Transcript released - WH - No quid pro quo

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Extorris

You know, when you have to explain why there is corruption, it sorta shows there was no corruption.

Yes, as any parent can tell you, when explaining how 2+2 equals 4 to children, they are actually suggesting it doesn't.

Donald Trump is not Tony Soprano.

Agreed there LOL.

who is us?

a reply to: KeithCooper

Yer not "thick" are ya? Can read? Watch any news other than Fox or Alex Jones? No AMERICAN candidate for office can solicit help OF ANY KIND from a foreign entity if that "help" IN ANY WAY can affect that candidates upcoming american election. Trump is defacto GUILTY. Thats what all the fuss is about. The only contentious issue is the matter of the whistleblower's complaint being based on hearsay...2nd hand knowledge...but the original whistleblowers will be found, they will testify and Trump will fall....

I would really love to see someone specify title and statute of this law. Sorry, but that's one of my pet peeves, when someone makes up a law in their head to justify themselves. The law doesn't work like that; one must have violated a specific statute in order to be guilty of violating a law.

If the law worked the way you claim it does, no President could ever have any type of communication with a foreign power. Trump negotiated the USMCA to replace NAFTA with Mexico and Canada. Those are foreign entities, no? I can argue that achieving that goal will help him in the 2020 elections, so was it illegal to negotiate the treaty? How about when he negotiated with North Korea to have American remains sent back home? To those like me, who had family who served in that war, that is a major accomplishment and will certainly affect my impression of Trump and hence my vote. Was it illegal because of that?

Think. Does a sitting President become unable to perform his duties of office because he will run for re-election? That is what you are arguing. Even moreso, can a sitting President not investigate a candidate for potential crimes, including asking for information from other nations with whom we have a cooperation treaty, because those other candidates are candidates? That places them above the law, as I stated.

If you are correct, how was an investigation into Clinton conducted while she was a candidate for President? How was the investigation into Russia started while Trump was a candidate? That one was certainly based on the assistance of foreign entities. How do you explain those? Does the law only apply to those who are on the Republican ticket?

It would seem so.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

On to other topics you should start preparing defense/deflection propaganda for..
Actually little prep is required, the Wingnut zombies around here look like they will Ape anything you tell them.

Although the DOJ issued statements claiming Attorney Bill Barr knew nothing about this until the IG complaint was filed, multiple sources and threads are detailing how Bill Barr and DOJ were made aware of the complaint and it's details long before they officially received the complaint.'

AG Bill Barr needs to go on record, ideally under oath, about what he knows about the withholding of US Military Aid to Ukraine and Trump extorting a foreign leader to interfere in our elections.

a reply to: Wayfarer

C'mon Redneck, is there anything Trump could do that you would consider criminal anymore?

Certainly. If he breaks a law, that would be criminal. Asking a foreign power for assistance with an investigation, when we have a cooperation treaty with that nation, is not a crime, though.

There is an easy way to change my mind: show me the title and statute of US Code that Trump broke. All US statutes are online and easily available. I just haven't found one that covers asking for a "favor" from a foreign nation.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Extorris
so you are ascared of bill barr?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris
so you are ascared of bill barr?

Define ascard

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No No the best way is to read it to see what's in it 😎

a reply to: Extorris

Yes, as any parent can tell you, when explaining how 2+2 equals 4 to children, they are actually suggesting it doesn't.

Your explanation sounded more like 2+2/5*6 integrated over the range x=[0, pi] equals 17.

I can read, you know. That's why I don't watch CNN... I don't like it when people try to tell me it's raining although the water on my leg is somehow yellow.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer

C'mon Redneck, is there anything Trump could do that you would consider criminal anymore?

Certainly. If he breaks a law, that would be criminal. Asking a foreign power for assistance with an investigation, when we have a cooperation treaty with that nation, is not a crime, though.

There is an easy way to change my mind: show me the title and statute of US Code that Trump broke.

Trump is immune to prosecution according to AG Barr's stated interpretation of standing DOJ Policy.

I am confused why you are interested in US Code that doesn't apply according to DOJ?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Asking a foreign power for assistance with an investigation, when we have a cooperation treaty with that nation, is not a crime, though.

What investigation does President Trump, Bill Barr and Rudy Giuliani need assistance with? Has the US Justice Department opened an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden's Ukraine work? Or, are they asking that Ukraine open an investigation for them?

"We", meaning the United States has a treaty with Ukraine. The Trump Campaign does not.

a reply to: xuenchen

I'm betting that you haven't read it or seen what's in it.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer

C'mon Redneck, is there anything Trump could do that you would consider criminal anymore?

