Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Democrats' narrative is that Trump only wanted Biden's alleged corruption investigated because it would benefit him in the 2020 election. Well, that narrative is of course paper thin and Catherine Croft's testimony should make it even thinner.

Nothing you just posted is relevant. It doesn't indicate that Trump did not want dirt on Biden. It does not disprove the fact that Ukranians understood that the release of aid was originally contingent on announcing very publicly investigations into Burisma and Joe Biden. This is known in some transcripts and primary evidence as "The Deliverable"

What other countries did Trump pressure for corruption investigations? Which other Americans did he target by name? What other evidentiary example is there of a POTUS soliciting a foreign government (non-NATO at that) to investigate specific named Americans, and were these Americans political adversaries of the POTUS?

weisses

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Democrats' narrative is that Trump only wanted Biden's alleged corruption investigated because it would benefit him in the 2020 election. Well, that narrative is of course paper thin and Catherine Croft's testimony should make it even thinner.

Unless you stop with the selective quoting

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Democrats' narrative is that Trump only wanted Biden's alleged corruption investigated because it would benefit him in the 2020 election. Well, that narrative is of course paper thin and Catherine Croft's testimony should make it even thinner.

As informative and honest as I find Breitbart, I feel that what this thread needs is something from OANN or maybe a bit of Hannity.


Got any of those rattling around in your pockets? Maybe a tweet by somebody with a red X in their title or a bunch of stars?



Or how about you cut the second hand editorialising and point out the area of testimony that this less than respectable publication is referring to so that we can see it without the deluded framing that you subject yourself to.

Outlaw Pete

StringerBell wrote: »

You are spending too long in the bubble (the right wing one)

Well, I do try to spend as much as my time as I can on this thread to balance things out.

The quoted text doesn't make any "narrative" thinner. Not even a little bit, what's more amusing is how much of a stretch people have to make to try to deflect or defend the man when they are so keen to dismiss the overwhelming evidence contrary to whatever particular point needs obfuscation today.

There is ZERO deflection: Trump asked for investigations to be carried out into alleged corruption and part of the leftist narrative is that if we was truly concerned with corruption he would have addressed it at times when it didn't involve his political rivals ... well, there you have it.

The article in fact backs up the fact that Ukraine did know trump would withhold aid as he had done so already.

They knew he was holding up aid, because he did so before? Eh, that makes zero sense. The word you might be looking for is 'felt' not 'knew'.

Overheal wrote: »

It doesn't indicate that Trump did not want dirt on Biden.

There you go with that word "dirt" again. Trump was looking for the truth.

It does not disprove the fact that Ukranians understood that the release of aid was originally contingent on announcing very publicly investigations into Burisma and Joe Biden. This is known in some transcripts and primary evidence as "The Deliverable"

Every POTUS will want a country with a history of corruption to show that they are about fighting corruption. Wasn't that the reason Biden/Obama withheld the $1billion?

What other countries did Trump pressure for corruption investigations?

What do you mean "other"? He never "pressured" any that I know of.

Which other Americans did he target by name?

Rosie O'Donnell?

What other evidentiary example is there of a POTUS soliciting a foreign government (non-NATO at that) to investigate specific named Americans, and were these Americans political adversaries of the POTUS?

He didn't solicit, he asked, and that Biden may run for president is an incidental factor, not a primary one.

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

As informative and honest as I find Breitbart, I feel that what this thread needs is something from OANN or maybe a bit of Hannity.

Nah, what the thread needs is one of your video clips that are edited to make Trump look as if he's been snubbed when he hasn't or one of your fake White House press releases maybe - any of those knocking about?

Or how about you cut the second hand editorialising and point out the area of testimony that this less than respectable publication is referring to so that we can see it without the deluded framing that you subject yourself to.

Well, granted, Breitbart didn't call al-Baghdadi an austere religious scholar on his passing, what with all the indiscriminate mass murder and all, but that's no reason to say they're less than respectable.

