Author Topic: Ukraine  (Read 62857 times)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #150 on: September 27, 2019, 03:48:35 PM »
I'm going to help out here.  What you're referring to are "Special Envoys".  Yes there is a history of them.  They are typically emergency appointments for temporary jobs.

I need to get back to you on prior request, I'm not always sure if you guys realize how when you ask for an explanation like how the whistle blower complaint demonstrates something it takes quite a while to actually show the work on the math problem.

But I did want to help you out here, the word you're looking for is "tsar" or "csar" and you might have forgotten it because Trump has largely ended the practice which was relatively routine under Obama of appointing people to wield significant executive authority but skip the Senate confirm policy.  That said, Rudy would barely be on the bottom rung of the tsar category.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #151 on: September 27, 2019, 04:18:00 PM »
But I did want to help you out here, the word you're looking for is "tsar" or "csar" and you might have forgotten it because Trump has largely ended the practice which was relatively routine under Obama of appointing people to wield significant executive authority but skip the Senate confirm policy.  That said, Rudy would barely be on the bottom rung of the tsar category.

The term "Czar", as it relates to the United States, was coined and used by the press.  It also seems to be ambiguous, sometimes applied to individuals who were confirmed by the Senate, and sometimes not.  As far as I understand, not all positions of authority within the executive branch require Senate confirmation.  "Czar" is just a neat word that the press came up with.  Sometimes they are initially a Special Envoy and then given a permanent title when an actual department is created for them. 

Nonetheless, all of these individuals, however you wish to call them, paid or unpaid, temporary or eventually permanent, are official government employees.  They are all employed by the government and beholden to the public trust.  If they are paid, they are paid by the government, not the POTUS.  They are all subject to government employee ethics rules. 

Rudy Giuliani is not a "Czar".  He holds no official appointment within the US Government.  Doing so would reduce his effectiveness as Donald Trump's personal lawyer, which is what he is.  He is employed by Donald Trump himself, not the US Government.  He is not subject to US Government employee ethics rules.  He is, Trump's personal agent.  He is not a government agent. 

The difference between these roles, what it means, and who should be doing what, should be easily apparent. 

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #152 on: September 27, 2019, 04:31:22 PM »
I agree with your analysis on who is paying Rudy and how it should work, but I completely disagree with that as a statement of how it in fact does and did work.  The vast majority of Obama's tsars were overwhelming loyal to him personally, and in fact, much of the bureaucracy is effectively loyal to the Democratic party.  Why do you think leaks are so prevalent with Trump?  It's not because he's especially noxious (though he is), it's because most of those guys are not only not loyal to them but deliberately adverse.

I mean rep Swalwell (?) flat out said it's an admission of guilt that this transcript was moved to the more secure server, and it's been intimated that other such discussions were "inappropriately moved" as well.  Of course, I've seen it reported, though you have to look for it, that the practice of moving Presidential conversations to the more secure servers started after, and is a direct response to, 4 or 5 leaks of Presidential conversations with foreign leaders to the media, several of which had diplomatic impacts.  That's treachery, and I don't recall it ever happening under any prior President, and the leaks themselves where almost exclusively politically damaging without being criminal or even particularly questionable.

Sounds reasonable to me.  Presidential calls - absent a compelling whistleblower case - should never ever have been leaked, and then only to Congress not the media.  Ask yourself some real questions about the timeline here.

Does it not seem an interesting coincidence that the standup patriot whistleblower didn't send the report to the Intelligence committee, even though that was expressly authorized by the statute?  Instead leaked it to the media?  Imagine, just for a second, how frustrated Shiff would be if he already had the whistleblower report in hand but it hadn't been provided by the admin, and then the "deadline" came and went but he couldn't see an easy way to call the President out. What to do?  Create a leak to the media, now the whole thing is in public where he wanted it and he can act on the information without triggering an investigation of himself for the breach of security and potential criminality of the leak.  And he's cleansed of the bad optics of being the one who reveals the report.  I don't even think that's a "remote" possibility, I think it's what happened.

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #153 on: September 27, 2019, 04:41:34 PM »
Wow, you seem really confused on the basics of what has happened here, Seriati. I suggest you read the news reports again, more carefully. Also the statute. There was NOT a clear authorization for the WB to transmit the report to the committees when both
1) It had been found urgent and credible by ICIG.
2) DNI refused to transmit.

And there's zero evidence that Schiff had the complaint in hand before it was publicly released to him.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #154 on: September 27, 2019, 05:21:05 PM »
I agree with your analysis on who is paying Rudy and how it should work, but I completely disagree with that as a statement of how it in fact does and did work.  The vast majority of Obama's tsars were overwhelming loyal to him personally, and in fact, much of the bureaucracy is effectively loyal to the Democratic party.

The difference, as I've pointed out before, and as you allude to, is the expectations placed upon the individuals.  Government employees are indeed expected to act a certain way, and be beholden to the public trust, and their responsibilities are laid out by law and regulation, and can suffer penalties for breaking the public trust.  Private employees are not expected to act in a certain way.  They are not subject to any penalties.  In fact, being his personal lawyer, Rudy would be subject to penalties if he did NOT put his client first. 

Quote
Why do you think leaks are so prevalent with Trump?  It's not because he's especially noxious (though he is), it's because most of those guys are not only not loyal to them but deliberately adverse.

How could you tell the difference? I mean, if you admit that he is especially noxious (though this is undefined, what do you mean by especially noxious?), how could you tell the difference between people leaking on him because he is noxious or because they are disloyal to His Yugeness, Donald Trump? 

Government employees really are not supposed to be loyal to the President personally.  They are supposed to be loyal to the public trust and the government.  Now,  the POTUS is an important figure in the government, but he is not the government itself or the public trust. 

Quote
That's treachery, and I don't recall it ever happening under any prior President, and the leaks themselves where almost exclusively politically damaging without being criminal or even particularly questionable.

I'd certainly agree that leaking POTUS phone calls with foreign leaders to the press is not only illegal, but is damaging, and possibly treasonous, but in a very narrow corridor.  But I don't know if Trump is particularly a victim of these types of leaks, or if he is, whether these leaks are a result of partisan politics or because Trump is especially noxious (your words).  I'm uncertain how many phone calls from George W Bush leaked.  I'm honestly of the opinion that by his second term, he was far more hated by more Americans than Trump ever has been.  Is George W Bush not noxious?  Where does George W Bush fall on the noxious scale? 

I mean, if Trump wasn't especially noxious, would he be saying these things on the phone with the Presidents of Australia and Mexico that were leaked and were exclusively politically damaging without being criminal?  That would seem to show that the noxicity of Trump directly relates to how many of his phone calls get leaked. 

Quote
Presidential calls - absent a compelling whistleblower case - should never ever have been leaked, and then only to Congress not the media.

Sounds right to me.  Individuals caught leaking Presidential calls absent a compelling whistleblower case should be prosecuted. 

Quote
Does it not seem an interesting coincidence that the standup patriot whistleblower didn't send the report to the Intelligence committee, even though that was expressly authorized by the statute?

 I'm looking at the memo right now, and the memo is addressed in part to Adam Schiff, Chairman, Permanant Select Committee on Intelligence, US House of Representatives.  The memo was released by the Intelligence Committee, not the whistleblower.  The Intelligence Committee was informed of the whistleblower complaint by the IG, not by leak. 




ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #155 on: September 27, 2019, 05:21:30 PM »
And there's zero evidence that Schiff had the complaint in hand before it was publicly released to him.

So when Schiff tweeted the text below two weeks before the WB he was just, what, guessing? He sure got lucky with that guess.
 
"Trump is withholding vital military aid to Ukraine, while his personal lawyer seeks help from the Ukraine government to investigate his political opponent

It doesn’t take a stable genius to see the magnitude of this conflict.

Or how destructive it is to our national security."


Yep, zero evidence he knew about the complaint before it was publicly released to him.

editl: maybe this where you get pedantic and say "well, that doesn't mean he had a physical report in his hand..."
« Last Edit: September 27, 2019, 05:23:33 PM by ScottF »

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #156 on: September 27, 2019, 05:28:41 PM »

So when Schiff tweeted the text below two weeks before the WB he was just, what, guessing? He sure got lucky with that guess.
 
"Trump is withholding vital military aid to Ukraine, while his personal lawyer seeks help from the Ukraine government to investigate his political opponent

It doesn’t take a stable genius to see the magnitude of this conflict.

Or how destructive it is to our national security."


