President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

Pelosi and Shiff’s goal to destroy Trump by controlling the impeachment narrative is working for now with the help of their media handmaidens. But unless they can drag out the inquiry nonsense indefinitely the truth will sooner or later come out and the American voting public will see the witch-hunt for what it is, and those numbers will change big time. The general public wants a fair fight but many don’t know yet the Democrats are rigging the system, and that is the fault of a biased media who have given up journalistic integrity in favor of activism.

It would be a witch-hunt if there was nothing to investigate. Unfortunately for Trump, the notes of the phonecall corroborate the whistleblower's complaint and it wasn't helped when it came out that he asked for dirt from the Chinese and defended his action on TV. That's not a witch hunt or a difference of opinion. It's a fact.


And as for rigging the system, it's no more rigging the system than a footballer making a hand-pass. Impeachment IS a part of the system.

mcmoustache

Just to confirm what I said earlier in the thread, the public will get the transcripts of the impeachment inquiry's witness testimony. Here's a portion of a letter from Schiff to colleagues.

hetuzozaho

mcmoustache wrote: »

Just to confirm what I said earlier in the thread, the public will get the transcripts of the impeachment inquiry's witness testimony. Here's a portion of a letter from Schiff to colleagues.

That's good info.

A few of the same people seem to be working hard to take this thread off topic and deflect and confuse.

Fair play moustache!

Sonny noggs

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You lads are obsessed with Clintons.

I'd say youse still give out about Jimmy Carter ffs..

A bit like your own obsession with FG?

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

Unfortunately for Trump, the notes of the phonecall corroborate the whistleblower's complaint ..

Utterly false.

The transcript of the phone call did not corroborate the main allegations that were made by the "whistleblower" and I have pointed that out multiple times. No problem doing so again though ....

Allegation 1:

Whistleblower wrote:

"President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election"

The phone call record does not support this overriding allegation at all, given that at no stage was the 2020 election even brought up.

Allegation 2:

Whistleblower wrote:

Trump was "pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals"

Trump did not "pressure" Zelensky and indeed Zelensky has made that clear, twice, and nothing said during the call could be reasonably inferred as Trump pressuring Zelensky.

Allegation 3:

Whistleblower wrote:

Trump "sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid"

See above.

Allegation 4:

Whistleblower wrote:

"The President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to initiate or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden"

The call transcript makes it clear that at no stage was Zelensky pressured to look into how Biden bragged about having Shokin fired.

Allegation 5:

Whistleblower wrote:

"Ambassadors Volker and Sondland reportedly provided advice to the Ukrainian leadership about how to “navigate” the demands that the President had made of Mr. Zelenskyy"

There were no "demands" made.

Allegation 6:

Whistleblower wrote:

"The New York Times reported that Mr. Giuliani planned to travel to Ukraine to press the Ukrainian government to pursue investigations that would help the President in his 2020 reelection bid."

The "whistleblower" cites a May 9th NYT article as a source for the above comment and while they are correct, the NYT did indeed report this, so what? The NYT are liars and they were lying when they wrote the above in that article. Indeed, that article was the genesis for the narrative: 'Ukraine are being pressured to investigate Trump's 2020 campaign rival' as here is a quote from that May 9th article (which was over two months before the Trump-Zelensky phone call):

"Mr. Giuliani’s plans create the remarkable scene of a lawyer for the president of the United States pressing a foreign government to pursue investigations that Mr. Trump’s allies hope could help him in his re-election campaign.

Here's that NYT article in full. Quote me where Rudy says anything about, or even alludes to, the 2020 election.

Allegation 7:

Whistleblower wrote:

"The President also praised Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, and suggested that Mr. Zelenskyy might want to keep him in his position"

This is an odd one as Lutsenko wasn't mentioned and most agree that the prosecutor Trump was speaking about was Shokin (the prosecutor Biden/Obama wanted fired) but let's for argument's sake say that Trump was referring to Lutsenko with his comments ... still wouldn't make the allegation true because at no stage does Trump suggest that Zelensky should 'keep' Lutsenko on instead of appointing a new prosecutor (which Zelensky volunteered that he would be doing two months later).

