Don't think so. I think they released it solely in an attempt to stave off impeachment. You are playing too much 4d chess.
Impeachment
- Thread starter Bill4411
- Start date
Don't think so. I think they released it solely in an attempt to stave off impeachment. You are playing too much 4d chess.
OF COURSE I haven't read her arguments for Glass-Steagall. Why would I? As I said yesterday, my life doesn't revolve around money and I don't trust the perspective of those whose lives do.
That said, I'll take the opinion of the Harvard Prof who cares about the middle class over that of anyone who obviously cares only for wealth.
Here's the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative when it comes to money: The conservative hates that some of his money goes to the undeserving poor. The liberal hates that some of his money goes to the undeserving rich.
Yeah, and as long as we stick with a private, employment-based health insurance model, that ugly correlation will remain.
Last edited:
I respect your opinions, including your thoughts about impeachment and doing the right thing.
Nevertheless, what good is impeachment without a Senate conviction?
I can remember the House impeachment of Clinton with the Republicans saying impeachment was their Constitutional duty. Another way of saying they were bound by the Constitution to do the right thing.
The body politic saw the impeachment proceedings as pure politics. Clinton's approval ratings climbed.
Finally, Bing , do you really think 20 Republican Senators will join all the Democrats and convict Trump; and on what grounds ?
Heck, at this juncture, I see more politics at play than evidence of crimes and misdemeanors.
So Trump asked Ukraine to look into what happened in the 2016 election. Not exactly a smoking gun. We've heard that meddling came from both Russia and Ukraine. Seems we would want to know.
The crimes in the "transcript" ought to be enough on their own, but this is just the starting point. Six different committees have been set loose to investigate wrongdoing in various areas. If/when the courts rule that the subpoenas are enforceable and the demands for documentation must be complied with, the floodgates will open.
The problem with the crimes in the transcript is they aren't painfully obvious. They aren't going to convince Republicans to flip, they aren't going to change the political narrative for people who may not like Trump but may not like Warren. If the process plays out without a guilty by the Senate, it will just anger the GOP base as Clinton's impeachment angered Democrats. At the same time, Democrats who might not vote aren't going to guarantee their trip to the polls because the House impeached and the Senate did nothing. That actually just looks like the Democrats being impotent. Impeachment without conviction is just an asterisk in the history books.
If the words Trump had used has been quickly converted into one sound bite that resonates in a TV ad, sure, we got something. Without it, the millions who pay no attention to everyday politics will only look at the last result, the Senate said nothing was wrong. That isn't going to help Democrats in my opinion.
Jamie, after watching mainway toys video, I
believe after it is all sung and done, he loves you. Or something like that.
Good to see us starting to get along at the Cooler.
I don't know if the Senate will convict and it's not my concern. The first step is the impeachment and I do think it's their duty to have the inquiry and decide whether to send it to the Senate for trial. Once the case is made the Senators can go on record with their votes. I believe they vote guilty or not guilty.
I don't understand who the House uses as its investigators. Is it required to use the Trump/Barr controlled FBI?
Asking the White House for documents that won't be produced looks nice, but I can't help but think there are also some living breathing human beings working either in the government or Trumpworld who know something about Trump's non-privileged activities and are willing to talk about them. Maybe the House should hire outside investigators to interview witnesses.
Nixon was brought down as much by Alexander Butterfield as by Woodward and Bernstein.
I think he's required to, but he has a lot of leeway in what's allowed to be presented (assuming all the caucus stays with him).
Yeah, he'd have to change the current Senate rules for the trial not to automatically start is my understanding.
The Department of Justice on Wednesday confirmed that the Office of Intelligence Community Inspector General ruled the so-called “whistleblower” who issued a complaint regarding President Donald Trump’s discussions with foreign leaders possessed a “political bias” that was “in favor of a rival political candidate.”
According to a memo released by the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel on Wednesday, the inspector general stated that it received a complaint of “urgent concern,” though the OLC determined the matter “does not involve an ‘urgent concern’” or require that the national intelligence director send the complaint to House and Senate intelligence committees.
The OLC memo reads that the so-called “whistleblower” exhibited signs of “political bias,” yet the inspector general still found the still-anonymous individual to be credible.
“Although the ICIG’s preliminary review found ‘some indica of an arguable political bias on the part of the Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate,’ the ICIG concluded that the complaint’s allegations nonetheless appeared credible,” reads the opinion.
