Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

Even if he wasn’t a discredited hack, it’s still a crime for Trump to blackmail foreign leaders for political help. Further coverage of Ukraineghazi is just another obvious attempt at distraction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Old Man said:

Even if he wasn’t a discredited hack, it’s still a crime for Trump to blackmail foreign leaders for political help. Further coverage of Ukraineghazi is just another obvious attempt at distraction. 

 

That hack's story from Feb 2019 points out that Ukraine at that time had already restarted the investigation.

 

If you don't like the hack's story, here's one from May 2019 stating that the investigation had already been restarted at that point in time.

 

https://112.international/article/biden-brought-his-people-in-ukraines-prosecutor-generals-office-to-cover-his-sons-business-shokin-39549.html

 

Either of those news stories is long before Trump sent Guiliani to make first contact with Ukraine over the matter, much less before the Trump phone call.

 

 

I'm saying, impeach Trump over enriching himself at the taxpayer's expense while in office. You can point to multiple incidents of Trump directing business to his companies while in office. That's illegal.

 

In contrast, this Ukrainian phone call thing while useful for grabbing headlines and getting some Democrat officeholders off of the fence is going to get ripped apart like tissue paper if anyone cares to give a substantive defense.

 

The investigation already being in progress for months before the threat of withholding money mitigates the claim that Trump was somehow forcing Ukraine to do something that it didn't want to do.

 

Threatening to withhold money unless a foreign leader does what you want, even if you think you can find that in the transcript...that happens in Washington all the time. I just posted a video of Biden bragging that he'd threatened this same Ukrainian leader that he'd withhold money unless that Ukrainian leader fired a particular prosecutor (who just happened to be in charge of the investigation into a company where Hunter Biden sat on the board).

 

Threatening to withhold money from a foreign country unless it does what we want has been the main way the US has motivated foreign cooperation since WWII.

 

For the threat to be relevant in any manner in an accusation against Trump, you'd have to prove some underlying crime. Because threatening to withhold money unless a foreign country does what we want isn't itself a crime.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, archer said:

 Because threatening to withhold money unless a foreign country does what we want isn't itself a crime.

 

 

You're right; threatening to withhold money from a foreign government isn't a crime.  And it does happen all the time.  What doesn't happen all the time is for US presidents to blackmail foreign governments for personal political gain in direct violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 as well as other federal statutes against bribery, misappropriation, and conspiracy.

 

The confusion is understandable, of course, since there's a concerted effort in certain circles to obfuscate what's happening.  The talking points I've seen so far are "But Biden is guilty" (irrelevant); "State leaders do this all the time", (not exactly, see above); and "It's a deep state conspiracy!" (come on, man).  In reality, America is a nation of laws, Trump is not above the law, and he has broken laws intended to prevent US elected officials from soliciting foreign help to interfere in elections.  If he genuinely felt Biden was guilty of something, the proper thing to have done was ask the FBI to look into it and stayed out of it while they did so.  It is the FBI who has jurisdiction over crimes committed by Americans overseas, not the Ukrainian police.  Trump also cannot arbitrarily withhold or redirect public funds--it is a violation of the Constitution for him to do so, as Congress is solely endowed with the power of the purse.

 

You're also right in that Trump should be impeached not just for Ukraine but for everything else he's done--public obstruction of justice, flagrant violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution, and sexual assault, at least.  I mean, none of this rises to the level of a BJ in the Oval Office, but still.  spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, archer said:

 

That hack's story from Feb 2019 points out that Ukraine at that time had already restarted the investigation.

 

If you don't like the hack's story, here's one from May 2019 stating that the investigation had already been restarted at that point in time.

 

https://112.international/article/biden-brought-his-people-in-ukraines-prosecutor-generals-office-to-cover-his-sons-business-shokin-39549.html

 

Either of those news stories is long before Trump sent Guiliani to make first contact with Ukraine over the matter, much less before the Trump phone call.

 

 

I'm saying, impeach Trump over enriching himself at the taxpayer's expense while in office. You can point to multiple incidents of Trump directing business to his companies while in office. That's illegal.

 

In contrast, this Ukrainian phone call thing while useful for grabbing headlines and getting some Democrat officeholders off of the fence is going to get ripped apart like tissue paper if anyone cares to give a substantive defense.