Full phone call transcript here and complaint here if anyone wants to check either.

Some additional points worth noting ...

1. Trump said on the call:

"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."

Quite an odd thing for a president to say when they are (as the allegation attests) trying to "pressure" a country into doing what they want them to do. Given that such an unconditional invitation obliterates the incentive for Zelensky to comply with Trump's "demands".

2. Zelensky said on the call:

"I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly."

This comment makes it abundantly clear that Zelensky was in no way under the impression that he was being asked to do anything which was untoward, or unethical, otherwise they would hardly announce that the investigations would be done openly and candidly.

3. Volker said:

"Vice President Biden was never a topic of discussion”

4: Sondland said:

"The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind"

At the end of the day, Lutsenko made public statements (in the months leading up to the Trump-Zelensky phone call) about Ukraine's alleged involvement in the 2016 US presidential election and comments attributed to him regarding Biden, Hunter and Burisma were the subject of an article a few weeks later too.

So, surely it would remiss of Trump not to raise this issue with the new Ukrainian president, and that Joe Biden is running in 2020 should in no way negate that. It would be absurd if just because someone was a presidential candidate, this made them immune from investigations, particularly if that candidate has been boasting publically about how when they were Vice President they threatened to withhold a congress approved $1billion loan to Ukraine unless they fired one of their top prosecutors. A prosecutor who it turned out had investigated a Ukrainian company which that candidate's son sat on the board of. It doesn't matter if the Bidens are guilty or not, it very well may be that they are not, but that's not the point. It's something which absolutely had to be investigated and to impeach a president for that is ridiculous.

.

Outlaw Pete

Some extracts of Volker's interview have come out and it would seem the democrats, Schiff in particular, surprise surprise, have been doing their level best to try and put words in the mouths of those they have been interviewing.

Schiff pushed Volker to say Ukraine felt pressure from Trump

In a secret interview, Rep. Adam Schiff, leader of the House Democratic effort to impeach President Trump, pressed former United States special representative to Ukraine Kurt Volker to testify that Ukrainian officials felt pressured to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter as a result of Trump withholding U.S. military aid to Ukraine.

Volker denied that was the case, noting that Ukrainian leaders did not even know the aid was being withheld and that they believed their relationship with the U.S. was moving along satisfactorily, without them having done anything Trump mentioned in his notorious July 25 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

When Volker repeatedly declined to agree to Schiff's characterization of events, Schiff said, "Ambassador, you're making this much more complicated than it has to be."

The interview took place Oct. 3 in a secure room in the U.S. Capitol. While the session covered several topics, the issue of an alleged quid pro quo — U.S. military aid in exchange for a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens and a public announcement that such an investigation was underway — was a significant part of the discussion.

"[The Ukrainians] didn't want to be drawn into investigating a Democratic candidate for president, which would mean only peril for Ukraine, is that fair to say?" Schiff asked Volker.

"That may be true," Volker said. "That may be true. They didn't express that to me, and, of course, I didn't know that was the context at the time." (Volker has said he did not know that Trump had mentioned the Bidens on the July 25 call with Zelensky until the rough transcript of the call was released on Sept. 25.)

"Part of the other context is vital military support is being withheld from the Ukraine during this period, right?" Schiff asked.

"That was not part of the context at the time," Volker said. "At least to my knowledge, they [Ukrainian leaders] were not aware of that."

Schiff began to push the quid pro quo allegation. He asked Volker whether he would agree that "no president of the United States should ever ask a foreign leader to help intervene in a U.S. election."

"I agree with that," said Volker.

"And that would be particularly egregious if it was done in the context of withholding foreign assistance?" Schiff continued.

Volker balked. "We're getting now into, you know, a conflation of these things that I didn't think was actually there."

Schiff wanted Volker to agree that "if it's inappropriate for a president to seek foreign help in a U.S. election, it would be doubly so if a president was doing that at a time when the United States was withholding military support from the country."

