Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

PropJoe10

Overheal wrote: »

As is the fact the public won't hear testimony from Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, Pence, Eisenberg, Trump, Mulvaney, Pompeo, etc.

If they're innocent take the stand swear the oath and tell America in no ambiguous terms that everything they did was above board.

The truth has no place in US politics anymore, I'm afraid.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

Clip

You're missing my point. I know what Sondland said, sure I'm citing it non-stop, but you're contradicting him and so are others, therefore I am asking you (and others too): if Sondland knew that there were conditions on the aid being released, then why would he word his question to Trump the way he did? Doesn't make sense.

He says there were "so many scenarios floating around" but yet isn't this someone you are all claiming knew the aid was conditioned on investigations? Yet here he was posing a question to Trump as if it was the first time he had ever broached the subject of a this for that with him.

DrumSteve wrote: »

I think that timing of that question relevant to when the whistleblower complaint became known, goes someway to answering that.

Well, there are two ways to read that though ....

One, would be to suggest Trump was saying what he did as he had just found out about the Whistleblower and wanted to deny it in case someone was listening, or just make Sondland go away and not ask it again.

Or, what I believe, and that he has heard about the Whistleblower and is furious with Rudy and Sondland for giving people the impression he wanted a QPQ.

Outlaw Pete

PropJoe10 wrote: »

The truth has no place in US politics anymore, I'm afraid.

Three years of Trump's a Russian Agent made that clear.

And if it didn't, surely the Kavanaugh circus should have.

Accusations are the democrats political tool of choice these days.

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Why did he do that?

Why didn't he call and say: "Hey Boss, are you still of the position that 'no investigations, no aid'?"

Why is Sondland asking Trump what he wanted off Zelensky if (according to you) he already knew?

I got the impression he made the call to Don because he had heard Don wanted President Zelensky to have his Admin Prosecutor to start a corruption investigation into the Bidens and Burisma and to make a public announcement to that effect. It was not a request for a general corruption clean-up and was apparently to be announced on a specific CNN host's TV programme but President Zelensky's appearance on it was cancelled from his end and the requested announcement Don asked for did not happen.

The show cancellation happened because some duly authorised person in Don's administration pulled the plug on the Senate funding block to Ukraine, ending the need for President Zelensky to make the investigation announcement.

Thing here is that Don has so many personally appointed ambassadors doing his business outside the usual international inter-govt way that they are tripping him up. Toss into the pot his personal lawyer and you have a bubbling mess. Don decided on the recipe, set the course [pun] and he's getting the benefit.

I edited part of Para 1 above referencing the investigation to include a general corruption clean-up.

Gwen Cooper

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Sondland also made it pretty obvious that Trump was only looking for Zelensky to announce it, and on CNN, of all places. He didn't seem to care about the logistics of it, or even care if the investigation actually happened or not.

Guess who that was designed to hurt?

I believe that he said in the testimony that they weren't demanding for it to be announced on CNN, they just wanted to have it announced. Someone then mentioned that they actually have an interview scheduled with CNN, so they can do it there.

Leroy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Or, what I believe, and that he has heard about the Whistleblower and is furious with Rudy and Sondland for giving people the impression he wanted a QPQ.

But to believe that, as you do, then surely you are asking the question about why Trump hasn't fired them, its not like he is against firing people.

So which is it? Is he furious, yet for some reason does not want to them to testify that they were acting without his consent or maybe your believe is based on nothing more than not wanting to see what is in front of your face?

weisses

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Accusations are the democrats political tool of choice these days.

Maybe refresh your memory and look up what the GOP was up to during Obama's admin.....

If anything the dems are using the GOP playbook

DrumSteve

Leroy42 wrote: »

But to believe that, as you do, then surely you are asking the question about why Trump hasn't fired them, its not like he is against firing people.

So which is it? Is he furious, yet for some reason does not want to them to testify that they were acting without his consent or maybe your believe is based on nothing more than not wanting to see what is in front of your face?

Can't agree more to this.

Pete - You've given it a good run, but with regards to Trump, any defence of him really falls apart under any type of scrutiny.

If I was a fan of his, I would feel seriously sold down the river by him.

Igotadose

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Three years of Trump's a Russian Agent made that clear.

