Trump whistleblower brewing scandal

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

In order to make the Elections secure, Trump needs to first be secured in an underground bunker for the duration....

Preferably an air-tight one.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Preferably an air-tight one.

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

[Cain]

I opposed impeachment after the Mueller Report. Even though there was compelling evidence the president committed crimes, it was just a political no-go. So much of life is an expectations game; conspiracies are murky, and difficult to navigate. Republicans would argue that the critics only went for after the president for cover-up related crimes rather than underlying Russian collusion. Moreover, all presidents commit crimes, including this forum's spiritual leader, Barack Obama. It's part of the job. The crimes that should get prosecuted involve dropping bombs, but thirty percent of the country is far more concerned about face-banging, especially if a Democrat did the banging.

This is different. Trump has essentially confirmed he used US aid to strong arm a foreign government to attack a political opponent. I suspect Trump and Guiliani would only admit the truth of the accusations in order to get in front of the story: There's a recording. They'll try to spin it as rooting out corruption. Let them try.

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?

The political ramifications...
Leadership isn't about just about being "realistic." It involves staking out unpopular positions and bringing people over to your side. Who the hell thought Barack Hussein Obama could be president? Who the hell thought anyone could defeat George H.W. Bush in 1992, much less a governor from Arkansas? Sanders lost to Clinton, but he's proven enormously influential.

The House should investigate, obtain a transcript/recording, and if a crime has been committed (and that looks to be the case), impeach. They can get the votes. The Senate is unlikely to convict, but Democrats could conceivably secure a majority in the Republican controlled chamber. Republican Senators will also have to explain their "no" vote. If the economy were to go South and Trump became even more unpopular, even more Republicans would decide not to run for re-election. If Yoda dies, then it will be more difficult for Trump to appoint a replacement to the court during an impeachment/election.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Cain

I opposed impeachment after the Mueller Report. Even though there was compelling evidence the president committed crimes, it was just a political no-go. So much of life is an expectations game; conspiracies are murky, and difficult to navigate. Republicans would argue that the critics only went for after the president for cover-up related crimes rather than underlying Russian collusion. Moreover, all presidents commit crimes, including this forum's spiritual leader, Barack Obama. It's part of the job. The crimes that should get prosecuted involve dropping bombs, but thirty percent of the country is far more concerned about face-banging, especially if a Democrat did the banging.

This is different. Trump has essentially confirmed he used US aid to strong arm a foreign government to attack a political opponent. I suspect Trump and Guiliani would only admit the truth of the accusations in order to get in front of the story: There's a recording. They'll try to spin it as rooting out corruption. Let them try.

You have to remember the republican mantra "when the republican president does it, its legal" just like torture. I mean sure ordering our troops to torture people is technically illegal both for them and the person ordering them but really that is just a lie they tell themselves to pretend they are the good guys.

[Minoosh]

I'm puzzled by this quote I saw on CNN's website:

Quote:

"The conversation I had was largely congratulatory, with all of the corruption taking place and largely the fact that we don't want our people like Vice President Biden and his son creating to the corruption already in the Ukraine," Trump said.

What does he mean "creating to"? Could this be "catering to"? Not that I expect Trump to make much sense but I found it jarring.

Also: Erstwhile members of this forum have maintained that unless Trump uses the words "I promise," he has made no promise.

Without the transcript it's hard to tell if he did or not. Since Trump says he wants the transcript released, we can assume it will never see the light of day as far as the public is concerned. I mean, he wanted to release his tax returns, be questioned under oath etc.

But "If you do this thing you will be greatly rewarded ..." those are words he's used in the past.

There's something else I don't understand about the aid on the table. It's a $250 million military package, but that just seems like pissing in the wind, not really designed to strengthen Ukraine substantially, because I can't tell if the Ukrainian president is all that serious about standing up to Russia. He says he wants peace above all, which strikes me as a fairly weak position.

So: is the $250M from the U.S. really for military aid? Exactly what is in that package? I seriously can't imagine Trump doing much to inconvenience Putin. There were token airstrikes in Syria and apparently some aide given to anti-Assad groups, but IMO those were relative trifles - just as $250M in aid to Ukraine would also seem like a trifle to Putin.

CNN is once again claiming this time Trump has passed a red line and apparently Pelosi is beginning to agree. But this whole "promise" issue bothers me.

I hope Congress is totally bipartisan in at least pushing to let key leaders see the transcript of the conversation. Of course given Trump he could yet open his pie-hole and confess to making some kind of quid pro quo, but I imagine a few people are leaning hard against him not to do so.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

It's perfectly legitimate unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise, and even in that unlikely event, the sleazy use of foreign policy and the cover-up are both legitimate reasons for impeachment: abuse of power.