Again, Volker did not agree. "I can't really speak to that," he said. "My understanding of the security assistance issue is — "

Schiff interrupted. "Why can't you speak to that, ambassador? You're a career diplomat. You can understand the enormous leverage that a president would have while withholding military support from an ally at war with Russia. You can understand just how significant that would be, correct?"

Volker tried to go along without actually agreeing. "I can understand that that would be significant," he said.

Schiff persisted. "And when that suspension of aid became known to that country, to Ukraine, it would be all the more weighty to consider what the president had asked of them, wouldn't it?"

"So again, congressman, I don't believe — " Volker began.

"It's a pretty straightforward question," Schiff said.

"But I don't believe the Ukrainians were aware that the assistance was being held up — "

"They became aware of it," Schiff said.

"They became aware later, but I don't believe they were aware at the time, so there was no leverage implied," Volker said.

The two men continued to argue about the chronology of events. By the time the Ukrainians learned about the withheld aid in late August, Volker said, all sides had dropped the idea of making a statement announcing an investigation of the Bidens and events during the 2016 election. But Schiff kept pushing the notion that once the Ukrainians did learn about the withheld aid, then they would have felt tremendous pressure from Trump.

Schiff pressed Volker to agree one more time. In response, Volker tried to explain that the Ukrainians did not seem to be feeling pressure from Trump and the U.S.

"Congressman, this is why I'm trying to say the context is different, because at the time they learned that, if we assume it's Aug. 29, they had just had a visit from the national security adviser, John Bolton. That's a high-level meeting already. He was recommending and working on scheduling the visit of President Zelensky to Washington. We were also working on a bilateral meeting to take place in Warsaw on the margins of a commemoration on the beginning of World War II. And in that context, I think the Ukrainians felt like things are going the right direction, and they had not done anything on — they had not done anything on an investigation, they had not done anything on a statement, and things were ramping up in terms of their engagement with the administration. So I think they were actually feeling pretty good then."

At that point, Schiff gave up. Why was Volker resisting? "Ambassador, I find it remarkable as a career diplomat that you have difficulty acknowledging that when Ukraine learned that their aid had been suspended for unknown reasons, that this wouldn't add additional urgency to a request by the president of the United States. I find that remarkable."

Schiff has scheduled more interviews for this week and next.

Full (quite long) article here.

drunkmonkey

Orangre man now causing black women to be fat. https://www.zerohedge.com/health/watch-gender-studies-professor-blames-trump-black-female-obesity

Blueshoe

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Orangre man now causing black women to be fat. https://www.zerohedge.com/health/watch-gender-studies-professor-blames-trump-black-female-obesity

I don't see why not. Everything is his fault.
Late for work last week. Boss asked me what happened. I said Donald Trump. He said no problem

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Utterly false.
...

You can overly complicate this all you like but all that it demonstrates is that it takes some serious twisting of reality to vindicate Trump.

Boggles

Blueshoe wrote: »

I don't see why not. Everything is his fault.
Late for work last week. Boss asked me what happened. I said Donald Trump. He said no problem

He sounds like a clinical moron.

If he is the boss what are his subordinates like?

Beasty

Sonny noggs wrote: »

A bit like your own obsession with FG?

That is your first and last contribution to this thread

Do not post in it again

mad muffin

mcmoustache wrote: »

You can overly complicate this all you like but all that it demonstrates is that it takes some serious twisting of reality to vindicate Trump.

This thread is like a stupid merry-go-round.

Outlaw Pete posts an extensive rebuttal to the witch hunt and all you can rebuttal back is this pithy quip.

Besides Dems talking points. Can you actually site any high crimes and misdemeanours?

Let’s not forget the two treaties America has with Ukrainian and China.

Clinton/Biden Treaty With Ukraine REQUIRES Trump Ask For Investigative Assistance From The Ukraine

https://joeforamerica.com/breaking-clinton-biden-treaty-with-ukraine-requires-trump-ask-for-investigative-assistance-from-the-ukraine/

China, US Strengthen Anti-Corruption Cooperation

http://watchingamerica.com/WA/2015/10/13/china-us-strengthen-anti-corruption-cooperation/

Of course we have the full call, which shows there is nothing there. Not to forget that Zelenskiy himself stated many times there was nothing there. No quid pro quo. No pressure. No blackmail.