And if it didn't, surely the Kavanaugh circus should have.

Accusations are the democrats political tool of choice these days.

Umm...how many Trump associates are in prison now due to their activities during the campaign with Russia? Roger Stone ring a bell?

Kavanaugh's accuser was credible. Never caught out in a lie. Difficult circumstances, and the death threats and intimidation had to be impactful. All that happened is the Senate voted in committee and along party lines to approve him. He wasn't exonerated - in fact, there were 83 complaints against Kavanaugh, dismissed once he was confirmed as there's no mechanism to bring ethics complaints against a SCOTUS member: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/ethics-complaints-dismissed-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court

And pu-freeking-leeze about 'tools of choice.' Benghazi investigations ring a bell? Millions spent. Nothing found. But, it kept HRC's name in the media for the tGOP base to stay focused for the election. Kind of what Ukraine/Biden is about on Trump's side - but unfortunately Trump abused his position and is being brought to task for it.

Quin_Dub

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're missing my point. I know what Sondland said, sure I'm citing it non-stop, but you're contradicting him and so are others, therefore I am asking you (and others too): if Sondland knew that there were conditions on the aid being released, then why would he word his question to Trump the way he did? Doesn't make sense.

He says there were "so many scenarios floating around" but yet isn't this someone you are all claiming knew the aid was conditioned on investigations? Yet here he was posing a question to Trump as if it was the first time he had ever broached the subject of a this for that with him.



Well, there are two ways to read that though ....

One, would be to suggest Trump was saying what he did as he had just found out about the Whistleblower and wanted to deny it in case someone was listening, or just make Sondland go away and not ask it again.

Or, what I believe, and that he has heard about the Whistleblower and is furious with Rudy and Sondland for giving people the impression he wanted a QPQ.

That might be a viable viewpoint if it wasn't Trumps own words.

When asked in public , on TV "What did you expect the Ukrainians to do?" he said "If they were honest they'd investigate Biden"

His own words sink any argument that he was interested in general corruption or that he wan't looking for Ukraine to specifically investigate Biden.

And just to be clear , the ONLY reason to investigate Biden was to impact the 2020 Election , no other reason.

Trump own actions and words kills any chance that your viewpoint is possibly true.

Christy42

Overheal wrote: »

The post-hearing disinformation campaign is in full tilt now - Schiff 'made the whole thing up' and is 'a sick puppy' - so I guess perjury charges for all these witnesses is to follow?


https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-adam-schiff-is-a-sick-puppy-who-made-the-whole-thing-up/

Lots of DARVO going on

He has lost the plot entirely. At this point it might be for his own benefit he be removed from office. Treason for.holding an investigation is something else. I would love to.see him try and back that up in a court of law (course he won't follow up as his lawyers will point out he has no case).

I can't see how anyone sees any of that reasonable discourse or appropriate for that office.

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Or, what I believe, and that he has heard about the Whistleblower and is furious with Rudy and Sondland for giving people the impression he wanted a QPQ.

I agree with your estimate above. I also believe the whistleblower's action [as intended] burst the secrecy bubble around the OMB funding block which everyone [incl President Zelensky & Co for obvious reasons] knew about, were tiptoeing around and not mentioning. Don was furious enough about that and when he heard about his ambassadors mentioning the unmentionable 2nd part of the deal he was trying to arrange, well, it wouldn't do his master deal-maker image any good.

I'm still surprised that Mr Sondland is still in office after revealing to the world that his Kiev call to Don was made in public from a café beside other [presumably non-US citizens] customers over a mobile phone which he held away from his ear due to the loud volume of Don's voice.

DrumSteve

aloyisious wrote: »

I agree with your estimate above. I also believe the whistleblower's action [as intended] burst the secrecy bubble around the OMB funding block which everyone [incl President Zelensky & Co for obvious reasons] knew about, were tiptoeing around and not mentioning. Don was furious enough about that and when he heard about his ambassadors mentioning the unmentionable 2nd part of the deal he was trying to arrange, well, it wouldn't do his master deal-maker image any good.

I'm still surprised that Mr Sondland is still in office after revealing to the world that his Kiev call to Don was made in public from a cafeside other [presumably non-US citizens] customers over a mobile phone which he held away from his ear due to the loud volume of Don's voice.

