It's also worth noting that during Trump's tenure so far, there were 2 separate attempts to get information from the Ukrainians by the D's against him, one during his race and one after. The whole situation renders impeachment on the matter just so plainly absurd. They utterly lack any legitimate case, and the polls show it.
What's being discussed, as treason by many, is leveraging the office of the president to direct a notoriously corrupt weaker country to investigate a political rivals son. He unilaterally withheld military aid, against it's allocated use by congress, to give him leverage over this country days before his call.
What's more is there are multiple incidents he's withholding that a whistleblower is trying to send through the proper channels to congress. He's doing this in violation of the law.
His altered transcript and desperate spin isn't working.
What's being discussed, as treason by many, is leveraging the office of the president to direct a notoriously corrupt weaker country to investigate a political rivals son. He unilaterally withheld military aid, against it's allocated use by congress, to give him leverage over this country days before his call.
What's more is there are multiple incidents he's withholding that a whistleblower is trying to send through the proper channels to congress. He's doing this in violation of the law.
His altered transcript and desperate spin isn't working.
All military aid was released to Ukraine before the call, and Trump never made any threat to withhold it on the call itself.
Cutting foreign aid itself has been consistent with Trump's policy however, so even if was considering whether or not to make the cut, it's consistent with his overall politics and thus does not arouse suspicion in and of itself. Especially with zero evidence of using it in any sort of way to leverage anyone. Since there is backlash, they ultimately won't move forward, which again makes most of it seem pretty consistent with the overall politics of the situation.
There still needs more to be looked into about this, however, as I said before, starting impeachment before all the facts are out is going to backfire.
Until articles of impeachment are drawn up and voted on, impeachment hasnt begun. This is an investigation to decide if impeachment is necessary.
Please note that the military aid to Ukraine was only greenlit on September 11th. That's clearly not before the phone call happened.
Trump has admitted to asking the president of Ukraine into looking for political dirt on Joe Biden's son. Full stop, that's unacceptable. Literally nothing else needs to come out of this whole situation. I'm kind of amazed that conservatives think the above is okay under any circumstances. It doesnt matter if Biden was corrupt or not - it is explicitly not okay for the sitting president to ask a foreign leader to produce political dirt on their opponents. It's corrupt. It's a conflict of interest because Trump is representing himself but is using the United States Government as leverage, and it's potentially a campaign finance violation.
It's understood to be civics 101 that a sitting president isnt supposed to direct his own AG to investigate anyone. How on earth can anyone think asking a foreign leader is somehow okay?
In order to head off the predictable counterpoint: It is *not* even remotely the same thing if a private civilian asks a foreign government for help. That's also *extremely* bad, but these two things are still galaxy apart.
As a parting point: I dont think Impeachment is valuable at all. The inquiry may be useful insofar as it stops the WH from it's completely illegal stonewalling of evidence that should and must be turned over to congress (per that pesky constitution). The Senate will never convict. Even if the vote is 100% on partisan lines, a vote of acquittal will be political victory for the president.
You're right, military aid was released months after the call, my mistake. I must have misread something to have that idea in my head.
In that case, not making any threats about it and releasing it unconditionally at a later time makes a really bad case for an attempt at pressure, so my point stands.
Why is it unacceptable? Please explain to me the legal theory, not the mention the ethical problems, about asking about criminal wrongdoing that happened in another country to that leader. Not demanding anything, not making any threats, just asking.
If a politician might have done something corrupt in another country, it seems to me like it would be the Presidents moral duty to ask about it, rather than a moral wrong. I can't see any way how someone can see a moral wrong out of wanting to know the truth about potentially bad behavior, barring the assumption of some form of bribery or intimidation of which there is no evidence.
You're right, military aid was released months after the call, my mistake. I must have misread something to have that idea in my head.
In that case, not making any threats about it and releasing it unconditionally at a later time makes a really bad case for an attempt at pressure, so my point stands.
Why is it unacceptable? Please explain to me the legal theory, not the mention the ethical problems, about asking about criminal wrongdoing that happened in another country to that leader. Not demanding anything, not making any threats, just asking.
Well - first, you're presuming that the release was unconditional. It looks like Congress had to force Trump's hand on the release. So we dont know that Trump was voluntarily going to release the aid. An inquiry might shed light on that, though(Wish we had one of those...)
Second - It's a conflict of interest. I'm sure you're familiar with this concept? Where a person has a vested personal interest in a subject/topic/situation, but is also required to represent the interests of another entity at the same time.
In order to ensure I'm not parsing my words, I'll also cite Merriam Webster's definition of a conflict of interest:
conflict of interest noun phrase
Definition of conflict of interest
: a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust
By asking a foreign leader to dig up dirt on Joe Biden (personal interest) while representing the United States of America (Official responsibility, a position of trust), Trump is mired in a conflict of interest. Incidentally, there doesnt even need to be an explicit demand or extortion. Simply being in a position of power (as the US is, in the relationship between the US and Ukraine) is enough. Of course, the memo makes that moot point. Note the entire section about how the USA is such a good friend to Ukraine. A better friend than anyone in Europe.
Trump is framing power imbalanced between the USA and Ukraine in the conversation, and then asks Ukraine to dig up political dirt to favor Trump (but not the USA).
As I said above. It's already a literal conflict of interest to order your DOJ to investigate someone because you may stand to profit from their investigation. Why would it be any less so if we ask a foreign nation to do it?
If a politician might have done something corrupt in another country, it seems to me like it would be the Presidents moral duty to ask about it, rather than a moral wrong. I can't see any way how someone can see a moral wrong out of wanting to know the truth about potentially bad behavior, barring the assumption of some form of bribery or intimidation of which there is no evidence.
