Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
27 online now:
Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (1 member, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,370 Year: 20,406/19,786 Month: 803/2,023 Week: 311/392 Day: 1/41 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Taq
Member
Posts: 8159
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 3556 of 3596 (865759)
10-30-2019 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 3553 by ICANT
10-30-2019 11:55 AM


Re: Ukraine & Trump
ICANT writes:

So a bunch of crooks wanted the prosecutor fired.

False. Congress isn't a bunch of crooks, nor are the governments of the G7 and our other allies. Biden was serving our national interests by asking Ukraine to fire Shokin. Trump asking Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden served no national interests, and only benefited his personal political campaign. That's the difference.

Nothing changes the fact that Hunter Biden was a board member of a company that was under investigation at the time.

That is irrelevant since Shokin was fired for cause, and asking for his removal served our national interests and the interests of our allies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3553 by ICANT, posted 10-30-2019 11:55 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3560 by ICANT, posted 10-30-2019 2:39 PM Taq has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 3557 of 3596 (865760)
10-30-2019 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 3551 by Taq
10-30-2019 11:42 AM


Re: Conservatives Having Trouble With Reality
Hi Taq

Taq writes:

The scandal where Trump conditioned military aid on investigations into his political opponents.

Where is any such condition placed on military aid, in the transcript?

Taq writes:

In fact, just asking Ukraine to dig up dirt on his political opponents is a scandal in itself.

Where in the transcript did Trump ask Zelinsky to dig up dirt on his political opponents?

Taq writes:

Trump also ran this outside of normal channels, and tried to hide it. They aren't the same.

As above, where in the transcript did Trump make any demands, with consequences if not met?

Since Trump released the transcript after obtaining Zelinsky's permission, where did he try to hide anything?

Taq writes:

They've already found two: abuse of power and obstruction of congress.

What specific charge of abuse of power are you referring too?

What obstruction of congress are you talking about?

The Executive branch and congress are two co-equal branches of our government.

The Judicial branch is the one to decide problems between those two.
So if the President refuses to allow his employees to testify before congress and documents to not be produced the congress can go to the courts and let them decide.

Was it obstruction of congress when the Obama administration failed to produce people to testify and documents in the Fast and Furious gun running investigation? Documents are still not available.

Taq writes:

I know history. Do you? What was Clinton's approval rating at the time of his impeachment trial?

What does approval rating have to do with whether a person has committed a crime or not committed a crime?

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice
by the Republican majority House. The Senate did not convict. The next election the Republicans lost their majority in the House.
That is the history I was talking about.

Produce a specific crime Trump has committed. Remember evidence counts, not assumptions.

God Bless


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3551 by Taq, posted 10-30-2019 11:42 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3558 by Taq, posted 10-30-2019 12:46 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8159
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 3558 of 3596 (865761)
10-30-2019 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 3557 by ICANT
10-30-2019 12:33 PM


Re: Conservatives Having Trouble With Reality
ICANT writes:

Where is any such condition placed on military aid, in the transcript?

You do realize that there is more than just the transcript, right?

quote:
Taylor’s testimony, detailed in a 15-page chronology, confirms that this was a quid pro quo. He describes a July 19 phone call in which two officials—Alex Vindman, the National Security Council’s director of European Affairs, and Fiona Hill, who was then the NSC’s senior director for European and Russian Affairs—recounted a July 10 meeting at the White House. In that meeting, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, “connected ‘investigations’ with an Oval Office meeting for President Zelenskyy.” Taylor reports that several weeks later, in a Sept. 1 phone call, Sondland “told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.” In this call, according to Taylor, Sondland confirmed that he had told Ukrainian officials “a White House meeting with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations.”
https://slate.com/...lor-testimony-quid-pro-quo-ukraine.html

Where in the transcript did Trump ask Zelinsky to dig up dirt on his political opponents?

Here:

quote:
"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,"

Since Trump released the transcript after obtaining Zelinsky's permission, where did he try to hide anything?

That would be before the release of the transcript. Trump is also refusing to comply with subpoenas.

What specific charge of abuse of power are you referring too?

Using the power of the presidency to solicit campaign help from foreign powers. Conditioning military aid on campaign help from a foreign government.

