Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump

[Dill]

(09-25-2019, 01:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just also have to say that after reading the memo of the phone conversation, we have a this exchange (tl;dr version):

US: I'd like us to have a great, reciprocal working relationship.
Ukraine: Me too! In fact, we could really use some new Javelins.
US: Well, I'd really like you to do me a favor. Could you look into this pesky Russian meddling thing that Mueller bungled?
Ukraine: Sure thing. We'll talk with Rudy about it next time we see him.
US: Speaking of Rudy and investigations, could you look into the Bidens for me and keep Barr in on things as well?
Ukraine: Can do!

Now, obviously this is shortened and what not, but this is seriously the boiled down version of their conversation in this memo. Read it for yourself if you don't believe me: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

Read that and tell me that this exchange didn't happen in a more formal dialogue. When anyone says there is no explicit quid pro quo, point to this exchange and tell me there wasn't an implicit one in that conversation.

What do you make of the references to the "very good" prosecutor who was "shut down." That would have to be the notoriously corrupt Shokin, wouldn't it?

Also, there seems to be some confusion about ambassadors. Trump refers to an ambassador FROM the US to the Ukraine, Yovanovitch, who pushed an anti-corruption agenda and was recalled after a Fox News campaign to fire her; Zelensky seems to refer to an ambassador from the Ukraine TO the US, Ivanovich. Maybe the transcribers muddled notes here?

A side issue--I'm wondering what other countries make of this. How can they be certain a deepening scandal won't out further private conversations between Trump other heads of state? How will that affect future conversations with Trump?  Trump has already done much to evade the previously normal and expected monitoring of intercourse with other heads of state. This will surely press him to deform the process even more.

[Dill]

(09-25-2019, 04:39 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I'm going to be 100% candid here. If I didn't already want Trump impeached, this issue would not be what changed my mind. Honestly, I just don't really see why this is considered a bigger problem than anything else Trump does. Trump has been trying to strong arm other nations for his entire presidency, so this is just another one of his "I think politics are exactly like shady New York Business practices where I can just intimidate other countries into doing what I want them to do" tactics. He probably didn't even think twice about it when he was doing it.

Now, obviously, it will depend heavily on the fall out and details of this whistle blower, but this is just another thing Trump can plead ignorance on and let it float away.

Do they really expect Americans to give a single shit about our President withholding aid from Ukraine, regardless of his motive or reasoning? I honestly can't think of a single thing your average American could possibly care less about. I could even see some Americans thinking it's smart to withhold aid to one of those 'Communist countries.'

Impeach Trump because he's incompetent, embarrassing, senile, idiotic, narcissistic, incapable of telling a truth to save his ***** life or because he is simply unfit for the most powerful single political position in the entire world.

Don't try and "gotcha" him with some pedantic whistle blowing that most Americans probably don't give a shit about...

That said, I'm glad something happened to FINALLY get the Dems off their asses and start the impeachment inquiry in earnest. It's about time.

Impeaching Trump because he is embarrassing or even lying is, in my view, much harder than impeaching him for

1. Using his office, US foreign policy, and aid resources to leverage a foreign government into investigating an opposing candidate's son,

2. sending a private lawyer to broker/manage the investigation (an operative outside official government capacity, working in Trump's personal interest), and

3. then suppressing a whistle blower, threatening to deny him/her legal protection and illegally intercepting the report so that it cannot reach Congressional oversight.  And this while stonewalling myriad other legally justified investigations.

I think it possible to convince enough Americans that the issue is not whether Ukraine gets aid.  Enough may be able to understand this is not like trying to "strong arm" China in a trade war, something he is empowered to do in official capacity.  It is more like your town mayor threatening to withhold a building permit already legally granted you, unless you give him dirt on the guy running against him. Much simpler than Mueller reporting prosecutable crimes but citing a DOJ precedent limiting his scope of action and refusing to prosecute so Congress could blah blah blah . . .

