Transcript released - WH - No quid pro quo

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.

so now the Ukranian president is lying to cover for trump?
wow

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.

imo impeachment is a big deal
i dont think the whistleblower is nearly as important as the witness, and as he is in the usa they could speak to him if they wanted to
actually having some evidence would be a good thing
it appears they have none

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.

if they moved towards impeachment based on no more than rumors then what else are they?
do they not understand how impeachment would effect our nation?
or do they just not give 2 craps?

originally posted by: Wayfarer

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.

oh
i thought that was "your friends" potential reasoning
ok

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

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.

agreed

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

And does and I concur...

No one looks at the damage being done against the position of President or future POTUS's.

What nation will openly speak via any means to a POTUS? This is severe damage of immeasurable gravity.

A supposed member of the Intel community, filed a complaint, listening and concerning a privalaged and secure communication between the leaders of nations?

Every leader now has concerns in any conversation with the POTUS....thanks TDS infected idiots.

That person complainer needs to answer, period.

The complainant was handled by structures, placed by Congress and seen as nothing, after investigation and two tiers of presentation to review.

Schiff is the political player that forced the issue, and beyond his ability to interpret yet ran to the press 2 mins after a closed door inquiry..

Think people.

mg

a reply to: Wayfarer

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

Not hyperbolic; my post to which you responded pointed out that the mot infamous criminals in history have been given sufficient time to produce documentation and asked why Trump was not allowed the same. I simply continued with the same example... which is, incidentally, true.

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.

That is a reasonable position. I would disagree with you on loathing the man, of course, but that is also your prerogative.

My concern is that we have already, through these leaks which I see as nothing more than political weapons used without concern for the country to simply attack a man for winning an election, damaged our ability to have international relations possibly beyond repair. I know if I were to receive a phone call from Trump (which I of course will not; it is an example), I would assume that every word I uttered was being simultaneously printed in the New York Times. No world leader wants that. No world leader will accept that.

I remember one of the reasons touted for hating Trump so bad in early 2017 was that he would isolate us from the rest of the world. I believe the DNC operatives who were so scared of it happening have accomplished that quite well without Trump's help.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: shooterbrody

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.

so now the Ukranian president is lying to cover for trump?
wow

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.

imo impeachment is a big deal
i dont think the whistleblower is nearly as important as the witness, and as he is in the usa they could speak to him if they wanted to
actually having some evidence would be a good thing
it appears they have none

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.

if they moved towards impeachment based on no more than rumors then what else are they?
do they not understand how impeachment would effect our nation?
or do they just not give 2 craps?

Yep, the potential theory is he's lying to cover for Trump because Trump can still dangle money/concessions over his head, or at the very least make things much more difficult for him/Ukraine.

As for evidence, that's what the inquiries and committee's will be digging into; to see if there is any further evidence.

Who knows what their ultimate reasoning could be. Perhaps as I've suggested they do have their ducks in a row and there's a lot more damning stuff to come out. Perhaps they are merely doing this as a political ploy to hurt Trump and help themselves. I can't imagine the latter is really that damning of an action considering Slick Willy Clinton being impeached for the very things most Trump supporters champion him for was the prerogative of the Republicans in the 90's (who knew Clinton wasn't going to be removed as well but went ahead and impeached him anyways).

a reply to: missed_gear

No one looks at the damage being done against the position of President or future POTUS's. What nation will openly speak via any means to a POTUS? This is severe damage of immeasurable gravity. A supposed member of the Intel community, filed a complaint, listening and concerning a privalaged and secure communication between the leaders of nations? Every leader now has concerns in any conversation with the POTUS....thanks TDS infected idiots.

well posted
those are very important points

Yeah, this amounts to another "as soon as Trump commits a crime"
he is guilty! As soon as!

Democrats:
"As soon as Trump commits a crime he will be impeached".

You Trump supporters are so hypocritical and blind; following a criminal straight to hell. Imagine how you would feel if Obama did that to Trump.

a reply to: burntheships

it's let's investigate and impeach Trump.

We don't need a crime.

originally posted by: Willtell
You Trump supporters are so hypocritical and blind; following a criminal straight to hell. Imagine how you would feel if Obama did that to Trump.

Obama did do that to Trump.

that's what Trump wanted to investigate.

www.nbcnews.com... man the dems are having a pretty bad week , now that flynn's associate just got his conviction overturned and he was aquitted

WASHINGTON — A federal court in Virginia acquitted a former business associated of Michael Flynn on Tuesday, throwing out his July conviction by a jury on two counts of violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act during his work on behalf of Turkey. Judge Anthony Trenga of the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the indictment against Bijan Rafiekian, citing insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction on either count. "The evidence was insufficient as a matter of law for the jury to convict Rafiekian on either count," Judge Trenga wrote in his opinion, adding that a new trial would be warranted "in the interest of justice should the Court's judgment of acquittal be later vacated or reversed."

seems to be a new dem trend of people they dont like getting cleared of all charges by judges/DOJ

a reply to: Wayfarer
so in all reality the house dems moved towards impeachment with no actual evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors?

but

potentially there could be hell to pay?


you know with actual evidence I would back removing a potus from office
now
with the bs that has been flung on the american people I hope trump is re elected and I hope the people throw every house democrat out on their keister

impeachment is serious business for our nation

originally posted by: Willtell
You Trump supporters are so hypocritical and blind; following a criminal straight to hell. Imagine how you would feel if Obama did that to Trump.

better than the guilty until proven innocent people
you lot are nothing but made up lies that cant even take down an imbecile of trumps magnitude

originally posted by: shooterbrody

with the bs that has been flung on the american people I hope trump is re elected and I hope the people throw every house democrat out on their keister

Like I assume you were/felt about Republicans when they went after Bill Clinton for sex in the oval office and lying about it?

originally posted by: Willtell
You Trump supporters are so hypocritical and blind; following a criminal straight to hell. Imagine how you would feel if Obama did that to Trump.