What obstruction of congress are you talking about?

The refusal to comply with subpoenas from congress.

What does approval rating have to do with whether a person has committed a crime or not committed a crime?

You are talking about the political fallout, not legality. Obviously, if Trump's removal has public support then Democrats won't be facing the same thing the Republicans did when they didn't have public support for Clinton's removal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3557 by ICANT, posted 10-30-2019 12:33 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20239
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 3559 of 3596 (865769)
10-30-2019 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 3552 by ICANT
10-30-2019 11:44 AM


Re: impeachment
Hi RAZD

RAZD writes:

Do you think that anyone who votes before seeing the actual evidence should be re-elected? Do you think they are honorable or represent values you have?

You have already voted for impeachment as has most of the democratic party.

You didn't answer my questions: do you that anyone who votes before seeing the actual evidence should be re-elected? Do you think they are honorable or represent values you have?

What I have said is that several actions taken by Trump are sufficient to start the impeachment process. The emoluments clause in the constitution for one. I have not seen all the evidence.

So those senators have the same information that you have and have made the determination that there is no impeachable offense.

They have not seen all the evidence yet. They have not even seen the criminal charges. The GOP is pretending that the evidence is insufficient by attacking the witnesses, not the actual evidence. That's ad hominem and basically admitting a losing position. There is a big difference between saying evidence supports an impeachment and saying whether or not it supports removal of the President.

Could you name just one impeachable offense?

Emoluments clause -- making a profit off foreigners for personal gain through hotels and golf courses

Obstruction of justice -- detailed in the Mueller report

Obstruction of congress -- failure to comply with subpoenas to furnish evidence

Treason -- giving classified information and favor to an enemy state (Russia) against Congressional approval, not enforcing sanctions approved by bipartisan Congress with > veto votes

Treason -- giving classified information to a foreign state (nuclear bomb building information to Saudi Arabia) against Congressional approval

Election law violations -- asking other countries for help in his election, Russia, Ukraine, China.

Hillary and the DNC bought and paid for the phony Russian dossier to interfere with the 2016 election, not Trump.

The original contract was with never-Trump Republicans. It has not been proven phony yet.

I have read the phone transcript and there is no impeachable offense in it. Muller did not find an impeachable offense.

False. He said he could not acquit Trump of obstruction of justice and that it was up to congress to determine whether or not the evidence was impeachable. He said he could not charge Trump because of DOJ policy not because of lack of evidence.

Just because he beat Hillary in an election is not an impeachable offense. Although the day after the votes were counted the impeachment was declared to have begun.

False. What action was taken in the GOP controlled house to impeach him? What evidence do you have? There was talk that he was in violation of the emoluments clause, but it was not in congress which is where declarations of impeachment occur.

If no one in the Ukraine government knew anything about money being withheld for any reason and Zelinsky said he did not feel pressured in any way ...

While sitting in public next to Trump, who pats him on the knee. He looked uncomfortable to me. Countries where corruption is rampant are familiar with this behavior and accept as the cost of doing business.

... where in the conversation is there an impeachable offense?

Trump: "I want you do do us a favor though" investigate Biden and you can have the aid previously approved by the US Congress but held back by Trump. Seeking foreign aid in an election is against federal election law.

And we now know that the "transcript" that is not a transcript was edited to take out even more damaging information.

You should read this about the phone call:

quote:
Letter: Read the Ukraine transcript

If you haven’t had an opportunity to read the transcript of the phone call between Donald Trump and the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, let me suggest you invest a few minutes and do so. Just Google it; it’s not very long and it’s a real eye-opener. As I read through it, two things in particular struck me:

First, I was stunned by the drooling obsequiousness with which Mr. Zelensky addressed Mr. Trump. This fawning flattery would have been embarrassingly obvious to all but the most self-deluded narcissist. Clearly, Mr. Zelensky knew his audience.