Fox News correspondent Ed Henry was first to report on the allegations of “political bias” in favor of a Trump rival on Tuesday evening.
Further, the inspector general for the intelligence community wrote to the director of national intelligence in August that he believed the conversation between President Trump and Ukraine’s leader could have been a federal campaign finance violation because the president could have been soliciting a campaign contribution from a foreign government, a Justice Department official said.
The whistleblower — a member of the intelligence community — said in their complaint that they had heard the information from “White House officials,” but did not have firsthand knowledge of the call, the Justice Department official said.
Prosecutors from the department reviewed a transcript of the call and determined the president did not violate campaign finance law. The determination was made based on the elements of the allegation, and there was no consideration of the department’s policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, the official said.
Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said the attorney general was first notified of Trump’s conversation with the Ukrainian president “several weeks after the call took place,” when the department received the referral about potential criminal conduct.
“The president has not spoken with the attorney general about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son. The president has not asked the attorney general to contact Ukraine — on this or any other matter,” the spokeswoman said.
Lawmakers have been demanding details of the whistleblower’s complaint, but the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, has refused to share that information, citing presidential privilege. He is to testify Thursday before the House, and lawmakers are expected to have access to details of the complaint beforehand in a classified setting.
The complaint has set off a stunning turn of American political events, leading House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to yield to mounting pressure from fellow Democrats on the impeachment inquiry.
Congress’ probe focuses partly on whether President Trump abused his presidential powers and sought help from a foreign government to undermine Biden and help his own re-election. Pelosi said such actions would mark a “betrayal of his oath of office” and declared, “No one is above the law.”
Meanwhile, the White House released a transcript Wednesday of a phone call between President Trump and Zelensky that’s at the center of the impeachment investigation.
House Democrats are examining the call to determine whether President Trump threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine in exchange for Zelensky’s government investigating the family of 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. Tens of millions in military aid was ultimately released to Ukraine this month, but investigators want to know what prompted Trump to threaten to withhold payment.
According to the five-page transcript, there were several references to Biden, but neither President Trump nor Zelensky discussed authorized military aid payments. They did discuss Biden’s son, Hunter, who worked for a Ukraine gas company between 2014 and early this year.
As Breitbart News reported earlier this year, Biden forced out former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin as he was investigating an energy company called Burisma Holdings, which was paying Biden handsomely as a member of its board. The former vice president even boasted to the Council of Foreign Relations last year that he had threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid unless the prosecutor was fired. (He did not tell the audience about his son’s role.) Conservatives claim Biden obstructed justice to protect his son — who enriched himself using his father’s prestige.
“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,” President Trump told Zelensky. “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … it sounds horrible to me.”
Following the transcript’s release, the president mocked Democrats in a tweet, writing: “Will the Democrats apologize after seeing what was said on the call with the Ukrainian President? They should, a perfect call – got them by surprise!”
The Associated Press and UPI contributed to this report.
Same play book they used on the Mueller report.
So Nap's interpretation of events is interesting because regarding Biden and Shokin he had a drastic change of heart in the space of a few hours. He appeared on Fox Business Network on Mon and said Trump was in serious trouble. The host
(David Asman) kept trying to pivot back to Biden,parroting Rudy's claim that Biden's efforts amounted to an attempt to silence Shokin and protect Hunter and that Biden's "crimes" were worse than Trump's alleged crimes. Nap insisted that Trump not Biden was the issue,although he did concede at the time that Biden's campaign was likely over...
Fast forward to a few hours later and Nap is appearing on another Fox show
(Your World with Neil Cavuto). Nap reiterated that he felt the alleged offenses against Trump were far more serious than anything in the Mueller report. He then made this (imo) extraordinary statement, referencing his earlier appearance on the other show...
"Last time I was sitting here, Dave Asman was filling in for Neil [Cavuto], and I said this might jeopardize Vice President Biden's campaign, it might even be the end of it,” he told guest host Charles Payne. “I believe I was wrong.”
“I have since learned that most of Europe wanted this prosecutor to go, that he was an agent of corruption,” Napolitano added. “He was not rooting out corruption. And unfortunately, when he did go, not all the corruption in the Ukraine left."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/foxs-...-ukraine-is-most-serious-charge-hes-faced-yet
I'm curious how hard the Democrats will push the idea that to vote against a corrupt and treasonous act is a violation of a Representative's oath of office. Put the Republican party in the cross hairs as well as trump.
