Doesn't Trump's reaction to the whistleblower itself warrant impeachment?

  • 108 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

11150

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#101  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 11150 Posts
@Jacanuk said:

And you keep up with the charade.

Again the way you look at something are not equal to it being an actual fact and i know for you like with the Mueller report, you still see collusion and i am beginning to get now that you and the left see Trump as Moby dick and you just keep wanting to catch that "whale".

And keep up with the bad excuses like "the republicans will not look at "facts" when the issue here is just that everyone won´t see your opinion as the divine truth which explains how you could be so blind and not see why Trump could win.

You're done.

We literally have the hard evidence in writing now:

Three deeply problematic aspects of newly released text messages centered on the Ukraine scandal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/04/three-deeply-problematic-aspects-newly-released-text-messages-centered-ukraine-scandal/

1. There’s an explicitly stated quid pro quo.

A central participant in the messages is Kurt Volker, former special envoy to Ukraine. Until last week, he served in the administration, resigning shortly after he was identified in a complaint filed by a whistleblower in the intelligence community. The whistleblower portrayed Volker as working with European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland to try to run interference between Ukrainian officials and Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani, who was pressing for Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden.

“Heard from White House,” Volker wrote, “assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / ‘get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

This is as explicit a quid pro quo as you can get: Promise to get to the bottom of events in 2016 — which could refer to either the hacking or to the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor targeted by Biden — and you’ll get the validity that comes with a White House visit.

What’s not clear is who Volker spoke with in the White House. In the call between Trump and Zelensky later that day, the meeting was raised, with Trump vaguely suggesting that Zelensky could pick his dates only after the Ukrainian leader had promised to go along with the politically useful investigations Trump wanted to see.

The extent to which that visit was important to Zelensky was highlighted when he and Trump met on Sept. 25 on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly.

2. The U.S. helped shape a statement from Ukraine mentioning the Biden probe.

In a text message exchange with Volker immediately after the call, Zelensky’s aide Yermak suggested Sept. 20 through 22. By early August, though, those dates hadn’t been confirmed.

In an exchange with Volker on Aug. 9, Sondland suggested that dates would be finalized as soon as Yermak confirmed … something. From the context of Sondland’s comments in the thread, it seems that the something is a written statement that would accompany a news conference by Zelensky, presumably to announce the new investigations.

3. There’s a strong suggestion that military aid was used as leverage — and hints at an attempt to hide that.

A bit after noon on that day, Taylor, the U.S. official in Ukraine, texted Sondland.

“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Taylor asked.

“Call me,” Sondland replied. And their conversation on that central point was not recorded.

Taylor’s question is a central one to the Trump-Ukraine interaction. There are significant problems that arise if Trump tried to leverage his position and America’s interests to get Ukraine to investigate his political opponents. There are larger problems that arise if Trump halted congressionally approved funding to use it as leverage.

On Sept. 8, Volker, Taylor and Sondland tried to get on the phone, but Volker couldn’t hear the conversation.

“Gordon [Sondland] and I just spoke,” Taylor texted Volker. “I can brief you if you and Gordon don’t connect.” Taylor continued: “The nightmare is they give the interview and don’t get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.)”

Taylor’s reference to “the interview” isn’t clear, but he probably means the press announcement about imminent investigations. Taylor was apparently worried that Ukraine would give the interview but the United States would still withhold aid, to Russia’s glee.

Early the next morning, Taylor again raised his concerns with Sondland.

“The message to the Ukrainians (and Russians) we send with the decision on security assistance is key,” he said. “With the hold [on the assistance], we have already shaken their faith in us. Thus my nightmare scenario.”

Sondland replied, saying that he “believe[s] we have identified the best pathway forward.”

“As I said on the phone,” Taylor replied, apparently referring to the failed three-way call on Sept. 8, “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Five hours later, Sondland replies — using very pointed language.

“Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions,” he wrote. “The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign.”

It’s hard to read that reply, with its unusual formality and detail, as anything other than an attempt to establish a particular argument for the written record.

“I suggest we stop the back and forth by text,” he added, reinforcing that interpretation. “If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna” — the State Department’s executive secretary — “or S” — perhaps the secretary of state — “a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.”

No further text messages were shared.

Man you extreme far right tribals are living in an alternate reality. No wonder most Americans disagree with you guys.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

19566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#102 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 19566 Posts
@zaryia said:
@Jacanuk said:

And you keep up with the charade.

Again the way you look at something are not equal to it being an actual fact and i know for you like with the Mueller report, you still see collusion and i am beginning to get now that you and the left see Trump as Moby dick and you just keep wanting to catch that "whale".

And keep up with the bad excuses like "the republicans will not look at "facts" when the issue here is just that everyone won´t see your opinion as the divine truth which explains how you could be so blind and not see why Trump could win.