 

The investigation already being in progress for months before the threat of withholding money mitigates the claim that Trump was somehow forcing Ukraine to do something that it didn't want to do.

 

Threatening to withhold money unless a foreign leader does what you want, even if you think you can find that in the transcript...that happens in Washington all the time. I just posted a video of Biden bragging that he'd threatened this same Ukrainian leader that he'd withhold money unless that Ukrainian leader fired a particular prosecutor (who just happened to be in charge of the investigation into a company where Hunter Biden sat on the board).

 

Threatening to withhold money from a foreign country unless it does what we want has been the main way the US has motivated foreign cooperation since WWII.

 

For the threat to be relevant in any manner in an accusation against Trump, you'd have to prove some underlying crime. Because threatening to withhold money unless a foreign country does what we want isn't itself a crime.

 

 

 

 

Your linked news source, 112 UA, is owned by Taras Kozak . Mr Kozak is a member Ukrainskiy Soyuz, a group known for it's pro-Russian (and anti-Semitic) views.

 

You are not doing your case any favors by citing conspiracy theorist like Soloman and pro-Russian TV stations. 

Edited by Ranxerox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ranxerox said:

You are not doing your case in favors by citing conspiracy theorist like Soloman and pro-Russian TV stations.  Indeed, if these are the sources that you base your current views on, you might want to reassess some of those views.

 

I highly appreciate information on news sources (anyone who posts research and documented sources I find valuable here gets my commendations), but I'd like to ask that we not get too personal in discussing these issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

I highly appreciate information on news sources (anyone who posts research and documented sources I find valuable here gets my commendations), but I'd like to ask that we not get too personal in discussing these issues.

 

Fair enough. I will edit my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ranxerox said:

 

Your linked news source, 112 UA, is owned by Taras Kozak . Mr Kozak is a member Ukrainskiy Soyuz, a group known for it's pro-Russian (and anti-Semitic) views.

 

You are not doing your case any favors by citing conspiracy theorist like Soloman and pro-Russian TV stations. 

 

What's relevant is the date of the article, not the slant of the news coverage of that particular site.

 

Since the date of the article exists, any competent defense team is going to be able to find other sources which say much the same thing, somewhere around the same date.

 

Even the transcript of the Trump-Ukrainian leader phone conversation shows the Ukrainian leader saying he's already personally aware of the Biden investigation situation and is doing something about it. How difficult would it be for a Trump defense team to find an official Ukrainian source which says that the investigation had already been restarted somewhere toward the beginning of the year, nowhere near the time of the phone conversation?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

You're right; threatening to withhold money from a foreign government isn't a crime.  And it does happen all the time.  What doesn't happen all the time is for US presidents to blackmail foreign governments for personal political gain in direct violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 as well as other federal statutes against bribery, misappropriation, and conspiracy.

 

 

I posted a link to the damned transcript. If you find any lines in there showing Trump blackmailed anyone at all, cut-and-paste the damned lines so the rest of us can see it.

 

Here's the federal law which defines blackmail:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/873

 

18 U.S. Code § 873. Blackmail

 

Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 740; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, archer said:

 

1 hour ago, archer said:

 

What's relevant is the date of the article, not the slant of the news coverage of that particular site.

 

Since the date of the article exists, any competent defense team is going to be able to find other sources which say much the same thing, somewhere around the same date.

 

Even the transcript of the Trump-Ukrainian leader phone conversation shows the Ukrainian leader saying he's already personally aware of the Biden investigation situation and is doing something about it. How difficult would it be for a Trump defense team to find an official Ukrainian source which says that the investigation had already been restarted somewhere toward the beginning of the year, nowhere near the time of the phone conversation?

 

 

 

I hate responding to people who can't respond back, but he raises a couple of points that I feel need response. 

 

That Russian mouthpieces should have started spreading nasty stories about Biden back in May, means nothing except that back in May Russia was already aware that Biden was Trump's likely 2020 rival.  They were just feeding an anti-Biden conspiracy theory that they hoped would take root and damage his ability to call Trump on corruption in 2020 election.

 

As for the Zelensky's statements during the phone call, the whistleblower's complaint alleged that Zelensky had already been informed that he had to "play ball" on the investigating Biden just to get to have that phone call with Trump.  So of course he was aware of Biden's investigation situation.  That is how he got to be on the phone with Trump in the first place.  Trump never should have mentioned Biden by name.  His people had already let Zelensky know what he wanted.  His bringing it up him self in front of a room full of witnesses was just trademark Trump stupidity.