This is flatly incorrect. It is not the president's responsibility to ask. He has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Either it is an entirely internal matter for Ukraine, an international matter for international courts to decide, OR Trump would need to appoint a special council to independently investigate and determine if wrong-doing has occurred. Excuse me. I mispoke. That would still be a conflict of interest - The Attorney General would need to investigate it on his own, or ask a special council to do so if he was unable due to a conflict of interest.
By the president doing it, it became a conflict of interest and is completely unethical.
Since I'm back in the game here, what's everybody's thoughts on this Swedish girl spouting off about Climate Change? She's very emotional but I personally think that's about all she's got. I'm very sceptical about a person who's never held a job, doesn't have a family relying on her yet and has never paid taxes spouting off about her parents' generation 'destroying' the planet. It really smells scripted and phony to me...
She's splitting the society further instead of helping to consolidate it against common threat. That's all she's doing.
Five years ago I'd think she's a tool to undermine credibility of eco movement. A stupid kid hollering "how dare you" at the worldwide leadership, lol wut.
Now, having seen firsthand how far detached from reality all of these holy crusaders are, I think it may very well be a sincere effort (supported by whoever is behind her). They don't care about anything but their morals, and anyone who has different point of view is "how dare you, are you racist alt-right gamergate misogynist nazi?" Makes me wanna puke in disgust.
If a politician might have done something corrupt in another country, it seems to me like it would be the Presidents moral duty to ask about it, rather than a moral wrong. I can't see any way how someone can see a moral wrong out of wanting to know the truth about potentially bad behavior, barring the assumption of some form of bribery or intimidation of which there is no evidence.
No it's not. In fact, it's Trump's duty to not say anything about a case where there would be even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Because that itself taints a criminal investigation. This is basic Madisonian separation of powers. The elected official is *NOT* supposed to target any individual, much less one connected to a political rival for special criminal investigation. Prosecutions are supposed to be seen as *completely independent* of the desires and interests of elected officials.
Secondly, the case itself is about a company called Burisma. The case is *NOT* and *NEVER HAS BEEN* about Hunter Biden. Who is merely one of several members of its board of directors. No evidence, so far, has ever been reported that specifically implicates the younger Biden here. So why is Trump asking about Biden? That gives the game away right there. He's clearly not interested in cleaning up Ukranian corruption, he's targeting an American citizen.
Thirdly, if an American citizen abroad was accused of a crime even a heinous crime. It is the duty of the US government to defend them in the same manner as a defense attorney. A US citizen has no guarantee of due process in a criminal investigation in a foreign country. It is the job of the freaking president to attempt that they get due process as much as possible. For the government to immediately take the opposite side -- before there is even so much as an indictment against Hunter Biden -- is a gross and troubling abdication of the president's duties to his own fucking citizens.
The fact that Trump and Giuliani have ADMITTED to it at least two days ago and the "transcript" confirms exactly that, and then the entire right-wing apparatus is asking us to betray our own eyes and ears is one of the moments they were waiting for when they started this whole project of lying about EVERYTHING starting with the inauguration size. It was a movement to obliterate facts, even ones captured on audio, film, or print. It was the start of a 3-year societal training process to make sure no matter WHAT happened it would be dismissed by a certain segment of the public. Let them continue to live in fantasy-land. They've been capitulated to long enough. There is no value in an argument with those who say the moon is made out of cotton candy.
So the whistleblower compliant was handed over in secret to the Senate (Republican controlled) Richard Burr (R). It's legally supposed to go to the House.
Trump tweeted some nonsense about House Republicans having his back or something. So yeah full scandal control is ongoing - yet again.
Here we are again with wiill Republicans be able to cover up this guy's crimes again? There's an eager audience of conservatives that want to know! (well Trump fans really, nothing conservative anymore there it's a cult of personality)
These guys sure are determined to tie themselves to a sinking ship. And they'll keep bending over backwards for him as he drags them down all because they're scared shitless about getting a meanie tweet in their direction. They are a bunch of cowards putting one man over the country.
So the whistleblower compliant was handed over in secret to the Senate (Republican controlled) Richard Burr (R). It's legally supposed to go to the House.
Trump tweeted some nonsense about House Republicans having his back or something. So yeah full scandal control is ongoing - yet again.
Here we are again with wiill Republicans be able to cover up this guy's crimes again? There's an eager audience of conservatives that want to know! (well Trump fans really, nothing conservative anymore there it's a cult of personality)
These guys sure are determined to tie themselves to a sinking ship. And they'll keep bending over backwards for him as he drags them down all because they're scared shitless about getting a meanie tweet in their direction. They are a bunch of cowards putting one man over the country.
I agree with your sentiment but I'm not sure there's an actual crime here. Which law did Trump break? Nobody has been able to name one that I've heard. Maybe somebody here can enlighten me.
So the whistleblower compliant was handed over in secret to the Senate (Republican controlled) Richard Burr (R). It's legally supposed to go to the House.
Trump tweeted some nonsense about House Republicans having his back or something. So yeah full scandal control is ongoing - yet again.
Here we are again with wiill Republicans be able to cover up this guy's crimes again? There's an eager audience of conservatives that want to know! (well Trump fans really, nothing conservative anymore there it's a cult of personality)
These guys sure are determined to tie themselves to a sinking ship. And they'll keep bending over backwards for him as he drags them down all because they're scared shitless about getting a meanie tweet in their direction. They are a bunch of cowards putting one man over the country.
I agree with your sentiment but I'm not sure there's an actual crime here. Which law did Trump break? Nobody has been able to name one that I've heard. Maybe somebody here can enlighten me.
Let's run a scenario here: It's late 2011. Mitt Romney is leading in all the Republican primary polls. His son, Tag Romney, serves on a board of a company in China. One of the issues Obama had with China during his term was a tariff on Chinese tires. It's revealed by a whistleblower that on a call with the Chinese President, Obama agreed to lift the tariffs in exchange for manufacturing a criminal case against Tag. Obama then has Eric Holder declare the complaint null and void and refuses to turn it over to the House for WEEKS (which in and of itself illegal). Obama then releases a transcript of the call that is suspiciously short for how long the call was, but clearly does indicate he was pushing for the investigation of Romney's son by the Chinese. Shit, Obama wouldn't have just been impeached, there would have been Tea Party activists setting up a gallows for him on Pennsylvania Ave.
