid to Ukraine while he asked the president about his company's legal proceedings there related to the acquisition or development of property? Would that be OK to those defending Trump?

It is not a crime for his company to build a resort in Ukraine.
It is not a crime for him to hold back the money a bit.
It is not a crime for him to ask about legal proceeding or development in a foreign country.
Surely it would not be a crime for him to ask about legal proceedings surrounding an acquisition or development of property by his company while talking to the president of Ukraine and withholding aid.

Or would it?
Click to expand...
This is an excellent illustration of the reason what Trump did, and is doing, is against the law and does matter.
 
I haven't seen this posted:

(and if it was, my apologies)

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...yJiijYHMPd1Y41khDFxjjs9HYiWRvm7LWv6VGqdi7bukU


Johnson told the Wall Street Journal on Friday that Sondland told him that Ukraine would appoint a prosecutor who would, as Johnson put it, work to "get to the bottom of what happened in 2016 — if President Trump has that confidence, then he’ll release the military spending."


“At that suggestion, I winced,” Johnson told the Wall Street Journal. “My reaction was: Oh, God. I don’t want to see those two things combined.”

He said he asked Trump about it and the president denied it.

"He said — expletive deleted — ‘No way. I would never do that. Who told you that?'” Johnson told the Wall Street Journal.
Click to expand...
 
theprestige said:
Also known as rational debate.

It doesn't matter how many examples of lawbreaking are put forth, if none of them stand up to scrutiny. And it's kind of disingenuous to complain that each example is being held up to scrutiny before being rejected. If you don't like your rejection rate, find better examples. Or take the time to actually rebut Meadmaker's analysis, instead of complaining that he's taking the time to perform analysis in the first place.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand. I didn’t leave out the rejection of the laws that Trump broke by accident. It’s not rational. It’s “just because”.
 
I would find it delicious irony if The PDJT was brought down because of his problems related to snooping into a guy who's not going to be the Democratic candidate anyway.
 
Minoosh said:
Does The Hill have any response? The “fabrication” link doesn’t lead to a story that acknowledges fabrication. I didn’t read all the links. If The Hill was used to publicize a hoax expect them to correct the record.

Am I missing a key piece here? I’ll read all the links.
Click to expand...

Apparently The Hill started a TV program and this guy is in it plus he writes a column. I looked up his articles and they are mostly Trumpian dishonesty.

John Soloman
Some titles:
WHITE HOUSE
New evidence shows why Steele, the Ohrs and TSA workers never should have become DOJ sources
BY JOHN SOLOMON 08/15/19 07:00 PM EDT 3,104

WHITE HOUSE
George Soros's secret 2016 access to State exposes 'big money' hypocrisy of Democrats...

Chris Wray's FBI continues to cover for Team Comey's Russia shenanigans...

Robert Mueller soon may be exposed as the 'magician of omission' on Russia
Click to expand...

It gets worse from there.

As for them not knowing, I just sent their editorial board an email so at least one reader has complained.
Please, unless you want a reputation of no longer being a reliable source, someone look at this man's conspiracy theories. He writes stories that are not evidence based. Maybe you are trying to be balanced. This is not the way to do it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Marcus said:
I'm not so sure he is dumb, maybe just uneducated, like he didn't pay much attention in college and didn't develop a respect for reality.
Click to expand...

And uneducable. When you already know everything, why would you listen to anyone?

As I've said here multiple times, I don't know that he is necessarily stupid, but he is blindingly ignorant, and intentionally so.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
As for them not knowing, I just sent their editorial board an email so at least one reader has complained.
Click to expand...
That’s fantastic. I hope they hear from a lot more people. Those are not news headlines and they know it. I’d be shocked if they didn’t have other complaints. There’s a way to accommodate opinions - you prominently label them opinions. Maybe they’re trying to be edgy and manufacture some clicks but it’s bad for their credibility.
 
C_Felix said:
I haven't seen this posted:

(and if it was, my apologies)

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...yJiijYHMPd1Y41khDFxjjs9HYiWRvm7LWv6VGqdi7bukU


Johnson told the Wall Street Journal on Friday that Sondland told him that Ukraine would appoint a prosecutor who would, as Johnson put it, work to "get to the bottom of what happened in 2016 — if President Trump has that confidence, then he’ll release the military spending."


“At that suggestion, I winced,” Johnson told the Wall Street Journal. “My reaction was: Oh, God. I don’t want to see those two things combined.”

He said he asked Trump about it and the president denied it.

"He said — expletive deleted — ‘No way. I would never do that. Who told you that?'” Johnson told the Wall Street Journal.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


same story here that's not behind a paywall...

Johnson claims he heard from Sondland that this was in fact the policy. However, Johnson adds that he became disturbed by this, and followed up with President Trump himself — who denied any such linkage. “He said—expletive deleted—‘No way. I would never do that. Who told you that?” Johnson told Journal reporters Siobhan Hughes and Rebecca Ballhaus.

But the story doesn’t end there. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Molly Beck, Patrick Marley, and Eric Litke, Johnson said in a separate interview that Trump did say he was considering withholding the aid because he wanted to find out “what happened in 2016.”

Johnson said he asked Trump whether he could tell Ukraine’s president the aid was on the way anyway, to dispel the government’s fears, but “I didn’t succeed.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/4/20899096/ron-johnson-trump-sondland-ukraine-aid
Click to expand...


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...t-told-him-trump-was-withholding-aid-n1062706

Johnson is Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson, a Republican and past Trump supporter.
 
Frank Newgent said:
same story here that's not behind a paywall...




https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...t-told-him-trump-was-withholding-aid-n1062706

Johnson is Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson, a Republican and past Trump supporter.
Click to expand...
I clicked just to make sure he was a U.S. senator. Yep. So that’s him and Romney. If the WSJ is reporting this that’s a big deal.

ETA: It seems Like the claim has changed/was nebulous though. Was Trump supposedly talking about election interference? Or is that referring to Biden’s actions? I wouldn’t be surprised if those got rolled into one issue in Trump’s mind.
 
Last edited:
Trebuchet said:
And uneducable. When you already know everything, why would you listen to anyone?

As I've said here multiple times, I don't know that he is necessarily stupid, but he is blindingly ignorant, and intentionally so.
Click to expand...
If you really need him to absorb something, I suppose you could have Alex Jones tell him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom