Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI
Options
Comments
-
Pompeo was on the Ukraine call or the Australian one ?everlast75 wrote: »The Phantom Jipper wrote: »New scandal alert: same as the Biden and Ukraine business, except with Mueller and Australia.
Plus Pompeo was on the ukraine call.
Water is pi$ing out of the dam....
If this goes to the courts i wonder will the Supreme Court treat a transcripts the same as they did with president Nixon and his tapes he had. The Supreme Court ruled that Nixon had to hand over the tapes.0 -
Pompeo was on the Ukraine call or the Australian one ?
If this goes to the courts i wonder will the Supreme Court treat a transcripts the same as they did with president Nixon and his tapes he had. The Supreme Court ruled that Nixon had to hand over the tapes.
I'm interested to see what if any role the SCOTUS takes here. Impeachment is a political, Article I process.0 -
The Phantom Jipper wrote: »New scandal alert: same as the Biden and Ukraine business, except with Mueller and Australia.
Will that necessarily be the same?
Is Trump not legally entitled (even if it's frivolous) to investigate the origins of the Mueller report?
So long as he didn't obstruct it at that stage, I would think it might be alright.
He obstructed it as well, but that seemed separate.
Obviously it's pathetic, conspiracy theory nonsense that's embarrassing for the President to be engaging in, and normally would constitute an embarrassing scandal for playing those kinds of politics with a legitimate inquiry, but in terms of actually being illegal, it doesn't seem like it would be, on the face of it.0 -
Jim Jordan and mark meadows are complaining that because the whistleblower info wasn’t firsthand info that it’s no good. They don’t seem to get that the official White House transcript of the call that the whistleblower based their complaint on confirmed the complaint.0
-
Join Date:Posts: 34348
The question never answered by those who'd defend this procession of amateur hour geopolitics, is why on earth Trump didn't leverage the vast arms of the state to make these kind of investigations? The FBI, CIA and the State Department exist for this kind of thing.
That even Fox News feel compelled to ask this question in of itself speaks volumes; perhaps the State Debt truly is in a stripped down state after Tillersons run at it, but you'd have imagined the diplomatic branches of the USA are more than capable in quietly back channeling some discreet research. Not Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer bereft of sense and tact.
Butttt that's the thing, isn't it. Donald Trump, whatever else you make of him, isn't discreet. He's not diplomatic. He needs to be the big man in charge, making the "deals" that his brand insists is his skill. He is so colossally out of his depth he thinks this brash, bossman mentality plays well in geopolitics.0 -
Advertisement
-
Will that necessarily be the same?
Is Trump not legally entitled (even if it's frivolous) to investigate the origins of the Mueller report?
So long as he didn't obstruct it at that stage, I would think it might be alright.
He obstructed it as well, but that seemed separate.
Obviously it's pathetic, conspiracy theory nonsense that's embarrassing for the President to be engaging in, and normally would constitute an embarrassing scandal for playing those kinds of politics with a legitimate inquiry, but in terms of actually being illegal, it doesn't seem like it would be, on the face of it.
That'll be the defence alright, but I believe that it will put Barr and Pompeo under pressure, and will lend credence to the calls for the transcripts to be examined so as to ensure no other countries were pressured and that all avenues were merely to investigate the "oranges" or the mueller report.
I can't wait for the report from Barr to come back and say it was all above board.
Rosenstein believed Trump was compromised. Is Barr going to lie and throw him under the bus?0 -
everlast75 wrote: »https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1178761809890861059?s=19
Well, when you open your big mouth...
Plus he's already admitted that he wasn't acting as Trump's attorney, so no attorney client privilege
And he STILL hasn't learned..
https://twitter.com/emilyngo/status/1178782455488229378?s=19
"No, idiot. Dig up!!"0 -
To understand where the public are on this, 17% supported the impeachment and removal of Nixon, at this point, the number fro Trump is 47%.
This 47% includes a good few young republicans.0 -
The Phantom Jipper wrote: »New scandal alert: same as the Biden and Ukraine business, except with Mueller and Australia.
This ones not as illegal. Dirty but not illegal. Asking a foreign country to cooperated with a DOJ investigation is fine, legally.
I expect to see Pete make that same point despite him making the opposite point when Ukraine was being asked to cooperate with the Mueller investigation.0 -
Sweet Jeebus. ... I'm away at the moment but got a chance to watch Gouliani with George Stepanopolous.....
OMG! What an absolute ****show!
Rudy is seriously in need of help!