If a politician might have done something corrupt in another country, it seems to me like it would be the Presidents moral duty to ask about it, rather than a moral wrong. I can't see any way how someone can see a moral wrong out of wanting to know the truth about potentially bad behavior, barring the assumption of some form of bribery or intimidation of which there is no evidence.
No it's not. In fact, it's Trump's duty to not say anything about a case where there would be even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Because that itself taints a criminal investigation. This is basic Madisonian separation of powers. The elected official is *NOT* supposed to target any individual, much less one connected to a political rival for special criminal investigation. Prosecutions are supposed to be seen as *completely independent* of the desires and interests of elected officials.
Secondly, the case itself is about a company called Burisma. The case is *NOT* and *NEVER HAS BEEN* about Hunter Biden. Who is merely one of several members of its board of directors. No evidence, so far, has ever been reported that specifically implicates the younger Biden here. So why is Trump asking about Biden? That gives the game away right there. He's clearly not interested in cleaning up Ukranian corruption, he's targeting an American citizen.
Thirdly, if an American citizen abroad was accused of a crime even a heinous crime. It is the duty of the US government to defend them in the same manner as a defense attorney. A US citizen has no guarantee of due process in a criminal investigation in a foreign country. It is the job of the freaking president to attempt that they get due process as much as possible. For the government to immediately take the opposite side -- before there is even so much as an indictment against Hunter Biden -- is a gross and troubling abdication of the president's duties to his own fucking citizens.
Oh please, this isn't some private powerless citizen being targeted unjustly. It's another, extremely powerful politician, in a position to be above the law on such things, because there are direct political implications to guilty verdicts. If you don't think powerful people can get away with stuff they were clearly guilty of I direct you to clear cases of it in the United States. If a President simply remains silent on the matter, asks for nothing, investigates nothing, than politicians can abuse countries whenever and however they want, knowing there is no higher authority to stay their hand. The President is the only one, really, in a position to reach across countries on matters like these. Even if it ultimately amounts to nothing, knowing the U.S government is interested and that there won't be backlash for coming forward matters.
It's a little rich hearing about "due process" from the people who give their political rivals none and who claim every investigation that doesn't go their way has somehow been altered or tampered with. Why would we assume someone would get due process after they got the last prosecutor fired anyway? I know, with 100% certainty, if Trump had done such a thing, say, with the Mueller investigation, nobody in this thread would ever view the results of that investigation with any legitimacy. I see absolutely nothing wrong in asking them to review it.
If a politician might have done something corrupt in another country, it seems to me like it would be the Presidents moral duty to ask about it, rather than a moral wrong. I can't see any way how someone can see a moral wrong out of wanting to know the truth about potentially bad behavior, barring the assumption of some form of bribery or intimidation of which there is no evidence.
No it's not. In fact, it's Trump's duty to not say anything about a case where there would be even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Because that itself taints a criminal investigation. This is basic Madisonian separation of powers. The elected official is *NOT* supposed to target any individual, much less one connected to a political rival for special criminal investigation. Prosecutions are supposed to be seen as *completely independent* of the desires and interests of elected officials.
Secondly, the case itself is about a company called Burisma. The case is *NOT* and *NEVER HAS BEEN* about Hunter Biden. Who is merely one of several members of its board of directors. No evidence, so far, has ever been reported that specifically implicates the younger Biden here. So why is Trump asking about Biden? That gives the game away right there. He's clearly not interested in cleaning up Ukranian corruption, he's targeting an American citizen.
Thirdly, if an American citizen abroad was accused of a crime even a heinous crime. It is the duty of the US government to defend them in the same manner as a defense attorney. A US citizen has no guarantee of due process in a criminal investigation in a foreign country. It is the job of the freaking president to attempt that they get due process as much as possible. For the government to immediately take the opposite side -- before there is even so much as an indictment against Hunter Biden -- is a gross and troubling abdication of the president's duties to his own fucking citizens.
Oh please, this isn't some private powerless citizen being targeted. It's another, extremely powerful politician, in a position to be above the law on such things. If a President simply remains silent on the matter, asks for nothing, investigates nothing, than politicians can abuse countries whenever and however they want, knowing there is no higher authority to stay their hand. The President is the only one, really, in a position to reach across countries on matters like these. Even if it ultimately amounts to nothing, knowing the U.S government is interested and that there won't be backlash for coming forward matters.
PRESIDENTS DON'T INITIATE, START OR DEMAND INVESTIGATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is why we have prosecutors, District Attorneys, and Attorneys General. Can you fucking imagine the Pandora's Box you are opening here?? When who gets investigated and prosecuted is left in the hands of the President??
You've not only ignore every significant fact already presented about the Biden situation, but you make this statement knowing full well that Trump ORDERED Mueller to be fired. I have the whole report within reach. Would you like the page number where it is detailed??
I am well aware of the details of his attempt to do so. You ignore my point. HAD he fired Mueller, nobody would believe the Mueller Report. And they would certainly want that firing investigated as a separate matter. They barely believe it now. It's that simple, in my opinion.
Trying not to take the bait on that remark. It's just a simple fact that when a powerful person gets a prosecutor fired in charge of an investigation that they or someone close to them may fall under, a normal person views the results of that with perfectly legitimate suspicion. It's one of the reasons i'm glad Trump did not ultimately do so. If it looks like a powerful politician in this country is doing so to more dependent countries that rely on us for a number of things, the President is perfectly morally right to say they are interested in that investigation. It violates no ones rights. In fact, in ensures that people who may be above the law are held to account. It baffles me how anyone can be opposed to that.