Trump already knows how the supreme court will rule.

[Minoosh]

I'm not saying that it would have required a promise from Trump to make this conversation highly unethical and probably illegal. Apparently congressional Republicans are not saying much about this though Romney did issue one of his sternly worded tweets that everyone knows mean jack**** but he is someone to watch as a potential breakaway GOP senator who still supports Trump's agenda in full except for niggling concerns about national security.

Maybe he'll want to get out in front in hopes of being pressed into service as an emergency GOP presidential candidate; he's proven he can command more votes than Trump.

I usually stay away from CNN reporting as I don't want to amplify news that gives me hope of an anti-Trump groundswell. This did seem a wee bit worse than his usual nonsense.

I keep thinking, man, how can the powers that be tolerate this oaf? I can't shake the feeling that there are such powers, who are allowing him to remain in office.

[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?

[dudalb]

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?

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

[JoeMorgue]

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.

He's not alone. It seems like most of Trump's support comes from people who swear up and down they don't like him.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Is there evidence of that now?

Well, there's Trump's confession: Trump says he discussed Biden with Ukrainian president and Democrats threaten 'new stage of investigation'

[Meadmaker]

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.

That's not even the first time you've said it.

But....as long as you're here, do you have a line on a high crime or misdemeanor?


Here's the thing. I'm a moderate. That means I don't like a lot of the Democrats, and I don't like a lot of the Republicans. I have voted for Democrats in every presidential election since 1980, but that doesn't mean I like them. I must admit, I frequently say I'm going to vote third party, but I can never bring myself to do it once I get in the voting booth. The only way I would do it in this upcoming election is if the polls are so lopsided that I know it won't matter, and the Dems nominate Sanders, Warren, or Biden. (I like Joe. I voted for him in 1988. He's too old.) It also means that, as much as I despise Trump on a personal level, and find him embarrassing, the truth is that I think half of what people who hate him say about him is B.S. He's an odious individual, but in terms of his effect on the country, he's no worse than GWB or Reagan, and somehow we survived them.

So I'm not going to fall in lockstep and repeat every bad thing I hear about Trump. It's a skeptic's board, people. You want to impeach? Give me some high crimes and misdemeanors. And I don't want to dredge up those tired old ones that you are sure came out of the Russia investigation. I want to pretend I'm younger, which means I have a short attentions span. Give me some brand new high crimes and misdemeanors that have come out of the recent headlines.

[azazal]

Stupid question, but has anyone from the House Intelligence Committee reached out to the Ukrainian government for any audio copies or transcripts that they made on their side of the call?

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

WTF?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by azazal

Stupid question, but has anyone from the House Intelligence Committee reached out to the Ukrainian government for any audio copies or transcripts that they made on their side of the call?

If anyone has tapes, our National Security Agency probably does.

The Ukrainian President today said Trump did nothing wrong. Sounds like he wants that payoff.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

...

So I'm not going to fall in lockstep and repeat every bad thing I hear about Trump. It's a skeptic's board, people. You want to impeach? Give me some high crimes and misdemeanors. And I don't want to dredge up those tired old ones that you are sure came out of the Russia investigation. I want to pretend I'm younger, which means I have a short attentions span. Give me some brand new high crimes and misdemeanors that have come out of the recent headlines.

Really? Those obstruction crimes Mueller carefully detailed don't mean anything because what, it's old news now?

[Beeyon]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

But....as long as you're here, do you have a line on a high crime or misdemeanor?

How about the basis immediately preceeding high crimes or misdemeanor? To be clear, without the transcript it's too early reach ANY conclusion. But if the transcript has a relatively explicit quid pro quo trading aid for an investigation of Joe Biden, I think there's probably a case to be made for non-statutory bribery.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Really? Those obstruction crimes Mueller carefully detailed don't mean anything because what, it's old news now?

Sort of. I just don't want to rehash them.

Right now, some among the Democrats and their supporters are saying that this new episode is impeachable, so if we have anyone like that in the audience, show me the high crimes and misdemeanors from this new episode.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Beeyon

How about the basis immediately preceeding high crimes or misdemeanor? To be clear, without the transcript it's too early reach ANY conclusion. But if the transcript has a relatively explicit quid pro quo trading aid for an investigation of Joe Biden, I think there's probably a case to be made for non-statutory bribery.

It's a big if, but you are right on all counts. What I'm emphasizing in my recent writings is the clause that includes ANY in the above paragraph.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

If anyone has tapes, our National Security Agency probably does.