But more important, I noted how clearly the connection between restoration of military aid and Trump’s desire for Ukraine’s help in investigating Biden was very obviously intended to be understood by Zelensky. Once the discussion finally turned from Trump’s many fine qualities to military aid, Zelensky concluded his pitch by saying, “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.” To this, Trump responded immediately, “I would like you to do us a favor though …” Trump does not preface this by saying, “On an unrelated matter” or “apropos of nothing,” or even “by the way…”

We have all heard Trump’s request for a favor quoted in the news, but no one seems to bother include the word “though,” which I think is a significant part of the statement. That is unfortunate, as when read in its entirety, it is painfully clear that Trump wanted Zelensky to understand that this is a quid pro quo, related to the military aid of which they had just been speaking. Zelensky makes very clear to Trump that he intends to help out with the Biden thing, then goes on to close with more dripping flattery, and a comparison of their respective big kahuna presidential jets before ending the call.


and from Faux Noise Nutwerk:

Trump's Ukraine call transcript: Read the document

See bottom of page 2 and top of page 3.

quote:
Here’s the full, declassified memorandum of Trump’s phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky

(S/NF) President Zelenskyy: ... 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.

(S/NF) 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.

(S/NF) 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.

(S/NF) 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 bf 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.


How does request for more arms turn into a discussion of Biden and a favor for Trump?

We now know that those ellipses represent additional information that has not been publicly shared.

If no one in the Ukraine government knew anything about money being withheld for any reason and Zelinsky said he did not feel pressured in any way where in the conversation is there an impeachable offense?

Because they did know, because Giuliani has said he told them.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3552 by ICANT, posted 10-30-2019 11:44 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3563 by ICANT, posted 10-30-2019 4:48 PM RAZD has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 3560 of 3596 (865775)
10-30-2019 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 3556 by Taq
10-30-2019 12:16 PM


Re: Ukraine & Trump
Hi Taq

Taq writes:

False. Congress isn't a bunch of crooks,

They go to Washington as poor folks, or middle class folks and leave rich that does not compute as being squeaky clean. I don't trust any politician.

I don't believe anything I read in the news or hear, and very little of what I see. I am a total skeptic.

Taq writes:

That is irrelevant since Shokin was fired for cause,

Shokin had only been on the job 11 months when Biden made his demand. There was not even a coalition government formed at that time. So was Shokin corrupt before he took office. But he had worked in the prosecutor's office for many years, where are the complaints from then. In 11 months he would barely have time to go over the cases that was in progress and decide which was the most pressing to prosecute.

Shokin said in a statement under oath he was asked to resign for the good of the country as Biden was withholding 1 billion aid until he was fired. At that time he was aggressively working on the investigation of Burisma Holdings Ltd which Hunter Biden was on the board.

Hunter Biden was asked on national TV if he would have been offered a job and working on the board of Burisma if his name was not Biden. His answer was no.

Since Shokin's replacement prosecutor settled the case against Burisma Holdings for a fine of a few million dollars. Nobody went to jail that I can find.

God Bless


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3556 by Taq, posted 10-30-2019 12:16 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3561 by Taq, posted 10-30-2019 3:07 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8159
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(2)
Message 3561 of 3596 (865778)
10-30-2019 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 3560 by ICANT
10-30-2019 2:39 PM


Re: Ukraine & Trump
ICANT writes:

They go to Washington as poor folks, or middle class folks and leave rich that does not compute as being squeaky clean. I don't trust any politician.

Doesn't change the fact that Biden has the support of Congress and our allies when he pushed for the firing of Shokin.

Shokin said in a statement under oath he was asked to resign for the good of the country as Biden was withholding 1 billion aid until he was fired.

"I don't believe anything I read in the news or hear, and very little of what I see. I am a total skeptic."--ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3560 by ICANT, posted 10-30-2019 2:39 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3562 by RAZD, posted 10-30-2019 3:31 PM Taq has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20239
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 3562 of 3596 (865782)
10-30-2019 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 3561 by Taq
10-30-2019 3:07 PM


Ukraine & Trump election assistance
Doesn't change the fact that Biden has the support of Congress and our allies when he pushed for the firing of Shokin.

Does not change the fact that Trump was looking for US internal election assistance from a foreign country in violation of federal election law. Biden was not doing that no matter how the GOPers spin it.