I'm not sure this is worse than obstructing the Mueller investigation; but it is certainly on the same level. And given the phone call occurs the day after Mueller's testimony, shows resolution to continue flaunting oversight.

The variables here are really narrative: will Dems be able to effectively explain why this is a serious violation of the executive's oath to enforce rule of law, AND a decision to continue in that mode, a recurring pattern; OR will Fox and the WH be able to fix the "hate" narrative AND gaslight voters by  flipping the story, making impeachment a strategy to save Biden, the real crook.  Both sides will then be leveling perfectly mirrored accusations; but this time around can they really count on enough people noticing that both don't equally correlate with the factual record? I don't think so, and partly because of Trump's increasing erratic behavior.  He will continue to fool some of the people all of the time, but not enough. This may not move Trump supporters, but it should begin shifting Trump defenders to the side of the law.

Final point, watch the Senate. Are they more silent or circumspect than usual? Saying "wait and see first" rather than outright condemning impeachment?  When more and more become "impartial," that will eventually give some permission to break party discipline.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-25-2019, 04:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't entirely disagree right now. I mean, what he did is impeachable. He violated the law even based on the memo about the phone call he made. That being said, it's not something the general public will see easily or care much about. This will certainly be political theater. The Democrats must spend their time wisely during this inquiry making their case to the American public before the vote in the House. They need to make their case so solid that any Republican voting against impeachment will be seen as nothing more than a partisan actor that only their base would accept the actions of. That's a tough uphill climb, no doubt.

I appreciate that you gave the actual substance of my post consideration instead of having a knee jerk, emotional, reaction.  But this doesn't surprise me at all coming from you.  A successful impeachment would be difficult at best, sans the egregious smoking gun we've discussed before, but the Dems, with varying numbers and volume, have been banging the impeachment drum since the day after the election.  Their own past actions have cast their current ones in a political light.  At the very least they made the GOP's job of trying to frame this as a partisan hit job, or an usurpation of the electoral process, a far more simple task. 

Quote:All of that being said, I do find you a bit too dismissive of what is occurring here. There is at least one, possibly two, violations of campaign finance law laid out in the memo released today, which also means an abuse of power as he used the office to carry them out. Even when taken alone, those are impeachable offenses. I do agree, though, that the Democrats have made is more difficult to act on them by the way they have acted since he was elected. That and their objections to the impeachment inquiry of Clinton.

I'm honestly not being dismissive at all, at least not intentionally.  You may be correct that I have grown numb to the constant calls for impeachment and consequently don't see this in as serious a light as I should.  If that's the case then it's emblematic of the deep hole the Dems have dug for themselves on this issue.

[GMDino]

(09-25-2019, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I appreciate that you gave the actual substance of my post consideration instead of having a knee jerk, emotional, reaction.  But this doesn't surprise me at all coming from you.  A successful impeachment would be difficult at best, sans the egregious smoking gun we've discussed before, but the Dems, with varying numbers and volume, have been banging the impeachment drum since the day after the election.  Their own past actions have cast their current ones in a political light.  At the very least they made the GOP's job of trying to frame this as a partisan hit job, or an usurpation of the electoral process, a far more simple task. 


I'm honestly not being dismissive at all, at least not intentionally.  You may be correct that I have grown numb to the constant calls for impeachment and consequently don't see this in as serious a light as I should.  If that's the case then it's emblematic of the deep hole the Dems have dug for themselves on this issue.

Yes, its the Democrats fault that you are so "numb" you are willing to overlook what Trump actually is accused of doing.


Way to stay focused...lol.

[Dill]

Senate gets Whistleblower complaint.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/25/sen-richard-burr-says-whistleblower-complaint-delivered-to-senate-intelligence-committee.html

The complaint was delivered by hand to a secure facility in the Capitol building, where multiple lawmakers, including Intelligence Committee leaders Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., have viewed the materials.

Burr declined NBC News’ request for comment on the contents of the report.