On top of that, he tried to sell his 'multiple affadavit' argument to Maria Bartimoro and I was shocked to see how Bartimoro shut down his pleas for special treatment from Fox News..Maria gave him a much easier ride than Stepanopolus did, but she still knocked back his pathetic arguments...and shouted him down in a way I haven't seen done by Maria to a GOP PER in a long time...0 -
Advertisement
-
The Trump Admin's office of the inspector general has released a statement.
It suggests that those idiotically stupid talking points about second hand information may have been horsesh!t that was created by the federalist to believed and spread by both the dishonest and the gullible.Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant – or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations.
The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.”
Anyone else here feel that if you are continually falling for hoaxes or spreading lies that maybe you should take some time and reflect on why you keep doing that?0 -
Now, I wonder how the GOP caucus plans to use Guliani as a scapegoat/fall guy for this whole affair. TBH I don't see how that's not in their playbook ATM.0
-
Barr is in trouble too. Meeting foreign Govn'ts to undermine his own intelligence services.0
-
I'm in NYC at the moment
Overheard a group of people in a diner discuss the Trump issue with Ukraine
They actually hadn't a clue of the real story. They thought it was something to do with trumps election
One of them brought up Hillary Clinton and emails etc0 -
Water John wrote: »Barr is in trouble too. Meeting foreign Govn'ts to undermine his own intelligence services.
The US Attorney General asked for foreign spy agencies to spy on his own people.
If there is any evidence that surfaces that the Putin calls involved any of this, the whole house of cards will crumble flat.0 -
-
duploelabs wrote: »I asked four times what you thought of the Trump administration moving non-sensitive transcripts of phone calls to a code-word server reserved for the most secure classified of information.
I think it's a smart move given how many calls have been leaked by the subversive resistance.I did not ask that!
You said it and I'm asking you to justify the statement:duploelabs wrote: »There's the single call where Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden and threatened to withhold aid if they didn't.
Now again, please quote where Trump "threatened" to withhold aid.
Or are you going to ....duploelabs wrote: ».. chicken out when challenged..0 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »I think it's a smart move given how many calls have been leaked by the subversive resistance.
You said it and I'm asking you to justify the statement:
Now again, please quote where Trump "threatened" to withhold aid.
Or are you going to ....
4 Times, the evidence is as clear as the transcripts of the callsduploelabs wrote: »Hey Pete,
What's your view on consealing calls to other foreign leaders that weren't state sensitive but were politically sensitive or otherwise?duploelabs wrote: »Hey Pete,
What's your view on consealing calls to other foreign leaders that weren't state sensitive but were politically sensitive or otherwise?duploelabs wrote: »Hey Pete. Can you answer my question please? Or are you going to dodge it as usual?duploelabs wrote: »Hey Pete, third time of asking. What's your view on the white house moving non classified transcripts of phone calls to a code word secured server? What do you think they're trying to hide?duploelabs wrote: »They certainly mindlessly lap up anything their golden god spews, tell me again how he's such an honest joe when he has to hide normal conversations from world leaders, why do you think that is?0 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »I think it's a smart move given how many calls have been leaked by the subversive resistance
Was waiting for this line that Jim Jordan used.
Trump pre-election - I will hire only the best people.
Trump post-election - the people I hire are awful!
And while you're here, can you admit this change in WB law is nonsense?0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »They may try, But Giuliani will not go quietly.
Ditto. As the former mayor of NYC 1994-2001, he'd have info on big deals done within city boundaries so that would be another reason to keep his quiet and happy.0 -
Advertisement
-
Will that necessarily be the same?
Is Trump not legally entitled (even if it's frivolous) to investigate the origins of the Mueller report?
So long as he didn't obstruct it at that stage, I would think it might be alright.
He obstructed it as well, but that seemed separate.
Obviously it's pathetic, conspiracy theory nonsense that's embarrassing for the President to be engaging in, and normally would constitute an embarrassing scandal for playing those kinds of politics with a legitimate inquiry, but in terms of actually being illegal, it doesn't seem like it would be, on the face of it.
On the aspect of Don talking to Scott Morrison in Oz looking for help in finding out what contacts the Mueller investigation had possibly uncovered there and possibly not revealed in his report, its two-prong: destroy the findings and damage the FBI as again helping crooked Hillary through a witch-hunt. Mr Morrison will possibly kick the can down the road with the intent of getting an inconclusive result from his own agencies for Don after the next election is done and dusted as Don is also asking the PM to get the Oz agencies to investigate themselves and give him info on any contacts they had with Mueller in his official investigation for the US. I cant see him doing the same job on his agencies that Don has done on the US agencies. Given how Don treats the security and safety of his own investigative and Intelligence agencies staff, the Oz agencies should keep that in mind when it comes to trusting Don with any material from Oz, on the basis that he'd hang them out to dry without a blink, ala Valerie Plame and an earlier GOP President.0 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »Now again, please quote where Trump "threatened" to withhold aid.