Doesn't change the fact that Ivanka, Eric, Little Don, Jared Kushner and Barr's son are not that different from the hiring of son Biden ... if one is corruption then the other is as well, and if Dumbty is honestly looking for corruption he need look no further than the white house

Don't get distracted

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3561 by Taq, posted 10-30-2019 3:07 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3565 by Taq, posted 10-30-2019 5:58 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 3563 of 3596 (865789)
10-30-2019 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3559 by RAZD
10-30-2019 1:52 PM


Re: impeachment
Hi RAZD

RAZD writes:

Do you think they are honorable or represent values you have?

I like you and you have already convicted Trump of an impeachable offense.

If the House had presented any impeachable offense I would say they were wrong in their early decision. But since non exist so far I got no problem with it. Just like I don't have a problem with your decision.
I have faith that enough would make the right decision if evidence was presented.

RAZD writes:

Emoluments clause -- making a profit off foreigners for personal gain through hotels and golf courses

He has lost over a billion dollars since becoming President. Don't sound like he is making a profit to me.

RAZD writes:

Obstruction of justice -- detailed in the Mueller report


No charges of obstruction was presented.

RAZD writes:

Obstruction of congress -- failure to comply with subpoenas to furnish evidence


The executive and the congress are co-equal branches of government.
If the congress wants to make Trump comply all they have to do is take him to court and let the court decide. They haven't because they are afraid the court will support Trumps decision.

RAZD writes:

Treason -- giving classified information and favor to an enemy state (Russia) against Congressional approval, not enforcing sanctions approved by bipartisan Congress with > veto votes


Veto votes are not treason, that is just the president disagreeing with congress. Trump has been tougher on Russia than any previous president. Especially the one that stated, you can tell putin that after the election I can be more flexable.

RAZD writes:

Treason -- giving classified information to a foreign state (nuclear bomb building information to Saudi Arabia) against Congressional approval


Nuclear power plants are a long way from giving information on nuclear bomb making. Saudi Arabia could have nuclear bomb making information as simple as making a deal with North Korea, they have the money to buy anything they want.

RAZD writes:

Election law violations -- asking other countries for help in his election, Russia, Ukraine, China.


The closest I have seen to that is him telling Russia if they had Hillary's email's he would like to have them.

As far as asking a foreign government to investigate a US citizen's dealings in their country is not asking to help him in his election.

RAZD writes:

The original contract was with never-Trump Republicans. It has not been proven phony yet.


Get your head out of the sand. What RINO republican paid anything for the dossier?

RAZD writes:

False. He said he could not acquit Trump of obstruction of justice


No prosecutor can acquit a suspect of anything as that is not their job. A prosecutors job is to gather the evidence and then state he has enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution or that does not have enough evidence to proceed. He did not have enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution.

RAZD writes:

He said he could not charge Trump because of DOJ policy not because of lack of evidence.

His mandate was not to prosecute the President. His mandate according to him was to examine the evidence and present it to the DOJ. That means if he found enough evidence to charge a crime he was to report it to the DOJ, what they did with it would have been their business as it was not his business.

RAZD writes:

False. What action was taken in the GOP controlled house to impeach him?

None

But the democrats and their loyal press had already prepared their insurance policy. That is the reason that the day after the election it was reported that now the impeachment begins.

RAZD writes:

While sitting in public next to Trump, who pats him on the knee. He looked uncomfortable to me.


And because he looked uncomfortable to you, you make certain assumptions.
He didn't look uncomfortable to me.

RAZD writes:

"I want you do do us a favor though" investigate Biden and you can have the aid previously approved by the US Congress but held back by Trump.

Where is any of that statement made in the transcript?

RAZD writes:

Here’s the full, declassified memorandum of Trump’s phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky

quote:
(S/NF) President Zelenskyy: … 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.

(S/NF) 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.

(S/NF) 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.

(S/NF) 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 bf 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.


RAZD I have always believed you to be a good debater who used very precise words to support your points.

So I ask you now is there any statement in green that is soliciting military aid from Trump?

Is there any demand in blue or green for Zelenskyy to preform any act?

If there is no request and no compensation for fulfilling that request what is the problem?

On the other hand Biden said fire the prosecutor or you will not get the billion dollars. At the same time his Son Hunter sat on the board of a company the prosecutor was investigating and had been ordered to wind up the investigation.

