(11-04-2019, 03:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Is it illegal for a politician to solicit the help of a foreign government with an election?  Yes or no.

(11-04-2019, 03:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not just government, any foreign entity.

(11-04-2019, 04:07 PM)6andcounting Wrote: The whistleblowers report didn't come from the readout. It based around the 12 or so people who directly listened into the call. The whistleblower admits he wasn't one of those people.

(11-04-2019, 04:07 PM)6andcounting Wrote: The whistleblowers report didn't come from the readout. It based around the 12 or so people who directly listened into the call. The whistleblower admits he wasn't one of those people.

(11-04-2019, 04:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Does that mean the complaint should have been ignored or he shouldn't have reported it?

He said he was told that this happened and provided information on it. He reported it. Turns out it did happen.

Why are we hung up on this and not focused on investigating the full extent of it?

(11-04-2019, 03:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Is it illegal for a politician to solicit the help of a foreign government with an election?  Yes or no.

(11-04-2019, 04:49 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Here is the correct answer.  Trump asking the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden is illegal.  Trump admitted to this.  Mulvaney admitted to this.  They don't need the whistle blower's name because LTC Vindman who works for the NSC was on the actual call and reported the same concerns as the whistle blower.  Not only is soliciting a foreign government to investigate a political rival for assistance in an election illegal, but withholding military assistance to the Ukraine approved by Congress to fight Russian backed rebels compromises our national security interests in the region.

(11-04-2019, 04:49 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Here is the correct answer.  Trump asking the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden is illegal.  Trump admitted to this.  Mulvaney admitted to this.  They don't need the whistle blower's name because LTC Vindman who works for the NSC was on the actual call and reported the same concerns as the whistle blower.  Not only is soliciting a foreign government to investigate a political rival for assistance in an election illegal, but withholding military assistance to the Ukraine approved by Congress to fight Russian backed rebels compromises our national security interests in the region.

(11-04-2019, 05:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Playing Devil's advocate here, but couldn't an argument be made that they were aware of corruption occurring in the Ukraine related to a public figure and wanted it investigated?  There are several reasons a person would want to uncover that type of graft occurring at the highest levels that don't have anything to do with an election (especially as there is about zero chance Biden will be the nominee).  Now, I get the irony of Trump being the one concerned about this type of corruption, but the argument can still be made.

(11-04-2019, 04:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Does that mean the complaint should have been ignored or he shouldn't have reported it?

He said he was told that this happened and provided information on it. He reported it. Turns out it did happen.

Why are we hung up on this and not focused on investigating the full extent of it?

(11-04-2019, 05:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Playing Devil's advocate here, but couldn't an argument be made that they were aware of corruption occurring in the Ukraine related to a public figure and wanted it investigated?  There are several reasons a person would want to uncover that type of graft occurring at the highest levels that don't have anything to do with an election (especially as there is about zero chance Biden will be the nominee).  Now, I get the irony of Trump being the one concerned about this type of corruption, but the argument can still be made.

(11-04-2019, 05:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, the legality argument matters little. The questions regarding legality of executive actions are moot because (1) a sitting POTUS cannot currently be indicted under guidance from a (questionable) DoJ memo and (2) almost all of our criminal code is not intended to apply to the executive in these capacities. The question of impeachment is not a legal one, but a political one. Abuses of power (which is what high crimes and misdemeanors are all about) aren't usually illegal. By continually talking about the legality of Trump's actions we fall into the misdirection being laid out by the GOP in their propagandist efforts to control the narrative.

(11-04-2019, 05:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You should read the complaint. The whistleblower states "I was not the only non-White House official to receive a readout of the call." Page 3, final bullet point of section I. This indicates direct knowledge of the discussion, not just hearsay. It is uncertain whether he received this readout before or after concerns were raised to him, but regardless he indicates that he has received the readout of the call which means there was evidence in his hands beyond what others had recounted to him.

• Over the past four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts related to this effort. The information provided herein was relayed to me in the course of official interagency business. It is routine for U.S. officials with responsibility for a particular regional or functional portfolio to share such information with one another in order to inform policymaking and analysis.
• I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues’ accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another. In addition, a variety of information consistent with these private accounts has been reported publicly.
  