Or are you going to ....
Nobody is saying it was that explicit, however given that Trump withheld the military aid about a week before the call, the quid pro quo is quite obvious.President Zelenskyy: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her I also met and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and I'm very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.
The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.
President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.. That I can assure you.
The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all, I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.
The President: Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It's a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible people.
President Zelenskyy: I would like to tell you that I also have quite a few Ukrainian friends that live in the United States. Actually last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower. I will talk to them and I hope to see them again in the future. I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy, there is much potential for our two countries and one of the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence. I believe we can be very successful and cooperating on energy independence with United States. We are already working on cooperation. We are buying American oil but I am very hopeful for a future meeting. We will have more time and more opportunities to discuss these opportunities and get to know each other better. I would like to thank you very much for your support.
The President: Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. Give us a date and we'll work that out. I look forward to seeing you.
Zelenskyy mentions the military aid, Trump asks for a favour in return relating to investigation into items regarding the Mueller investigation (which largely became an investigation into Trump himself), Zelenskyy mentions a partnership between their two countries, Trump then asks him to also look into Biden, repeatedly saying he'll have Giuliani (his personal lawyer, not a government official) contact him.0 -
You just have to apply Occam's razor, which is that it's the least strained interpretation that Trump did this for his benefit and not to raise concerns over corruption (which it seems might be unfounded according to previous prosecutor, but who knows).
He (Biden) is a political rival of his, plain and simple. It's also plain to see that the news of the investigation wasn't supposed to come out now, it most likely would have been after the Dem nomination in which Biden is (was?) frontrunner. Then you have the timing of the military aid.
I don't think Pete is an idiot, but when he says that people are stretching things by arguing that Trump did this for himself it's hard to not see him just kidding himself into an alternative reality. All the other issues about possible Dem malfeasance could well be true, I don't know. Every time I tried to click through and find out I got taken to a blog which talked about Seth Rich's murder, so I couldn't find a decent resource on that stuff.
But that stuff doesn't change the basic face of these facts that we know so far (the call with Zelensky about Biden, the transcript provided by the president of it and how it corroborated key details in the earlier summary of the whistleblower complaint, the delay in military aid and Trump's own personal interest in Biden as a political rival)
If you choose to ignore the implication of these basic facts then you're choosing to look like an idiot, I would say. I don't know how that stands with the charter here, but it's what I feel.0 -
Zelenskyy mentions the military aid, Trump asks for a favour in return relating to investigation into items regarding the Mueller investigation
The $390m military aid was approved and lined up, ready to go per a US Government statement in May.
June 21st, Giuliani complains that Zelenskyy is "still silent" on his bullsh!t investigations into Biden.
Then on July 18th, Trump personally ordered the aid suspended. A week later, he was on the phone to Zelenskyy, who asked about the aid, and Trump said: " I would like you to do us a favor though".
Sept. 5th, the Washington Post reports that Trump was twisting Zelenskyy's arm. Sept 9th, the Intelligence Committees are told of the whistleblower complaint.
The aid was paid on September 11th.
Trump then gave two conflicting reasons why he suspended the aid, so he lied about it at least once, blaming corruption first, then European allies. Neither excuse would explain why he released the aid. It was obviously done to get ahead of the investigations.
Pelosi resisted all arguments to impeach Trump up to now - the reason she jumped at this one is that it is a slam-dunk. She doesn't need to go fishing for any evidence, it's all public, in Trump and Giuliani's own public words and actions and the transcript released by the White House themselves.
McConnell has already said he will hold a trial if the House impeaches Trump, which means Republican Senators will have to either convict Trump or vote that collusion with a foreign power is cool, election interference is cool, using taxpayer dollars to strong arm foreign leaders to help Trumps campaign is cool, lying about all of this is cool.
Which will all look great on the 2020 campaign trail - Dems to win the Presidency and the Senate, Trump to die in jail.0 -
People should also not lose sight of another possible implication here regarding Trump, Manafort and the Ukraine.