Biden's actions is declared OK but Trumps requests for an investigation into things that took place involving US citizens in Ukraine is not OK.

BTW I just saw Sen Manchin D WV say there had been no evidence presented so for to support impeachment. So he is presently a NO vote in the Senate.

RAZD writes:

How does request for more arms turn into a discussion of Biden and a favor for Trump?

Where was there a request for more arms in the transcript?

I see where Zelenskyy said they were almost ready to buy more javlins, so he was not requesting military aid.

RAZD writes:

Because they did know, because Giuliani has said he told them.

I don't see any place in the transcript where Giuliani said anything.

So you would impeach the president on what someone else said.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3559 by RAZD, posted 10-30-2019 1:52 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3566 by RAZD, posted 10-31-2019 11:03 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 3569 by dwise1, posted 11-01-2019 5:47 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20239
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 3564 of 3596 (865794)
10-30-2019 5:25 PM


Trump a danger to the world, socialism favored by younger voters
quote:
Americans of all ages see Trump as bigger threat to world peace than Putin or Kim

Gen ZMillennialGen XBoomerSilent
Donald Trump26%28%25%27%27%
Kim Jong-un2517242517
Vladmir Putin1216141619
Xi Jinping109111722
Nicolás Maduro69332

Data: YouGov, Victims of Communism; Note: Number of Gen Z respondents: 303, Millennial: 554, Gen X: 494, Boomer: 587, Silent: 162; Table: Axios Visuals

Americans across all generations have something in common: They are more likely to say President Trump is a bigger threat to world peace than North Korea's Kim Jong-un, Russia's Vladimir Putin, China's Xi Jinping or Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro, according to a new YouGov poll for the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a nonprofit educational group.

Why it matters: Those of all ages see the president — the leader of the free world — as equally or more dangerous to global peace than dictators with histories of oppression and human rights violations.

Go deeper: 70% of millennials say they'd vote for a socialist


(See link for more information on capitalism and socialism popularity for different age groups.)

So 1 in 4 see Trump as a threat to world peace ... in all age groups ...

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8159
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 3565 of 3596 (865795)
10-30-2019 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 3562 by RAZD
10-30-2019 3:31 PM


Re: Ukraine & Trump election assistance
RAZD writes:

Does not change the fact that Trump was looking for US internal election assistance from a foreign country in violation of federal election law. Biden was not doing that no matter how the GOPers spin it.

I think it is helpful to contrast what Trump has done with legal diplomatic actions that were in the national interest. Hopefully they can learn by example.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3562 by RAZD, posted 10-30-2019 3:31 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20239
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 3566 of 3596 (865818)
10-31-2019 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 3563 by ICANT
10-30-2019 4:48 PM


impeachment is evidence gathering, not a trial
... you have already convicted Trump of an impeachable offense. ...

Gathering information on evidence of wrong doing is not convicting. There is no conviction until the senate votes.

But I'm glad you think the actions listed are bad.

He has lost over a billion dollars since becoming President. Don't sound like he is making a profit to me.

Evidence for this claim is ...? His tax returns?

You can lose money in one business and make a profit in another. The fact that he profits from using his golf resorts and having the taxpayers pay for it and his staff etc. is still counter to the emoluments clause no matter how much he loses in other businesses (he, after all, is a known business failure with many bankruptcies to his name)

No charges of obstruction was presented.

The report listed several instances of obstruction, but said that DOJ policy to not charge a sitting president prevented him from making charges so they were left for congress to deal with.

quote:
Mueller Said He Would Have Exonerated Trump On Obstruction If The Evidence Supported It, But He Couldn’t

WASHINGTON — Special counsel Robert Mueller wrote in his final report that his office would have exonerated President Donald Trump if the evidence had supported it, but based on the information they had, they could not do that.

Mueller ultimately declined to make a “prosecutorial judgment” about whether Trump had committed any obstruction offenses, choosing instead to submit his evidence and legal analysis on the issue to Attorney General Bill Barr. Mueller repeatedly found “substantial evidence” that Trump had committed potentially obstructive acts and that often his intent was to stymie the investigation into himself and his campaign. Barr, after consulting with senior Justice Department officials, concluded that the evidence did not support finding that Trump had committed a crime, however.