As for the testimony she may give, tis all there in the article for your perusal.

aloyisious

Overheal wrote: »

Faced with rocketing debt and deficit and growing calls for Impeachment, Trump is planning to cut middle class taxes by 15%

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/11/12/trump-advisers-exploring-tax-proposal-that-would-lower-middle-class-rate-percent/

"Janet we can't impeach him now, that $200 tax break..."

Don't mention the QPQ.

Overheal

Pete as you surely know dirt is the colloquial term for opposition research. Dirt is dirt is dirt. Even, as you keep hoping and dreaming, the dirt sought on Biden is true, does not make it not dirt. A pussy tape is dirt, a peepee tape is dirt. Hillarys emails and podesta emails were dirt.

“The truth” LOL I find it humorous this is the hill you want to die on

26000 Elephants

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

There is ZERO deflection: Trump asked for investigations to be carried out into alleged corruption and

This was indeed existing US state department and EU policy at the time. Trump was doing his job.

part of the leftist narrative is that if we was truly concerned with corruption he would have addressed it at times when it didn't involve his political rivals ... well, there you have it.

Oh boy. I hope by splitting the paragraph at that point even you can see how preposterous that idea is. Let's leave aside for the moment that this is *not* what the *left* (sigh) are seeking: You are in effect trying to say that a single example of Trump not actively being a criminal somehow exculpates him from later, clearly criminal, acts? That's extraordinary. The very fact that this is the level you are rooting at to find something mitigating is telling in itself.

26000 Elephants

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He didn't solicit, he asked,

The 2 words are synonymous.

and that Biden may run for president is an incidental factor, not a primary one.

Biden announced his presidential run in April, and he has been the front runner. At the time of the solicititation/request/asking he was Trumps #1 political opponent.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/at-donor-dinner-giuliani-associate-said-he-discussed-ukraine-with-trump-according-to-people-familiar-with-his-account/2019/11/12/2a1f28e0-0558-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html

Here we have account of foreigners influencing the President of the United States in a manner which the Founders deemed verboten.

Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman were in intimate contact with the President at a dinner for SuperPAC group donors. Both men are in custody on charges of funneling foreign money into US elections.

At this dinner in April 2018 (the PAC(s) are funding his 2020 election), they influenced the President of the United States to fire the Ukraine ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch.

If the two are convicted of funneling foreign money into Trump’s election, and it is confirmed they intimated with Trump in April of 2018 (Trump has gaslit to the contrary), Trump is in some real ****, it would be a cut and dry, judicially fact-checked, and irrefutable evidence of foreign emoluments, ie. Bribery and influence from other nations compromising the Commander in Chief. It would be utterly baffling if he was not impeached in such a scenario.

Oh and there’s other instances of their direct intimation with the POTUS:

” In February, Parnas and Fruman met with Ukraine’s then-president, Petro Poroshenko, according to Edward B. MacMahon Jr., a lawyer for Parnas. They were doing so, he said, on a request from Giuliani, who was acting on orders from Trump.

MacMahon said the two proposed that in exchange for a state visit, the Ukrainian president would announce investigations into former vice president Joe Biden’s son and an unfounded theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 presidential race.”

If that claim checks out, then Poroshenko even knew there would be a Quid Pro Quo, as early as February and before the Ukranian Election. I'd bet the house that Zelensky knew also ("nuh uh you don't have proof of that yet" - Pete) because how could he not know about that kind of foreign policy issue inside the Ukraine a month before the Ukraine election and by the time he was sworn in? If so, Ukraine's transition process is an utter shambles.

It would also conveniently tie together the Quid Pro Quo with Joe Biden and the 2020 election and specifically with Trump's 2020 campaign and in particular a Trump Super PAC (also what is this BS about Trump meeting anyone in coordination with a PAC? Did I miss something). Politically however one can make the argument the two have flipped and everyhyhyhything that they say will need to be vetted publicly; though if it's true I'd probably still be surprised at how utterly blatant its all been splayed out now.

.

