***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread*** (8 Viewers)

[timschochet]

And that was his reply. 

What you quoted? "I'm not going to discuss it!"? How exactly does that bolster your argument?

 

[Max Power]

Let's go down the list:

1. Obviously Sondland, but you know that.

2. Ambassador Taylor, based on his conversation with Danyliuk, which he testified to.

3. Vindman, based on emails he and Cooper received, indicating Ukraine's knowledge of the quid pro quo, which he testified to.

4. New York Times' reporter Andrew Kramer, based on his interview with deputy foreign minister Olena Zerkel, reported on December 1.

5. David Holmes, testifying that the Ukrainians indicated their knowledge.

There is also Fiona Hill, though that's more indirect in terms of what Ukraine was aware of. But you have to dismiss all of these people in order to accept what Yermak is saying now. Perhaps you're willing to do so, because it might exonerate the President. But I think it's stretching logic just a bit too far to do so.

Well lets get him in front of the Senate.  He claims no one reached out to him.  He seems like he'd be a good one to call to establish this. 

 

[timschochet]

Zelinskyy campaigned on anti-corruption.  This whole thing is corrupt, and not just on the U.S. side.

I can't blame Ukraine. What choice did they have? What choice do they have now? It was brave enough of them simply to resist what Trump demanded of them at all.

 

[Max Power]

"I'm not going to tell you what I wrote."

"I already know what you wrote"

"All I can say is I followed the law, what I did was legal."

That all reads to you like a guy giving the whole story and not trying to stay out of a scandal?

Reads like a guy who just American's infer meaning into every word someone said or wrote and doesn't need any more of that.  

 

[timschochet]

Well lets get him in front of the Senate.  He claims no one reached out to him.  He seems like he'd be a good one to call to establish this. 

How about we get Bolton, Giuliani, Pompeo, and Mulvaney? Surely they can get to the heart of the matter. Do you agree they should be compelled to testify?

 

[Biff84]

So he used the same ‘I know what I said’ excuse here as he did with the Sondland conversation even though they have the actual text messages. And you don’t think he might be lying? The more I read about his conversation, the more it seems he’s trying to protect himself from corruption charges like Henry mentioned.

 

[Max Power]

What you quoted? "I'm not going to discuss it!"? How exactly does that bolster your argument?

He said they don't give the full picture.  Context.

 

[Henry Ford]

Reads like a guy who just American's infer meaning into every word someone said or wrote and doesn't need any more of that.  

...and so he is avoiding telling the whole story?

 

[Max Power]

How about we get Bolton, Giuliani, Pompeo, and Mulvaney? Surely they can get to the heart of the matter. Do you agree they should be compelled to testify?

Sure, it's not my call though.

 

[Max Power]

...and so he is avoiding telling the whole story?

Lets get him as a witness

 

[adonis]

Sure, it's not my call though.

You're not fooling me, President Trump!

 

[timschochet]

Lets get him as a witness

What would be his penalty for lying?

 

[Henry Ford]

Lets get him as a witness

Okay.  How do you propose to do that?  And enforce perjury laws, etc?

 

[timschochet]

Sure, it's not my call though.

Does President Trump's refusal to allow those four to testify make you suspicious at all of his guilt?

 

[Max Power]

Okay.  How do you propose to do that?  And enforce perjury laws, etc?

So the answer is just to discount it?  The same way the report did with Zelensky?

 

[bostonfred]

By the way, since we had this discussion the President called a press conference at the White House to let Sergey Lavrov go on camera to the American people and deny that Russia had any involvement whatsoever.  In a joint presser with Mike Pompeo.

Why would the president use the power of his office to have another country make such a statement that isn't for his personal benefit?

 

[Max Power]

Does President Trump's refusal to allow those four to testify make you suspicious at all of his guilt?

Nope

 

[timschochet]

Nope

If that's the case, then I would suggest that when you wrote "you're mind's made up" earlier about me, perhaps your criticism is better off self-reflected.

 

[sho nuff]

So the answer is just to discount it?  The same way the report did with Zelensky?

Yes, you discount quotes not under oath when compared to sworn testimony.

 

[adonis]

By the way, since we had this discussion the President called a press conference at the White House to let Sergey Lavrov go on camera to the American people and deny that Russia had any involvement whatsoever.  In a joint presser with Mike Pompeo.

Why would the president use the power of his office to have another country make such a statement that isn't for his personal benefit?

Not very normal behavior for a US President.

Using the power of the office to solicit assistance from foreign officials to help himself politically at home.  Maybe not unprecedented, but certainly odd.

 

[Max Power]

If that's the case, then I would suggest that when you wrote "you're mind's made up" earlier about me, perhaps your criticism is better off self-reflected.