Undercutting Trump’s claim that Mueller, in addition to Barr, had cleared him of wrongdoing on obstruction, Mueller wrote that if his office had confidence that Trump did not commit obstruction, “we would so state.” But based on the facts and the law, he wrote, “we were unable to reach that judgment.”

“The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred,” Mueller wrote. “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The obstruction section of the report, when read as a whole, depicts an administration in which Trump’s impulsive responses to the events unfolding around him routinely put him at odds with his senior aides and White House lawyers. It describes several instances where top officials simply ignored directives from the president or those close to him in order to avoid taking action that they believed was ill-advised or, more seriously, could undermine his own administration.

Former White House counsel Don McGahn refused to carry out Trump’s order to contact the Justice Department about Trump’s concerns that Mueller had a conflict of interest because McGahn and other advisers thought it was “silly.” When Trump decided to fire former FBI director James Comey, one White House aide wrote in her notes, “‘[i]s this the beginning of the end?” in reference to his presidency.

The report shows that White House officials were aware early on that however they responded to the Russia investigation could raise questions about attempts to obstruct justice. After then–attorney general Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation in March 2017 because of his role in Trump’s campaign, the White House counsel’s office tried to limit communication between the White House and Sessions, with one note from the office reading, “Serious concerns about obstruction.”

Mueller wrote that historical guidance from the Justice Department against indicting a sitting president in part guided his decision not to make a “traditional prosecutorial judgment” about whether Trump committed obstruction. The Office of Legal Counsel had previously issued an opinion that the indictment of a sitting president would “impermissibly undermine” the functions of the executive branch, and Mueller said he recognized that independently as well.


And we know that Barr lied about the report.

The executive and the congress are co-equal branches of government.
If the congress wants to make Trump comply all they have to do is take him to court and let the court decide. They haven't because they are afraid the court will support Trumps decision.

Actually it is in the courts

quote:
The Justice Department Argued Congress Can’t Force Senior Trump Advisers To Testify And That There’s Nothing Courts Can Do About It

The legal fight involves the Mueller report and tests an immunity argument that the Trump administration is making to block potential witnesses from testifying in the impeachment inquiry.

The case involves a subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee to former White House counsel Don McGahn. It predates House Democrats’ formal announcement of an impeachment inquiry into Trump, but represents the first test in court since Trump took office of an argument the administration is pushing to stymie the impeachment inquiry: that current and former senior White House officials have “absolute immunity” from congressional subpoenas.

Over nearly four hours of arguments, US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson repeatedly expressed skepticism as Justice Department lawyer James Burnham argued that the courts lacked authority to intervene in a fight over congressional demands for information. Like the immunity argument, the role of the courts also bears on Democrats’ impeachment inquiry — there’s already one lawsuit filed by a potential impeachment witness asking a judge to decide if he has to comply with a subpoena or go with the White House’s claim of immunity.

“So what does checks and balances mean?” Jackson asked. “How can the legislature actually exercise oversight with respect to the executive unless it has some ability to enforce its inquiries, its commandments with respect to ‘give me information’?”

The Justice Department has previously acknowledged that the significance of the McGahn case extends beyond the Mueller probe. In a lawsuit brought earlier this month by Charles Kupperman, the former acting national security adviser in the Trump administration subpoenaed to testify in the impeachment inquiry, the Justice Department told a judge earlier this week that the case “raises a number of issues that may overlap with the issues presented” in the McGahn fight.

A ruling from a single district court judge isn’t binding on any other judge in the DC federal court, but judges do pay attention to what their colleagues do when presented with similar issues. Whoever loses at this stage of the McGahn case is expected to appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. From there, the losing side could petition the Supreme Court to get involved.


So I strongly urge you (and other readers) to read this article in full, it could be very pivotal to the whole issue of balance of power.

And they are still working on other witnesses. Funny how there are so many people that are convicted of illegal behavior, plus so many willing to testify under oath if there is no there there. Funny how the Administration is scrambling to cover up information if there is no wrongdoing.

Veto votes are not treason, that is just the president disagreeing with congress. Trump has been tougher on Russia than any previous president. Especially the one that stated, you can tell putin that after the election I can be more flexable.

