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

[BmorePat87]

(11-04-2019, 09:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You want (understandably) to go with the evidence, but that's not what this is going to be about.  Impeachment is not a criminal court process, it's a political one.  Spin is part of the process and if you want the GOP controlled Senate to remove the first POTUS from office, a GOP POTUS, via impeachment you need no wiggle room.  Unfortunately, there is more than a little of that available. 

I thought we were having a discussion about how we perceive this, not what excuse will the GOP use to dismiss Trump from charges he's clearly guilty of. 

Obviously they'll use a baseless claim to justify their commitment to party over country. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-04-2019, 08:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But, as stated it's an argument that could be made.  If there's nothing there why would he ask for more investigations at all?  I get he's not the brightest dude, but if the entire matter was investigated and cleared then what exactly was he asking them to look into further?

Because the request for an investigation isn’t about finding actual corruption. It’s about creating the appearance of corruption. It’s about creating Biden’s Benghazi so they can go into full propaganda mode.

I wish I could remember the politician and his exact quote, but the gist is he would falsely accuse opponents of stuff so the newspapers would quote his opponent denying the accusation. So the story became about the false accusations rather than the issues. That’s what this is about.

Quote:I thought there was a very good chance well before it happened.  I am not omnipotent by any means but Trump getting the nomination made a certain kid of (twisted) sense.  Biden is going to be tore apart as he's got too much baggage from the past that won't play in today's "woke" Democratic party.  It's the same reason Harris had zero shot from the jump, she was a prosecuting attorney and everyone in her party knows the criminal justice system is an inherently, horribly, racist enabler of oppression.



I wouldn't buy it either, but it's an easy out.  Also, we're really only looking for plausible deniability here.  He gets that he's in the clear.



Yeah, he's not an honest guy.


That is an excellent counterpoint.  If I was advising Trump I'd say that requesting the announcement was to show that Trump is diligent in weeding out political corruption, i.e. "draining the swamp".  I'm sure I could come with other plausible denials given some time. 

Trump has no track record of draining the swamp except for his staff members who have been indicted, convicted, and imprisoned.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-04-2019, 09:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You want (understandably) to go with the evidence, but that's not what this is going to be about.  Impeachment is not a criminal court process, it's a political one.  Spin is part of the process and if you want the GOP controlled Senate to remove the first POTUS from office, a GOP POTUS, via impeachment you need no wiggle room.  Unfortunately, there is more than a little of that available. 

I’d put the over/under of Trump’s impeachment at 1% and I’d bet on the under. McConnell will bring a vote to end the impeachment process as soon as he can regardless of the evidence.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-04-2019, 09:57 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I thought we were having a discussion about how we perceive this, not what excuse will the GOP use to dismiss Trump from charges he's clearly guilty of. 

Obviously they'll use a baseless claim to justify their commitment to party over country. 

I brought up a point about what would and would not be ethical; followed by how Trump could spin his actions to be ethical.  Your opinion on this subject is well know, I wouldn't waste your time asking for further explanation.  Excuse, in this case, is another word for spin.  As impeachment is a political process that's part and parcel.  Is it not possible for the GOP Senators to think that Trump continuing in office is better for the country than the alternative?  I ask these questions because I'm interested in the answer and the reasoning for it.

[BmorePat87]

(11-05-2019, 12:03 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I brought up a point about what would and would not be ethical; followed by how Trump could spin his actions to be ethical.  Your opinion on this subject is well know, I wouldn't waste your time asking for further explanation.  Excuse, in this case, is another word for spin.  As impeachment is a political process that's part and parcel.  Is it not possible for the GOP Senators to think that Trump continuing in office is better for the country than the alternative?  I ask these questions because I'm interested in the answer and the reasoning for it.

I'm sure they believe that their policies are best and that having a Republican president, however corrupt and against the principles of Democracy, is better than not having one. I'm sure they also believe that they will struggle at the ballot box if their president was removed from office. 