 

1 hour ago, archer said:

 

I posted a link to the damned transcript. If you find any lines in there showing Trump blackmailed anyone at all, cut-and-paste the damned lines so the rest of us can see it.

 

Here's the federal law which defines blackmail:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/873

 

18 U.S. Code § 873. Blackmail

 

Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 740; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

 

When you are already holding someone's head underwater,  you don't have to issue threats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, archer said:

 

I posted a link to the damned transcript. If you find any lines in there showing Trump blackmailed anyone at all, cut-and-paste the damned lines so the rest of us can see it.

 

 

Sorry about the enforced vacation, I hope you make it back here at some point.

 

As for the transcript--first I'd like to remind everyone that we haven't seen an actual transcript.  We've only seen a memo Trump cobbled together from the notes of random White House people who were around the call.  Of course, if the real transcript were any less damning I'm sure we'd have seen it by now.

 

The damning passage of the memo, of course, is this:

 

Quote

 

President Zelenskyy: I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.
 
Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people.


 

 

The intent is crystal clear.  And this was after apparently everyone in the WH knew Trump intended to squeeze Zelenskyy for dirt on Biden, and supposedly tried to discourage him from doing so; Trump also then followed up by directing Zelenskyy to work with his hand-appointed Attorney General and his personal lawyer, effectively turning them into a shadow State Department.  And as previously mentioned, it is also directly illegal for the WH to delay, redirect, or otherwise misappropriate public funds, as was done with the aid to Ukraine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RNC soliciting money with 'fake' census forms

 

The accompanying literature makes repeated requests for donations, urging recipients to send at least $15 to “help pay for the costs of processing [the] Census Document” if they are unable to afford an amount in the requested range of $25 to $1,000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stunning! The Republican Party is willing to trick people into paying their expenses. This should be a party-ending offense, with those involved ending up in prison.

 

Quote

In an email, a Republican National Committee official said: “Mailers are clearly marked that they are from the Republican National Committee. The mailers receive an overwhelming positive response and we continue to send each year because it performs so well.”

 

They're flat-out saying that it works to bring in the dough, so they're going to keep doing it, no matter how slimy it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ternaugh said:

Russia announced Monday that Trump can't release transcripts of calls between Trump and Putin without Kremlin permission.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/russia-says-trump-can-t-release-phone-calls-without-kremlin-n1060551

 

If there's a congressional subpoena as part of an impeachment inquiry,  and from the Intel committee,  that position will not be operative.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

Russia announced Monday that Trump can't release transcripts of calls between Trump and Putin without Kremlin permission.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/russia-says-trump-can-t-release-phone-calls-without-kremlin-n1060551

 

 

Well, you do have to do as your boss says...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, megaplayboy said:

If there's a congressional subpoena as part of an impeachment inquiry,  and from the Intel committee,  that position will not be operative.  

 

Some months back on the KUOW Week in Review program, former Washington State Republican Party chairman (and now independent) Chris Vance talked about impeachment (he wants it, btw): To paraphrase as best I can, since impeachment is a constitutional process, no other law applies. No more executive privilege; no more ordering flunkies not to show up; once the gavel comes down and the Speaker declares the impeachment process has begun, the House's investigative power becomes nearly infinite. They can demand Trump's tax returns and the IRS must cough them up; they can send armed troops to drag witnesses in by their hair, if that's what it takes. Witnesses can take the Fifth, but they can't refuse to show up. He made it sound like the closest this world comes to the Last Judgment when all the books are opened. That may be an exaggeration, but I'd like to put it to the test.

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

they can send armed troops to drag witnesses in

 

I'm not disagreeing with the gist of what you're saying, but that one's a pretty strict no go. I'd have to see some confirmation from an original source to accept it. Unless you're not literally talking about the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of impeachment - yet - from what I've seen.

 

There needs to be dire, slam-dunkable evidence of unambiguous lawbreaking.

 

My fear is that impeachment will become the harassment tool of whichever party controls the House to punish the other party whenever they are rude enough to win the presidency.

 

Like, maybe it's fun now, but will it be fun if Biden wins the presidency and the Republicans take the House?  Does America need an endless string of impeachments based on political rivalry?

 

Would 4 years of Pence as president be an improvement?  /barf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...