Yep, zero evidence he knew about the complaint before it was publicly released to him.

editl: maybe this where you get pedantic and say "well, that doesn't mean he had a physical report in his hand..."

You didn't need to know about the whistleblower report or about the phone call to know that Trump was withholding aid to Ukraine.  It was reported by the Media by July 28th.  Guilani admitted he was asking Ukrainian officials about Biden on national television.  Three house committees were investigating Trump and Guiliani before the IG sent a letter to Schiff and Nunes informing them of the complaint. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #157 on: September 27, 2019, 05:33:01 PM »
https://www.lawfareblog.com/timeline-trump-ukraine-scandal

Going forward, if you have not looked at and read through and understand the timeline involved in this affair, and it is discovered through error, I don't feel like I should be engaging.  If you're uneducated on the current matter, and do not understand the timeline and the implications, I would advise you to not even talk to your friends and family or anyone online about the matter.  You could be inadvertently guilty of spreading Fake News. 

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #158 on: September 27, 2019, 06:13:46 PM »
Let’s flesh out the timeline a little more:

Quote
In August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings.

Isn’t that quite the coincidence? They charge the rules just in time for this to move forward. Amazing! What are the odds?

Quote
The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no specific date of revision is disclosed.
It was written the very same month the regulations were changed! Incredible! Such a weird coincidence.

Quote
Reached by phone on Friday afternoon, a Director of National Intelligence official refused to comment on any questions about the secret revision to the whistleblower form, including when it was revised to eliminate the requirement of first-hand knowledge and for what reason.

Ok, I’m calling bull*censored* on all of it. This is an intelligence operation to unseat the president.

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #159 on: September 27, 2019, 11:36:44 PM »
It's hilarious that you think this is exculpatory for Trump. Not whether the allegations are true, mind you, but whether the form upon which the allegations were recorded was changed recently.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #160 on: September 28, 2019, 12:28:32 AM »
It's hilarious that you think this is exculpatory for Trump. Not whether the allegations are true, mind you, but whether the form upon which the allegations were recorded was changed recently.

Jeez, Scifi.  This is Deep State 101.  This is how the CIA operates.

But have no fear. TruRepublicans TM will never forget how the Deep State, the Democrats, and the vile forces within the CIA launched a coup against the rightful President by changing forms. They FINALLY CROSSED THE LINE!  CHANGING FORMS! Never before in history...


Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #161 on: September 28, 2019, 09:25:05 AM »
It's hilarious that you think this is exculpatory for Trump. Not whether the allegations are true, mind you, but whether the form upon which the allegations were recorded was changed recently.

The call transcript and statements from those with direct knowledge of the call are what is exculpatory. Nothing in the call or complaint are what we were told it was. The allegations are, at best, second hand rumors that do not match up with the facts, mind you.  A guy has a friend who knew someone that said something. That’s literally the basis of the complaint. It even lists Twitter as a source. Frigging Twitter!? And it’s all something that the Democrats have openly done and/or bragged about doing. But, you seem to think this is perfectly fine for Democrats to do. It’s only wrong if Trump is accused of doing it - he doesn’t have to do it, just be accused of it by someone who was not even there.

That’s just the facts, you can’t escape that unless you just want to make up more stuff. Given all that, I really don’t think you guys are too interested in the truth. It would just be a nice coincidence if the truth was aligned with this.

What has become clear is that Schiff and the gang had prior knowledge of the complaint, well before it was filed. He and other democrats colluded to create this complaint. The complaint was obviously written by lawyers, not a whistleblower, according to former intelligence agents with direct knowledge of how these complaints work. Then the regulations were mysteriously changed specifically to allow this one faux complaint to move forward.

It’s transparently bull*censored*.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2019, 09:30:49 AM by Crunch »

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #162 on: September 28, 2019, 09:53:47 AM »
It's hilarious that you think this is exculpatory for Trump. Not whether the allegations are true, mind you, but whether the form upon which the allegations were recorded was changed recently.

Two things can be true at the same time; Trump could have done impeachable stuff *and* there could be the largest concerted, and often clandestine effort to remove a sitting president in modern history.

I’m open to the former, but haven’t seen anything concrete at all, just a bunch of could-be-interpreted-as and possibly-suggests — if something actually substantial is revealed, I’m for impeachment. I've also admitted I don’t know the level of proof needed for proving impeachable actions, I’ve always assumed it’s at least comparable to our legal system's burden of proof, but maybe I’m wrong on that. I *have on the other hand, seen clear and deliberate results of the latter (constant flow of leaks, overwhelming media bias, often fed from said leaks, changing key WB submission qualifications at an amazingly convenient time, etc.)

People are seriously surprised when a large contingent of the country call BS on the scandal de jour? If the push against Trump by the media and dems hadn’t been so transparent and emotionally over the top from day one, he'd have been 10x easier to get rid of and his re-election would have been a pipe dream. Now it’s a lock.



« Last Edit: September 28, 2019, 09:56:30 AM by ScottF »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #163 on: September 28, 2019, 02:01:06 PM »
Quote
Former national security adviser Susan Rice acknowledged last night that the Obama administration moved transcripts of conversations with foreign leaders onto the same top-secret server where the Trump administration stored his recent phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Quote
But reporting from ABC News shows that this practice of securing presidential phone transcripts has been in use in the White House since early 2017, after sensitive conversations with foreign leaders were leaked to the press.

From ABC News: “The two calls in early 2017, with leaders from Australia and from Mexico, leaked early in Trump’s administration, and sources said the procedure to store them quickly changed — many calls between the president and world leaders instead were stored in a secure server to avoid leaks. The sources who talked to ABC News did caution that it’s unclear if the calls being stored were done so for national security or for political concerns.”

One source cited by ABC News described the practice as “basically standard operating procedure.”

So now we know that the Obama administration started doing this and did so on multiple occasions. Trump was doing precisely what Obama did, no big deal then but now it’s a problem?

Trump, because of the incredible number of leaks about confidential meetings with other leaders, does this a lot apparently. It’s perfectly reasonable to continue the previous administration’s process in the face of these leaks.

Once again, the facts blow second hand rumors out of the water.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #164 on: September 28, 2019, 04:02:48 PM »
Once again, the facts blow second hand rumors out of the water.

You can't fight the Deep State.  This is only part of the plan.  Deep State Agents, even now, are embedded throughout all agencies of the Federal Government.  What you have witnessed is only the beginning of the plot to overthrow the President.  Led by Nancy Pelosi and the Grand Master (can't tell you his name but you can research shareholders of Chase Manhattan), the intricate plan is unstoppable.  After Donald Trump is impeached, he will be eliminated by Deep State Agents in an apparent accident.  Then President Pelosi will declare martial law and begin seizing AR-15s and outlawing Fox News.  Don't let your facts get in the way of knowing that the Deep State is unstoppable.  Hail Hydra. 

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #165 on: September 29, 2019, 12:32:06 AM »
Actually the WB report is totally consistent with the call summary. And it was already public knowledge that Giuliani was running around Ukraine trying to get people to investigate Biden and the 4th-rate conspiracy theory about Crowdstrike's server, because it would be "helpful to his client" (who is not the U.S.). And lots of other corroboration exists.

That's why the play is "deeeeeep staaaaate" - because the allegations are true, and the only hope is to try to make people believe that they are somehow negated if people in the government personally want Trump out.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #166 on: September 29, 2019, 08:31:29 AM »
Once again, the facts blow second hand rumors out of the water.

You can't fight the Deep State.  This is only part of the plan.  Deep State Agents, even now, are embedded throughout all agencies of the Federal Government.  What you have witnessed is only the beginning of the plot to overthrow the President.  Led by Nancy Pelosi and the Grand Master (can't tell you his name but you can research shareholders of Chase Manhattan), the intricate plan is unstoppable.  After Donald Trump is impeached, he will be eliminated by Deep State Agents in an apparent accident.  Then President Pelosi will declare martial law and begin seizing AR-15s and outlawing Fox News.  Don't let your facts get in the way of knowing that the Deep State is unstoppable.  Hail Hydra.

I suppose this feels smart. All about muh feelz.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #167 on: September 29, 2019, 08:32:42 AM »
Actually the WB report is totally consistent with the call summary. And it was already public knowledge that Giuliani was running around Ukraine trying to get people to investigate Biden and the 4th-rate conspiracy theory about Crowdstrike's server, because it would be "helpful to his client" (who is not the U.S.). And lots of other corroboration exists.

That's why the play is "deeeeeep staaaaate" - because the allegations are true, and the only hope is to try to make people believe that they are somehow negated if people in the government personally want Trump out.

And so was Schiff’s summary, right? How about mentioning Biden 8 times? What about the lack of quid pro quo? The call transcript is nothing like what we were told
« Last Edit: September 29, 2019, 08:42:36 AM by Crunch »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #168 on: September 29, 2019, 08:41:02 AM »
After all this, what crime is Trump supposed to have committed on this call? Specifically, what section of the US code was violated?

Why does Trump not have his 6th amendment rights?

Why is it ok for Democrats to actually do, multiple times, what Trump is accused of?
« Last Edit: September 29, 2019, 08:45:28 AM by Crunch »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #169 on: September 29, 2019, 02:03:30 PM »
The Judiciary has ruled in the past when brought into Impeachment proceedings in the past:

Impeachment is a political act, not a judicial one.

As such, the bar that needs to be cleared for an impeachment to happen is entirely political rather than legal in nature.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #170 on: September 29, 2019, 04:27:06 PM »
So what you’re saying is that no laws were broken?

Meanwhile, the Biden campaign has contacted the news networks demanding that Giuliani no longer be allowed on the air.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #171 on: September 29, 2019, 04:27:33 PM »
I suppose this feels smart. All about muh feelz.

Do you or do you not acknowledge that if there is such a thing as the Deep State, full of ideological progressives, encompassing multiple departments of the Federal Government, in particular the FBI and CIA, and primarily composed of lifelong career federal employees, and organized through some means to coordinate with other parts of the Deep State and the Democrats in Congress, and that if the current scandal is a plot designed and undertaken by this selfsame secret organization full of career FBI and CIA agents, that this secret organization is either inept, since you claim that the facts have blown the second hand accusations out of the water, and by association the FBI and CIA is then inept, or that everything that has so far happened has been part of the plan of these Federal agents secretly ensconced inside the CIA and FBI and that the plot to overthrow the President is not over? 

You must choose, Crunch.  The Deep State is nefarious and dangerous, or the Deep State is utterly ridiculous and inept. 

Quote
And so was Schiff’s summary, right? How about mentioning Biden 8 times? What about the lack of quid pro quo? The call transcript is nothing like what we were told

I'm unclear what you are upset about.  You're upset that Schiff went for theater?  Or that the Wall Street Journal (also part of the Deep State, that) was incorrect on the number of times Biden was mentioned?  Who exactly are you upset at?  Who told you want the call transcript was going to be like that you find egregiously incorrect?  What does that have to do with what was in the Whistleblower complaint and what was in the transcript? 

Another summary:
Crunch:  Facts blow second hand rumors out of he water.
Scifi:  Actually, the WB report is consistent with the call summary.
Crunch:  What about Schiff and the WSJ? 

What I see above is someone who made an assertion, then was countered, and then completely ignored the counter and changed the subject.  This is what I see when I read that:

Poor Magician:  Watch me make this rabbit dissapear! Alakazam!
Audience Member: It's under the table. 
Poor Magician:  Watch me saw this chicken in half! 

By ignoring the counter, you give it strength.  I don't know if that was your goal, but that is what happened. 

Quote
After all this, what crime is Trump supposed to have committed on this call? Specifically, what section of the US code was violated?

That's a good question but at the same time it reveals a kind of ignorance.  As I've stated before, there has been no reference to any rule violated by POTUS in the USC or CFR.  That's probably because there is none!  As I mentioned earlier, most rules are aimed towards Federal Employees, of which by the definition in the USC, the President, Vice President, and members of Congress, are not.  They are elected Constitutional Officers. 

Nevertheless, there are bodies formed and rules promulgated to police ethics within this group of individuals.  Congress have their own ethics rules and investigative procedures and methods of enforcement.  This typically includes censure and impeachment or expulsion.  This goes for the POTUS as well.  Congress as a whole is responsible for impeachment of the POTUS. 

Do you need to violate an actual law or USC or CFR to be impeached or censured?  It certainly helps, but the answer that Congress and history gives is a resounding "no".  Firstly, as mentioned, there is no clear set of ethics rules for the POTUS.  But cause for impeachment generally falls under three categories; improperly exceeding or abusing powers of the office, behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office, and misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain. 

Trump is obviously accused of the third category of offense.  Yet you can see that a criminal offense is not necessary for any of these offenses to have occurred.  Like scifi said, impeachment is a political action, not a legal action or criminal trial. 

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #172 on: September 29, 2019, 04:38:01 PM »
The deep state comedy schtick is what I’m pointing out. Obviously.

Another summary:
Crunch: Facts blow second hand rumors out of the water
scifi: The WB report is consistent with the call summary
Crunch: it is not. It’s second hand rumor and twitter posts.

I know well that impeachment is a political and not a legal process. I wanted others to come to that conclusion on their own and make the point for me. Thus, a few leading questions. Now that you confirm the obvious of no crime being committed , that (let’s confirm the third option you make, a quid pro quo, did not happen on that call. Anyone can read the transcript and see that. Also, perhaps you can enlighten us on why the democrats actually doing it is not a problem but for Trump to be accused of it is impeachable.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #173 on: September 29, 2019, 05:23:39 PM »
Another summary:
Crunch: Facts blow second hand rumors out of the water
scifi: The WB report is consistent with the call summary
Crunch: it is not. It’s second hand rumor and twitter posts.

See, this is much better.  But this isn't what you said last time. 

Second hand rumor, or hearsay, is not proof, but you do not need proof to open an investigation.  If you needed proof to open an investigation, you would not need investigations, and you could go directly to trial or impeachment.  This is pretty obvious. 

The WB report specifically said that on the call the President tried to advance his own personal interests.  He did that.  He requested an investigation on Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.  That's in his own personal interests.  The WB report also reports that officials said that Trump put pressure on Zelenskyy to make these investigations.  This is a little more unclear, because we have no clear definition of what constitutes "pressuring".  If my wife simply asks me to take the garbage out, is she pressuring me?  Meh.  I'd say so.  I know what's going to happen if I don't.  On the other hand, describing something as a "favor" means that it is generally requested without pressure.  It's pretty tricky. 

Trump did indeed praise Lutsenko, as the WB report stated.  Overall, as a second hand intelligence report, I give the Deep State spy against the Trump Admin a pretty good reliability rating. 

Finally, I don't see the problem with using Rudy's Twitter posts to say that he said something.  If the WB wants to show that Rudy is involved in getting dirt on Biden from Ukraine, it's perfectly fair to point to Rudy's own tweets and television appearances where he stated he was doing that exact thing.  The whole point was to show that there was ample evidence that Rudy was indeed conducting a dirt mission for Trump with the Ukrainians outside of the US Government.   Remember, Rudy is not a member of the Government.  But Trump is asking Z to give information to him.  As Trump's personal lawyer. 

Quote
I wanted others to come to that conclusion on their own and make the point for me. Thus, a few leading questions.

You're brilliant, Crunch.  We would have never known that if you had not made such intelligent leading questions. 

Quote
a quid pro quo, did not happen on that call. Anyone can read the transcript and see that.

The call does not prove or disprove quid pro quo.  In fact, it's more damaging then not, because it shows that quid pro quo COULD be happening, despite it not being spelled out explicitly in the call.  It would have been better if the call and removed that possibility.  It would have been better if Trump had never frozen Ukrainian aid while simultaneously seeking a "favor" from them.  It changes the arithmetic. 

Quote
perhaps you can enlighten us on why the democrats actually doing it is not a problem but for Trump to be accused of it is impeachable.

I suppose you're talking about Biden.  I don't know why.  This is another "watch me saw this chicken in half" moment.  Because regardless is has nothing to do with whether what Trump did was wrong, but rather whether Democrats were getting away with something they should not have been, or if Democrats are charging Trump with doing something that is not wrong.

A scene at the Rabun County Courthouse, Georgia.

BH:  Yer Honer, Jonny McCoy's been *censored*in muh pigs.
JM:  Weyl, yer Honer, Billy Hatfield's been *censored*in MUH pigs! 

Now.  There are three possibilities.  The first possibility is that neither of the witnesses in front of Judge Conyers are having sexual intercourse with swine.  In this case, both are lying to get the other in trouble.  Both men are rotten for being liars. 

The second possibility is that only one of the men is having relations with swine.  In this case, one of the men is both a liar and a pig*censored*er. 

The third possibility is that both men are in the habit of knowing swine in the biblical manner.  They're both going to be hung and then go to hell.   

Now let's apply this to Biden and Trump.  You want to know why Biden gets away with something that Trump gets impeached for?  You are drawing a clear equivalency between the two men's actions.  So, did both Biden and Trump do something wrong?  Or did both Biden and Trump do something that wasn't wrong?

If Biden and Trump both did nothing wrong, there should be no complaint that Biden was no impeached.  This was correct action.  If indeed what Biden and Trump did was equivalent. 

If on the other hand, both Biden and Trump did something wrong, you should be praising the Democratic Congress for doing the right thing and castigating the Republican Congress for failing to impeach VP Biden.  I don't understand how they could make such an error, unless they too were part of the Deep State.  This may very well be the case.  I've heard enough complaints about Speaker Ryan to believe he may indeed have been a Deep State agent.

The final option is that what Biden and Trump both did are not equivalent.  Something to think about.   

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #174 on: September 30, 2019, 08:09:41 AM »
Quote
See, this is much better.  But this isn't what you said last time. 

I understand.  I will carefully spell these things out next time and try to use single syllable words as much as possible so even you can understand the obvious meaning.

Quote
You're brilliant, Crunch.  We would have never known that if you had not made such intelligent leading questions. 

This is a forum where, if I object to racial segregation, quite a few will blindly chime in and support racial segregation as a great thing. Sometimes I do need people to figure out the answers before I commit to a particular fact. It’s complicated, but you’re gonna be ok.

Quote
The call does not prove or disprove quid pro quo.
The how is it an impeachable offense?

Quote
I suppose you're talking about Biden.  I don't know why.  This is another "watch me saw this chicken in half" moment.

I will walk you through it, hold my hand. Biden, as Vice President, extorted the Ukraine to halt a prosecution of his son. Biden has openly bragged about this. Biden is now the front runner for the Democratic nomination for president - the office that Trump currently holds, you know. So why do you think it’s ok for Biden to have actually done what Trump is accused of by anonymous sources?

There’s more. Leahy, Menendez, and other Democrats sent a letter to the Ukraine threatening the loss of aid if Ukraine did not investigate Trump. Again, exactly what Trump is accused of doing. This is considered perfectly fine for them to do and impeachable for Trump. Can you explain why?

Quote
The final option is that what Biden and Trump both did are not equivalent.  Something to think about.   

They are not.  You should think about that. Let me know if I can help.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #175 on: September 30, 2019, 09:12:37 AM »
The second one sounds like what Trump is being accused of.  The first though?  That sounds like it would tie our hands in pretty much all dealings with foreign powers...

Putting pressure on a foreign leader is not at issue.  Doing so for your personal gain rather than national interest, is.

I'm no Biden fan.  Maybe he did do just that, but all the timeline info I've seen so far makes that seem unlikely.  But... here we have his son, in the right place at the right time to make money.  Everything (well, one small thing) I think is wrong with our government.  I'd feel a lot better about the investigation into such nepotism / corruption if it wasn't by a man who gives all appearances of trying to trump those who went before him on that front.   ::)

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #176 on: September 30, 2019, 11:30:19 AM »
The how is it an impeachable offense?

That seems to be a matter of opinion.  Firstly, we're not into impeachment proceedings yet.  We're not even into calling for a vote for impeachment in the House.  What has happened is that three different investigations in three different House Committees have been turned into impeachment investigations.  There is a great deal of smoke.  Some people say they can see a gun.  Personally, I don't see one clearly, but I can see all the smoke.  Because the House is still in investigation mode, they are still looking for more corroborating evidence.  They're going to call people up.  They're going to dig.  That's all that is going on at this point.  There is plenty of momentum for impeachment.  I'm sure that is plenty motivated by partisanship and Trump's general unpopularity.  But there are some pretty smart lawyerly people, not necessarily hyper partisan and not Democrats, that say this would be enough in a criminal court with a jury.  ::shrug::

Quote
I will walk you through it, hold my hand. Biden, as Vice President, extorted the Ukraine to halt a prosecution of his son. Biden has openly bragged about this. Biden is now the front runner for the Democratic nomination for president - the office that Trump currently holds, you know. So why do you think it’s ok for Biden to have actually done what Trump is accused of by anonymous sources?

Thanks for holding my hand on this.  It's been so long.  Nobody has wanted to touch me since I was diagnosed with timethylaminuria.   :'( 

Your premise is that Biden did something wrong that they are accusing Trump of doing who is innocent.  OK. 

1.  You should probably talk to Republican Congressmen about this problem.  My impression was that this was no secret.  Wanting to get rid of the old prosecutor was a foreign policy aim.  Why didn't the Republican Congress impeach Biden when this occured.  My guess is that Ryan and McCain were part of the Deep State. 

2.  The Trump accusation has been that the Ukrainian General Prosecutor was fired BECAUSE he was investigating the oil company Hunter Biden was on the board of.  But there is just as much if not more evidence that the prosecutor was fired because he WASN'T investigating the oil company.  Currently, Ukraine is saying there was no wrongdoing.  Currently, Ukraine is saying that the old prosecutor was corrupt.  This is corroborated by several different European countries.  So where is the evidence that Joe Biden did this to help Hunter Biden? 

3.  The whistleblower is NOT anonymous.  Their name is on the report they turned in to the IG.  It's just that YOU and I don't know who the whistleblower is, because it's not necessary to know who they are to deal exclusively with the accusations.  The IG knows who they are.  But I guess the IG is part of the Deep State.  Along with the DNI. 

Quote
There’s more. Leahy, Menendez, and other Democrats sent a letter to the Ukraine threatening the loss of aid if Ukraine did not investigate Trump. Again, exactly what Trump is accused of doing. This is considered perfectly fine for them to do and impeachable for Trump. Can you explain why?

This is silly.  It's like a puppy chasing it's tail.  The Mueller Investigation was an official investigation by the United States.  Of course the Senate should threaten loss of aid if a foreign country is not cooperating with an investigation of a possible crime that occurred in the United States or by US Citizens.  The difference is that the Mueller Investigation was an official investigation by the US Government and the Biden Investigation seems to be a personal one undertaken by the President.  We've gone over this before. 

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #177 on: September 30, 2019, 12:30:42 PM »
I want people to know that the law governing WB reports never required only "first hand" information, and also that disclosure forms prior to August 2019 had explicit checkboxes for both types of information.

The Federalist (consider your sources people) story that there was a secret conspiracy to remove the requirement for firsthand information is a silly red herring.

Informative thread:
https://twitter.com/kpoulsen/status/1177734528833445888

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #178 on: September 30, 2019, 12:50:56 PM »
I want people to know that the law governing WB reports never required only "first hand" information, and also that disclosure forms prior to August 2019 had explicit checkboxes for both types of information.

The Federalist (consider your sources people) story that there was a secret conspiracy to remove the requirement for firsthand information is a silly red herring.

I figured as much, since everybody was jumping on this single source who came up with the old forms but did not publish it in full.  I was always curious if the old forms were fakes. 

That being said, I still have not seen this officially corroborated by anyone in the ICIG office.  The story broke wide open on Friday evening, so I suppose they were all off for the weekend, but I was and am still surprised that something official has not been put out.  As far as I know, everything has been faked except the new form.  There still is no statement going over when exactly the form was revised, when the decision making process began, what the reasoning was, when it was decided upon and who did it.  The new twitter source is using the same document, but puts more of it out there, including putting in the checkbox that is also on the new form.  But the new form does not have the same instructions as the old form concerning only taking first hand information seriously. 

This is one of those stories that feed the Deep State conspiracy theory.  There are still questions that need to be asked to see if the forms or policy was changed in direct response to the Trump whistleblower, and what the reasoning behind it was.  Republican Congressmen should investigate.  But jumping to conclusions was the wrong way to go.  Anything that looks too good should always be suspect. 



scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #180 on: September 30, 2019, 06:10:16 PM »
Couple of points from the above:

1) Requiring a WB to have direct knowledge would not be consistent with the law.

Quote
In fact, by law the Complainant
– or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect
to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees – need not possess first-hand
information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The
ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law.

So, this language (which was indeed provided to the WB) was not consistent with the law:

Quote
If you
think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than secondhand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the
complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA.

As the statement elaborates, the ICIG can and should investigate WB complaints which contain secondhand information - which might include talking to people who told the WB information.


2) It further explains that the WB checked both boxes - both first and secondhand information. They confirmed that the WB had primary access to some of the information in the complaint, and interviewed other people who had direct knowledge of events described in the complaint.