So the whistleblower compliant was handed over in secret to the Senate (Republican controlled) Richard Burr (R). It's legally supposed to go to the House.
Trump tweeted some nonsense about House Republicans having his back or something. So yeah full scandal control is ongoing - yet again.
Here we are again with wiill Republicans be able to cover up this guy's crimes again? There's an eager audience of conservatives that want to know! (well Trump fans really, nothing conservative anymore there it's a cult of personality)
These guys sure are determined to tie themselves to a sinking ship. And they'll keep bending over backwards for him as he drags them down all because they're scared shitless about getting a meanie tweet in their direction. They are a bunch of cowards putting one man over the country.
I agree with your sentiment but I'm not sure there's an actual crime here. Which law did Trump break? Nobody has been able to name one that I've heard. Maybe somebody here can enlighten me.
Let's run a scenario here: It's late 2011. Mitt Romney is leading in all the Republican primary polls. His son, Tag Romney, serves on a board of a company in China. One of the issues Obama had with China during his term was a tariff on Chinese tires. It's revealed by a whistleblower that on a call with the Chinese President, Obama agreed to lift the tariffs in exchange for manufacturing a criminal case against Tag. Obama then has Eric Holder declare the complaint null and void and refuses to turn it over to the House for WEEKS (which in and of itself illegal). Obama then releases a transcript of the call that is suspiciously short for how long the call was, but clearly does indicate he was pushing for the investigation of Romney's son by the Chinese. Shit, Obama wouldn't have just been impeached, there would have been Tea Party activists setting up a gallows for him on Pennsylvania Ave.
So the whistleblower compliant was handed over in secret to the Senate (Republican controlled) Richard Burr (R). It's legally supposed to go to the House.
Trump tweeted some nonsense about House Republicans having his back or something. So yeah full scandal control is ongoing - yet again.
Here we are again with wiill Republicans be able to cover up this guy's crimes again? There's an eager audience of conservatives that want to know! (well Trump fans really, nothing conservative anymore there it's a cult of personality)
These guys sure are determined to tie themselves to a sinking ship. And they'll keep bending over backwards for him as he drags them down all because they're scared shitless about getting a meanie tweet in their direction. They are a bunch of cowards putting one man over the country.
I agree with your sentiment but I'm not sure there's an actual crime here. Which law did Trump break? Nobody has been able to name one that I've heard. Maybe somebody here can enlighten me.
Let's run a scenario here: It's late 2011. Mitt Romney is leading in all the Republican primary polls. His son, Tag Romney, serves on a board of a company in China. One of the issues Obama had with China during his term was a tariff on Chinese tires. It's revealed by a whistleblower that on a call with the Chinese President, Obama agreed to lift the tariffs in exchange for manufacturing a criminal case against Tag. Obama then has Eric Holder declare the complaint null and void and refuses to turn it over to the House for WEEKS (which in and of itself illegal). Obama then releases a transcript of the call that is suspiciously short for how long the call was, but clearly does indicate he was pushing for the investigation of Romney's son by the Chinese. Shit, Obama wouldn't have just been impeached, there would have been Tea Party activists setting up a gallows for him on Pennsylvania Ave.
Which law was broken again?
For starters, not turning over the whistleblower complaint as mandated by law until the House took the most drastic step possible.
Trying not to take the bait on that remark. It's just a simple fact that when a powerful person gets a prosecutor fired in charge of an investigation that they or someone close to them may fall under, a normal person views the results of that with perfectly legitimate suspicion. It's one of the reasons i'm glad Trump did not ultimately do so. If it looks like a powerful politician in this country is doing so to more dependent countries that rely on us for a number of things, the President is perfectly morally right to say they are interested in that investigation. It violates no ones rights. In fact, in ensures that people who may be above the law are held to account. It baffles me how anyone can be opposed to that.
This is wrong. For all the reasons we've already stated. It literally doesnt matter how powerful or not powerful the individual is. Ethics doesnt care.
I also find it telling that you arent and havent tried to argue that it's not a conflict of interest. The president should not be the one to attempt to seek any measure of justice if he will personally benefit from that justice. That must be left to other organs of the government. What's incredible is that those organs exist. I know they exist. You know they exist - and yet you still think The guy who stands to benefit more than probably any other person in the entire world should be the one to try to get this information - even if it is a conflict of interest..
What's fun here is we already have a ready made example of how the system *should* play out. Paul Manafort. Powerful, rich dude. Was the campaign director for the Trump campaign. Did some really corrupt stuff in Ukraine. Was punished for it. That happened because a person without any vested interest whatsoever into his role was allowed to investigate his wrongdoings.
If you really believe that justice would be served by looking into Joe Biden's son (No evidence for which exists anywhere except on Breitbart and the far right corners of the internet. Seriously, this is an Uranium One quality conspiracy, an argument I vividly remember you defending in the past) - the last person you should want anywhere near it is Trump. It's unethical. It's a conflict of interest. It's also our sitting president asking a foreign nation to aide him in an election.
I'm starting to believe that even if there had been a "smoking gun" in the Russia report, Conservatives would have looked the other way.
Since I'm back in the game here, what's everybody's thoughts on this Swedish girl spouting off about Climate Change? She's very emotional but I personally think that's about all she's got. I'm very sceptical about a person who's never held a job, doesn't have a family relying on her yet and has never paid taxes spouting off about her parents' generation 'destroying' the planet. It really smells scripted and phony to me...
She's splitting the society further instead of helping to consolidate it against common threat. That's all she's doing.
Five years ago I'd think she's a tool to undermine credibility of eco movement. A stupid kid hollering "how dare you" at the worldwide leadership, lol wut.
Now, having seen firsthand how far detached from reality all of these holy crusaders are, I think it may very well be a sincere effort (supported by whoever is behind her). They don't care about anything but their morals, and anyone who has different point of view is "how dare you, are you racist alt-right gamergate misogynist nazi?" Makes me wanna puke in disgust.