Cross-post ^

Overheal

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Oh boy. I hope by splitting the paragraph at that point even you can see how preposterous that idea is. Let's leave aside for the moment that this is *not* what the *left* (sigh) are seeking: You are in effect trying to say that a single example of Trump not actively being a criminal somehow exculpates him from later, clearly criminal, acts? That's extraordinary. The very fact that this is the level you are rooting at to find something mitigating is telling in itself.

This exactly. The logic in play amounts to the Squidworth meme basically,

'I can own a gun'
'I can fire bullets'
'It is lawful to do these things'
'I can shoot my gun at people in self defense'
'It is lawful to shoot my gun at a bystander on 5th avenue'
'Murder is lawful'

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

Pete as you surely know dirt is the colloquial term for opposition research.

No s***, Sherlock.

Dirt is dirt is dirt.

Yes and leaves are leaves are leaves and stones are stones are stones.

Even, as you keep hoping and dreaming, the dirt sought on Biden is true does not make it not dirt.

'Dirt' isn't being sought, the truth is - you'll get there eventually.

A pussy tape is dirt, a peepee tape is dirt. Hillarys emails and podesta emails were dirt.

No, such things can be USED as dirt alright, but investigations surrounding them are not inherently so. For example, the initial investigation into Hillary and her emails was not 'looking for dirt' it was 'looking for the truth' and so the same should apply in the case of Joe and Hunter.

As for the pee-pee tape, the reason the existence of it was fabricated to begin with was purely to discredit a presidential candidate in the eyes of the electorate and so therefore that was in another league entirely to the investigation of real events.

“The truth” LOL I find it humorous this is the hill you want to die on

Yeah yeah, I was told that for two years whenever I said that the Russia-Trump collusion was based on lies, and that the notion Russia had comprised him in some way was also horse manure and look at how that all turned out ... all those same people act like they weren't wrong as they ride the impeachment train .. and I'll be there at the end of the journey to laugh at them all there too.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

You are in effect trying to say that a single example of Trump not actively being a criminal somehow exculpates him from later, clearly criminal, acts? That's extraordinary. The very fact that this is the level you are rooting at to find something mitigating is telling in itself.

That's some strawman there, but nope, I am not saying that a single example of Trump not actively being a criminal somehow exculpates him from later criminal acts.

First of all, the US president asking the president of another country to investigate alleged corruption within (or by) that country, is not a crime. In fact there is a treaty between the two countries which details that very thing. Trump would quite frankly be remiss were he not to have asked Zelensky (a new president intent on tackling Ukraine's long standing corruption issues) to look into the alleged instances of corruption which have affected both countries. Not just remiss, but in fact, negligent.

Overheal

First of all, the US president asking the president of another country to investigate alleged corruption within (or by) that country, is not a crime. In fact there is a treaty between the two countries which details that very thing.

In a vacuum yes that is perfectly accurate and correct.

Doing so however when it benefits your Presidential campaign is a violation of federal law. There is no evidence to date that shows the White House made any attempt to navigate the obvious conflict of interest and clear breach of the letter of campaign finance law. There is however evidence they went to great lengths to cover-up the call.

Again, Squidworth-reference, it is totally possible to use otherwise-lawful Presidential powers in an unlawful and impeachable way.

No, such things can be USED as dirt alright, but investigations surrounding them are not inherently so.

It is precisely that nuance that arose the need for Campaign Finance Laws, Pete.

everlast75

Now thst those emails released from Miller confirm (of course) that he's racist, are we STILL saying that Trump isn't a racist??

Overheal

everlast75 wrote: »

Now thst those emails released from Miller confirm (of course) that he's racist, are we STILL saying that Trump isn't a racist??

That's not a hill/circular conversation I'm willing to die on, everyone who already doesn't think he's a racist won't be swayed an inch by this (because reasons).

everlast75

Overheal wrote: »

That's not a hill/circular conversation I'm willing to die on.

Okay - I'll make it simpler for trump supporters.

Do they admit Miller is a racist?

stefanovich

everlast75 wrote: »

Now thst those emails released from Miller confirm (of course) that he's racist, are we STILL saying that Trump isn't a racist??

Please elaborate?

everlast75

stefanovich wrote: »

Please elaborate?

https://twitter.com/DanRather/status/1194335878035820545?s=19

Christy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No s***, Sherlock.