3) They realized that language indicating they couldn't accept or process complaints that didn't depend on direct knowledge wasn't consistent with the law, so they updated some forms to clear up the confusion.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #181 on: September 30, 2019, 06:15:50 PM »
Here's the official response:

This was definitely written by a Deepstate Agent who is part of the coup attempt on the President.  I find it suspiciously convenient that the new Hotline Program Manager for the ICIG was hired just two months before the whistle-blower submitted his letter.  Obviously another member of the Deepstate.  Then you have the ICIG himself, a definite member of the Deepstate.  And the acting DNI, despite holding the report back from Congress, was revealed as a Deepstate Agent when he reported that he believed ICIG and Whistleblower were acting in good faith in testimony to Congress. 

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #182 on: October 01, 2019, 11:04:59 AM »
The how is it an impeachable offense?

That seems to be a matter of opinion.  Firstly, we're not into impeachment proceedings yet.  We're not even into calling for a vote for impeachment in the House.  What has happened is that three different investigations in three different House Committees have been turned into impeachment investigations.  There is a great deal of smoke.  Some people say they can see a gun.  Personally, I don't see one clearly, but I can see all the smoke.  Because the House is still in investigation mode, they are still looking for more corroborating evidence.  They're going to call people up.  They're going to dig.  That's all that is going on at this point.  There is plenty of momentum for impeachment.  I'm sure that is plenty motivated by partisanship and Trump's general unpopularity.  But there are some pretty smart lawyerly people, not necessarily hyper partisan and not Democrats, that say this would be enough in a criminal court with a jury.  ::shrug::

Plenty of smoke indeed, most of it seems to be coming from the smoke machine the DNC has made sure to provision for however. The funhouse mirrors are a nice touch as well.

Prediction: It's going to continue to be a "funhouse activity" for the Democrats in the House for a few more months, they're not in an actual hurry, the more time they can keep things focused on Trump rather than anything substantial(and positive) for Trump is an expected win for them. (I doubt it will play out that way for them, however).

The Grand Strategy at this point is they'll likely move to have a formal floor vote in the House sometime around December/January time frame, realistically, if they can drag it out until March/April they'd be giddy in other ways. They want the Republicans to go on record as voting for or against impeachment on Donald Trump. It just is a question of how they're trying to target Republican Congress members.

If they go for December/January, the goal is to upset Republican voters and see if the Congressman can end up being Primaried by a train-wreck option for the General Election -- Which makes it easier for Democrats to possibly snipe the seat.

If they go for March/April or even May/June, they're looking to use it as a political totem to go after the Republican incumbents in the General Election.

This isn't actually about Donald Trump.

It's about the calculus of how a sitting Republican voting for or against Trump's Impeachment is likely to impact the re-electability in the next general election.

Of course, the Dems also need to gather more data about how their "Purple districts" will hold up in the wake of such a vote in the House, not to mention the Senate. So in the mean time, it's funhouse time with the smoke machine until they have to either kill it before it ever reaches the House Floor, or go ahead and bring out the clowns.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #183 on: October 01, 2019, 11:17:57 AM »
All this "Deep State" stuff keeps getting more and more bemusing as it goes on.  As if it requires some grand conspiracy that the entire apparatus of government is allergic to Trump's personality, statements/tweets, and actions.  It requires no coordination or planning.  Huge swaths of the world want this embarrassment to end.

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #184 on: October 01, 2019, 02:55:44 PM »
"This isn't actually about Donald Trump."

You're completely wrong. Donald Trump is a national embarrassment and is dangerous. Look at his response so far to the mere stirrings of the House against him: suggesting that Schiff be arrested for "Treason" - in total ignorance of Constitution. Saying he's trying to out the whistleblower, in violation of the law. Suggesting that "spies" in the administration should be dealt with the old fashioned way.

Imagine what he's willing to do if it looks like he's going to be removed from office?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #185 on: October 02, 2019, 12:24:10 PM »
Imagine what he's willing to do if it looks like he's going to be removed from office?

Luckily, Trump isn't a very inspirational person, and not THAT loyalty inducing/charismatic. The moment he tries to move clearly outside constitutional boundaries, he's toast. Emphasis needs to be placed on bother "clearly" and "constitutional" in the above, statutory law and traditional practices are different matters, and people on Trump's may be more inclined to let those slide with a grimmace.

Otherwise he's a bloviator in chief, and as long as he only bloviates, how others respond to that or try to frame it in a legal context is their own problem. Unless they have concrete actions to point to that violate the Constitution, it's not likely to go anywhere with Trump's support base.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #186 on: October 02, 2019, 01:33:54 PM »
Luckily, Trump isn't a very inspirational person, and not THAT loyalty inducing/charismatic. The moment he tries to move clearly outside constitutional boundaries, he's toast. Emphasis needs to be placed on bother "clearly" and "constitutional" in the above, statutory law and traditional practices are different matters, and people on Trump's may be more inclined to let those slide with a grimmace.

Otherwise he's a bloviator in chief, and as long as he only bloviates, how others respond to that or try to frame it in a legal context is their own problem. Unless they have concrete actions to point to that violate the Constitution, it's not likely to go anywhere with Trump's support base.

He'll have no institutional support but I think people who support Trump will continue to do so far beyond simple violations of the Constitution. There are too many possible justifications already circulating for them to accept that kind of betrayal easily. Especially since the most likely move is to resist impeachment or losing the election.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #187 on: October 02, 2019, 01:56:27 PM »
Quote
"This isn't actually about Donald Trump."

You're completely wrong. Donald Trump is a national embarrassment and is dangerous.

This may actually be about his followers. Personally I think they are undermining there own foundation. Sadly I suspect they may not notice until they hit the ground.
Even then maybe not as that won't fit the narrative, Foundations are for the week, no foundation no ground, and falling is flying   

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #188 on: October 02, 2019, 02:15:43 PM »
I'd just like to mention something, since things have gotten a bit out of hand with the deep state jokes (not that I invoked that term myself). The idea of the deep state does not at all imply clandestine conspiracies and men in smoking jackets and leather armchairs like in the X-Files. I suppose it can include that too, but that's not the requisite definition of it. The idea of a deep state is simply the obvious: that there are elements in government and in power that are not elected positions and not subject to direct oversight. This should more or less be a "duh" concept for people. The scoffing comes when it sounds like tinfoil hat stuff. But that's just a strawman destabilization technique to avoid what really everyone knows, which is that many or even most of the real movers and shakers are people who don't appear in the news, and who remain in place regardless of which administration has been elected.

Earlier in the thread when I listed various organizations - banks, military industry, etc - which I listed in attempt to prevent trivializing the players in the game (which happened anyhow, even worse than before perhaps), the point I was making was that it's not just "what will Trump and his lackeys do" versus "what will the FBI do" versus "do the people support XYZ". That's a part of it, but a President only has so much power; and his options are guided by some gates that are pre-set for him. The will of the people can only apply itself so far; there is no mechanism for 'the people' to affect most things in government. And likewise the FBI isn't a person with a single will; it's made up of different people with different ideas, some of whom are likely double or triple agents. And lest you take that to mean some illuminati-type nonsense, it means they're working for a few people at the same time, which is more or less standard in certain types of employment. It happens all the time with 'freelance spies', information brokers, people who have one foot in law enforcement or the law, and the other in politics; it's quite common to have a diversified portfolio, if you want to call it that, in terms of the tasks one is conducting. The same is true of every member of Congress, in spades, where they have differing and often conflicting agendas going on to various ' business partners' (i.e. lobbyists and other fun people).

So when talking about NATO, the Ukraine, or anything else of a complex nature, it's just common sense that there will be many factors involved in how these steps are taken. Do you really think that people in high positions aren't in regular communication with Wall Street executives in order to get a sense of how foreign policy will affect the markets? Or that the potential contracts and payouts that will come from a military adventure somewhere aren't fully noted and taken into account? Or that the oil interests when occuping territory in the mid-East won't make their desires known, and have their powerful contacts make phone calls and meet with the President about what that could mean for the American economy? The list goes on. These things don't happen in a vaccuum. I won't even get into these media empires and what their interests might be. Actually to be fair that can be hard to tell.