Whilst the Mueller probe was underway, the Ukraine mysteriously stopped cooperating with Mueller's team. At the time, the suggestion was that Trump was holding over the Ukraine sales of javelin missiles. To me, this latest call appears to be the second time the Ukraine was strong-armed by Trump, i.e. he has form.
If those reports are true, then I would guess that's another impeachable offence, in terms of obstructing justice.0 -
Nobody is saying it was that explicit
Saying Trump 'threatened' Zelensky is implying that there was some sort of explicit and tense exchange. If words like these are needed to be used rather than the actual ones, so as to give weight to an opinion, then my call would be that that opinion is a wrongheaded one.however given that Trump withheld the military aid about a week before the call, the quid pro quo is quite obvious.
False. They weren't even aware of it:
https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/1176882766597767168Zelenskyy mentions the military aid, Trump asks for a favour in return relating to investigation into items regarding the Mueller investigation (which largely became an investigation into Trump himself), Zelenskyy mentions a partnership between their two countries
The two leaders were discussing relations between the two countries and naturally Zelensky is going to mention aid at some stage, that's a given, and naturally Trump was going to mention the investigation at some point, that too was a given, in fact he said so publically:
https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1178793360800108544
...and so it was no secret that he was going to be asking the Ukraine to cooperate with the investigation of the investigators, especially given that so much of what went on had ties to that country: the black ledger, politicians there being charged for their roles in leaking the information which led to Paul Manafort's downfall etc and so to cite these things and then say because they were discussed in the same call, that that therefore then means there was a quid pro quo, is ridiculous.Trump then asks him to also look into Biden, repeatedly saying he'll have Giuliani (his personal lawyer, not a government official) contact him.
Not true. Zelensky brings Rudy up first for a start and Trump says he will get Rudy to call him ALONG with AG Barr:"Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. "
This is all a load of nonsense. The impeachment process is just being used as a political tool rather than it being felt that he has done something to warrant being impeached. It will never happen.0 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »Saying Trump 'threatened' Zelensky is implying that there was some sort of explicit and tense exchange.
Trump didn't threaten to suspend vital military aid, he actually did suspend vital military aid on July 19th.
And when Zelenskyy asked about the aid on that call, aid which had been fully approved until the previous week when Trump personally suspended it giving no explanation at all, Trump said "I would like you to do us a favor though". according to the White House's own summary of the call.
If you don't understand what was happening there, not to worry, it will be explained during Trumps testimony at his trial in front of the Senate.0 -
Stacksofwacks wrote: »First of many, it will end with Trump who I think could be gone within a week
4 day's ago, three to go...
I don't think it's going to happen....0 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »Saying Trump 'threatened' Zelensky is implying that there was some sort of explicit and tense exchange. If words like these are needed to be used rather than the actual ones, so as to give weight to an opinion, then my call would be that that opinion is a wrongheaded one.
The two leaders were discussing relations between the two countries and naturally Zelensky is going to mention aid at some stage, that's a given, and naturally Trump was going to mention the investigation at some point, that too was a given, in fact he said so publically
Given that both presidents have heads and brains to interpret what the O/P is saying without being stupidly explicit [pause in conversation to allow words to settle in] its good to see you also know what Don was doing without him being explicit about it in their conversation.
Re the "they weren't even aware of it", if that refers to the Ukraine having actual knowledge of Don's specific instruction to with-hold the Senate-approved funds from them, instead of natural curiousity as to why there was a delay in the funds coming through, then you'd be right. but [IMO] that's just you being semantic about whom was conversing and knew the content of the conversation. The important thing is that both presidents knew the "hint-hint" game being played by Don in respect of the senate-approved funds coming through to them in their hour of need, as you acknowledge in yours above.0 -
Advertisement
-
Lest we forget, in the conversation Trump asked about Crowdstrike. This is another arc of madness, the "Ukraine hacked the DNC server to make it look like Russia did it to embarrass Trump" arc that's been percolating around the WH and the DOJ. Fortunately Slate's summarized this nicely - it's amusing that HRC's e-mails are now a scandal. For Trump. The best people
Summary quote: "Although most of the focus since the White House released the transcript of his July call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been on his efforts to dig up dirt on Joe and Hunter Biden, the first “favor” Trump asks for is about emails. This element of the would-be quid pro quo was maybe more troubling than the Biden one, because in this case, Trump would be making nearly $400 million in military aid contingent on Zelensky’s pursuit of a conspiracy theory that you would have to work very hard to be stupid enough to believe."
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/trump-impeachment-investigation-hillary-clinton-emails.html0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement