***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread*** (4 Viewers)

[Endowed]

Lots of peoples chains being yanked in this thread. Ugly discourse.

 

[cosjobs]

Principled is the word that I would use. Of course I vehemently disagree with 99% of his principles, but he has them. There is no way he thought was was going on was OK and I would be curious to further explore why he resigned a couple of days before the aid was finally released. 

And I question whether he actually has the integrity/principle to reveal what he has been teasing/implying. 

Whether he does or not, he has the stature to be believed by a majority of both sides.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Purpura: "Not a single witness testified that the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting, or anything else"

Oops.

 

[Encyclopedia Brown]

That makes sense.  Probably the same guy who wrote that anonymous book.

A common belief from Washington people on Twitter is that it is someone from the National Security Council.

 

[cosjobs]

My money has always been on KAC. So disgustingly pro Trump in public that he’d never suspect her.

Interesting. Its not like I can't imagine her being duplicitous, too.

 

[sho nuff]

Another nothing burger and if you think this is the big 'we got him this time', you'll be wrong again.

Basically just confirms what we already know about the quid pro quo.

 

[Kal El]

Outrageous. What has America become?

Just to put a fine point on it, members of Trump’s own administration are leaking to the free press to subvert Republicans in the US Senate from covering up bribery by the President. 

It's like watching a train wreck into a meteor impact, while a tornado spins ash from the nearby erupting volcano into itself.

 

[sho nuff]

Giuliani says he was not at Trump-Parnas/Fruman meeting and didn’t even know them then.

- Apparently this is in response to Trump recently saying they were there with Giuliani.

Pictures and tapes showing Giuliani with them before that in 3...2...

 

[Biff84]

Giuliani says he was not at Trump-Parnas/Fruman meeting and didn’t even know them then.

- Apparently this is in response to Trump recently saying they were there with Giuliani.

Countdown to photos of Parnas and Giuliani from 10 years ago...

 

[timschochet]

Actually not everything in that NY Times story is negative for Trump’s defense. If he wanted Ukraine to turn over anything it had on Biden, that might suggest that (1) he believed there was something there and (2) he wasn’t simply interested just in Ukraine announcing an investigation. It seems to me that there are at least few things here that a good defense attorney could point to. 

But we’ll never know. The Senate won’t allow Bolton’s testimony and that’s all people will remember. 

 

[timschochet]

A couple of days ago Trump said he didn’t know Lev Parnas.  Today, there is a 90 minute recording of Trump talking to Parnas over dinner.  

Lmao.   It’s surreal.  And his supporters just line up and take it.  

I’ve already heard this explained: Trump meets with donors all the time. Trump is a big talker. It’s likely he met with Parnas over a year ago and doesn’t remember the meeting or Parnas; he meets with so many people. 

 

[The General]

Bolton to write that aide was dependent on Biden inquiry

Looks like Bolton can be added to the list of people that were simply misunderstanding what Trump was doing here.

 

[Kal El]

I’ve already heard this explained: Trump meets with donors all the time. Trump is a big talker. It’s likely he met with Parnas over a year ago and doesn’t remember the meeting or Parnas; he meets with so many people. 

I feel as though Trump probably bragged about his memory at some point recently? It sounds like something he'd say anyway, but if it's so great, why can't he remember Parnas?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I’ve already heard this explained: Trump meets with donors all the time. Trump is a big talker. It’s likely he met with Parnas over a year ago and doesn’t remember the meeting or Parnas; he meets with so many people. 

In other words there are few people that Trump gives enough of a  about to be bothered to remember them.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Remember when "People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook" ?   I guess not any more.

 

[Biff84]

Remember when "People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook" ?   I guess not any more.

Both sides know that he’s a crook, only one side cares.

 

[The Commish]

I hate Bolton, but he has more integrity that everyone in the current administration.

Combined.

You might be missing my point....has nothing to do with Bolton and HIS credibility.