You're not reading -- that ">" means "greater than" -- the bipartisan votes for imposing sanctions on Russia exceeded the number needed to overturn a veto, and that means that he has to comply. He didn't.

Nuclear power plants are a long way from giving information on nuclear bomb making. Saudi Arabia could have nuclear bomb making information as simple as making a deal with North Korea, they have the money to buy anything they want.

Again, you are not getting it: the congress had voted to withhold the information, again bipartisan greater than veto proof, and he did it anyway.

This means he violated the constitution balance of power, again, and the rest of your excuse is irrelevant.

The closest I have seen to that is him telling Russia if they had Hillary's email's he would like to have them.

Then you are not looking. He asked both Ukraine and China to help him. It was on tv.

As far as asking a foreign government to investigate a US citizen's dealings in their country is not asking to help him in his election.

Except that the only citizen in question is linked directly to a candidate, and the information requested could be used against that candidate. It wasn't John Doe from Puxatauny NJ selling illegal cigarettes.

Get your head out of the sand. What RINO republican paid anything for the dossier?

Really?

quote:
Trump–Russia dossier

Research funded by conservative website

In October 2015, before the official start of the 2016 Republican primary campaign, The Washington Free Beacon, an American conservative political journalism website primarily funded by Republican donor Paul Singer, hired the American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct general opposition research on several Republican presidential candidates, including Trump.[1] The Free Beacon and Singer were "part of the conservative never-Trump movement".[31] For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016,[32] The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him.[2][33]

In October 2017, the Free Beacon issued a statement:

All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele. Nor did we have any knowledge of the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and the Clinton campaign.[34]

Although the source of the Steele dossier's funding had already been reported correctly over a year before,[2][33][35] and the Free Beacon had issued a statement to this effect in October 2017,[34] a February 2, 2018, story by the Associated Press (AP) contributed to confusion about its funding by stating that the dossier "was initially funded" by the Washington Free Beacon, so the AP posted a correction the next day: "Though the former spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a firm that was initially funded by the Washington Free Beacon, he did not begin work on the project until after Democratic groups had begun funding it."[36]


Free Beacon started the process. Hillary's lawyer just paid to continue the investigations.

No prosecutor can acquit a suspect of anything as that is not their job. ...

Right. I should have said that Mueller could not exonerate Trump from obstruction of justice, because there was evidence of it and that he could not indict Trump on it because of DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president, so he was leaving it for Congress to pursue.

... A prosecutors job is to gather the evidence and then state he has enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution or that does not have enough evidence to proceed. He did not have enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution.

No -- he was prevented from proceeding to indict/prosecute by DOJ policy regarding a sitting president.

Remember Barr just became AG and it was his firm belief that they could not prosecute a sitting president. Mueller had to comply with his new boss on this.

So I ask you now is there any statement in green that is soliciting military aid from Trump?

quote:
Zelenskyy: … 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.

Zelenskyy asks for the aid, and Trump responds

quote:
I would like you to do us a favor though ... 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.

Those ellipses (...) we now know omitted some information. Further, before saying anything about approving the foreign aid:

quote:
... 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.

"It's very important that you do it ..." with still no mention of allowing the aid to proceed. The implication is clear: do this and we can talk about the aid. You have to be willingly blind not to see it.

On the other hand Biden said fire the prosecutor or you will not get the billion dollars. At the same time his Son Hunter sat on the board of a company the prosecutor was investigating and had been ordered to wind up the investigation.

Biden plus bipartisan congress plus US allies wanted the prosecutor fired because they were not investigating the rampant corruption.

Biden's actions is declared OK but Trumps requests for an investigation into things that took place involving US citizens in Ukraine is not OK.

Biden plus bipartisan congress plus US allies wanted the prosecutor fired because they were not investigating the rampant corruption. This did not involve US political campaigns, this did not involve asking them to investigate US citizens. Trumps request involving a single US citizen that is tied to a Dem candidate does involve US political campaigning, and Trump singled out Biden for investigation and that is what is not okay. See the distinction?

Let's look at the "corruption" involved ... Hunter Biden on the board of a company. What do we see that is similar or worse? Try the whole Trump family ... like Ivanka getting Chinese patents and exemption from Chinese tariffs?