Make Moscow Mitch and Lindsey Graham take some heat for siding with trump.
I'm not sure there was a strategic decision to move ahead on impeachment as much as this latest scandal made it impossible for Pelosi and the moderates to continue to hold back the push to move ahead on impeachment.
But the real shift seems to have been House Dems in swing districts changed their minds, almost in unison. That's very interesting and suggests the nature of this scandal registers with them differently than past scandals. And that's without seeing the whistle-blower complaint, but just based on what Trump has publicly admitted.
Note the 2nd paragraph from your link:
And officials at the Justice Department on Wednesday affirmed that the intelligence community's inspector general found "some indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate."
At the same time, the IG concluded that the complaint's allegations nonetheless appeared "credible."
At the same time, the IG concluded that the complaint's allegations nonetheless appeared "credible."
LOL. Ladoga trying to hide his source, but it's Breitbart and Hannity.
Looks like Maguire might have a spine:
Acting director of national intelligence threatened to resign if he couldn’t speak freely before Congress on whistleblower complaint
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ldn-t-speak-freely-before-congress/ar-AAHQfnP
Acting director of national intelligence threatened to resign if he couldn’t speak freely before Congress on whistleblower complaint
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ldn-t-speak-freely-before-congress/ar-AAHQfnP
Ask yourself what governmental interest does the American government have in using taxpayer funds plus the office, telephone lines and personal time of the President, plus personal visits/contacts by Presidential representatives Giuliani, Pence and probably others to prompt the Ukrainian government to investigate Joe Biden supposedly in connection with events in Ukraine (not USA). How is America made better if Ukraine investigates Joe Biden for non-USA matters?
Now, on the other hand, ask yourself how is Donald Trump's life made better if Ukraine investigates Joe Biden in 2019, which is one year before Trump's attempt to get reelected? Can you think of even one reason that Donald Trump's personal interests will be made better if he persuades Ukraine to investigate Biden?
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Ah. So, to simpletons, when Justice is investigating Trump, they’re partisan hacks. When they say something favorable to Trump - they’re to be fully trusted!
I bet going around with your reasoning skills makes life quite simple to live. I must say I’m jealous.
Here’s a flash for you: Elliot Ness did not like Al Capone, so obviously any investigation he conducted was tainted. No wonder the juries in Chicago kept throwing out the charges against Al.
It's also important to note it specifically says it is not an actual transcript. But a compilation of notes produced by Trump's staffers.
In other words, this was the most positive spin they could put on one of many conversations they deemed the least egregeous.
Last edited:
The Zelensky Memo Suggests There Might Be Tapes
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...oice-recognition-software-might-be-tapes.html
So, what kind of “voice-recognition software” is used to help the current White House aides monitor Trump’s phone conversations? How does this software enable the transcription of “long, direct quotations”? There might not be tapes, per se, but there is almost certainly a digitized record of the phone calls—and not just this call with Zelensky, but other calls with Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un, and other figures of interest.
You,or more specifically the author of this article have really overreached. First off no one expected the whistle blower to be a Trumper- they aren't alarmed at anything he does. It was a Trump Appointee (Atkinson) that alerted Congress in the first place...
But including this nonsense from Breitbart,parroting Rudy's nonsense really makes you look foolish...
As Breitbart News reported earlier this year, Biden forced out former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin as he was investigating an energy company called Burisma Holdings, which was paying Biden handsomely as a member of its board. The former vice president even boasted to the Council of Foreign Relations last year that he had threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid unless the prosecutor was fired. (He did not tell the audience about his son’s role.) Conservatives claim Biden obstructed justice to protect his son — who enriched himself using his father’s prestige.
“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,” President Trump told Zelensky. “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … it sounds horrible to me.”
Trump,Rudy, Breitbart and (apparently) you want to try and revise History, but fortunately google exists.
Multiple Ukranian and European sources have already debunked the notion that Shokin was fired because he was doing a great job. In Fact he was fired precisely because he was NOT investigating Burisma,the company Hunter Biden was paid by. And when he was fired (in 2016) he was replaced by someone who was viewed as more of a crusader against corruption,although the entrenched nature of Ukranian corruption eventually led to the case being dropped. But Shokin was not viewed positively by the people of the Ukraine prior to his ouster,in fact there were demonstrations in the street with angry crowds demanding that he be fired.
Shokin took office in Feb 2015,and by Sept 2015 US officials viewed him as someone who was Hindering not helping the cause of rooting out corruption in the Ukraine...