I feel the same way about them I do the Dems not letting the R's get their full list of witnesses.  They are both just doing the politics dance. 

 

[Max Power]

Yes, you discount quotes not under oath when compared to sworn testimony.

He just contradicted Sondlond who has already contraindicated himself.  Sondlond is their money witness and he is horrible and now there is even more doubt. 

 

[sho nuff]

He just contradicted Sondlond who has already contraindicated himself.  Sondlond is their money witness and he is horrible and now there is even more doubt. 

He sort of contradicts him but also his own messages which back up Sondland.

When it comes down to documents plus testimony under oath...yes I will take those any day of the week over quotes to a reporter.  As would any court of law.

 

[bostonfred]

There was no quid pro quo, but one country gave a press conference and got a presidential visit. The other didn't give a press conference, no visit. 

 

[Henry Ford]

Why would the president use the power of his office to have another country make such a statement that isn't for his personal benefit?

Why do you believe that isn't for his personal benefit?

 

[Henry Ford]

So the answer is just to discount it?  The same way the report did with Zelensky?

If you can't make someone testify under oath, do you just take whatever they say to a reporter as true?

 

[Max Power]

If you can't make someone testify under oath, do you just take whatever they say to a reporter as true?

It may make people dig a little deeper on Sondland's statements.  At least they will have the line of questioning ready for him now. 

 

[bostonfred]

Why do you believe that isn't for his personal benefit?

I don't.  That's why I'm asking what other reason there could be. 

 

[adonis]

If you can't make someone testify under oath, do you just take whatever they say to a reporter as true?

Corey Lewandowski, ladies and gentlemen, a former campaign manager for President Trump, then candidate Trump.

During an interview on MSNBC in February, Lewandowski, President Trump’s former campaign manager, said, “I don’t ever remember the president ever asking me to get involved with Jeff Sessions or the Department of Justice in any way, shape or form ever.”

Which is not what Lewandowski told special counsel Robert S. Mueller III under oath in 2017. Lewandowski said then that Trump had instructed him twice to tell Sessions, then the attorney general, to curtail Mueller’s investigation of Trump, and Lewandowski failed to do so, perhaps saving Trump from an overt act of obstructing justice.

So how to square the two conflicting statements? During testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Lewandowski said something that sparked an audible reaction from onlookers in the hearing room: “I have no obligation to be honest with the media because they’re just as dishonest as anyone else.”

 

[Don't Noonan]

Hunter Biden Baby Momma Stripper Asking How Much Hunter Was Paid In Ukraine

I'm sure the Biden's will do everything possible to keep this info from going public.  

 

[Kal El]

Hunter Biden Baby Momma Stripper Asking How Much Hunter Was Paid In Ukraine

I'm sure the Biden's will do everything possible to keep this info from going public.  

We have a President who paid hush money to an adult film star who he cheated on his wife with. This stuff with Hunter is irrelevant.

 

[Henry Ford]

Hunter Biden Baby Momma Stripper Asking How Much Hunter Was Paid In Ukraine

I'm sure the Biden's will do everything possible to keep this info from going public.  

"The Bidens"? Hunter probably will.  Why would Joe care if his screw-up son has to pay appropriate child support?

 

[Zow]

Hunter Biden Baby Momma Stripper Asking How Much Hunter Was Paid In Ukraine

I'm sure the Biden's will do everything possible to keep this info from going public.  

My computer security system sent off a warning within a few moments of opening your link. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I feel the same way about them I do the Dems not letting the R's get their full list of witnesses.  They are both just doing the politics dance. 

"Both sides" are not refusing to comply with subpoenas.

 

[badmojo1006]

Pretty ballsy to have another closed door meeting with the Russians inside the Oval Office while you're getting impeached.

He doesn't care. Knows he will probably be impeached but won't be convicted 

 

[Max Power]

Hunter Biden Baby Momma Stripper Asking How Much Hunter Was Paid In Ukraine

I'm sure the Biden's will do everything possible to keep this info from going public.  

This makes me think Biden's campaign is in trouble.  The stripper only wanted child support and this all could have gone away.  Instead it's drawn out in court and now Hunter's financial records are in play. 

A good campaign manager would have cut this story off before it made headlines.  Now it's out there as Hunter is a broke deadbeat dad from a mult-imillion dollar family that doesn't take care of his child. 

 

[Max Power]

"Both sides" are not refusing to comply with subpoenas.

I know, one side wouldn't even entertain the idea. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I know, one side wouldn't even entertain the idea. 

Correct as far as I know. One side complied with subpoenas about Benghazi, emails, etc.

 

[Sheriff Bart]

"I'm not going to tell you what I wrote."