Many young people are worried about the issue of climate change, it hangs over them as the nuclear threat hung over people during the Cold War (and still does to an extent...). This anxiety produces anger against existing power structures. One can disagree with Thunberg's rhetoric, though it often has practical components and is not only composed of anger, and label it as divisive.... but I think it's fair to ask how should it be improved? What sort of message do you think would be a unifying one? We do seem to have entered an age in which 'get out your base' is a more predominant philosophy for movements than 'control the centre'...
Here's a Republican saying Trump committed treason with his coercion of Ukraine to investigate political opponents and that he deserves the death penalty.
"The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act protects intelligence officials from retribution for flagging what they believe to be government misconduct. The law was passed in 1998 and refined in 2010 with the establishment of the Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General.
The law lays out a procedure that lets officials blow the whistle internally without compromising classified information. As long as intelligence whistleblowers go through legal channels when filing a complaint, they are protected from being fired or facing criminal prosecution.
Specifically, the law says intelligence whistleblowers should submit their complaints to the inspector general of the intelligence community, who is supposed to act independently.
The inspector general is required to review complaints within 14 days and determine whether they are of "urgent concern," meaning they report a serious problem, abuse, or violation of the law "relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the director of national intelligence involving classified information."
Any credible complaints must then go to the director of national intelligence, or DNI, who has seven days to forward them to the intelligence committees in Congress along with any relevant documents.
In the event that the inspector general ignores a complaint or determines that it is not credible, a whistleblower can reach out to Congress directly, but only after he or she alerts the inspector general and receives guidance from the DNI on how to keep those communications secure."
The IG determined it was credible, the DNI did not forward the complaint to intelligence committees in Congress. Broken law the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act.
It took the threat of impeachment but it seems like they have finally decided to comply with the law and turn over the whistleblower complaint.
We are not talking about a powerful American politician who otherwise might be "above the law" being held accountable for a crime. We're talking about a corrupt government being asked to help the Trump administration provide support for fabricated allegations against the son of a politician who is currently not even in office. If there was any truth to the Biden allegations and they were not just yet another political ploy, the President does not order that investigation anyway--that would be the DOJ's job, and law enforcement officials already have the power to coordinate with foreign countries on criminal and intelligence matters.
It's not like this is the first time someone from the U.S. has ever been accused of committing a crime in a foreign country. These cases have never required the personal involvement of the President of the United States before. Why is Trump the first President to do this?
Joe Biden is one of the single largest threats to Donald Trump's presidency in 2020. His son has never even run for office. Do we think that there is any other reason that Joe Biden's son would ever be on Trump's radar to begin with?
Trump has given conflicting and inconsistent explanations of why he tried to block the money for Ukraine before making this call. If there was an innocent explanation for this series of bizarre coincidences, Trump would be the first to know it, and even he can't explain it.
It strains belief that Trump would illegally block money issued by Congress right before asking the leader of a corrupt foreign government to "investigate" made-up accusations against the son of one of his top political enemies just because he thought this random lawyer from Delaware was such a monstrous criminal that his prosecution required the personal collusion of two different world leaders just to overcome the opposition of a former vice president.
It does not strain belief, however, to point out the obvious. Joe Biden is a threat to Donald Trump's re-election, and Trump has every reason to try to damage Biden politically.
Oh, well now, look at this. Am I psychic, or should people maybe stop giving the benefit of the doubt to people who lie so blatantly and so consistently that it defies quantification??:
Trying not to take the bait on that remark. It's just a simple fact that when a powerful person gets a prosecutor fired in charge of an investigation that they or someone close to them may fall under, a normal person views the results of that with perfectly legitimate suspicion. It's one of the reasons i'm glad Trump did not ultimately do so. If it looks like a powerful politician in this country is doing so to more dependent countries that rely on us for a number of things, the President is perfectly morally right to say they are interested in that investigation. It violates no ones rights. In fact, in ensures that people who may be above the law are held to account. It baffles me how anyone can be opposed to that.
I think your basic argument - that there may be occasions when it is ethically right for the President to intervene outside the normal channels to help secure justice - is a reasonable one. However, I don't think it can reasonably be said that this is one such occasion:
- as has already been said, Trump has a severe conflict of interest in this case and should therefore not have involved himself.
- Trump says in the report of the phone call that the sacked prosecutor was very good and had been badly treated. That portrait is unrecognizable to officials of both the US and other western countries who had been calling for some time for the prosecutor to be sacked because of his corruption. This demonstrates clearly that Trump was not acting in an impartial way.
- the report also refers to another party political matter where Trump asks Ukraine to do him a favor in relation to the Crowdstrike server.
- Trump not only urges the Ukrainian President to intervene, but also refers to coordinating with Giuliani and Barr. The involvement of the Attorney General would be highly questionable on its own, but Giuliani's involvement (outside any normal political or legal channels) is worse.
- the timing of the suspension of military aid to Ukraine is suspicious in itself. The fact that the President has been unable to keep a straight story about the reason for that suspension greatly raises those suspicions.
- the suspension of aid is not the only indication that finance and political cooperation may have been linked. For instance the report says "I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict." I suspect that the whistleblower complaint will say that this implied linkage was in fact more clearly expressed in the actual conversation, but as you've said before that's something we can wait and see on ...
- the report itself has also been amended. Despite not being a verbatim record, an internal document from the Justice Department reveals that the report was an alteration of the original version. The original was itself dated 3rd September (which is an incredibly long time after the July conversation). The reason for the changes was said to be "to avoid references to certain details that remain classified." That directly contradicts Trump's statement that he would release a full record of the conversation.
This conversation that we've seen a White House approved report of was not the only conversation that they had. Additionally, Donald Trump claims Mike Pence also had conversations with the Ukraine President, and he wants the Pence transcripts released too.