"Sept. 24, 2015 – U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt excoriates Prosecutor General Shokin’s office for stymying anti-corruption investigations, including those involving Burisma- Note to you and Trump,stymying DOES NOT mean "getting too close"...
"Pyatt’s speech was part of a regular drumbeat by U.S. and other Western leaders, including Vice President Biden, and a swath of Ukrainian civil society seeking to pressure President Poroshenko to force his officials, especially in the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) to crack down more, not less, on corruption. “Corruption kills,” Pyatt said in the address to the Odesa Financial Forum for business leaders. “It kills productivity and smothers inspiration. Ideas are lost in its shadow. Innovation and entrepreneurship lag under the weight of bribery, back room dealing, and bullying.”
While giving Shokin a last chance to shape up (Pyatt says, “We want to work with Prosecutor General Shokin so the PGO is leading the fight against corruption.”), the ambassador criticizes “officials at the PGO’s office” for not providing documents that were needed for the British investigation of Burisma owner Zlochevskiy and effectively allowing Zlochevskiy to transfer $23 million of what Pyatt says were Ukrainian taxpayer assets to Cyprus. In other words, Pyatt is critical of the prosecutor’s office for not aiding in investigations of Burisma’s owner, which was in line with Biden’s criticism that the office was blocking corruption investigations. Pyatt specifically called for the investigation and removal of officials who were involved in the failure to help the British authorities investigate Zlochevskiy:
“We have learned that there have been times that the PGO not only did not support investigations into corruption, but rather undermined prosecutors working on legitimate corruption cases.
For example, in the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky [cq], the U.K. authorities had seized 23 million dollars in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people. Officials at the PGO’s office were asked by the U.K to send documents supporting the seizure.
Instead they sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a result, the money was freed by the U.K. court and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus.
The misconduct by the PGO officials who wrote those letters should be investigated, and those responsible for subverting the case by authorizing those letters should – at a minimum – be summarily terminated.”
You can educate yourself and view the timeline of events here...
https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/
Last edited:
You need to look more if you don’t see crimes. How do you not see obstruction from Mueller? His attorney is in jail for doing his bidding. Do you think there’s a reason he’s suing to keep us from getting his taxes? He lied about his funds to get bank loans. This is what we know. Of course there is more. And no. Republicans will not vote to convict. As Trump knows, he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and they would not convict. The Dems do it because it’s the right thing. Period. He’s a criminal and there is no point in having the impeachment option if it’s not used for him. You don’t think asking a foreign leader for dirt in his opponent is enough? I don’t think the whistleblower needs a thing, beyond what Trump has admitted. But of course there is more. It’s troubling that a reasonable person, which o consider you, thinks this is all politics. Pelosi clearly didn’t want to do it when a large number of Dems have been screaming for it since Mueller.
To me, it is wholly in character for Trump that he was surprised at the impeachment development after editing the non-transcript "transcript" to his heart's content but still learning that the House leadership thought his "transcript" was incriminating and initiated impeachment investigations anyway.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/09/25/po...ml?r=https://www.cnn.com/search?q=Incredulous
Why wouldn't Trump and his ego believe that he had fought off impeachment by editing the hell out of the non-transcript "transcript"? After all, Trump is the same guy who claimed he could murder someone in broad daylight but no one would care.
This tells me that Trump has no idea what moves people. Because of his protected and privileged upbringing, he is so used to getting his own way that he cannot imagine a world where smart, honest people disagree with him.
Lol. Sure thing. Pretty sure everyone is taking Ladoga’s word for it. Next? Not likely . This one’s not going away quite that easily. He asked a foreign leader for dirt on his likely opponent. That’s enough. Perfect phone cal? Lol.
He has no concept of right and wrong, and no concept of boundaries when it comes to his own behavior. When he does a mental calculus (such as it may be), truth or honor or virtue or "right" is not a factor; it's all about what he can gain -- and if it's at the expense of another, that's even better.
Today, it occurred to me how isolated he may have become -- there is no more Sarah Huckabee to jump in and drown out all opposing viewpoints with ridicule and dogwhistles.
Giuliani is still with Trump but Giuliani not only looks and sounds like this ...
and this ...
... and this ...
... but also has directly implicated himself in the pro-Trump talks with Ukraine by his own, distorted mouth.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Just when I thought the democrats couldn’t be more disgusting . . .
- Latest: crazed_hoosier2
-
-
-
-