"I already know what you wrote"

"All I can say is I followed the law, what I did was legal."

That all reads to you like a guy giving the whole story and not trying to stay out of a scandal?

All of the documents you requested show I'm innocent. 

Great, let me see them. 

No. 

 

[Max Power]

So good campaign = corrupt, and one is dumb not to be. Great America you envisioned.

Yeah taking care of your kids is corrupt.  It's doing the right thing.  Paying the lady so she doesn't take the deadbeat to court is not corrupt.

 

[Kal El]

So good campaign = corrupt, and one is dumb not to be. Great America you envisioned.

If that's the America my kids have to grow up in, I may have to consider the Bahamas.

 

[[scooter]]

Hunter Biden Baby Momma Stripper Asking How Much Hunter Was Paid In Ukraine

I'm sure the Biden's will do everything possible to keep this info from going public.  

This makes me think Biden's campaign is in trouble.  The stripper only wanted child support and this all could have gone away.  Instead it's drawn out in court and now Hunter's financial records are in play. 

A good campaign manager would have cut this story off before it made headlines.  Now it's out there as Hunter is a broke deadbeat dad from a mult-imillion dollar family that doesn't take care of his child. 

This makes me think that Hunter Biden is not tethered financially to Joe Biden.

(You know, like most men in their 40s.)

......which also tends to shoot down all of the conspiracy theories showing a financial link between Burisma, Hunter, and Joe.

 

[bostonfred]

This makes me think Biden's campaign is in trouble.  The stripper only wanted child support and this all could have gone away.  Instead it's drawn out in court and now Hunter's financial records are in play. 

A good campaign manager would have cut this story off before it made headlines.  Now it's out there as Hunter is a broke deadbeat dad from a mult-imillion dollar family that doesn't take care of his child. 

Just to be clear, are you and @Don't Noonan posting this in the whistleblower thread because you think trump withheld hundreds of millions of dollars of aid from Ukraine because he wanted zelensky to look into things like Hunter Biden's sexual relationships and failure to pay child support?  Or are you just going off topic?

 

[Max Power]

Just to be clear, are you and @Don't Noonan posting this in the whistleblower thread because you think trump withheld hundreds of millions of dollars of aid from Ukraine because he wanted zelensky to look into things like Hunter Biden's sexual relationships and failure to pay child support?  Or are you just going off topic?

I lose track of where I am sometimes.  I'll take it to the Biden Thread. 

 

[bostonfred]

I lose track of where I am sometimes.  I'll take it to the Biden Thread. 

Ok. I  honestly thought you meant that it would be a valid use of presidential power to ask a foreign president for that kind of dirt.  But obviously that wouldn't be ok.

 

[ren hoek]

But I do want to make one point: in November of 2020, the public will not be thinking "A year ago, the Democrats in the House voted to impeach President Trump"; they will be thinking "a year ago, the Democrats in the House voted to impeach President Trump and then the Republicans in the Senate voted to acquit him." This is a significant difference.

It's a wash if anything.  The public is not monolithic on impeachment.  They could be just as likely to view the Democrats as the good guys for impeaching, as viewing the Republicans as good guys for 'respecting the will of voters.' 

Neither side has a monopoly on public opinion- if the fairly short amount of time between now and Nov. 2020 is used to advance their inquisition of Trump, rather than a compelling policy vision for this country, it could very easily work out more favorably for Rs.  I think it will if the Democrats just look like feckless Trumphaters that threw ineffective stones at him for 4 years.

 

[jamny]

Maybe the appropriate punishment is impeachment without removal from office. Both sides knew this was going to be the result, both sides will use it in 2020.

 

[Don't Noonan]

Just to be clear, are you and @Don't Noonan posting this in the whistleblower thread because you think trump withheld hundreds of millions of dollars of aid from Ukraine because he wanted zelensky to look into things like Hunter Biden's sexual relationships and failure to pay child support?  Or are you just going off topic?

Looking into sketchy folks like Hunter Biden getting paid $70k a month for a job he is unqualified for because his Dad is VP.

 

[lazyike]

Counterpoint

Professor Turley also said 

“It is not wrong because President Trump is right — his call was anything but ‘perfect.’ It’s not wrong because the House has no legitimate reason to investigate Ukrainian controversy,” he said. “It’s not wrong because we are in an election year — there is no good time for an impeachment. No, it’s wrong because this is not how you impeach an American president.”

The call was anything but perfect?  Turley also feels like there is a legitimate reason to investigate. The Republican witness was far from using Trump talking points

 

[Henry Ford]

Co equal.   You know what you when there is a dispute?

The third coequal.

That’s not an accurate description of the separation of powers.