“I think you should ask for VP Pence’s conversation, because he had a couple of conversations also,” Trump said in the press conference, as quoted by the news site Raw Story.
Trump then continued, saying that he expected Congressional Democrats to also ask for a transcript of “the first phone call,” Raw Story reported — appearing to reveal that his July 25 conversation with Zelensky was not the first time he had spoken to the Ukraine president, who was elected only in April of this year.
LOL throwing under the bus the only guy who is going to have the power to pardon him in future, that’s hilarious!
Giuliani's involvement is the least discussed thus far, but he is at the fulcrum of all of it. He holds no elected position, nor any position confirmed by the Senate. He is the President's "defense lawyer", but what that really translates to is that he is a shadow agent operating outside the bounds of any and all authority other than Trump himself. And mark my words, if push comes to shove, either Pompeo or Giuliani is going to get thrown to the wolves in all this, and then all hell will break loose. This isn't just Trump abd Giuliani. There was a systematic attempt to cover this up. Someone is going to try save their ass. And if there is anything we know for certain about Trump it's that EVERYONE is expendable. That all these sycophants haven't figured that out yet is astounding. Imagine being willing to go down for this guy.
And I think his insane press conference this afternoon can put to rest the idea that he wanted to be impeached. As @semiticgod has said on numerous occasions, what Trump wants and demands is adoration and praise above all else. He look tired and deflated. And Trump is NOT Bill Clinton. He will not be able to compartmentalize and do his job (which is frankly a good thing). It's going to consume him.
Comments
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/5-4-18 Menendez joint letter to General Prosecutor of Ukraine on Mueller investigation.pdf
What's being discussed, as treason by many, is leveraging the office of the president to direct a notoriously corrupt weaker country to investigate a political rivals son. He unilaterally withheld military aid, against it's allocated use by congress, to give him leverage over this country days before his call.
What's more is there are multiple incidents he's withholding that a whistleblower is trying to send through the proper channels to congress. He's doing this in violation of the law.
His altered transcript and desperate spin isn't working.
Besides I thought polls don't matter lol.
Unlike other Presidents who had White House stenographers, Trump has none, so he's free to alter "official" transcripts
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/23/630643035/ex-white-house-stenographer-with-no-official-transcript-trump-can-muddle-the-tru
All military aid was released to Ukraine before the call, and Trump never made any threat to withhold it on the call itself.
Cutting foreign aid itself has been consistent with Trump's policy however, so even if was considering whether or not to make the cut, it's consistent with his overall politics and thus does not arouse suspicion in and of itself. Especially with zero evidence of using it in any sort of way to leverage anyone. Since there is backlash, they ultimately won't move forward, which again makes most of it seem pretty consistent with the overall politics of the situation.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458432-white-house-wont-move-forward-with-billions-in-foreign-aid-cuts
The white house sternographer lady offers zero proof that Trump can alter transcripts, and has a creepy obsession with Obama besides.
Until articles of impeachment are drawn up and voted on, impeachment hasnt begun. This is an investigation to decide if impeachment is necessary.
This is untrue:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-ordered-hold-on-military-aid-days-before-calling-ukrainian-president-officials-say/2019/09/23/df93a6ca-de38-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/delay-in-military-aid-for-ukraine-stymied-lawmakers-for-weeks-11569252417
Please note that the military aid to Ukraine was only greenlit on September 11th. That's clearly not before the phone call happened.
Trump has admitted to asking the president of Ukraine into looking for political dirt on Joe Biden's son. Full stop, that's unacceptable. Literally nothing else needs to come out of this whole situation. I'm kind of amazed that conservatives think the above is okay under any circumstances. It doesnt matter if Biden was corrupt or not - it is explicitly not okay for the sitting president to ask a foreign leader to produce political dirt on their opponents. It's corrupt. It's a conflict of interest because Trump is representing himself but is using the United States Government as leverage, and it's potentially a campaign finance violation.
It's understood to be civics 101 that a sitting president isnt supposed to direct his own AG to investigate anyone. How on earth can anyone think asking a foreign leader is somehow okay?
In order to head off the predictable counterpoint: It is *not* even remotely the same thing if a private civilian asks a foreign government for help. That's also *extremely* bad, but these two things are still galaxy apart.
As a parting point: I dont think Impeachment is valuable at all. The inquiry may be useful insofar as it stops the WH from it's completely illegal stonewalling of evidence that should and must be turned over to congress (per that pesky constitution). The Senate will never convict. Even if the vote is 100% on partisan lines, a vote of acquittal will be political victory for the president.
In that case, not making any threats about it and releasing it unconditionally at a later time makes a really bad case for an attempt at pressure, so my point stands.
Why is it unacceptable? Please explain to me the legal theory, not the mention the ethical problems, about asking about criminal wrongdoing that happened in another country to that leader. Not demanding anything, not making any threats, just asking.
Well - first, you're presuming that the release was unconditional. It looks like Congress had to force Trump's hand on the release. So we dont know that Trump was voluntarily going to release the aid. An inquiry might shed light on that, though(Wish we had one of those...)
Second - It's a conflict of interest. I'm sure you're familiar with this concept? Where a person has a vested personal interest in a subject/topic/situation, but is also required to represent the interests of another entity at the same time.
In order to ensure I'm not parsing my words, I'll also cite Merriam Webster's definition of a conflict of interest:
conflict of interest noun phrase
Definition of conflict of interest
: a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflict of interest
By asking a foreign leader to dig up dirt on Joe Biden (personal interest) while representing the United States of America (Official responsibility, a position of trust), Trump is mired in a conflict of interest. Incidentally, there doesnt even need to be an explicit demand or extortion. Simply being in a position of power (as the US is, in the relationship between the US and Ukraine) is enough. Of course, the memo makes that moot point. Note the entire section about how the USA is such a good friend to Ukraine. A better friend than anyone in Europe.
Trump is framing power imbalanced between the USA and Ukraine in the conversation, and then asks Ukraine to dig up political dirt to favor Trump (but not the USA).