Yes and leaves are leaves are leaves and stones are stones are stones.



'Dirt' isn't being sought, the truth is - you'll get there eventually.



No, such things can be USED as dirt alright, but investigations surrounding them are not inherently so. For example, the initial investigation into Hillary and her emails was not 'looking for dirt' it was 'looking for the truth' and so the same should apply in the case of Joe and Hunter.

As for the pee-pee tape, the reason the existence of it was fabricated to begin with was purely to discredit a presidential candidate in the eyes of the electorate and so therefore that was in another league entirely to the investigation of real events.



Yeah yeah, I was told that for two years whenever I said that the Russia-Trump collusion was based on lies, and that the notion Russia had comprised him in some way was also horse manure and look at how that all turned out ... all those same people act like they weren't wrong as they ride the impeachment train .. and I'll be there at the end of the journey to laugh at them all there too.



That's some strawman there, but nope, I am not saying that a single example of Trump not actively being a criminal somehow exculpates him from later criminal acts.

First of all, the US president asking the president of another country to investigate alleged corruption within (or by) that country, is not a crime. In fact there is a treaty between the two countries which details that very thing. Trump would quite frankly be remiss were he not to have asked Zelensky (a new president intent on tackling Ukraine's long standing corruption issues) to look into the alleged instances of corruption which have affected both countries. Not just remiss, but in fact, negligent.

How often have you argued that an investigation into alleged corruption is illegal?

Seriously, are you really going to argue that Trump with his 13000 or whatever it is now plus lies is a paragon after the truth? The man who stood up so hard when Saudi Arabia murdered a journalist. Who promised us Russia didn't interfere in the election and wanted no investigation (before eventually admitting they did). Who ran a corrupt charity, who ran a scam University.

Do you expect the Trump - paragon of Truth defense to hold up at all? Why Ukraine? I can name a host of countries with massive corruption issues. Where else did he pressure for investigations? Surely there is a theme here if the Biden connection was incidental.

Overheal

First Graham refused to read transcripts, he argued, because it was a sham to have closed door hearings. So now as open hearings are set to commence in a few hours, Graham says that’s no longer the goalpost for him

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/lindsey-graham-im-not-watching-un-american-impeachment-hearings-wont-legitimize-this-threat-to-the-presidency/

weisses

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No s***, Sherlock.



Yes and leaves are leaves are leaves and stones are stones are stones.



'Dirt' isn't being sought, the truth is - you'll get there eventually. .

Since when do you want to hide the truth on a heavily encrypted server ?

everlast75

weisses wrote: »

Since when do you want to hide the truth on a heavily encrypted server ?

Or tax returns....

Or SAT scores....

Or proper medical records....

26000 Elephants

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

First of all, the US president asking the president of another country to investigate alleged corruption within (or by) that country, is not a crime.

And back we go again.

So again:
This is *not* what happened in the July 25th call.

He did *not* ask Zelensky to investigate 'general' corruption.

He asked Zelenesky to implicate *Biden* - his #1 political opponent.

That was the "favor" stated in the transcript.

Not 'Corruption in Ukraine'.
But a statement mentioning Biden. That's it.

This cannot be any clearer. Several witnesses have testified to this fact. And they were cross examined, unsuccessfully, by better legal minds than you or I. And so it stands.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nah, what the thread needs is one of your video clips that are edited to make Trump look as if he's been snubbed when he hasn't or one of your fake White House press releases maybe - any of those knocking about?

In the video, Trump put out his hand for a shake and the guy turned and shook the hand of others. Trump was left hanging. That the guy returned to Trump later doesn't change the fact that he was left hanging when he reached out his hand. That's what the phrase "left hanging" means.



This has been explained to you multiple times and I'll happily explain it to you again the next time you inevitably bring it up.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, granted, Breitbart didn't call al-Baghdadi an austere religious scholar on his passing, what with all the indiscriminate mass murder and all, but that's no reason to say they're less than respectable.