Of course we have the most vaunted Kurt Volker. Or are the Dems spinning him as a villain now?

Of course we have Hillary Clinton asking Ukraine to meddle in the 2016 election.

Let’s not forget that Bill Clinton actually asked fir a foreign government to meddle in elections.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/flashback-bill-clinton-asked-british-pm-tony-blair-for-help-during-political-season?%3Futm_source=twitter

Oh and what’s this?

John Kerry bragged about getting re-election support from foreign leaders in ‘private’ conversations
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/10/09/flashback-john-kerry-bragged-about-getting-re-election-support-from-foreign-leaders-in-private-conversations-836890

What do you think the response would be if this was Trump? Would it have been this soft?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keXx0zxTarE

Watch this short clip from a couple of years ago and listen to the names and what happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B8pl_dCMY4

Notice how Schiff isn’t even talking about the call being stored in a more secure “server” anymore.

mcmoustache

I can take the argument that Zelinskyy said that there was no pressure seriously. You can't expect a president who desperately needs funding to defend his country from an invasion in the east to be candid about the country providing the funding.

It's a bad faith argument and highlights the motivations of anyone making it.

seamus

Blueshoe wrote: »

Are you saying wages should have risen in line with the performance of the stock market?

No, that's what you're saying.

What I'm saying is that if the stock market was an indicator of economic health, then the average wage would have grown more. Instead the average wage grew by just over a third of the inflationary rate in the same period.

I'm also not arguing about the "that started happening before Trump" bit, merely pointing out that all is not happy and clappy in the economy under Trump because corporate executives have graphs going up.
The average American is struggling to keep their head above water, their costs have increased while their wages haven't, and they're considering a second job if they don't already have one.

mad muffin

mcmoustache wrote: »

I can take the argument that Zelinskyy said that there was no pressure seriously. You can't expect a president who desperately needs funding to defend his country from an invasion in the east to be candid about the country providing the funding.

It's a bad faith argument and highlights the motivations of anyone making it.

Bad faith? Like Schiff pressuring the witness’s to get them to corroborate his narrative?

Talk about… “it takes some serious twisting of reality to incriminate Trump.”

His own hubris got him entangled in the Democrats web of lies and deceit. He should have purged all Obama holdovers when he took office and gotten someone trusted who knew how to navigate the swamp to hire untainted staff.

mcmoustache

mad muffin wrote: »

Bad faith? Like Schiff pressuring the witness’s to get them to corroborate his narrative?

Talk about… “it takes some serious twisting of reality to incriminate Trump.”

His own hubris got him entangled in the Democrats web of lies and deceit. He should have purged all Obama holdovers when he took office and gotten someone trusted who knew how to navigate the swamp to hire untainted staff.

No.

Bad faith in the sense that the argument is illogical. It's similar to "I asked the corpse if he was dead but he refused to answer so I don't know if he's dead or not". Zelinskyy could only state that he wasn't pressured whether he was pressured or not so his statement that he was not pressured is meaningless. So to use it as evidence that he wasn't pressured is in bad faith.

As for Schiff questioning a witness to corroborate the narrative, that's how these things go. Have you ever watched any of these hearings? Both sides get their chance to question the witnesses to see if the witness can confirm what each side suspects.

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

It would be a witch-hunt if there was nothing to investigate. Unfortunately for Trump, the notes of the phonecall corroborate the whistleblower's complaint and it wasn't helped when it came out that he asked for dirt from the Chinese and defended his action on TV. That's not a witch hunt or a difference of opinion. It's a fact.


And as for rigging the system, it's no more rigging the system than a footballer making a hand-pass. Impeachment IS a part of the system.

Of course there is something to investigate. When you adopt the Stalinistic tactic of “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” and embark on the criminalization of politics, how can you not find something, even if you have to make it up?