The Ukrainian President today said Trump did nothing wrong. Sounds like he wants that payoff.

What else is he going to say? "Why, yes...Pres. Trump did indeed ask me for dirt on Biden or he'd cut off our aid. I'm sure Pres. Trump will be incredibly helpful to us now as crossing him has never resulted in a personal vendetta."

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

That's not even the first time you've said it.

But....as long as you're here, do you have a line on a high crime or misdemeanor?


Here's the thing. I'm a moderate. That means I don't like a lot of the Democrats, and I don't like a lot of the Republicans. I have voted for Democrats in every presidential election since 1980, but that doesn't mean I like them. I must admit, I frequently say I'm going to vote third party, but I can never bring myself to do it once I get in the voting booth. The only way I would do it in this upcoming election is if the polls are so lopsided that I know it won't matter, and the Dems nominate Sanders, Warren, or Biden. (I like Joe. I voted for him in 1988. He's too old.) It also means that, as much as I despise Trump on a personal level, and find him embarrassing, the truth is that I think half of what people who hate him say about him is B.S. He's an odious individual, but in terms of his effect on the country, he's no worse than GWB or Reagan, and somehow we survived them.
So I'm not going to fall in lockstep and repeat every bad thing I hear about Trump. It's a skeptic's board, people. You want to impeach? Give me some high crimes and misdemeanors. And I don't want to dredge up those tired old ones that you are sure came out of the Russia investigation. I want to pretend I'm younger, which means I have a short attentions span. Give me some brand new high crimes and misdemeanors that have come out of the recent headlines.

His effect on the county is still being tallied, but so far he has definitely:
energized the neo-Nazis
separated families and put kids in concentration camps
pissed off Canada and Mexico
pissed off most of our other allies
sucked up to dictators
pissed off moderate Muslims in the US and everywhere else
violated emoluments restrictions
let the Saudis off the hook on the Khashoggi murder
staffed the cabinet with crooks and liars, con-men and thieves.
paid off mistresses in violation of campaign finance laws - with money from his non-profit in violation of non-profit regulations.
scaled back environmental protections

He has probably also:
violated other election laws
money-laundered for the Russians
money-laundered for the Saudis
diddled kids with his buddy Epstein
and
consorted with Russian pee-hookers.

I think the cumulative effect of all these will be long-lasting and detrimental to the country and the world.

[BrooklynBaby]

There is no "whistleblower". Hope this helps. You might want to avoid fake news.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

There is no "whistleblower". Hope this helps. You might want to avoid fake news.

Reference please?

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by fishbob

Reference please?

Everything he doesn’t like is fake news, duh.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Everything he doesn’t like is fake news, duh.

I know that. I was just poking him for fun.

[acbytesla]

Delete

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by fishbob

His effect on the county is still being tallied, but so far he has definitely:
...
I think the cumulative effect of all these will be long-lasting and detrimental to the country and the world.

I hear you. I think Reagan and GWB had some pretty long lasting bad effects too. Well, at any rate, I don't think this thread is the place to try to settle the "worst recent president" contest.

The point I was making is that, when it comes right down to it, I am not rabidly anti-Trump. I can't stand the guy, but he doesn't keep me awake at night, either. Dudalb and Joe expressed suspicion about me because I appear to be constantly defending Trump. I'm making the point that there's an awful lot of ground between "I like Trump" and "Trump is the most horrible God-awful thing that has ever happened to America and him being in office is the end of our way of life, and of course he ought to be in jail."

ETA: And, the reason it matters, is I think that the hatred of Trump causes people to make rash accusations which, if they remain unproven, end up making the accusers look bad, which makes Trump look good, at least to his base.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by fishbob

I know that. I was just poking him for fun.

Careful, some like wearing the clown shoes a bit too much.

[Beeyon]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

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?

There are nunerous reports of elements of the US government and other governments talking about the prosecutor who was the subject of the request needing to go. One article states:

Quote:

Shokin has disputed Kasko’s narrative, but the manner in which he was running his office also concerned the US ambassador to Ukraine, who said publicly in September 2015 that the office was “subverting” the UK’s investigation.

Concern at the embassy mounted, and by 2016, officials there began suggesting the Obama administration push for the prosecutor general’s ouster. In particular, the embassy suggested that $1 billion in loan guarantees the country hoped to receive from the US in order to stay solvent should be tied to a tougher anti-corruption strategy that involved removing officials seen as blocking progress, namely Shokin.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ower-complaint

Note that the goal of getting rid of the prosecutor was to get someone who would more effectively prosecute corruption. This is the apparent basis for Biden's request. Note that this not only supplies a non-corrupt reason to make the request, it also goes against the interests of his son. For the request to be corrupt and in his interest, you'd need additional elements where Joe told the guy "get rid of Shokin AND find a new guy who'll be nice to my kid's firm."