Did Trump not literally say in public he wanted the Bidens investigated in exchange for this?

Am I going mad? I swore I seen it somewhere.

Quin_Dub

DrumSteve wrote: »

Did Trump not literally say in public he wanted the Bidens investigated in exchange for this?

Am I going mad? I swore I seen it somewhere.

Yes, yes he did.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1179768472953393152

aloyisious

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Yes, yes he did.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1179768472953393152

You have just got to admire the irony of the "if they were honest about it" part of his reply.

Overheal

Can everyone in the room at least agree we deserve to hear from more witnesses and evidence before trial? The obstruction effort by Trump is now counterintuitive.

brooke 2

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Disturbing.

Those three 'friends' look decidedly uncomfortable. Wonder how they feel to be the butt of every US comedian's jokes as a result of 'Fox and Friends' being his favourite morning programme?!

brooke 2

Overheal wrote: »

As is the fact the public won't hear testimony from Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, Pence, Eisenberg, Trump, Mulvaney, Pompeo, etc.

If they're innocent take the stand swear the oath and tell America in no ambiguous terms that everything they did was above board. You wanna hear from Biden, Biden and a whistleblower? Go nuts. But not without the above lot.

Heard John Berman, from CNN's 'New Day', say this morning that he passed John Bolton on Fifth Avenue yesterday as Fiona Hill was giving her testimony to the Impeachment inquiry. Talk about hiding in plain sight. What an ego!! 'I wonder if anyone will recognise me, with my quaint walrus moustache, as my brave colleague (former!) does her patriotic duty?' :mad:

Zubeneschamali

Overheal wrote: »

Can everyone in the room at least agree we deserve to hear from more witnesses and evidence before trial?

Fighting witnesses in court to enforce subpoenas to get Giuliani etc. to testify before the House is a waste of time - might as well move to the Senate ASAP, and fight them once there under Senate rules.

Only way this happens in time for the 2020 election.

mayordenis

One thing I feel is always lost in this conversation is just the pure insanity of any government trying to get a secondary government to go after one of their own citizens over a rumour.

We see authorities in Ireland and say Spain, working together to deal with drug crime - but whenever something like extradition or any criminal investigation is brought up it is gravely serious. We don't ask Spain to say look into any old Irish citizen because they have important job that they are unqualified for, it has to be a criminal complaint, a reason to have another law enforcement agency look into your citizen and their behaviour.

Take for example the american guy (musician or rapper or something) arrested in Sweden I think, or as an extreme example Otto Warmbier - the efforts the governments go to (and rightfully so) to protect their citizens is a serious part of foreign policy. But to go complete 180, request a frivolous announcement of an investigation based on spurious rumours is complete madness.

The conversation always goes to 'quid pro quo' after the fact, but the very basis of this request is baffling.

woohoo!!!

Overheal wrote: »

Can everyone in the room at least agree we deserve to hear from more witnesses and evidence before trial? The obstruction effort by Trump is now counterintuitive.

Taking a very critical and sceptical view of US personnel in Ukraine (ambassadors and so on) and acknowledging the chance of them going somewhat native in their sympathies for Ukraine and hostility to Russia, of course they were not happy about the hold up of US aid.

However, having said that and having regard to the info supplied by Hill, Taylor, Sondland and many others, the evidence is mounting vs Trump.

Also one has to look at the defence. It consists of attacking the legitimacy of Congress to carry out this investigations, the way it has done so and orders from the WH not to supply documents and witnesses. In short, ignore supnoeas.

It goes further, and daily attacks Schiff and others for months now, declaring they're liars. Rinse and repeat by attacking those giving testimony, the ones in Ukraine working for US interests.

In short, attack and deflect.

I think Trump himself has publicly implicated his misconduct with his investigate Bidens in Ukraine and China. Trump thinks it's ok cos it's Ukraine so who cares. And his base doesn't care either and agree it's perfectly reasonable to investigate and get other countries to investigate Biden, Hillary, Obama and anyone else that comes to mind.

However it is not ok, it is a corrupt action to seek to investigate solely ones political rivals and in fact it's a very old ploy to discredit your opponents.