First it was Russia collusion (which Hillary Clinton and the DNC did participate in to formulate the bogus Steele dossier that was used to deceive the FISA court into allowing the Obama administration to spy on Trump’s campaign). Then when that fell apart it was obstruction (which Hillary Clinton is guilty of by destroying over 30,000 of her emails while Secretary of State, after receiving a congressional subpoena from the House Select Committee). There was no collusion so the House Democrats used the claim of quid pro quo as their new basis for impeachment (which Joe Biden had actually done by his own admission when he threatened to withhold taxpayer funds to Ukraine unless they fire an official). Now that Shiff has claimed there doesn’t need to be a quid pro quo to continue the impeachment inquiry the new charge against Trump is using foreign entities to take down a political opponent (which again the Democrats did using operatives from England, Australia, Italy, Russia, and Ukraine to discredit the Trump campaign and after elected POTUS to attempt to remove him from office).

What charges will the House Democrats invent next month? Or the month after that?

To call what is going on at the hands of the House Democrats as a witch-hunt is an insult to witches.

Accuse your opponent of what you are doing, to create confusion and to inculcate voters against evidence of your own guilt
Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

Just to confirm what I said earlier in the thread, the public will get the transcripts of the impeachment inquiry's witness testimony. Here's a portion of a letter from Schiff to colleagues.

What good is a transcript when you totally control the process and run a one-sided sham of an inquiry?

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

Of course there is something to investigate. When you adopt the Stalinistic tactic of “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” and embark on the criminalization of politics, how can you not find something, even if you have to make it up?

First it was Russia collusion (which Hillary Clinton and the DNC did participate in to formulate the bogus Steele dossier that was used to deceive the FISA court into allowing the Obama administration to spy on Trump’s campaign). Then when that fell apart it was obstruction (which Hillary Clinton is guilty of by destroying over 30,000 of her emails while Secretary of State, after receiving a congressional subpoena from the House Select Committee). There was no collusion so the House Democrats used the claim of quid pro quo as their new basis for impeachment (which Joe Biden had actually done by his own admission when he threatened to withhold taxpayer funds to Ukraine unless they fire an official). Now that Shiff has claimed there doesn’t need to be a quid pro quo to continue the impeachment inquiry the new charge against Trump is using foreign entities to take down a political opponent (which again the Democrats did using operatives from England, Australia, Italy, Russia, and Ukraine to discredit the Trump campaign and after elected POTUS to attempt to remove him from office).

What charges will the House Democrats invent next month? Or the month after that?

To call what is going on at the hands of the House Democrats as a witch-hunt is an insult to witches.

Accuse your opponent of what you are doing, to create confusion and to inculcate voters against evidence of your own guilt
Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

I understand that you don't like the idea of Trump being impeached and you're entitled to believe what you like. It doesn't actually change the reality though.

Trump got himself impeached when he asked a foreign power for electoral help. It could easily have been avoided by sticking to official channels and not doing the bad thing.

One can scream blue murder about Hillary Clinton, James Clapper, Robert Mueller or whoever. You can call the impeachment a witch-hunt or a dog or whatever you want but that's just an opinion that has little bearing on what's actually happening.

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

What good is a transcript when you totally control the process and run a one-sided sham of an inquiry?

You do realise that the Republicans get to question the witnesses too? Anyway, it's immaterial. These are the same house rules that were in use when Republicans controlled the house.

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

I understand that you don't like the idea of Trump being impeached and you're entitled to believe what you like. It doesn't actually change the reality though.

Trump got himself impeached when he asked a foreign power for electoral help. It could easily have been avoided by sticking to official channels and not doing the bad thing.

One can scream blue murder about Hillary Clinton, James Clapper, Robert Mueller or whoever. You can call the impeachment a witch-hunt or a dog or whatever you want but that's just an opinion that has little bearing on what's actually happening.

Under the US Constitution’s 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, there’s a presumption of innocence. Under our laws prosecutions start with the discovery of a crime. Once it has been determined a crime was actually committed then there is an investigation to find the identity of the perpetrator. Once that has occurred then the job is to collect evidence to prove his or her guilt. The Democratic House inquiry is following the Beria model of the Stalin regime, not the US Constitution model.

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

You do realise that the Republicans get to question the witnesses too? Anyway, it's immaterial. These are the same house rules that were in use when Republicans controlled the house.