Additionally, people who worked for the prosecutor's office have said the prosecutor had an open but totally dormant investigation into Hunter Biden's firm.

In contrast, Trump and his surrogates have presented no evidence and are only vaguely suggesting that it looks shady.

The Trump position is untenable. If it is appropriate to look into an official who may have corruptly leveraged US resources for personal gain, then Trump himself must be investigated, because there is now a reasonable possibility he did just that.

[Beeyon]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It's a big if, but you are right on all counts. What I'm emphasizing in my recent writings is the clause that includes ANY in the above paragraph.

That's fair. But some degree of outrage may be appropriate right now. We will never know anything until the whistleblower complaint/and-or call transcript gets to congress. Trump and his surrogates are currently trying to stop that from happening. If the left waits quietly, the chance if getting the evidence necessary to draw a conclusion goes from iffy to zilch.

[alfaniner]

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

There is no "whistleblower". Hope this helps. You might want to avoid fake news.

You are wrong.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Beeyon

That's fair. But some degree of outrage may be appropriate right now. We will never know anything until the whistleblower complaint/and-or call transcript gets to congress. Trump and his surrogates are currently trying to stop that from happening. If the left waits quietly, the chance if getting the evidence necessary to draw a conclusion goes from iffy to zilch.

Fair point.

We are a news-driven society, and without the outrage, it leaves the media eye.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Well, there's Trump's confession: Trump says he discussed Biden with Ukrainian president and Democrats threaten 'new stage of investigation'

I meant the money part:

"caught using military foreign aid intended to fight off the Russian invasion of Ukraine as coercion"

[Skeptic Ginger]

Duplicate post, found where I posted this earlier.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

That's not even the first time you've said it...

I have no reason to doubt what you say about your political preferences, or anything else for that matter. You impress me as a high integrity poster. That doesn't mean I agree with you. I'm even occasionally gobsmacked. So what.

Quote:

But....as long as you're here, do you have a line on a high crime or misdemeanor?

As Gerald Ford famously said, a high crime or misdemeanor is whatever congress decides it is at the time. I like to think that these qualify:

* conspiring with Russia to influence the election
* obstruction of justice, per the instances cited by Mueller
* blocking congress from performing oversight (disallowing testimony)
* failing to defend the country against foreign attack (election meddling)
* pressuring Ukraine to go after a political opponent
* emoluments

I know you said you want spanking new examples, no Russia. That's not reasonable.

[thaiboxerken]

The cycle repeats itself, yet again. News comes out of Trump misconduct. Trump supporters and surrogates deny the news and call it all fake news. Trump declares that he did the illegal/immoral acts. Trump supporters and surrogates declare that it's not a big deal and it's okay if the president does it. Wait for the next round of news of Trump scandal.

This cycle is allowed to continue because the House Democrats are too wimpy to do anything about it.

With-holding aid to a country unless they do his political bidding is wrong and impeachable. Trump should be in jail.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by varwoche

I have no reason to doubt what you say about your political preferences, or anything else for that matter. You impress me as a high integrity poster. That doesn't mean I agree with you. I'm even occasionally gobsmacked. So what.

As Gerald Ford famously said, a high crime or misdemeanor is whatever congress decides it is at the time. I like to think that these qualify:

* conspiring with Russia to influence the election
* obstruction of justice, per the instances cited by Mueller
* blocking congress from performing oversight (disallowing testimony)
* failing to defend the country against foreign attack (election meddling)
* pressuring Ukraine to go after a political opponent
* emoluments

I know you said you want spanking new examples, no Russia. That's not reasonable.

Well those are so old and stale now.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I meant the money part:

"caught using military foreign aid intended to fight off the Russian invasion of Ukraine as coercion"

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

NVMD, found it.

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...

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I meant the money part:

"caught using military foreign aid intended to fight off the Russian invasion of Ukraine as coercion"

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.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

The cycle repeats itself, yet again. News comes out of Trump misconduct. Trump supporters and surrogates deny the news and call it all fake news. Trump declares that he did the illegal/immoral acts. Trump supporters and surrogates declare that it's not a big deal and it's okay if the president does it. Wait for the next round of news of Trump scandal.

This cycle is allowed to continue because the House Democrats are too wimpy to do anything about it.

With-holding aid to a country unless they do his political bidding is wrong and impeachable. Trump should be in jail.

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