The whole thing also amply demonstrates that Trump is in way over his head for this job. Not really a shocker for a political novice albeit one possessing a talent for rabble rousing.

I want all those key players to publicly testify, Rudy, the whole lot of them and for the relevant departments to release material evidence.

I think I read somewhere a comment that this is worse than Nixon and Watergate. This assessment is correct because what we have here is a concerted attempt by this administration to crap all over US law, constitution, foreign policy and most importantly the right for checks and balances on those in power.

If this is a vision to make America great again, then it's an appalling vista that the US is an unreliable ally and that it's democratic institutions have been compromised.

brooke 2

aloyisious wrote: »

I agree with your estimate above. I also believe the whistleblower's action [as intended] burst the secrecy bubble around the OMB funding block which everyone [incl President Zelensky & Co for obvious reasons] knew about, were tiptoeing around and not mentioning. Don was furious enough about that and when he heard about his ambassadors mentioning the unmentionable 2nd part of the deal he was trying to arrange, well, it wouldn't do his master deal-maker image any good.

I'm still surprised that Mr Sondland is still in office after revealing to the world that his Kiev call to Don was made in public from a café beside other [presumably non-US citizens] customers over a mobile phone which he held away from his ear due to the loud volume of Don's voice.

I believe he was referred to by some at the State Department as 'The Gordon Problem'! When Daniel Goldman, Dem Counsel, reminded him of that fact, he joked that his wife sometimes calls him that too!! :pac: Fiona Hill was frustrated by the fact that he used to give out their secure phone numbers, putting their safety in jeopardy.

He seemed to be somewhat of a loose cannon. His demeanour at the hearing was rather smug, until Seán Patrick Maloney ripped him to shreds!! Got him to admit that the person to benefit from the announcement of an investigation into Biden would be Trump!! It was genius the way Maloney filleted him - he even got applause at the end! That sure wiped the smile off Sondland's face - he was livid!!

He came across as jovial, but not at all credible. When he was informed that Trump had said he 'did not know him very well', he laughed, shrugged his shoulders and said: 'Easy come, easy go!'

Gwen Cooper

GOP added another sign to their collection, but they didn't really think it through:

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/1197584568368476163

This has been said here many times before, but seriously, if this was happening in a sitcom, people would say that it's too unrealistic.

ELM327

everlast75 wrote: »

Anyone who thinks Trump is an appropriate candidate for presidency, should tune in to Fox & Friends now, watch the whole lot and then say so with a straight face.

Interestingly a majority of US states did in 2016 and there is no indication that this won't happen again for 2020

weisses

ELM327 wrote: »

Interestingly a majority of US states did in 2016 and there is no indication that this won't happen again for 2020

There is ....Hillary is not running

DrumSteve

weisses wrote: »

There is ....Hillary is not running

Yet...

ELM327

weisses wrote: »

There is ....Hillary is not running

Hillary running would be brilliant
As it is, Biden is doing a great job for the Trump campaign.



I can't see a credible democrat candidate winning '20, so I would see another 4 years for the Donald.


2024 will be interesting..

pixelburp

I find it hard to believe there are people here seriously talking about Clinton running again. I know she's an easy rod to wave, lord knows the GOP can't help invoke her like she's the bogeyman - a true sign they're running out of excuses - but come on. Get real. 2016 was already the response to the bloody nose - that 2008 scrap with Obama - and she got pushed back again in '16, with possibly the most partisan, vicious campaign yet seen in US politics. She shot herself in the foot numerous times and I don't believe for one second she's that arrogant that third time around she might make a go of it.

weisses

ELM327 wrote: »

Hillary running would be brilliant
As it is, Biden is doing a great job for the Trump campaign.



I can't see a credible democrat candidate winning '20, so I would see another 4 years for the Donald.


2024 will be interesting..

A lot of people voted trump just because they hated Hillary with a passion.
I personally don't see that with any of the candidates now

A baboon with syphilis would be a credible enough democratic candidate at this stage, if that is the criteria you want to use.

Overheal

America needs to wake up and realize the next president shouldn’t just be whoever tells the best viral wisecrack at a debate. There are real stakes involved. 2016 was such a **** show because neither candidate really had the necessary credential: unimpeachable moral character.