Doesn't this happen only after a full House floor vote is taken and approved to officially initiate an impeachment inquiry/investigation?

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Under the US Constitution’s 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, there’s a presumption of innocence. Under our laws prosecutions start with the discovery of a crime. Once it has been determined a crime was actually committed then there is an investigation to find the identity of the perpetrator. Once that has occurred then the job is to collect evidence to prove his or her guilt. The Democratic House inquiry is following the Beria model of the Stalin regime, not the US Constitution model.

In this case it's a courtesy, considering he asked China for help at a press conference. And one he didn't afford to the whistle blowers who were doing their civic duty, until proved otherwise.

Trump has been selling that the media can't be trusted and now the mechanisms of the state. He called Pelosi anti-american yesterday. He's an anti-democratic train wreck who his own party voted against yesterday, followed by him having a tantrum in the WH.
You sound like you take your cues from the WH and that's merely a Trump PR machine with zero credibility.

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

Under the US Constitution’s 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, there’s a presumption of innocence. Under our laws prosecutions start with the discovery of a crime. Once it has been determined a crime was actually committed then there is an investigation to find the identity of the perpetrator. Once that has occurred then the job is to collect evidence to prove his or her guilt. The Democratic House inquiry is following the Beria model of the Stalin regime, not the US Constitution model.

This isn't a criminal trial. Not that the process laid out in your post is accurate for a criminal trial either.

This is an impeachment inquiry, not a criminal trial. It's analogous to but not the same as a grand jury. Trump's actions on TV and the credible reports from witnesses suggest that there is something to investigate. That's what they're doing now.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

What good is a transcript when you totally control the process and run a one-sided sham of an inquiry?

So there are no republicans on those committees? News to me

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Under the US Constitution’s 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, there’s a presumption of innocence. Under our laws prosecutions start with the discovery of a crime. Once it has been determined a crime was actually committed then there is an investigation to find the identity of the perpetrator. Once that has occurred then the job is to collect evidence to prove his or her guilt. The Democratic House inquiry is following the Beria model of the Stalin regime, not the US Constitution model.

Still so very obtuse about how impeachment works I see

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

Doesn't this happen only after a full House floor vote is taken and approved to officially initiate an impeachment inquiry/investigation?

No. You're confusing a wish with reality. The house has the sole power of impeachment, as far as the constitution goes.

From

Article 1 Section 2 Clause 5 US Constitution wrote:

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

This means that the house has the sole power. What this means is that the house has the sole power of impeachment. In other words, the house has the sole power of impeachment. Not shared power or power according to the wishes of the President. Instead, the house has the sole power of impeachment.

If the house didn't have the sole power of impeachment, I suspect that the constitution would have mentioned it.

James Brown

Overheal wrote: »

So there are no republicans on those committees? News to me

He keeps pushing that 'fake news'.

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

You can overly complicate this all you like but all that it demonstrates is that it takes some serious twisting of reality to vindicate Trump.

lol. Overly complicate it? With what, the truth? :P

Look, you made the following assertion:

mcmoustache wrote: »

the notes of the phonecall corroborate the whistleblower's complaint .. that's not a witch hunt or a difference of opinion. It's a fact.

In response I went through each of the allegations made by the "whistleblower" in their complaint to show how, far from corroborating the serious allegations which they made, the phone call transcript actually disproves them and vindicates Trump from the accusations.

The complaint is largely all the inferences others have made, to not just the phone call, but articles in the media also, and not just inferences, but second and third hand ones too.

James Brown

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

lol. Overly complicate it? With what, the truth? :P

Look, you made the following assertion:



In response I went through each of the allegations made by the "whistleblower" in their complaint to show how, far from corroborating the serious allegations which they made, the phone call transcript actually disproves them and vindicates Trump from the accusations.

The complaint is largely all the inferences others have made, to not just the phone call, but articles in the media also, and not just inferences, but second and third hand ones too.

He asked the Ukraine, (later China and previously Russia) to look into the son of a political rival, (while it seems Rudy was over trying to pull a stroke of his own). The only thing up for debate is if he was offering something in return.