So in a way, sure, they probably believe that their policies will likely outweigh the damage Trump is doing, even if they know that his actions are the antithesis of America. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-04-2019, 10:06 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Because the request for an investigation isn’t about finding actual corruption. It’s about creating the appearance of corruption. It’s about creating Biden’s Benghazi so they can go into full propaganda mode.

I have a high opinion of your intelligence.  That being the case I'm going to assume you realized long ago that politicians want to create the appearance of doing something without actually doing a damn thing. 

Quote:I wish I could remember the politician and his exact quote, but the gist is he would falsely accuse opponents of stuff so the newspapers would quote his opponent denying the accusation. So the story became about the false accusations rather than the issues. That’s what this is about.

Mark Antony was big on this, so it comes from way before newspapers.  The gist being, "Some people call my opponent a pedophile."

Quote:Trump has no track record of draining the swamp except for his staff members who have been indicted, convicted, and imprisoned.

Completely agreed.  It is; however, one of his talking points.

(11-04-2019, 10:10 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I’d put the over/under of Trump’s impeachment at 1% and I’d bet on the under. McConnell will bring a vote to end the impeachment process as soon as he can regardless of the evidence.

Agreed on the percentage, but not the method.  They'll go for long enough to shed credible doubt on the charges and paint the HoR vote as a partisan witch hunt.  

[GMDino]

WATCH: At Pres. Trump's campaign rally in Kentucky, Sen. Paul claims that “we now know the name of the whistleblower" and calls on the media to "print his name," the latest example of President Trump or a Trump ally pushing to out the whistleblower, despite legal protections. pic.twitter.com/9yUxgfnyB7

— NBC News (@NBCNews) November 5, 2019

[*bfine32*]

I think the whistle-blower's identify should not be revealed to the public, but I wonder how many folks currently condemning the GOP for demanding it would be ok with a member pulling a "Spartacus" move and releasing the name without authorization. Seems many here applauded Corey Booker releasing classified documents on the Kav's inquiry.

I mean the public has a right to know...AmIright?

[GMDino]

(11-05-2019, 12:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the whistle-blower's identify should not be revealed to the public, but I wonder how many folks currently condemning the GOP for demanding it would be ok with a member pulling a "Spartacus" move and releasing the name without authorization. Seems many here applauded Corey Booker releasing classified documents on the Kav's inquiry.

I mean the public has a right to know...AmIright?

[Belsnickel]

(11-05-2019, 12:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the whistle-blower's identify should not be revealed to the public, but I wonder how many folks currently condemning the GOP for demanding it would be ok with a member pulling a "Spartacus" move and releasing the name without authorization. Seems many here applauded Corey Booker releasing classified documents on the Kav's inquiry.

I mean the public has a right to know...AmIright?

Cory Booker released classified documents? What a jackass.

[BmorePat87]

(11-05-2019, 08:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Cory Booker released classified documents? What a jackass.

He dumped some emails from Kavanaugh's time in the White House a few hours before they were made public. It was a bit of grandstanding and in no way comparable to exposing a whistleblower. 

[Belsnickel]

(11-05-2019, 09:30 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He dumped some emails from Kavanaugh's time in the White House a few hours before they were made public. It was a bit of grandstanding and in no way comparable to exposing a whistleblower. 

I mean, he shouldn't have done it, but you are absolutely correct that it is not at all comparable to exposing a whistleblower. Seems a rather intellectually dishonest argument for someone to try to make.

[Dill]

(11-05-2019, 12:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the whistle-blower's identify should not be revealed to the public, but I wonder how many folks currently condemning the GOP for demanding it would be ok with a member pulling a "Spartacus" move and releasing the name without authorization. Seems many here applauded Corey Booker releasing classified documents on the Kav's inquiry.

I mean the public has a right to know...AmIright?

The public does not have a right to know a whistleblower's name, especially one who followed legal procedures supposed to protect his identity, and most especially now that his/her accusations have been corroborated by Trump himself.

The whistleblower is now out of the legal picture, and so long as Trump demonstrably withheld aid and then said "however, we need a favor" . . . it matters not whether he was a Democrat or Trump hater or whatever.

If we value laws designed to preserve transparent government, it does matter that his identity remain protected.