As for the testimony she may give, tis all there in the article for your perusal.

A paper writing a controversial obituary is not on a par with a publication that deceives on a daily basis. That you repeatedly point at the obituary tells its own story which I'll describe thusly.


"The stuff I read is all nonsense but the stuff you read had a poorly titled obituary that one time so they're both as bad as each other".

hotmail.com

26000 Elephants wrote: »

And back we go again.

So again:
This is *not* what happened in the July 25th call.

He did *not* ask Zelensky to investigate 'general' corruption.

He asked Zelenesky to implicate *Biden* - his #1 political opponent.

That was the "favor" stated in the transcript.

Not 'Corruption in Ukraine'.
But a statement mentioning Biden. That's it.

This cannot be any clearer. Several witnesses have testified to this fact. And they were cross examined, unsuccessfully, by better legal minds than you or I. And so it stands.

You can see why the public in America and here have little interest in this circus if this is the scandal.

Dirty politics is hardly something new.

No.impeachmet proceedings for illegal wars, drone bombings etc. No wonder the vast majority are ignoring this impeachment rubbish.

pixelburp

hotmail.com wrote: »

You can see why the public in America and here have little interest in this circus if this is the scandal.

Dirty politics is hardly something new.

No.impeachmet proceedings for illegal wars, drone bombings etc. No wonder the vast majority are ignoring this impeachment rubbish.

Do you think the average American cares about those things either? Or if they do, thinks that a President should be prosecuted for wars or bombings? Cos I'll jump right in and say that they don't. This is a country with a strong military culture, the ethnical lines are blurred enough as it stands IMO.

And if you're posting in this forum, then you should know yourself that when it comes to the world of politics, the cover-up is often the larger offence than the crime itself. Trumps actions re. Ukraine are the culmination of obfuscation, cover-ups and lies as resting policy in his administration.

everlast75

hotmail.com wrote: »

You can see why the public in America and here have little interest in this circus if this is the scandal.

Dirty politics is hardly something new.

No.impeachmet proceedings for illegal wars, drone bombings etc. No wonder the vast majority are ignoring this impeachment rubbish.

Oh ffs.

Now we are the stage of the debate where "all politics is dirty so why bother doing anything to stop it"????

Clinton and Nixon both did stuff that required congress to act. Congress acted.

Trump did stuff that requires congress to act. Congress should at.

The idea that Congress shouldn't act, which is your point, means that it is easier for Presidents to be corrupt. You see how nonsensical that is?

Its not that complicated.

Cody montana

hotmail.com wrote: »

You can see why the public in America and here have little interest in this circus if this is the scandal.

Dirty politics is hardly something new.

No.impeachmet proceedings for illegal wars, drone bombings etc. No wonder the vast majority are ignoring this impeachment rubbish.

Really?

Is that why it’s dominating the media?
Loads of networks are showing it.

26000 Elephants

hotmail.com wrote: »

You can see why the public in America and here have little interest in this circus if this is the scandal.

Dirty politics is hardly something new.

No.impeachmet proceedings for illegal wars, drone bombings etc. No wonder the vast majority are ignoring this impeachment rubbish.

You've covered several bases there:

1.It happened, but it's not important.

2. It happened, but everybody does it, right?

3. It happened, but I don't care.

Theres a subtle common theme running through these points : at least you concede Trump is guilty. Aside from the subjective nature of how you feel about it, at least you accept the objective reality that he committed an impeachable offense.

And that is all Congress has been trying to establish.

Quin_Dub

And the Trump family bizarro show continues..

At a speech to the Economic Club of New York today, President Trump declared that his daughter, Ivanka, has personally created 14 million new jobs. The president announced this figure — so astonishingly ludicrous it would embarrass a Stalin-era pronouncement — and then repeated it twice more as the crowd applauded politely.

So far during the Trump Presidency a total of ~6M jobs have been created.

So DJT is claiming that Ivanka is personally responsible for about 240% of the total jobs created in the US Economy.

How is anyone supposed to take anything he says at face value when he can stand up in front of a crowd and blithely come out with outright lies like this??

From here