Certainly. If he breaks a law, that would be criminal. Asking a foreign power for assistance with an investigation, when we have a cooperation treaty with that nation, is not a crime, though.

There is an easy way to change my mind: show me the title and statute of US Code that Trump broke. All US statutes are online and easily available. I just haven't found one that covers asking for a "favor" from a foreign nation.

TheRedneck

Are we talking about any crimes or just the ones to which the president isn't theoretically immune from prosecution (ie. all of them)?

a reply to: Extorris

On to other topics you should start preparing defense/deflection propaganda for.

I don't prepare for topics. I don't have to. I have this thing called a moral center that manages to establish my position on the fly.

As for others "apeing" me, I have been in heated arguments with just about every single poster on ATS... including the owners! My opinions are my own. I base my positions on no one and expect no one to base their positions on me. Humans are fallible, frail, and frankly disgusting little creatures... not the kind I would depend on.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Extorris

Yes, as any parent can tell you, when explaining how 2+2 equals 4 to children, they are actually suggesting it doesn't.

I can read, you know.

I question neither your reading ability nor the wisdom of discounting anyone purporting to interpret text on your behalf.

I find your faculties for analysis unusually robust, likely equal to or greater than my own and at the same time severely and tragically hobbled in political matters by confirmation bias and identity politics. My analysis involves more bias than I like, while yours seems to unapologetically banish objectivity altogether. It's impossible to know, but if I was to wildly speculate I might think you have some ethos where the means always justifies the ends in some imagined culture war.

Best to you Red. You deserve better than what you give to yourself.

Mark this as my last post.

a reply to: Extorris

Trump is immune to prosecution according to AG Barr's stated interpretation of standing DOJ Policy.

Trump, while President, is immune to prosecution. He is not immune to the law. He can be impeached, and should be impeached if he commits "high crimes and misdemeanors" as specified in the US Constitution. Impeachment is a legal remedy to a lawless President which takes into account the unique situation of being an elected official.

His detractors, though, are quite good at making up laws he supposedly is violating which do not exist. For instance, Trump complied exactly with the law on his Emergency Declaration to move funds for the wall. Yet, his detractors kept screaming that he was in violation of the law, apparently without even reading the law. Some have actually told me the US Code didn't matter if it was illegal!

So again, show me the law that he has broken... not someone's opinion of the law, not what someone told you was the law... the actual law, title and statute in the US Code or section and paragraph in the US Constitution. If it ain't there, it is not Federal law.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What investigation does President Trump, Bill Barr and Rudy Giuliani need assistance with? Has the US Justice Department opened an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden's Ukraine work? Or, are they asking that Ukraine open an investigation for them?

I am not privy to which investigations are open at any time, and I would suggest neither are you in all likelihood. The DoJ has the authority to open investigations at any time into any suspected issues in accordance with US law. There is no law I am aware of that says they have to make a public announcement.

Feel free to quote title and statute is there is such a law.

"We", meaning the United States has a treaty with Ukraine. The Trump Campaign does not.

Did you miss where Donald J. Trump was elected President of the United States? It was in all the papers...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

But you said that Trump was asking for "help with an investigation", that you admit you don't even know if the US Justice Department themselves have opened.

Trump wasn't asking for help for an ongoing US Justice Department investigation. He was asking the Ukraine government to open one, which Valenski agreed to do, when the new Prosecutor was confirmed by his parliamentary body.

John Durham is investigating The Ukraine issue,
it was brought up recently.

So yes, actually Rudy was asked by The State Department
to investigate, and the DOJ is investigating.

a reply to: Extorris

I question neither your reading ability nor the wisdom of discounting anyone purporting to interpret text on your behalf.

Good.

My analysis involves more bias than I like, while yours seems to unapologetically banish objectivity altogether.

Might I suggest that your own bias, which we all admittedly have, is seeing something that isn't there?

It's impossible to know, but if I was to wildly speculate I might think you have some ethos where the means always justifies the ends in some imagined culture war.

There is no imagination involved. I have seen my culture falsely accused, disrespected, and removed right before my eyes. My home today does not contain the rich culture that it did in my youth. Not all of that is political; it seems to be more the effect of financial pressures over time. Not all of it is actually a bad thing either, but the majority of it is.

That does not affect my political views, other than to create an inherent distrust of humanity, especially when they want to "help." Any more such "help" would likely place me in a hole in the ground.

TheRedneck