As far as the impeachment goes this has been coordinated from the moment he was elected. It was always going to be "we are going to get him, the only question is how", and not "well if he does something wrong we'll be there to wipe his nose." And again, lest the word "coordinated" be trivialized, it does not have to mean secret meetings of 'the cabal' organizing and planning their actions carefully. It can mean that various interested parties all observed a similar situation that could advantage them and set about throwing fuel into the fire. Seeing a fire burning, and deciding to stoke the flames, does imply a coordinated effort towards a single goal, even though no actual meetings or advanced planned are required. It seems beyond question that de facto impeachment proceedings have been going on since inauguration, and IMO they are using a bit of a weak-sauce pretence for officially launching it right now. I suppose if enough of the big interests are behind it then it might go through, as lacking influence in the right circles probably means you're screwed as President anyhow.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #189 on: October 02, 2019, 03:50:28 PM »
Quote
As far as the impeachment goes this has been coordinated from the moment he was elected. It was always going to be "we are going to get him, the only question is how", and not "well if he does something wrong we'll be there to wipe his nose." And again, lest the word "coordinated" be trivialized, it does not have to mean secret meetings of 'the cabal' organizing and planning their actions carefully. It can mean that various interested parties all observed a similar situation that could advantage them and set about throwing fuel into the fire.

While I'm sure there are quite a few who look for how the situation could "advantage them," remember that most of the impeachment movement comes from Donald himself.

It was obvious (to many of us) that Donald would be a terrible President even before he was elected.  He is a narcissist, a know-it-all, a bully and a blowhard.  He lies openly and obviously, and attacks anyone who opposes him.  He has little to no respect for the law or norms.  Knowledge and competence are less important to him than loyalty and doing what he wants.  He was always out for himself above all others.  It was only a matter of time before he did something illegal and/or stupid.  The only question was when, where, and how bad.

In a situation like this, it's not "well if he does something wrong we'll be there to wipe his nose."  It's "WHEN he does something wrong..."  We have been expecting it; we have been on the lookout for it.  When you know there is a tiger in the tall grass, you prepare for it and keep you eyes open.  And you're not surprised when he comes out.

Yes, people may have jumped the gun before.  Other times, we have seen things we knew were wrong but didn't have enough proof and/or political clout to prove it.  Pelosi was cautious in what she went after.  And even this latest scandal may turn out to be jumping the gun.  But don't fool yourself--Trump is a terrible President, a rotten human being, and this Presidency will be remembered as one of the worst in American history.  And if those in the Deep State--those people who work for the government and try to keep it running--see how things are being messed up, it is not surprising that they would oppose the destruction of what they have spent years of their lives creating and maintaining--the U.S. government.  It doesn't need to be looking for an advantage for oneself.  It could just be that they don't want to see a good thing ruined by a bad President.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #190 on: October 02, 2019, 04:31:36 PM »
I don't necessarily disagree, WS, that much of it is Trump's fault. However, and this is a big however, to the extent that it's Trump's fault it's due to things that are features rather than bugs, like it or not. The people voted, and this is what they wanted; they knew what they were getting. They knew what real estate people are like; they knew his spoken manner was full of BS. They knew he wheeled and dealed; in fact it was part of his platform. Now if he actually breaks the law I agree with you. I am all for holding them accountable, although not in a hypocritical or inconsistent fashion. But if it's about picking on something where a stumble on his part is technically illegal, but something everyone before him has done too and just covered better, I'm not in favor of utilizing such clumsiness as a pretext to do what those people wanted to do all along. It should not be a pretext, but rather something truly showing he crossed a line and is abusing his office. In such a case I'd want him gone as much as you. So far it feels like a pretext, much like Hillary's server may have been to many of her detractors. For those who already know what they want and are just looking for how to justify it, I'll push against that just on principle, which is why I'm sometimes on here 'defending' Trump. I actually don't want to defend him, but rather to defend against bad conscience politics (not accusing anyone here of that), regardless of whom their target is. Even against a bad guy, I'll push back against illict tactics. As it stands that leaves me in the position of sometimes taking 'the conservative side' even though I actually have zero stake in his Presidency, don't particularly like him or hope he looks great in the history books, and would have much preferred Bernie than anyone else in office. I just want to put all of these posts of mine in a kind of context.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #191 on: October 02, 2019, 06:02:23 PM »
I just read the whistle blower complaint.  If you didn't believe in  a deep state before, that document should remove all doubt.   

 ::) 
Cumon, man.  Why's it always have to be a conspiracy?

Not sure why you think it's a "conspiracy," by which based on the rest of your comments you seem to mean something out of the X-Files.  I mean there are something like 2 million federal employees of which over 350,000 are based in DC.  There are hundreds of agency's and thousands and thousands of senior bureaucrats.  Do you really think they simply fold their loyalties over to the policies of each new administration?

We know they don't.  We know that the "resistance" has been all over the deep state.

We also know that one of the big media complaints about Trump early on, was that he was upending the cozy relationship they have with the government.

We can see the results in the constant leaks, in the one sided coverage, in the lack of any interest in fairness or review of crimes in both directions.  Honestly, this one is a total joke, Trump is being impeached for investigating crimes, specifically, DNC/Obama Admin election interference in 2016, Biden's potential selling access to the Admin, and Joe's potential abuse of office - all of which are better established than the "crime" of soliciting 2020 election interference by asking for any evidence of actual crimes.  By the logic of the left, investigating any Democrat, no matter how guilty, would be de facto an abuse of power and interference in the 2020 election.

Quote
It's either a media conspiracy, or a deep state conspiracy, or a NATO conspiracy, or a G20 conspiracy, or an Illuminati conspiracy, or a CIA conspiracy, or an Israeli conspiracy, or a Saudi conspiracy, or a Republican conspiracy.  I don't even know what "deep state" means, other than it's used like there is some deep conspiracy within the US government to hurt Trump.  Some nefarious group of a government within a government.

Deep state means the bureacracy.  Specifically, it's a conspiracy that seems to center in the Intelligence services, which isn't surprising when you look back and remember how Obama changed the rules on sharing classified information on the way out the door to ensure that virtually everyone in that service could access anything they wanted without having to show a need.  The media are in fact colluding with the DNC, they have in fact been caught doing so multiple times, the fact is they are the common thread between the DNC and the deep state leakers as well.

The rest of your "groups" are just thrown in for nonsence.

Quote
Quote
It was clearly compiled with the help of activist lawyers

If it was clearly complied by activist lawyers, what is the proof of that?  That it was well written?

Interestingly, I wrote that before the latest revelations, that Shiff new about the complaint before it was drafted, which should cause any person with doubts to understand the truth that this was drafted by a legal team to give Shiff and the DNC a purpose built plan to impeach.  Having Mueller fail, they went back to well, and this time faked up a much better template.

Why did Shiff spend 15 minutes hammering the acting DNI about "ensuring the whistleblower will be protected"?  Aren't we a country where the accused has a right to confront their attacker?  Not in this case, hundreds of years of legal form and precedent, the common law and the Constitution be damned.  Knowing who the whistleblower is would allow the normal people to make a judgement about whether they are just a partisan hack, or even a spy, keeping them anonymous is a tactic to make them seem more credible.

As to why I said it was drafted by activist lawyers, a thousand tells from reading an enormous amount of documents.  Not only that, it was drafted by a firm, with multiple lawyers having a hand, work produced without that level of collaboration doesn't come across anywhere near as polished.  It's also blatantly obvious that the information therein was compiled using government resources and most likely contributions from multiple members of the Intelligence Agencies.

Start with the first paragraph.  It puts the 2 most key things legally in that paragraph, and only those things for emphasis, they go directly to the right to release the information (which is done to try and prejudge that the individual submitting the claim is not themselves violating the law in doing so).  They are the specific legal conclusions "urgent concern" which entitle the whistleblower to go to the Intell Committees regardless of the IG's actions, and that "not classified" which purports a right to share everything without providing it to any review authority.  I note, it is now known, that the whistleblower had no intention of following the legal process as they have already spoken to members of the Intell committee (who probably where involved in connecting them with the lawfirms) and that they leaked it to the media.   

I've also seen a large number of similar documents drafted by non-lawyers, and they would almost never start with two non-substantive facts that are legally critical, and nothing about substance.  They'd start with what a non-lawyer thinks is critical the statement that they saw an illegal act.  Which if you think about it, would be the first thing on the mind of a whistleblower - the actual situation that justifies blowing the whistle.