[fredtoast]

(09-25-2019, 02:05 PM)michaelsean Wrote:   Like if Biden were just ex-VP Biden then it wouldn't violate those laws?

Biden never asked to end any investigation.

All he asked for was the removal of a corrupt AG to be replaced by a more proper one.  This is the exact same request that many other countries were making.

So how does that help his son in any way?

[BmorePat87]

(09-25-2019, 06:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Biden never asked to end any investigation.

All he asked for was the removal of a corrupt AG to be replaced by a more proper one.  This is the exact same request that many other countries were making.

So how does that help his son in any way?

He's just asking if Biden being a candidate is what made it a violation on Trump's part. 

[GMDino]

Gee, DJT is all about transparency...now.

Naturally he wants EVERYONE ELSE investigated too because...justice?

I dunno.  He's lost his mind.

....taken out of Ukraine and China. Additionally, I demand transparency from Democrats that went to Ukraine and attempted to force the new President to do things that they wanted under the form of political threat.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 25, 2019

 

[BmorePat87]

(09-25-2019, 07:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Gee, DJT is all about transparency...now.

Naturally he wants EVERYONE ELSE investigated too because...justice?

I dunno.  He's lost his mind.

....taken out of Ukraine and China. Additionally, I demand transparency from Democrats that went to Ukraine and attempted to force the new President to do things that they wanted under the form of political threat.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 25, 2019

 

Trump claims he fully supports transparency, meanwhile a member of his cabinet refused to follow the law by not turning the whistleblower report over to Congress and by refusing to advise the whistleblower on how to reach out to Congress on his own.

[6andcounting]

(09-25-2019, 06:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Biden never asked to end any investigation.

All he asked for was the removal of a corrupt AG to be replaced by a more proper one.  This is the exact same request that many other countries were making.

So how does that help his son in any way?

What was the knock against the Ukrainian AG? All I can find is that he was criticized for not brining enough corruption cases.  

[BmorePat87]

(09-25-2019, 04:54 PM)Dill Wrote: What do you make of the references to the "very good" prosecutor who was "shut down." That would have to be the notoriously corrupt Shokin, wouldn't it?

Also, there seems to be some confusion about ambassadors. Trump refers to an ambassador FROM the US to the Ukraine, Yovanovitch, who pushed an anti-corruption agenda and was recalled after a Fox News campaign to fire her; Zelensky seems to refer to an ambassador from the Ukraine TO the US, Ivanovich. Maybe the transcribers muddled notes here?

A side issue--I'm wondering what other countries make of this. How can they be certain a deepening scandal won't out further private conversations between Trump other heads of state? How will that affect future conversations with Trump?  Trump has already done much to evade the previously normal and expected monitoring of intercourse with other heads of state. This will surely press him to deform the process even more.

So the prosecutor in question is probably Yuri Lutsenko, Shokin's successor, who, fearing that he would lose his job when Zelensky was elected, reached out to Guilianni and suggested he could investigate Biden, hoping that Trump's backing of him might sway Zelensky to not fire him. He also teamed up with Guilianni to repeatedly attack a Zelensky ally, Serhiy Leshchenko, who had helped expose Manafort's dealings with the Ukraine. He successfully prosecuted Leshchenko for "harming" the country with his actions, but Leshchenko won his appeal and was awarded a monetary settlement. 

At the time of the call, Zelensky had repeatedly asked parliament to dismiss Lutsenko.

[hollodero]

I think asking a foreign country for a favor which consists of investigating the family of a political rival is a big deal. When that question is tied to funds for defense against Russian aggression is even a bigger deal. And even bigger indeed if granting said funding is not even the president's perogative in the first place, but Congress'. How can this not warrant an impeachment investigation? --- is what I would ask if I still would wonder. (But ever since Qatar obviously got extorted to buy a Kushner skyscraper, I stopped wondering.)

Also, I think that has nothing to do with any democrat crying impeachment from day one. Nothing at all. And Pelosi sure did not seem to jump to impeachment with any kind of joy. Otherwise she would have jumped way earlier.