 

[jm192]

Actually not everything in that NY Times story is negative for Trump’s defense. If he wanted Ukraine to turn over anything it had on Biden, that might suggest that (1) he believed there was something there and (2) he wasn’t simply interested just in Ukraine announcing an investigation. It seems to me that there are at least few things here that a good defense attorney could point to. 

But we’ll never know. The Senate won’t allow Bolton’s testimony and that’s all people will remember. 

Schiff was clear.  He said over and over that Trump only wanted an announcement because he wanted to hurt Biden.  What I've seen on this from the NY times and CNN seems to indicate Trump wanted the investigation/results.  

And while I think the implications of the Bolton statement are actually pretty damning--they'll absolutely say the President wanted to actually investigate this, not just go after Biden.  And tomorrow will begin a long, long talk about the Bidens.  

 

[sho nuff]

Schiff was clear.  He said over and over that Trump only wanted an announcement because he wanted to hurt Biden.  What I've seen on this from the NY times and CNN seems to indicate Trump wanted the investigation/results.  

And while I think the implications of the Bolton statement are actually pretty damning--they'll absolutely say the President wanted to actually investigate this, not just go after Biden.  And tomorrow will begin a long, long talk about the Bidens.  

Your takeaway is that we need to talk more about the Bidens now?

 

[The Commish]

So this is one of those "if you don't vote or think like me you're obviously stupid" things?  I mean, this is the same game that's always played.  You guys are all on board as long as people agree with you .  If not, then they are the devil.

Would you agree or disagree that breaking the law is an impeachable offense?  This is a question in general, not of this specific set of events (looking for your general philosophy on where the impeachment line is drawn).  Or are you of the opinion that "it depends" and that each situation is different?

 

[jm192]

Your takeaway is that we need to talk more about the Bidens now?

Dude, re-read that.  I even said the implications were pretty damning.  

The defense is going after the Bidens tomorrow.  My dog has been sitting beside me all week hearing the trial on CNN, and SHE knows the Biden talk is coming tomorrow.   

 

[KingPrawn]

Actually I sorta agree with this, obviously that's true under the Constitution.

Please let me know what I'm missing but I did take the time to watch the Trump team's defense yesterday - following something like 48 hours (?) of presentations that covered almost every notch in the Ukraine tiktok, and this is what I saw factually:

• A claim that Trump was actually withholding aid due to burden sharing concerns.
  
• A claim that Ukraine did not know aid was withheld until August.
  

Just speaking of the abuse of power / QPQ / bribery claim, not obstruction. Are there any other factual touchpoints I'm missing? Both of those was very sketchy IMO, and altogether that presentation was not enough to defeat the layers of evidence that the Dems brought. I agree that's not on you, that's on the defense team. - I'm open ears, was there anything else brought forward? 

So after watching the full presentation from the Dems presenting their case against President Trump, you've seen 4 hours from his defense team and already made up your mind? You do realize they haven't presented their whole defense yet, right? Are you really open ears?

 

[zoonation]

Dude, re-read that.  I even said the implications were pretty damning.  

The defense is going after the Bidens tomorrow.  My dog has been sitting beside me all week hearing the trial on CNN, and SHE knows the Biden talk is coming tomorrow.   

Well I for one can’t wait to see the evidence.  Because so far there isn’t anything to even get the Biden conspiracy theory off the dock.  

I’m sure they’ve been doing compelling work since he released the money to build this case.   

 

[timschochet]

Dude, re-read that.  I even said the implications were pretty damning.  

The defense is going after the Bidens tomorrow.  My dog has been sitting beside me all week hearing the trial on CNN, and SHE knows the Biden talk is coming tomorrow.   

And I’m quite sure that it will be as meaningful to your dog as it will be to the rest of us. 

 

[sho nuff]

Dude, re-read that.  I even said the implications were pretty damning.  

The defense is going after the Bidens tomorrow.  My dog has been sitting beside me all week hearing the trial on CNN, and SHE knows the Biden talk is coming tomorrow.   

Fair enough...thought it was more of a reaction to the bolton stuff.

Also...really dumb for the defense to go after the Bidens...but expected 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So after watching the full presentation from the Dems presenting their case against President Trump, you've seen 4 hours from his defense team and already made up your mind? You do realize they haven't presented their whole defense yet, right? Are you really open ears?

No, I didn't say I saw the whole Dem presentation. I did see the defense presentation. Yep of course I agree to hear the rest, and I'll say I'll be objective. I was just asking if I missed any factual points. But yeah you're right obviously more could be raised. 

 

[jm192]

And I’m quite sure that it will be as meaningful to your dog as it will be to the rest of us. 

Well, no.  She's a Republican.  And very stubborn.  

But I'll say the Bolton book contents has my attention.  And I'm very curious to see how they address it tomorrow.  

 

[zoonation]

Bolton taking the maximum monetization approach is really off putting.   

 

[Kal El]

Dude, re-read that.  I even said the implications were pretty damning.  

The defense is going after the Bidens tomorrow.  My dog has been sitting beside me all week hearing the trial on CNN, and SHE knows the Biden talk is coming tomorrow.   

They've been going after the Bidens for a while, and have nothing to show for it. Another 24 hours won't make a bit of difference, because by this time tomorrow, they'll still have nothing.

 

[The General]

Schiff was clear.  He said over and over that Trump only wanted an announcement because he wanted to hurt Biden.  What I've seen on this from the NY times and CNN seems to indicate Trump wanted the investigation/results.  

And while I think the implications of the Bolton statement are actually pretty damning--they'll absolutely say the President wanted to actually investigate this, not just go after Biden.  And tomorrow will begin a long, long talk about the Bidens.  

What about the part where Trump and all his hacks have said the call was perfect, the timeline shows the aide wasn’t contingent on anything, etc.?

 

[Dickies]

I feel as though Trump probably bragged about his memory at some point recently? It sounds like something he'd say anyway, but if it's so great, why can't he remember Parnas?

One of the greatest memories of all time

 

[jm192]

They've been going after the Bidens for a while, and have nothing to show for it. Another 24 hours won't make a bit of difference, because by this time tomorrow, they'll still have nothing.

They have a ton to show for it.  Lindsay Graham was talking about opening a formal investigation a few days ago.  

I think the Dems came into this with the intent of dragging Trump through the mud.  I don't think they ever thought that they'd get removal. 

Likewise, I think the President and his team came into this with the intent of dragging Biden through the mud.  

2020 Election:  Trump who was impeached or Biden who is under investigation

 

[cosjobs]

Schiff was clear.  He said over and over that Trump only wanted an announcement because he wanted to hurt Biden.  What I've seen on this from the NY times and CNN seems to indicate Trump wanted the investigation/results.  

There's a full orchestra playing, but you only hear the timpani..

 

[jm192]

What about the part where Trump and all his hacks have said the call was perfect, the timeline shows the aide wasn’t contingent on anything, etc.?

I think the defense has a few really good points, and I think the Senate will likely vote to acquit by the end of the week.  

That said, I've argued it a dozen or more times.  Witnesses don't matter.  Because unless someone is going to come in and say "Trump told me this is why he was holding the aid," no one is going to change their mind.  Well, f$%k me if Bolton isn't saying it.  

 

[jm192]

There's a full orchestra playing, but you only hear the timpani..

That's what the Senate is going to hear.  And as much as you'll disagree, I think much of the American public will as well.  You staked your case on "he didn't even want the investigation, it was all about making Biden look bad."  And now you're saying "Here's a 1st hand witness saying he wanted the investigation."  Schiff claimed to have an overwhelming case and if you want to make the argument now...your argument about Trump didn't even want the investigation looks pretty wrong.

Bolton's comments are pretty damning to me.  I don't know what it does for the Senate.  Probably nothing.  But I'm actively looking at the Democratic nominees to see who I can stomach voting for.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Schiff was clear.  He said over and over that Trump only wanted an announcement because he wanted to hurt Biden.  What I've seen on this from the NY times and CNN seems to indicate Trump wanted the investigation/results.  

And while I think the implications of the Bolton statement are actually pretty damning--they'll absolutely say the President wanted to actually investigate this, not just go after Biden.  And tomorrow will begin a long, long talk about the Bidens.  

To be clear, Schiff isn't saying or claiming that, it was the testimony of Sondland, Morrison, Taylor and others. Their testimony established QPQ involving announcement-aid + Oval Office visit.

- Other QPQ arrangements have been discussed as well - Parnas in interview discussed Lutsenko demanding Yovanovitch's firing in exchange for dirt on the Bidens.

I also want you to think about the nutjob at work here - Trump thinks that Biden and Hillary were conspiring with Ukraine to defeat him. And in addition to that the President of the United States thinks there is a magic server hidden in Ukraine and Hillary and the Bidens hid it with Crowdstrike. I personally have never discounted that Trump is himself a consumer of disinformation and I'm not sure why that helps things.

And I don't think this is really contradictory with what we already know - Trump asked on the 7/25 call for Zelensky to provide info to Barr. He clearly was asking for more than an announcement there, and presumably this would be used as damage against Biden in the forthcoming election. That is of course because the DOJ could itself announce an investigation. This seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.

In fact IIRC hasn't there been a report that Durham is indeed researching Ukraine's role in 2016? 

 

[The General]

I think the defense has a few really good points, and I think the Senate will likely vote to acquit by the end of the week.  

That said, I've argued it a dozen or more times.  Witnesses don't matter.  Because unless someone is going to come in and say "Trump told me this is why he was holding the aid," no one is going to change their mind.  Well, f$%k me if Bolton isn't saying it.  

The goalpost for giving him the boot on this has moved probably twenty times as he has been busted over and over again.

The only thing they are left with is the Pres can do whatever they want.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's possible that Trump wanted something/anything from Ukraine to give to Barr so the DOJ could open a Biden investigation, and recreate the 2016 rubric with Hillary.

And barring that, as time ran out or as that failed, they asked for a simple announcement from Ukraine that it was investigating. That seems possible.

 

[jm192]

To be clear, Schiff isn't saying or claiming that, it was the testimony of Sondland, Morrison, Taylor and others. Their testimony established QPQ involving announcement-aid + Oval Office visit.

- Other QPQ arrangements have been discussed as well - Parnas in interview discussed Lutsenko demanding Yovanovitch's firing in exchange for dirt on the Bidens.

I also want you to think about the nutjob at work here - Trump thinks that Biden and Hillary were conspiring with Ukraine to defeat him. And in addition to that the President of the United States thinks there is a magic server hidden in Ukraine and Hillary and the Bidens hid it with Crowdstrike. I personally have never discounted that Trump is himself a consumer of disinformation and I'm not sure why that helps things.

And I don't think this is really contradictory with what we already know - Trump asked on the 7/25 call for Zelensky to provide info to Barr. He clearly was asking for more than an announcement there, and presumably this would be used as damage against Biden in the forthcoming election. That is of course because the DOJ could itself announce an investigation.

In fact IIRC hasn't there been a report that Durham is indeed researching Ukraine's role in 2016? 

You're making a lot of points that I'm not arguing one way or the other.

Schiff was clear that Trump didn't want the investiation--just to damage Biden's image.  He just wanted the announcement.  And this was told several times over the course of 3 days.  

If I was the defense, I would argue that you're working so hard to create a narrative, that you can't keep it straight if the President did or didn't want an investigation.  I think that's the route they'll go with this.  