Next paragraph, first sentence again is deliberately drafted to go directly to legal concerns.  "In the course of my official duties.." written to pre-empt the claim that the person was misusing intellingence or other resources by looking into confidential matters (which the President's communications are as a matter of fact and law).  This is almost certainly false, and again, something that is unlikely to be the way a non-lawyer leads off, particuarly with where the sentence goes next.  "...received information from multiple US Government Officials.." which is an interesting description of duties, and leads to the immediate question of why is this reference there.  It's there to generate pretend credibility.  It's not just me, it's multiple people, and while I don't have first hand knowledge (comes later), they do.  Why didn't they report it?  Not clear, especially in the context of deciding, apparently independently to share information - most likely in violation of their obligations to confidentiality - with this person.  And where does the sentence go?  Does it go to the most likely thing a person would think, blackmail?  abuse of office?  Nope - campaign violation of the 2020 race.  Why does it go there, that's not the place a layperson would think of naturally.  My guess is it goes there because someone on the Mueller team that really wanted to prosecute Don Jr. was involved in the drafting.  it's relying on the LEGALLY UNPROVEN idea that true information is a thing of value that it's illegal to recieve from a foreign national.  Go reread the Mueller report on that, they even pointed out that they weren't sure they could prove or prosecute it - and lest you think that this was part of Trump's presidential immunity, you'd be wrong, it was Don Jr. and Kushner, neither of whom was entitled to immunity.  So why was it in the Mueller report?  No good reason other than as a smear.

The next sentence doesn't just say the straight forward claim, it includes the preamble "among other things," which again is a classic lawyerism, where most non-lawyers would list out the multiple things they think prove their case, or just the one thing without the preamble.  Every law firm, on the other hand, would insert some  form of that at some stage of the drafting.

The next two lines are designed to build a basis to investigate Guilliani and to force Barr to recuse himself.  I note, Nadler made that second demand almost real time, and the subpeona's have issued on Guilliani.  Ask yourself, why a whistleblower would think those two are so critical that they need to be in the final 2 sentences of the preamble before there's even a reference to the phone call?  Or to the facts?  It's because this was purpose designed to play to a play book that Shiff is playing out.

The next bullet point - vaguely asserts that the information has come to the whistleblower by more than half a dozen officials, as a routine matter as part of the routine process.  Sounds good right?   Except it doesn't make any sense.  Is it really routine to share information about President's allegedly violating the law?  Nope.  So what is this referring to?  It's implying that it refers to evidence of illegality, but it in fact it doesn't.  It refers to evidence that we have had a foreign policy that involves the Ukraine, and that this person received ordinary course updates thereof.  This is a classic trick of activist lawyers writing for a non-legal audience.  Make them see more than is there without saying anything that isn't untrue.

Second bullet, I wasn't an eye witness.  Qualified by "most," and why?  Because it leads to an implication that they saw the damaging parts, without ever saying any such thing.  It's also a nod to the problem that was inherent in reporting hearsay - ie that it wasn't clear that the whistleblower would be protected, not withstanding the shady revisions to the form - and by the way the explanation posted about the background law is not remotely persuasive for why the form was revised, nor is it clear that it's an accurate interpretation.  Honestly, what's the difference between a whistleblower and a flat out spy?  There's no criminal conduct in Trump's transcript, which means this person is  actually a spy not a whistle blower.  Then the second bullet double's down on the corroboration, both of the other persons and the public press accounts.  Wait what?  Public press accounts, how are they corroborating anything?  Well once again cause this bullet is drafted to make you think it says more than it does.  It's kind of like one could say you have multiple sources of corroboration for the Trump dossier, cause you have six people that say he stayed in a Russian hotel, notwithstanding that none of them verified anything about a prosititute. 

In effect, all the two bullets actually say for purposes of considering whether the author perjured themselves is that multiple sources told him some stuff, much of which was also reported in the media.  It say's nothing about illegal activities, which is what they want you to believe was verified by multiple sources (lawyer trick).

The next paragraph is written it tight sentences that would appear in a legal filing.  State exactly the statute, the exact relevant phrase, then state it's not exact phrase of exemption.  Revert to duty to report (not clear why the first hand sources didn't report against this backdrop).  Several of the assertions are false.  Whistleblower asserts they are reporting through proper legal channels - notwithstanding they spoke to the committee before they drafted the complaint, and released information to the media when the IG didn't turn it over to the committee.  That's especially notworthy now that we know Shiff did have pre-knowledge.  Remember what I said about how releasing it to the media allowed it to go public and separated Shiff from appearing to have brought it forward.  That's 100% what happened based on what we now know.  Releasing it the committee would have done nothing since Dems on the committte already knew about it, it had to go public before they "officially got it" (else it would have been a delberate leak on their part).  It's also now expressly false that releasing it to the media was the only way the committee would learn about it.

Substantively it's also wrong because the conduct in question was - as a matter of fact - not a violation of law, and accordingly, does not appear to be a proper exercise of a whistleblower action.  The argument that impeachment doesn't have to be about an illegal act, doesn't help, as the whistle blower claim did.  It's also disputable that it involves a legitimate difference of policy, in that Trump's policy appears to be to ask for assistance in the investigation of an actual crime (2016 election interference), and two possible crimes (Hunter's selling access, Joe's abuse of office), and the Ukraine and the US have a treaty obligation each other to assist upon request.  Is the claim that it's illegal for the President to ask for that assistance as the head of the Executive branch (false on its face)?  It has never been established anywhere at law that obtaining evidence of a crime by a person is a campaign contribution to the other person - and even if it were, the Obama administration, the Hillary campaign, and multiple DNC Senators and Reps asked for exactly that evidence literally from the Ukraine.

The bullet following claims a risk to National Security - which is not remotely established or relevant - and doubles down on election interference.  Again these claims are here, rather than much more common ideas about Trump blackmailing the Ukrainian President because this was written by lawyers (they know the blackmail idea is dead in the water based on the record, and that the election interference has no legs in a real court but is a highly partisan and sellable issue for Congress) who are activists (election manipulation charges are 100% the goal of the activists to make the upcoming DOJ investigation into the 2016 election look like "revenge" and stale factors).  The whole point of this, so far, is to undercut Barr - by forcing recusal (ideal) or making him look partisan when they bring criminal charges for 2016 malfeasance, while writing an issue for the DNC House that is incapable of being disproven - as in there's no judicial resolution of receiving true information being an illegal campaign contribution, that the DNC wants to sell - because they are furious about how Hillary/DNC emails flipped a winnable election and because it effectively criminalizes Republican's looking for dirt on the DNC while the DNC knows the media will continue to cover for any Democratic research efforts, no matter how egregious (hiring a British spy to collect Russian propaganda, which you use to start a 2 year witch hunt, after using it to illegally spy on a major US political campaign.  The DNC made Nixon look like an amatuer and apparently is not only getting away with it, but is on track to criminalize the investigation of it).

And then the final paragraph of the introduction, is classic lawyer speach about the classification.  This report is "unclassified," notwithstanding that it includes a plethora of information that is subject to executive privilege and confidentiality the vast majority of which is not illegal or reportable conduct.  And then it writes  a true lawyer sentence that warns anyone classifying any part that their reasons are subject to review, effectively flipping the burden to the person applying the standard.    This is a loser it court.  This is a loser before a review tribunal.  This is exactly what the DNC/House needs to pretend they are applying a process and investigating something.

That's just the preamble Grant, effectively page one.  Everything about it screams lawfirm and careful planning and tactics that have zero to do with reporting a crime, and everything to do with establishing a pretext for an impeachment enquiry.  The DNC preknowledge (maybe even assitance in drafting, certainly in connecting the whistle blower with the lawyer) explains why Pelosi was willing to go "formal" without seeing it, she'd already seen it or been told it asserted a quid pro quo by Trump.  Once again Trump's instincts bizarrely flipped the script.  As there is nothing illegal, or really even wrong, in his phone call he ordered it and the whistle blower complaint made public.  He's not hiding anything, and thereafter we discover that Shiff and the House DNC have been hiding a bunch, that the whole thing has been orchestrated from the start, that most of the claims about what was in the whistle blower report (ie the whole quid pro quo) where not true, and they were being discussed in that window where the DNC already knew what was in the report, notwithstanding that they were pretending not to, and had not yet seen the transcript.  Seeing the transcript come out before the report (when they thought they'd have months to selectively leak the report's claims before the trasncript was forced out after the court's overruled executive privilige, or even months of "what is he hiding" forced them to have to walk back talking points that were already live.  The media was in fact so unprepared for the reversed release order that they couldn't flip the script, and they actually falsified reporting by doing things like editing out the 500 words between Trump asking for a favor and the conversation about Biden.  Even Shiff couldn't help himself, and had to do a "parody" of what Trump said, while pretending to read from a transcript that in no way matched what he said.

We really need an amendment that requires Reps and Senators to go under oath in some contexts.

