Transcript released - WH - No quid pro quo

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Wayfarer



Ummm...so...how else would you define attempting to scry..."the meaning behind the words...and not the words themselves"...

That's all highly subjective...and falls under the aegis of...intent...

But you knew that already...methinks this is red herring day...down at the DNC cafeteria...

Would you like a side of fry's with that...?

YouSir

Well I mean that's kind of what application of the law is about (in a gross sense). If Trump says, "I love you and would never hurt you", and then pulls out a pistol and shoots you in the face, while you can make the argument that the letter of his words is clear and therefore he's innocent its pretty obvious what he did (hurt you).

originally posted by: Bicent
Strong economy check

We are at peace in the world for the most part check

We are building a wall and working on positive immigration law check

Regardless of creed color or religion prosperity under this president is the best it ever has been check

This sounds an awful lot like you're exclaiming 'whats the big deal, at least he makes the trains run on time'.....

a reply to: Bicent
You aint kidding. All because they didnt get their way in an election. All because "I'm right and you're wrong". It's like a bunch of kindergarten children running around unsupervised in a classroom. It's a free for all for them and at this point it's beyond treasonous how they are acting. It makes me want to throw up everyday I wake up and see what these bottom of the barrel children are doing to this country.

a reply to: Wayfarer

The last I heard about the releases was that Trump had instructed the DoJ to release everything possible to comply with the House requests and said he was going to cooperate fully. Apparently we do have different sources. Mine are based on the transcript itself, news blurbs from Fox (verified in the Internet by less biased sources), and the links provided by both sides in this thread.

I have also heard that more than just this transcript is set to be released in the coming days. What those additional releases are, I am not sure.

Even the most infamous criminals of all time were given sufficient time to produce documentation on their cases... why is the President not given the same benefit?

TheRedneck

www.foxnews.com...

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during a meeting in New York with President Trump, told reporters Wednesday that he was not pressured to investigate the Biden family during their now-controversial phone call over the summer.
“Nobody pushed me,” Zelensky said.

guess he wont be a friendly witness for the dems during the impeachment trial
since he was on the call and stuff

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer

The last I heard about the releases was that Trump had instructed the DoJ to release everything possible to comply with the House requests and said he was going to cooperate fully. Apparently we do have different sources. Mine are based on the transcript itself, news blurbs from Fox (verified in the Internet by less biased sources), and the links provided by both sides in this thread.

I have also heard that more than just this transcript is set to be released in the coming days. What those additional releases are, I am not sure.

Even the most infamous criminals of all time were given sufficient time to produce documentation on their cases... why is the President not given the same benefit?

TheRedneck

I'd imagine because Trump has no cache of trust left among democrats and they think he's bluffing about releasing the rest. I mean, he did start by stonewalling them, so I can understand the hesitancy to take him at his word.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
www.foxnews.com...

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during a meeting in New York with President Trump, told reporters Wednesday that he was not pressured to investigate the Biden family during their now-controversial phone call over the summer.
“Nobody pushed me,” Zelensky said.

guess he wont be a friendly witness for the dems during the impeachment trial
since he was on the call and stuff

A friend sent me this as a plausible explanation:

"The Ukraine president is in a terrible bind because even if he concludes that Trump is 100% out in January 2021 (not a certainty), there's still plenty of time for Trump to hurt Ukraine either directly or indirectly. Sure, he can quietly ask Senators for help in influencing Trump, but now that its out in the open and he got his military aid anyway, he's got to smile, bow out, and not do anything to hurt Trump." (Rigel, SA)

a reply to: Wayfarer
oh
so we cant take the language at its word cause that is not what he "meant"
and now
we cant take the word of the witness that was on the call

gee guess all that leaves is trump is guilty

surely it couldnt be the guy is telling the truth.....

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer
oh
so we cant take the language at its word cause that is not what he "meant"
and now
we cant take the word of the witness that was on the call

gee guess all that leaves is trump is guilty

surely it couldnt be the guy is telling the truth.....

Oh I'm not implying I'm certain one way or another. He very well could be telling the truth. Normally in the case of assessing coercion its understood that the witness/victim may be reluctant to testify against the coercer on account of expected reciprocity later. My buddy's comment above was just to elucidate that there is a not to outrageous reason for the Ukranian PM to say what he said.

a reply to: Wayfarer

I'd imagine because Trump has no cache of trust left among democrats and they think he's bluffing about releasing the rest.