You're done.

We literally have the hard evidence in writing now:

Man you extreme far right tribals are living in an alternate reality. No wonder most Americans disagree with you guys.

Why do you keep posting the same opinion like it´s a fact? or do you think reality has somehow been turned upside down and opinions are facts?

Opinions are again not hard evidence if there was hard evidence the vote on impeachment would have been done and Trump would have been found guilty.

And the last comment just shows that you know how wrong you are and what you have no valid arguments.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

11150

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#103  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 11150 Posts
@Jacanuk said:

Why do you keep posting the same opinion like it´s a fact?

I'm not posting an opinion. I'm posting facts of this event so far.

I invite you to refute the evidence with citation:

Three deeply problematic aspects of newly released text messages centered on the Ukraine scandal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/04/three-deeply-problematic-aspects-newly-released-text-messages-centered-ukraine-scandal/

GOP senator says diplomat told him Trump was withholding aid to ensure investigations

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/gop-senator-says-diplomat-told-him-trump-was-withholding-aid-n1062706

Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a staunch Trump ally, told The Wall Street Journal the diplomat's comments made him 'wince.'

Please do not insult the intelligence of everyone in this forum and do what FOX is doing. At least be on their next level of spin, and lets have a "debate" on how bad this is and if it is truly an impeachable offense.

Not whether or not it happened. That's childish. Everyone accepts it happened now except people not worth responding to.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

168505

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#104 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 168505 Posts

@Jacanuk said:

. You are not going to convince Republicans to vote against their own best interest

They do all the time. Hence the Republican politicians in office.

Avatar image for horgen
Horgen

122237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#105  Edited By Horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 122237 Posts

@Jacanuk: What would you consider hard evidence in a case like this? I mean other than admitting guilt on public TV because that is apparently not enough for you.

Avatar image for Nuck81
Nuck81

8023

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#106 Nuck81
Member since 2005 • 8023 Posts

@horgen:

@horgen said:

@Jacanuk: What would you consider hard evidence in a case like this? I mean other than admitting guilt on public TV because that is apparently not enough for you.

Hilariously, he did admit it on TV

Avatar image for Nuck81
Nuck81

8023

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#107 Nuck81
Member since 2005 • 8023 Posts

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/2nd-whistleblower-forward-speaking-ig-attorney/story?id=66092396&id=66092396&cid=social_twitter_tw&__twitter_impression=true

A second whistleblower has come forward with direct first hand knowledge of the events

Avatar image for horgen
Horgen

122237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#108 Horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 122237 Posts

@Nuck81 said:

@horgen:

@horgen said:

@Jacanuk: What would you consider hard evidence in a case like this? I mean other than admitting guilt on public TV because that is apparently not enough for you.

Hilariously, he did admit it on TV

Which brings me back to the title of the thread. Doesn't his reaction to the whistleblower itself warrant impeachment?

Avatar image for Nuck81
Nuck81

8023

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#109 Nuck81
Member since 2005 • 8023 Posts

@horgen: He was just joking.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
MirkoS77

14836

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#110  Edited By MirkoS77
Member since 2011 • 14836 Posts

@Nuck81 said:

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/2nd-whistleblower-forward-speaking-ig-attorney/story?id=66092396&id=66092396&cid=social_twitter_tw&__twitter_impression=true

A second whistleblower has come forward with direct first hand knowledge of the events

With more rumored to follow.

I'm gaining great enjoyment on just thinking about how ballistic Trump is going about all of this. His criminal house of cards is crumbling right in front of him, and he's no doubt throwing massive tantrums at everyone around him that can probably be heard all the way over on Pennsylvania Ave. I'd not want to be in the WH currently.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

11056

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#111 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 11056 Posts
@MirkoS77 said:
@Nuck81 said:

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/2nd-whistleblower-forward-speaking-ig-attorney/story?id=66092396&id=66092396&cid=social_twitter_tw&__twitter_impression=true

A second whistleblower has come forward with direct first hand knowledge of the events

With more rumored to follow.

I'm gaining great enjoyment on just thinking about how ballistic Trump is going about all of this. His criminal house of cards is crumbling right in front of him, and he's no doubt throwing massive tantrums at everyone around him that can probably be heard all the way over on Pennsylvania Ave. I'd not want to be in the WH currently.

His blood pressure must be through the roof. Maybe he's not orange due to sh*tty tanning and he suffers from the world's worst case of hypertension.

Avatar image for horgen
Horgen

122237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#112 Horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 122237 Posts

@Nuck81 said:

@horgen: He was just joking.

Of course he was, does it all the time except when he doesn't.

Avatar image for sonicare
sonicare

57204

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#113 sonicare
Member since 2004 • 57204 Posts

He just committed a worse offense with China. Asked them to investigate some of his rivals as well. Guy has no clue or no shame.