I get it you want to pretend that a Deep State conspiracy is some kind of impossibility, but there's no question that you have a coordination here between at least the House Democrats, the media and a "whistle blower," and probably other members of the Intell Community.  It's even more troubling in that the whistle blower doesn't in my view appear to qualify as a whistle blower.  This wasn't a good faith report of a troubling event, this was a researched and compiled legal brief targeted at an impeachment, almost certainly compiled with the aid of a law firm (almost certainly without clearance and a breach of confidentiality), with the full support and knowledge of members of Congress.  If that's not enough evidence of a Deep State conspiracy for you, then I'm going to have to downgrade further my faith in humanity.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whistleblower-complaint-declassified-version-of-complaint-released-by-house-intelligence-committee-ahead-of-dni/

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #192 on: October 02, 2019, 07:00:37 PM »
Wow.

So much effort to make this NOT about whether the President is abusing his office for personal gain. Yet, that is what it's about.

Sorry you went to all that effort?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #193 on: October 02, 2019, 07:03:30 PM »
What makes you think that the whistleblower doesn't have legal experience? They could well have a law degree. Or they could have consulted a lawyer on their own before choosing to draw Trumpian wrath upon themselves. There's no "and therefore, Democrat conspiracy" that can be attached to those observations even if we accept them all as true.

I think it is interesting that most of the people demanding that there be evidence before accusing Trump seem perfectly fine using conjecture and inference to accuse Schiff.

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #194 on: October 02, 2019, 07:07:42 PM »
See also:

Urgent concerns about Biden's son's past business activities, ZERO concern about Trump's children's CURRENT business activities.

Treating wild-ass conspiracy theories about Crowdstrike that originated on 4chan as a legitimate national interest basis for twisting Zelensky's arm.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #195 on: October 02, 2019, 08:26:43 PM »
Wow.

So much effort to make this NOT about whether the President is abusing his office for personal gain. Yet, that is what it's about.

Sorry you went to all that effort?

That was just to explain, why the complaint appears to me to the work of activist lawyers, and deep state efforts.  I would have liked to cover the other pages as well, but too much time, for what I expect to be (and seems based on this comment) zero return.

So, it's your assertion that if Biden or his son committed a crime, that's for the President's "personal gain"?  Or if Ukraine has information about the predicate of the Mueller investigation, like say whether there was an active conspiracy with the Obama administration, that's just for the President's personal gain?

Did I miss how people on this cite backed a two year investigation that compelled through subpoena the internview of hundreds of people and production of millions of documents for an investigation into Russian "collusion" that never occurred?  Was that just for the "personal benefit" of the DNC?

What makes you think that the whistleblower doesn't have legal experience? They could well have a law degree.

Nothing makes me think that.  There's no chance this was drafted by the whistleblower on their own, it wasn't drafted by a single lawyer, this is the work of a firm or group of lawyers.

Quote
Or they could have consulted a lawyer on their own before choosing to draw Trumpian wrath upon themselves.

No, not with how this was written.  This was written as an impeachment template, it's what they wanted Mueller to provide but that he failed to do.  All it's deficiencies are wrapped up in vagueness and areas where there are legitimate executive  privilege.  In other words, it was designed such that the only defenses are to "hide" the truth or to turn over things that legitimately are not the business of Congress. 

And, there's no crime revealed - the whistle blower is not a whistle blower.

Quote
There's no "and therefore, Democrat conspiracy" that can be attached to those observations even if we accept them all as true.

Pelosi's own statements demonstrates she had advanced knowledge of the complaint (ie before it's release), and the reporting today makes it clear that Shiff and other Democrats on the committee did as well.  Pre-knowledge and a complaint that's purpose drafted to support an impeachment enquiry, coupled with actual steps by Pelosi such as declaring a "formal" impeachment enquiry before she could know what was in the debate, are enough to establish a conspiracy under Rico sufficient to investigate.

Quote
I think it is interesting that most of the people demanding that there be evidence before accusing Trump seem perfectly fine using conjecture and inference to accuse Schiff.

I didn't require evidence before accusing Trump.  I'm suggesting that when you have the evidence and it doesn't prove the case you should back off the claim.  There's nothing in the call that is illegal or inappropriate.  The whistle blower case makes multiple false statements designed to overhype the call.  It really does look like there was coordination.

It's not a secret I don't trust Shiff.  He flat out said, as the ranking member and later chair of the Intelligence Committee that there was evidence of Russian collusion that we had not seen.  That turned out to be a lie, we'd seen pretty much everything of significance that was in the Mueller report, and more we had ALREADY seen the supposed predicate and it was  a nothing burger.

See also:

Urgent concerns about Biden's son's past business activities, ZERO concern about Trump's children's CURRENT business activities.

Which ones do you have some kind of evidence about?  I mean honestly, Hunter gets a seat for $600k a year on the board of a Ukraine gas company at the exact time his father is running the energy policy for the country, despite no actual qualifications.  Maybe you can provide the information on the equivalent situation?

Quote
Treating wild-ass conspiracy theories about Crowdstrike that originated on 4chan as a legitimate national interest basis for twisting Zelensky's arm.

Maybe provide the passage in the transcript where Trump 'twists Zelensky's arm' or are you too relying on Shiff's version?

Lol.  This is why I'm responding.  You guys are making up a story.  It's not entirely your fault, the media is selling it to you.  But it is your fault if you don't look at the call transcript and keep citing to things that didn't happen.

Or you can do some legwork and see if you can find actual evidence of the point.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #196 on: October 02, 2019, 08:30:59 PM »
Some people say the prosecutor investigating Burisma deserved to be fired because he was corrupt and was actually slow walking the Burisma investigation and others say he was fired on orders from Joe Biden right before Hunter was about to be called to give a statement about the money he was getting at Burisma but what you don't see in the media is what actually happened with the Burisma investigation after he was replaced. Of course, he could be corrupt and still intent on investigating Burisma because he hadn't yet been paid enough not to.

But a good question is what ever happened with the investigation? Did the investigation continue and reach some sort of conclusion or did it just go away? I wish I knew. I haven't heard anything about Hunter getting interviewed by the new prosecutor and I haven't heard anything about a conclusion, either that Burisma was totally legit or that there was pay for access. But the media not saying anything about the results of the investigation, if there was one after the prosecutor conducting it was fired, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that it just kind of dropped off the radar. The same reasonable person might conclude that if the investigation was dropped after he was fired and after Biden said big money was getting held up unless he was fired, then two plus two equals Joe Biden used American taxpayer money as leverage to get the guy investigating the company his son was working for fired and after that the investigation went nowhere, ipso facto quid pro quo.

I suppose the point is that maybe what we need right now is a very thorough investigation into what exactly went on there. Trump is right to press for it. We need to dig deep and root out all the corruption of the previous administration. If Trump was smart he'd be declassifying a lot more of the Obama era information, like phone call transcripts, White House visitor logs, etc. There is no need to worry about the same thing happening to Trump because it already is anyway.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2019, 08:40:27 PM by cherrypoptart »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #197 on: October 02, 2019, 08:57:15 PM »
So let's say you support an impeachment investigation.  Ask yourself why there hasn't been a vote in the House.  What would change?  First of all the legal uncertainty would be gone, courts are not obligated to treat the Pelosi announcement in the same manner as a real impeachment.

Second, process.  The House would be required to establish a legitimate process.  In the other impeachments that involved counsel from the President being present with the right to cross examine witnessed.  Remember what was missing from the Mueller report?  That's right, any ability to cross examine the witnesses or dispute the nonsensical and self serving conclusions.  Notice what's been missing in Nadler's and Shiff's hearings?  Any ability to object to the "questions" they ask?  Nope.  Even when the questions themselves are lies the witnesses are forced to respond under penalty of perjury.  Even when they threaten a witness with jail or violating legal privilege there's no consequence.

Ask yourself why, if this is legitimate, the House is resisting any steps to make it appear impartial. 

I mean Shiff, as the chair of the intelligence committee, opened up with reading a fictional account of what Trump supposedly said, that was fake and way worse than reality.   Does that sound like an impartial investigation?  Nadler opened up Lewandowski's hearing by stating "as fact" that Trump was guilty of multiple crimes.  Can you imagine a judge that did so?

The right to confront your accuser?  Shiff's biggest concern is keeping the whistle blower secret so that he can not be confronted, so that we can not evaluate the IG's conclusion that the whistle blower appears motivated by political bias.  Let's let Strzok write a complaint while we are at it.

What part of American justice does the Democrat's "process" match?  Questioners who can lie, assert false facts, threaten witnesses, introduce secret accusations?  Is this really the America you support?

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #198 on: October 02, 2019, 09:02:38 PM »
It is already known that Trump is guilty, and so is anyone who supports or helps him.

This is now officially a second Inquisition.