[hollodero]

(09-25-2019, 08:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So the prosecutor in question is probably Yuri Lutsenko, Shokin's successor, who, fearing that he would lose his job when Zelensky was elected, reached out to Guilianni and suggested he could investigate Biden, hoping that Trump's backing of him might sway Zelensky to not fire him. He also teamed up with Guilianni to repeatedly attack a Zelensky ally, Serhiy Leshchenko, who had helped expose Manafort's dealings with the Ukraine. He successfully prosecuted Leshchenko for "harming" the country with his actions, but Leshchenko won his appeal and was awarded a monetary settlement. 

At the time of the call, Zelensky had repeatedly asked parliament to dismiss Lutsenko.

I think it rather was about Wiktor Schokin, the guy Biden (and many others from other countries as well as the US ambassador and his own deputy) wanted to see fired.

Still, interesting take on Lutsenko.

[*bfine32*]

MS bfine and I had a great day and reading through these comments are a hoot (2bad about Dino and SSF).

All this aside at the end of the day each person has to look themselves in the mirror and ask what do you think the intent behind Trump's request was.

Personally I don't think it was to hurt a specific political foe; but was to muddy an entire campaign that has been trying to oust him since the day he won the GOP Primary. He wants vindication. I further think the more the Dems push, the worse it's going to be for them. What has this house done other than investigate Trump and his appointed officials. I think the Dems best chance is for a candidate to say "enough is enough".

Now if you look in that same mirror and say he did it to simply end Biden's candidacy then I can see your rationale behind suggesting "impeachable offense".

[Belsnickel]

(09-25-2019, 08:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: MS bfine and I had a great day and reading through these comments are a hoot (2bad about Dino and SSF).

All this aside at the end of the day each person has to look themselves in the mirror and ask what do you think the intent behind Trump's request was.

Personally I don't think it was to hurt a specific political foe; but was to muddy an entire campaign that has been trying to oust him since the day he won the GOP Primary. He wants vindication. I further think the more the Dems push, the worse it's going to be for them. What has this house done other than investigate Trump and his appointed officials. I think the Dems best chance is for a candidate to say "enough is enough".

Now if you look in that same mirror and say he did it to simply end Biden's candidacy then I can see your rationale behind suggesting "impeachable offense".

Quite a bit, actually. They are on track to bring more legislation to the floor than the prior two Congresses.

[*bfine32*]

(09-25-2019, 01:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I used to believe you fought in Afghanistan.

Hey I said MS bfine just got back from the day spa, not the bfine. Not that there's anything unmanly about going to a day spa. As long as they show sports and sell beer. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-25-2019, 08:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Quite a bit, actually. They are on track to bring more legislation to the floor than the prior two Congresses.

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong when I try to determine what they've done:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics

[Belsnickel]

(09-25-2019, 09:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps I'm reading this wrong when I try to determine what they've done:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics

You're not. Just keep in mind that we aren't even halfway through this Congress. If they keep up this pace, we'd have to look back to the 95th Congress, which wrapped up in 1978, to find one that had more legislation.

[*bfine32*]

(09-25-2019, 09:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're not. Just keep in mind that we aren't even halfway through this Congress. If they keep up this pace, we'd have to look back to the 95th Congress, which wrapped up in 1978, to find one that had more legislation.

Guess I was looking more at doing things; as I focused on the enacted laws, passed resolution, got a vote. 

[BmorePat87]

(09-25-2019, 09:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're not. Just keep in mind that we aren't even halfway through this Congress. If they keep up this pace, we'd have to look back to the 95th Congress, which wrapped up in 1978, to find one that had more legislation.

Mitch McConnell is also refusing to even hold votes on a number of the bills past by the House

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/24/18637163/trump-pelosi-democrats-bills-congress

Both he and Trump keep claiming the House is not doing anything, but they've passed legislation in the areas Mitch and Trump have complained about. They're intent on making it look like the House isn't doing anything... and apparently it is working.