I don't see any place in the transcript where Giuliani said anything.

Are you playing dumb? He was mentioned in the transcript as a contact, and he has since confirmed that he discussed the arms aid conditional on help with the "favor" ... on tv. Keep trying, the evidence keeps mounting.

So you would impeach the president on what someone else said.

If by impeach you mean gather incriminating evidence sufficient to include in articles of impeachment to present in a senate hearing then yes. Clinton was impeached, then it went to the senate where he was not convicted.

Impeachment is like a grand jury hearing, gathering information, it is not a trial.

BTW I just saw Sen Manchin D WV say there had been no evidence presented so for to support impeachment. So he is presently a NO vote in the Senate.

He's a DINO and one of the worst DINOs in congress. He has voted with republicans more than democrats. What he says is worthless.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3563 by ICANT, posted 10-30-2019 4:48 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3568 by Percy, posted 11-01-2019 4:58 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13154
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


(2)
Message 3567 of 3596 (865866)
11-01-2019 10:58 AM


Judge Pushes Back
Great article on NPR this morning. I have my bag of popcorn and am now sitting back and watching our system of justice do its thing. I am not necessarily out to "get Trump" as so many accuse the political Left of doing. (I consider myself a political moderate) I am interested in uncovering the raw truth--truth unedited, unobstructed, and non-partisan.

Judge Pushes Back On Trump Lawyers Trying To Block Possible Impeachment Witnesses


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

“As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”
? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18965
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 3568 of 3596 (865882)
11-01-2019 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 3566 by RAZD
10-31-2019 11:03 AM


Re: impeachment is evidence gathering, not a trial
RAZD writes:

He has lost over a billion dollars since becoming President. Don't sound like he is making a profit to me.

Evidence for this claim is ...? His tax returns?

You can lose money in one business and make a profit in another.

Emoluments aren't just profits. They're payments, profits, benefits, services, advantages, etc. Any emolument is prohibited by the Constitution, unless Congress consents:

quote:
And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3566 by RAZD, posted 10-31-2019 11:03 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3839
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 3569 of 3596 (865883)
11-01-2019 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 3563 by ICANT
10-30-2019 4:48 PM


Re: impeachment
He has lost over a billion dollars since becoming President. Don't sound like he is making a profit to me.

And you know that exactly how?

Because that's what Trump told you? Really?

Hey, here's a real good deal I can offer to you. I own this bridge in New York and I can sell it to you for only one hundred bucks. Are you in?

 
Then there's the Constitution of the United States of America to which every single federal officer swears an oath to support and defend against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Every single veteran of military service has sworn that oath -- I have done so at least seven times and I meant it every single time (sharing recently with a fellow veteran, our service has instilled in us certain American values which expose Trump's offenses for what they are). I think you've copped to having served, which means that you have yourself sworn the Oath, so why are you turning your back to that Oath now?

 
BTW, corruption has nothing to do with whether you make a profit or not. It's all about directing government funds to your own pocket as in Doral or Trump's innumerable golf trips to his own resorts for about $40,000 revenues to those resorts at a pop. It's all about the government money flowing into your businesses, not whether you actually make a profit off of it. Even just offsetting losses (which is the primary case in the Doral corruption) is still an act of corruption.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3563 by ICANT, posted 10-30-2019 4:48 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18965
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 3570 of 3596 (865919)
11-02-2019 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 3550 by RAZD
10-29-2019 11:15 PM


Re: please change subtitles ... Abiy Ahmed Wins Nobel Peace Prize
RAZD writes:

So I sometimes look back to find the first message of a certain subtitle that keeps popping up even though the posts no longer have any relevance to it.

Yeah, I keep running into that, too.

Perhaps subtitles should expire after a certain number of replies....

... or a person replying should have to click a "RE:" button to have it used.

When replying the cursor is placed in the Subtitle box, but that doesn't seem to help the problem much. I think many people just hit TAB and skip forward to the Message box.

Another possibility to the ones you mention is a popup asking if you want to RE the subtitle. If you click yes it fills in the RE subtitle and places the cursor in the message box. If you click no it positions the cursor in an empty subtitle box.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3550 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2019 11:15 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019