(11-04-2019, 05:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Playing Devil's advocate here, but couldn't an argument be made that they were aware of corruption occurring in the Ukraine related to a public figure and wanted it investigated?  There are several reasons a person would want to uncover that type of graft occurring at the highest levels that don't have anything to do with an election (especially as there is about zero chance Biden will be the nominee).  Now, I get the irony of Trump being the one concerned about this type of corruption, but the argument can still be made.

(11-04-2019, 05:33 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Yeah, that looks familiar. It's almost if I read that before.....



What part of what he accuses Trump of came from the readout? None. 


Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the complaint read:

• Over the past four months, more than half a dozen U.S. officials have informed me of various facts related to this effort. The information provided herein was relayed to me in the course of official interagency business. It is routine for U.S. officials with responsibility for a particular regional or functional portfolio to share such information with one another in order to inform policymaking and analysis.
• I was not a direct witness to most of the events described. However, I found my colleagues’ accounts of these events to be credible because, in almost all cases, multiple officials recounted fact patterns that were consistent with one another. In addition, a variety of information consistent with these private accounts has been reported publicly.
  

 He mentions receiving the readout in his explanation that the call wasn't restricted at the time it occurred. That's the one and only time it's cited. He doesn't use it for the source of his accusation. The full context of the quite you cited:

Based on my understanding, there were approximately a dozen White House officials who listened to the call — a mixture of policy officials and duty officers in the White House Situation Room, as is customary. The officials I spoke with told me that participation in the call had not been restricted in advance because everyone expected it would be a “routine” call with a foreign leader. I do not know whether anyone was physically present with the President during the call.

[*]    -In addition to White House personnel, I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call.

[*]     -I was not the only non-White House official to receive a readout of the call. Based on my understanding, multiple State Department and Intelligence      Community officials were also briefed on the contents of the call as outlined above.


When mentioning his actual claims he words them in ways such as:

-The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the phone call.

-In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials

-I also learned from multiple U.S. officials that

-I was told separately by multiple U.S. officials

-Starting in mid-May, I heard from multiple U.S. officials that they were deeply concerned 

(11-04-2019, 06:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's a lot of dancing to avoid acknowledging that he did, in fact, have evidence of the conversation and it wasn't entirely hearsay, as was claimed. No matter what other information he received, he had received the readout.

(11-04-2019, 05:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Absolutely, and if there's any evidence that he had that concern or that there was reason to believe that the concern existed after the Ukrainian government cleared the company, I am sure his defense team will demonstrate it.

However, it's hard to argue that with his Crowdstrike request considering that's a made up conspiracy theory. 

(11-04-2019, 05:40 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: There was zero chance Trump would be the Republican nominee until he was.

Quote:Sure one can argue Trump seeking Biden's investigation is apolitical, but I don't buy that argument.  

Quote:Trump denied a quid pro quo.  Not true.  Trump denied there was a meeting between his son and a Russian lawyer.  Not true.  Trump denied the purpose of the meeting was dirt on Hillary Clinton.  Not true.  Trump denied paying off Stormy Daniels.  Not true.  Trump denied knowledge of paying off Stormy Daniels.  Not true.

Quote:Trump also asked the Ukrainian president to publicly announce Biden was under investigation.  That isn't about finding corruption, that is about PR damage the announcement will do to a political rival.  If Trump denies the request wasn't about damaging a political rival during the next election, that is another lie just like all the others . . . in my opinion.

(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?

(11-04-2019, 09:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Why does he believe that Crowdstrike is funded by rich Ukrainians and they worked with the DNC to fake their email servers being hacked in an attempt to blame Russia, and now that server is behind hid in the Ukraine despite it being on display at the DNC's HQ? It's as absurd as Pizzagate. 

You're trying to apply logic to someone who suspends it on a daily basis. The argument COULD be made, but we're not there and I doubt we ever will be. Gotta go with the evidence on this one, not the baseless claims.