As I said above. It's already a literal conflict of interest to order your DOJ to investigate someone because you may stand to profit from their investigation. Why would it be any less so if we ask a foreign nation to do it?
This is flatly incorrect. It is not the president's responsibility to ask. He has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Either it is an entirely internal matter for Ukraine, an international matter for international courts to decide, OR Trump would need to appoint a special council to independently investigate and determine if wrong-doing has occurred. Excuse me. I mispoke. That would still be a conflict of interest - The Attorney General would need to investigate it on his own, or ask a special council to do so if he was unable due to a conflict of interest.
By the president doing it, it became a conflict of interest and is completely unethical.
Five years ago I'd think she's a tool to undermine credibility of eco movement. A stupid kid hollering "how dare you" at the worldwide leadership, lol wut.
Now, having seen firsthand how far detached from reality all of these holy crusaders are, I think it may very well be a sincere effort (supported by whoever is behind her). They don't care about anything but their morals, and anyone who has different point of view is "how dare you, are you racist alt-right gamergate misogynist nazi?" Makes me wanna puke in disgust.
No it's not. In fact, it's Trump's duty to not say anything about a case where there would be even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Because that itself taints a criminal investigation. This is basic Madisonian separation of powers. The elected official is *NOT* supposed to target any individual, much less one connected to a political rival for special criminal investigation. Prosecutions are supposed to be seen as *completely independent* of the desires and interests of elected officials.
Secondly, the case itself is about a company called Burisma. The case is *NOT* and *NEVER HAS BEEN* about Hunter Biden. Who is merely one of several members of its board of directors. No evidence, so far, has ever been reported that specifically implicates the younger Biden here. So why is Trump asking about Biden? That gives the game away right there. He's clearly not interested in cleaning up Ukranian corruption, he's targeting an American citizen.
Thirdly, if an American citizen abroad was accused of a crime even a heinous crime. It is the duty of the US government to defend them in the same manner as a defense attorney. A US citizen has no guarantee of due process in a criminal investigation in a foreign country. It is the job of the freaking president to attempt that they get due process as much as possible. For the government to immediately take the opposite side -- before there is even so much as an indictment against Hunter Biden -- is a gross and troubling abdication of the president's duties to his own fucking citizens.
Trump tweeted some nonsense about House Republicans having his back or something. So yeah full scandal control is ongoing - yet again.
Here we are again with wiill Republicans be able to cover up this guy's crimes again? There's an eager audience of conservatives that want to know! (well Trump fans really, nothing conservative anymore there it's a cult of personality)
These guys sure are determined to tie themselves to a sinking ship. And they'll keep bending over backwards for him as he drags them down all because they're scared shitless about getting a meanie tweet in their direction. They are a bunch of cowards putting one man over the country.
I agree with your sentiment but I'm not sure there's an actual crime here. Which law did Trump break? Nobody has been able to name one that I've heard. Maybe somebody here can enlighten me.
Let's run a scenario here: It's late 2011. Mitt Romney is leading in all the Republican primary polls. His son, Tag Romney, serves on a board of a company in China. One of the issues Obama had with China during his term was a tariff on Chinese tires. It's revealed by a whistleblower that on a call with the Chinese President, Obama agreed to lift the tariffs in exchange for manufacturing a criminal case against Tag. Obama then has Eric Holder declare the complaint null and void and refuses to turn it over to the House for WEEKS (which in and of itself illegal). Obama then releases a transcript of the call that is suspiciously short for how long the call was, but clearly does indicate he was pushing for the investigation of Romney's son by the Chinese. Shit, Obama wouldn't have just been impeached, there would have been Tea Party activists setting up a gallows for him on Pennsylvania Ave.
Oh please, this isn't some private powerless citizen being targeted unjustly. It's another, extremely powerful politician, in a position to be above the law on such things, because there are direct political implications to guilty verdicts. If you don't think powerful people can get away with stuff they were clearly guilty of I direct you to clear cases of it in the United States. If a President simply remains silent on the matter, asks for nothing, investigates nothing, than politicians can abuse countries whenever and however they want, knowing there is no higher authority to stay their hand. The President is the only one, really, in a position to reach across countries on matters like these. Even if it ultimately amounts to nothing, knowing the U.S government is interested and that there won't be backlash for coming forward matters.
It's a little rich hearing about "due process" from the people who give their political rivals none and who claim every investigation that doesn't go their way has somehow been altered or tampered with. Why would we assume someone would get due process after they got the last prosecutor fired anyway? I know, with 100% certainty, if Trump had done such a thing, say, with the Mueller investigation, nobody in this thread would ever view the results of that investigation with any legitimacy. I see absolutely nothing wrong in asking them to review it.
PRESIDENTS DON'T INITIATE, START OR DEMAND INVESTIGATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is why we have prosecutors, District Attorneys, and Attorneys General. Can you fucking imagine the Pandora's Box you are opening here?? When who gets investigated and prosecuted is left in the hands of the President??
Which law was broken again?
For starters, not turning over the whistleblower complaint as mandated by law until the House took the most drastic step possible.
This is wrong. For all the reasons we've already stated. It literally doesnt matter how powerful or not powerful the individual is. Ethics doesnt care.
I also find it telling that you arent and havent tried to argue that it's not a conflict of interest. The president should not be the one to attempt to seek any measure of justice if he will personally benefit from that justice. That must be left to other organs of the government. What's incredible is that those organs exist. I know they exist. You know they exist - and yet you still think The guy who stands to benefit more than probably any other person in the entire world should be the one to try to get this information - even if it is a conflict of interest..
What's fun here is we already have a ready made example of how the system *should* play out. Paul Manafort. Powerful, rich dude. Was the campaign director for the Trump campaign. Did some really corrupt stuff in Ukraine. Was punished for it. That happened because a person without any vested interest whatsoever into his role was allowed to investigate his wrongdoings.