And that is sufficient cause to treat him worse than the most infamous criminals in history?

And you're OK with that?

I'm sorry, but that reflects on the Democrats, not on Trump.

TheRedneck

a reply to: MisterSpock

Yeah ya see the problem with that is reading between the lines isnt anything but speculation,which by law isnt evidence.

a reply to: Wayfarer
ok

sure puts the dems in a bind with that whole "high crimes and misdemeanors" thing......
you know the one witness stating there wasnt any....
one would have thought for something so important they would have their ducks in a row

perhaps it is not as important to them as to us?

a reply to: Wayfarer

A friend sent me this as a plausible explanation:

I'm sorry, truly not trying to be snarky, but your reasoning is sounding more and more like reasons why Trump should not be found guilty of any wrongdoing.

"Your honor, we can't prove it because A, B, C, but he should be convicted anyway!"

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer

I'd imagine because Trump has no cache of trust left among democrats and they think he's bluffing about releasing the rest.

And that is sufficient cause to treat him worse than the most infamous criminals in history?

And you're OK with that?

I'm sorry, but that reflects on the Democrats, not on Trump.

TheRedneck

Treat him worse than the most infamous criminals in history? C'mon man, there's no need to be hyperbolic.

He is infamous for lying. In fact, there is a sizable portion of Trump supporters here on ATS who laud the man for how well he can lie. Its practically his trademark even among his supporters.

He also has a history of saying one thing and then later going back on it, so you can't really take what he says at face value even if he is genuine to begin with.

Lastly he started this process off with maximum resistance. Its safe to assume folks will be wary about him suddenly wanting to share everything after he spent the last week keeping it all under lock and key and forbidding anyone in his cabinet from discussing it.

I do hope he shares it and its a big nothingburger. I loathe the man, but the thought that he's playing gangster trying to hurt his political rivals through the US government feels like a Rubicon that once crossed will become the de-facto norm - and that feels like the nail in the coffin for future elections.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer

A friend sent me this as a plausible explanation:

I'm sorry, truly not trying to be snarky, but your reasoning is sounding more and more like reasons why Trump should not be found guilty of any wrongdoing.

"Your honor, we can't prove it because A, B, C, but he should be convicted anyway!"

TheRedneck

Its cool, I don't think you're being/sounding snarky. Its just a plausible explanation for why the Ukranian PM would cover for Trump. Nothing more. I or nobody else is taking that to a judge with a smile on our faces like it means anything other than an avenue to explore further.

a reply to: Wayfarer

I loathe the man, but the thought that he's playing gangster trying to hurt his political rivals through the US government feels like a Rubicon that once crossed will become the de-facto norm - and that feels like the nail in the coffin for future elections.

why would you think that when the witness says that is not the case?

the problem is not only with the dems... MANY on the GOP side of the isle are just as guilty of enriching themselves on OUR DIME! this is holding back true accountability on both sides. Trump is truly fighting a monster from all sides!

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer
ok

sure puts the dems in a bind with that whole "high crimes and misdemeanors" thing......
you know the one witness stating there wasnt any....
one would have thought for something so important they would have their ducks in a row

perhaps it is not as important to them as to us?

Man I really don't know. If a transcript is released that shows Trump demanding an investigation and the Ukranian PM declining to do so, then Trump stating they won't get their money if they do and the Ukranian PM acquiescing goes a long way even when the Ukranian PM's previous statement was that he wasn't coerced. As far as getting ducks in a row if I were them I would have wanted to chat with the whistleblower first to hear what they saw/heard and then decide if there's enough evidence/capital to start impeachment. Maybe they've done just that, or maybe they are every bit as stupid as you and the rest of conservatives on ATS think they are and they're about to hand Trump his next 4 years.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

I loathe the man, but the thought that he's playing gangster trying to hurt his political rivals through the US government feels like a Rubicon that once crossed will become the de-facto norm - and that feels like the nail in the coffin for future elections.

why would you think that when the witness says that is not the case?

Well for the reason I mentioned earlier, because the Ukranian PM has a reason not to piss off Trump even if Trump was extorting him.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: dfnj2015
please point out where specifically?

I keep reading about Trump being a dictator, psychopath, criminal, traitor etc. But to this day nobody offers any actual evidence for their claims.

I don't trust the guy either but it would be helpful if at least one of these f*cktards could actually back up their outrageous claims.