Obama did....

If the integrity of elections are truly the concern of the Democrats...they have already proven to be liars.

This political stunt will destroy their intentions, expose the lies and bring focus on their antics.

I am glad this issue is upfront now, as much as Trump concerns me, he just is on the verge of being able to call a turd a turd.

mg

a reply to: CriticalStinker
a reply to: TheRedneck

Everyone's posting so much faster than I can read that I cannot catch up! So forgive me if this has been mentioned...

But I'm finding the timing -- and the greater context -- quite intriguing. Zelensky was elected in April and took office the end of May... the phone call in question took place in July... it blows up in the last few days... and today Trump is meeting with Zelensky in person:

Donald and Melania Trump pose with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at posh diplomatic reception after phone call between two leaders sparks impeachment inquiry

From what I'm reading, Zelensky came out of nowhere -- he was a comedian, not a politician -- promising to fight corruption and drain their own swamp.... that's in cahoots with our swamp.

Crowdstrike's involvement just ups the ante.

Methinks the guilty are very worried about this meeting, and what is about to come out. Hence the reckless rush for tarring Trump and pounding the impeachment drums.

The best defense is a good offense.

So, Kimberly Strassel I follow on Twitter has this to say and I agree.

1) Having read DOJ’s Trump-Ukraine release, here’s the real story: This is another internal attempt to take out a president, on the basis of another non-smoking-gun.

2)As to call transcript itself: Trump’s actual “favor” is that Ukraine look backward, to what happened in the 2016 election. This is a legitimate ask, since election meddling looks to have come from both Russia and Ukraine.

3)(Indeed, this is a big enough issue that we find out this morning that U.S. Attorney John Durham is looking at what role the Ukraine played in the FBI investigation.)

4)It is actually Zelensky who brings up Rudy Giuliani—saying they can’t wait to “meet him.” And it is Zelensky who references “that investigation,” as he goes on to promise that “all investigations will be done openly and candidly.”

5)Trump says “good” and expresses worries that a “good” prosecutor was “shut down.” Mentions “Biden’s son” and that Biden bragged he “stopped the prosecution.” Ends that bit with “It sounds horrible to me.”

6)Trump's several references to Giuliani are mostly to say what a great guy he is. He says he will have Giuliani and AG Barr call. He asks Zelensky to speak/work with both.

7)And, never mind, because: DOJ in statement says the President has not spoken to AG about investigating Biden and has not asked the AG to contact the Ukraine. Also, Barr has not communicated with Ukraine—“on this or any subject.”

8)Meanwhile, the IG back in August referred this to DOJ as potential violation of campaign finance law, based on whistleblower complaint. Criminal Division evaluated and determined no violation: “All relevant components of the Department agreed with this legal conclusion.”

9) Whistleblower? Look at this nugget, referenced in the OLC opinion. The IG’s review found "some indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of the Complainant in favor of a rival political candidate.”

The media got it wrong and Dems jumped the gun, they are still playing by the old playbook and getting hammered in doing so.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Like I assume you were/felt about Republicans when they went after Bill Clinton for sex in the oval office and lying about it?

what does that have to do with this?
nothing

did I agree with what the special council and the house republicans did to bill clinton
NO I DID NOT
It was bad for our nation
He lied under oath about sex and should have been censured
at least there was evidence in that case

right now
there is NONE against trump
and the one witness that there is backs trump

a reply to: Wayfarer

Who knows what their ultimate reasoning could be. Perhaps as I've suggested they do have their ducks in a row and there's a lot more damning stuff to come out. Perhaps they are merely doing this as a political ploy to hurt Trump and help themselves. I can't imagine the latter is really that damning of an action considering Slick Willy Clinton being impeached for the very things most Trump supporters champion him for was the prerogative of the Republicans in the 90's (who knew Clinton wasn't going to be removed as well but went ahead and impeached him anyways).

That's simply not the way it is supposed to work.

For the record, I thought the Clinton impeachment was silly and a huge mistake. I also thought even using a sexual act to accuse him was even sillier. I still feel that this attempt at impeachment is silly. If we allow one side to do something wrong because the other side did something wrong, we will never recover from the downward spiral into pure corruption.

I noticed you posted this earlier:

originally posted by: Wayfarer

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.

That is exactly what Joe Biden openly admitted to... even bragged about! He demanded a Ukrainian prosecutor be fired or he would stop a $1 billion loan guarantee. We don't even need a transcript, because it's all on tape. Yet, it is Joe Biden who, among the other Democrats, is saying this supposed action by Trump is inexcusable.

I know you don't support Trump, but surely you can see the blatant hypocrisy there... and hopefully your own inconsistency?

TheRedneck