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, good or bad, just or evil.  But seems like a pretty obvious direction to take. 

I've said it 3 times already in this thread, but Bolton saying that Trump linked the aid to an investigation is pretty damning in my eyes.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If he wanted Ukraine to turn over anything it had on Biden, that might suggest that (1) he believed there was something there and (2) he wasn’t simply interested just in Ukraine announcing an investigation.

This isn't President Hercule Poirot. This is still Donnie Trump, hotel, casino and condo salesman from Jamaica, Queens. Trump wanted a deliverable from Ukraine to go to Barr so DOJ could announce an investigation being opened. Failing that it makes total sense to bargain down or beg in the alternative to Ukraine announcing an investigation.

 

[Encyclopedia Brown]

It's possible that Trump wanted something/anything from Ukraine to give to Barr so the DOJ could open a Biden investigation, and recreate the 2016 rubric with Hillary.

And barring that, as time ran out or as that failed, they asked for a simple announcement from Ukraine that it was investigating. That seems possible.

I've read that Trump mentioned Barr's name during the call to Ukraine, asking Ukraine to call Barr with any information, but Trump didn't tell Barr about it. Instead, Rudy told Barr about the phone call, and Barr angrily told Trump to leave his name out of anything involving Ukraine. This might explain why Rudy went over to Ukraine "to find dirt" on his own accord, because Barr refused. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I've read that Trump mentioned Barr's name during the call to Ukraine, asking Ukraine to call Barr with any information, but Trump didn't tell Barr about it. Instead, Rudy told Barr about the phone call, and Barr angrily told Trump to leave his name out of anything involving Ukraine. This might explain why Rudy went over to Ukraine "to find dirt" on his own accord, because Barr refused. 

Makes sense.

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

How soon before Trump throws Bolton under the bus and/or call him a coffee-fetcher?

 

[timschochet]

But I'll say the Bolton book contents has my attention.  And I'm very curious to see how they address it tomorrow.  

They won’t address it at all. They can’t. They have to ignore it the way they are ignoring Parnas. According to the defense only the phone call is relevant. No other testimony matters: it’s all hearsay. And anything reported outside of the House proceedings isn’t even hearsay, it’s rumor. 

 

[jm192]

How soon before Trump throws Bolton under the bus and/or call him a coffee-fetcher?

Won’t happen.

if they discredit him, they risk having to bring him in.  

 

[hagmania]

Imagine still trying to argue with those still defending Trump as though something you say is going to make them see the light after 2 years.

This one deserves an OMEGALUL

my link

 

[jm192]

They won’t address it at all. They can’t. They have to ignore it the way they are ignoring Parnas. According to the defense only the phone call is relevant. No other testimony matters: it’s all hearsay. And anything reported outside of the House proceedings isn’t even hearsay, it’s rumor. 

I think it’ll be much more thorough than that.  You can’t ignore it.  You have to spin it.  Ignoring will force them to bring him in.

They’ll say he’s telling the truth, but:

A.  They didn’t know.  Therefore there was no quid pro quo.

B.  Bidens ARE corrupt and warrant investigating.  It had nothing to do with personal gain.

C.  Schiff said Trump didn’t want the investigation, just the announcement.  Bolton’s testimony would contradict that.  Which just further proves how hard they are working to weave this web.

The above aren’t my arguments, but what I believe the defense is about to bring.

 

[BassNBrew]

So does Trump avoid debating Biden because he's under investigation and can't discuss anything with someone who is a subject of an on going investigation?

 

[JB Breakfast Club]

Let's say Bolton breaks the dam and Trump is actually removed...who do the Republicans put on the ticket in November? Trump can still run, as I understand it. 

 

[jm192]

So does Trump avoid debating Biden because he's under investigation and can't discuss anything with someone who is a subject of an on going investigation?

No.  I think he only talks about the investigation at the debate.

And Joe frequently brings up impeachment.  2020 election is going to be a circus.