If you really believe that justice would be served by looking into Joe Biden's son (No evidence for which exists anywhere except on Breitbart and the far right corners of the internet. Seriously, this is an Uranium One quality conspiracy, an argument I vividly remember you defending in the past) - the last person you should want anywhere near it is Trump. It's unethical. It's a conflict of interest. It's also our sitting president asking a foreign nation to aide him in an election.
I'm starting to believe that even if there had been a "smoking gun" in the Russia report, Conservatives would have looked the other way.
Many young people are worried about the issue of climate change, it hangs over them as the nuclear threat hung over people during the Cold War (and still does to an extent...). This anxiety produces anger against existing power structures. One can disagree with Thunberg's rhetoric, though it often has practical components and is not only composed of anger, and label it as divisive.... but I think it's fair to ask how should it be improved? What sort of message do you think would be a unifying one? We do seem to have entered an age in which 'get out your base' is a more predominant philosophy for movements than 'control the centre'...
"The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act protects intelligence officials from retribution for flagging what they believe to be government misconduct. The law was passed in 1998 and refined in 2010 with the establishment of the Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General.
The law lays out a procedure that lets officials blow the whistle internally without compromising classified information. As long as intelligence whistleblowers go through legal channels when filing a complaint, they are protected from being fired or facing criminal prosecution.
Specifically, the law says intelligence whistleblowers should submit their complaints to the inspector general of the intelligence community, who is supposed to act independently.
The inspector general is required to review complaints within 14 days and determine whether they are of "urgent concern," meaning they report a serious problem, abuse, or violation of the law "relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the director of national intelligence involving classified information."
Any credible complaints must then go to the director of national intelligence, or DNI, who has seven days to forward them to the intelligence committees in Congress along with any relevant documents.
In the event that the inspector general ignores a complaint or determines that it is not credible, a whistleblower can reach out to Congress directly, but only after he or she alerts the inspector general and receives guidance from the DNI on how to keep those communications secure."
The IG determined it was credible, the DNI did not forward the complaint to intelligence committees in Congress. Broken law the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act.
It took the threat of impeachment but it seems like they have finally decided to comply with the law and turn over the whistleblower complaint.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/sep/25/what-whistleblower-law-says-about-sharing-complain/
It's not like this is the first time someone from the U.S. has ever been accused of committing a crime in a foreign country. These cases have never required the personal involvement of the President of the United States before. Why is Trump the first President to do this?
Joe Biden is one of the single largest threats to Donald Trump's presidency in 2020. His son has never even run for office. Do we think that there is any other reason that Joe Biden's son would ever be on Trump's radar to begin with?
Trump has given conflicting and inconsistent explanations of why he tried to block the money for Ukraine before making this call. If there was an innocent explanation for this series of bizarre coincidences, Trump would be the first to know it, and even he can't explain it.
It strains belief that Trump would illegally block money issued by Congress right before asking the leader of a corrupt foreign government to "investigate" made-up accusations against the son of one of his top political enemies just because he thought this random lawyer from Delaware was such a monstrous criminal that his prosecution required the personal collusion of two different world leaders just to overcome the opposition of a former vice president.
It does not strain belief, however, to point out the obvious. Joe Biden is a threat to Donald Trump's re-election, and Trump has every reason to try to damage Biden politically.
I think your basic argument - that there may be occasions when it is ethically right for the President to intervene outside the normal channels to help secure justice - is a reasonable one. However, I don't think it can reasonably be said that this is one such occasion:
- as has already been said, Trump has a severe conflict of interest in this case and should therefore not have involved himself.
- Trump says in the report of the phone call that the sacked prosecutor was very good and had been badly treated. That portrait is unrecognizable to officials of both the US and other western countries who had been calling for some time for the prosecutor to be sacked because of his corruption. This demonstrates clearly that Trump was not acting in an impartial way.
- the report also refers to another party political matter where Trump asks Ukraine to do him a favor in relation to the Crowdstrike server.
- Trump not only urges the Ukrainian President to intervene, but also refers to coordinating with Giuliani and Barr. The involvement of the Attorney General would be highly questionable on its own, but Giuliani's involvement (outside any normal political or legal channels) is worse.
- the timing of the suspension of military aid to Ukraine is suspicious in itself. The fact that the President has been unable to keep a straight story about the reason for that suspension greatly raises those suspicions.
- the suspension of aid is not the only indication that finance and political cooperation may have been linked. For instance the report says "I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict." I suspect that the whistleblower complaint will say that this implied linkage was in fact more clearly expressed in the actual conversation, but as you've said before that's something we can wait and see on ...
- the report itself has also been amended. Despite not being a verbatim record, an internal document from the Justice Department reveals that the report was an alteration of the original version. The original was itself dated 3rd September (which is an incredibly long time after the July conversation). The reason for the changes was said to be "to avoid references to certain details that remain classified." That directly contradicts Trump's statement that he would release a full record of the conversation.
“I think you should ask for VP Pence’s conversation, because he had a couple of conversations also,” Trump said in the press conference, as quoted by the news site Raw Story.
Trump then continued, saying that he expected Congressional Democrats to also ask for a transcript of “the first phone call,” Raw Story reported — appearing to reveal that his July 25 conversation with Zelensky was not the first time he had spoken to the Ukraine president, who was elected only in April of this year.
LOL throwing under the bus the only guy who is going to have the power to pardon him in future, that’s hilarious!
https://www.inquisitr.com/5656541/donald-trump-mike-pence-conversations-ukraine-president-transcripts/
And I think his insane press conference this afternoon can put to rest the idea that he wanted to be impeached. As @semiticgod has said on numerous occasions, what Trump wants and demands is adoration and praise above all else. He look tired and deflated. And Trump is NOT Bill Clinton. He will not be able to compartmentalize and do his job (which is frankly a good thing). It's going to consume him.