This brings us back to Trump's demand that the whistleblower's name be revealed because he has a right to face his accuser.  He does not, in this case. Were he granted such a right, it would end whistleblowing and degrade transparency of government.

In any case, his "accuser" is now the government.

[BmorePat87]

Sondland revises his testimony to state that there was quid pro quo and that he made that clear to the Ukraine.

[GMDino]

(11-05-2019, 04:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Sondland revises his testimony to state that there was quid pro quo and that he made that clear to the Ukraine.

Which will now be "okay" with the GOP.

[BmorePat87]

(11-05-2019, 04:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: Which will now be "okay" with the GOP.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/468851-cornyn-no-quid-pro-quo-but-wouldnt-be-impeachable-if-there-was

Quote:"Even if there was, I don't think it would be impeachable or illegal for the president to do so. So this is just an excuse, I think, to continue this campaign that's existed since the president was sworn in to remove him from office," Cornyn said during an interview with Texas radio station KFYO. 

 
The Washington Post reported last week that some Senate Republicans were mulling a strategy that would acknowledge a quid pro quo, but also argue that the action was not illegal and it was not impeachable.

LOL

[fredtoast]

(11-05-2019, 05:44 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/468851-cornyn-no-quid-pro-quo-but-wouldnt-be-impeachable-if-there-was





LOL

This is exactly what SSF and I were discussing.  They admit that there was a quid-pro-quo because the United Sates does that with foreign aid all the time.  We make the aid dependent on using it properly or advancing the interests of the United States.  That is what Biden did when he got the corrupt Ukraine prosecutor removed.

But they would have to say that the quid-pro-quo was for the benefit of US interest instead of Trumps personal political interests.  I think that is a pretty weak argument, but it is better than saying there was no quid-pro-quo at all.

[Dill]

(11-05-2019, 04:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Sondland revises his testimony to state that there was quid pro quo and that he made that clear to the Ukraine.

Yow!  so he was a Democrat all along!

[Dill]

(11-05-2019, 06:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is exactly what SSF and I were discussing.  They admit that there was a quid-pro-quo because the United Sates does that with foreign aid all the time.  We make the aid dependent on using it properly or advancing the interests of the United States.  That is what Biden did when he got the corrupt prosecutor removed.

But they would have to say that the quid-pro-quo was for the benefit of US interest instead of Trumps personal political interests.  I think that is a pretty weak argument, but it is better than saying there was no quid-pro-quo at all.

Hannity was practically foaming at the mouth last night as he repeatedly reran video of Biden bragging how he got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired--interspersed with Hannity shouting "THERE'S THE QUID!!" and "THERE'S THE QUO!!!" and "SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE!?!?!"  Just spluttering in anger at Dem HYPOCRISY.     ANOTHER witch hunt to undo an election!

Of course, Biden was publicly carrying out public policy which Obama and Congress had determined was in the national interest, and which our European allies also supported as in their interest--a move aimed at STOPPING corruption.

Whereas Trump was thwarting US policy and national interest by running a private, shadow policy with Rudy, aimed at shaking down an ally and using US policy and taxpayer dollars for the private end of attacking a political rival.  Side benefit there for Putin, the adversary said policy was designed to check. 13 people died in the war zone in the time between the aid/arms were to be released and then actually released.

Not to mention that Trump was re-installing corruption in the midst of a country we and our allies were trying to cleanse of corruption.

How much you want to bet "Trump haters" will say this rises to the level of impeachment, just because Trump's phone call to the Ukraine came a day after Mueller demonstrated Trump had obstructed justice and ordered a subordinate to manufacture exculpatory evidence?

Witches hate witch hunts!   

My suggestion is get Ivanka and Jared to set up a task force on how Hunter Biden profited from his father's office. Does anyone really think he'd have gotten on the board of Burisma if his father weren't the VP??

[BmorePat87]

(11-05-2019, 06:58 PM)Dill Wrote: Yow!  so he was a Democrat all along!

The scooby gang pulls off the mask to reveal he was a Never Trumper the whole time