Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:33 PM
squeegee's Avatar
squeegee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Aptos CA
Posts: 8,830
Quote:
If the polling is to be believed, there's about 20% of the country who DON'T identify as Trump supporters, who DO believe that he colluded with Russia and subsequently obstructed the investigation into the said collusion...but who still don't want him impeached because...reasons?
Impeachment (actual impeachment, not an inquiry) puts the country into a political crisis, much like previous government shutdowns. I think it's perfectly rational to hesitate to want that to happen.
  #102  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:46 PM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Trump will not only survive this but win re-election unless the economy goes south; it's about that and nothing more.

He could fuck a goat on live TV, and if unemployment's at 3 percent, Americans will demand that congress give him more goats to shag.

That's what "democracy" has been reduced to here. That's all our little amoebic brains can handle.
Amazing how exceptional America is.
  #103  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:55 PM
Enola Gay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
Amazing how exceptional America is.
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/...ZOzR8DZkVB-JaY
  #104  
Old 09-25-2019, 02:01 AM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,455
HurricaneDitka:

Quote:
It's like you guys already forgot (or never learned in the first place) the lessons of impeachment from a couple of decades ago.
What, from Clinton? Clinton was much more charming and therefore popular than Trump is. Clinton's popularity and PR skills intimidated the Senate into holding a weak half-trial. Trump has no such asset on his side. Trump's best hope is that the over-eager media has made this Ukraine whistleblower thing seem like way more of a slam dunk than it really is, as they did with the Mueller report. But counting on one's opponents to slip up is not a great formula for victory.
__________________
"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible. The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
  #105  
Old 09-25-2019, 02:35 AM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
What I hope people would realize is that though they may love their country, the Orange Peril and his henchmen do not. They care only about themselves, and are willing to defy the Constitution and all the traditional norms of governance to consolidate their power and enrich themselves. They are exactly the abusers of power that the Founders provided for Congress to be able to remove.
I wish that people would disassociate Trump from Conservatism and the Republican party. I wish the Dems would point out that in holding an inquiry on impeachment they're not going after Conservatives or their platforms, they are going after the Orange Stain on the presidency.

From the Democrats I'd like to hear something like:

"Liberal vs. Conservative politics is not the issue at the moment. Yes. We disagree substantially with Republicans on many areas of policy. We'll be more than happy to vigorously debate these differences as soon as we take care of this
treasonous-criminal-in-the-White-House-thing. Look, the thug put an R next to his name... sorry about that. I feel for you guys but better you than us, I guess, ha-ha! A monstrosity like this has to be taken down no matter what his politics are."

Last edited by I Love Me, Vol. I; 09-25-2019 at 02:37 AM. Reason: Trump called and ordered me to
  #106  
Old 09-25-2019, 02:39 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,712
Nate Silver has an excellent, pithy analysis (I hope I’m not quoting too much of it here — I don’t think I am):

“Lesson No. 3: Emphasize the threats to election integrity. As I mentioned, I suspect (though I certainly can’t prove) that some of the public’s reluctance on impeachment over Russia stemmed from the fact that Trump was still in his first term and is running for re-election. We want to decide this one for ourselves, the public may have been saying.

In some ways, that’s a bigger problem for Democrats on Ukraine, since the election is even closer now. But, of course, the Ukraine scandal involves the 2020 election: Trump’s efforts to impair Biden’s candidacy. My point is simply that Democrats should emphasize that angle since any impeachment hearings would take place directly against the backdrop of the election, a prospect that voters might otherwise find strange.”
  #107  
Old 09-25-2019, 02:44 AM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think your use of "minor" "massive" and "huge, gaping" in this post demonstrate your own lack of "a shred of objectivity" quite clearly.
Clinton getting a blowjob in his office is minor. Weaseling around the language about it to get around the question is kind of scummy and lawyerly, but not really a big deal to the performance of his job in the grand scheme of things. Nevertheless, Republicans ran countless investigations on him desperately trying to find anything before they finally found something fairly minor to try to stick.

On the other hand, Trump's transgressions are way outside the norm. Way worse than Nixon. He's obstructed justice and admitted to obstructing justice on national TV. This isn't even debatable - he just flat out admitted he fired Comey to stop the investigation into himself. He has deliberately weakened and cast doubts on our commitment to NATO and to our allies. He has sucked up and praised every dictator in the world. He often comments along the lines of "we should try that here" upon learning that Xi Jinping was appointed president for life. He has given top secret intelligence information to hostile foreign leaders. He's said that he will only accept the legitimacy of elections that he wins. He's stacked regulatory agencies with cronies who have no expertise in their field whose only purpose is to take down those agencies from within. I could list dozens more things. Clinton's crimes wouldn't even make the top 50 of Trump's fuckups, and Trump's fuckups are entirely relevant to his job as the president.

Now, what you're saying is essentially ideological and immune to facts. In your mind, Clinton did something bad, and republicans wanted to punish him. Trump did something bad, and democrats want to punish him. So everyone is the same. All are equal. And it's patently absurd. You haven't weighed the transgressions of both parties to evaluate which is more damning. You haven't evaluated the investigations of each party to evaluate which are more substantive, and which are less.

You've arrived at your conclusion - that both sides are the same - and no matter of fact or reality will ever change your view. If Trump nukes Canada tomorrow, well, Clinton got a blowjob. If Trump admits that he gives every scrap of US intelligence to Putin and the democrats want to investigate - oh, well they're just politically motivated investigations like the Starr investigations or Benghazi. There is nothing that could happen that would change your mind from "both sides are the same", and so your opinion on the subject is not, nor is intended to be in line with reality or truth or values or anything consistent like that.

And if anyone actually weighs the factors involved, and concludes that one side is more guilty in some way than the other, then you can just say "oh, see, you're biased! you concluded that one side is worse, therefore you must not be objective, and therefore your opinion is unreliable!" - again, this is a useless ideological position that has no connection to reality.

Your position is not informed, it isn't useful, it doesn't change as the facts change, it is incapable of seeing nuance or evidence or reality - you simply start from one absolute conclusion and never budge from there. There is no value in it.

Edit: This attitude of yours, of course, only works in one direction. If Obama had done literally any of Trump's major scandals, you'd be screaming your head off about treason. "Both sides are totally the same, guys!" works when you're on the defense but suddenly your method of evaluation flips around entirely when you're on the attack.

Last edited by SenorBeef; 09-25-2019 at 02:46 AM.
  #108  
Old 09-25-2019, 04:33 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,132
NM

Last edited by bobot; 09-25-2019 at 04:34 AM.
  #109  
Old 09-25-2019, 06:59 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,566
There's no point in predictions on how this will work out. Any such prediction is just a wild guess, barring some deep intimate knowledge of the actual facts of the inquiry. We'll all just have to wait and see.
  #110  
Old 09-25-2019, 07:22 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
So there’s gonna be an impeachment “inquiry”, this fact has already been announced, due to a call that nobody knows the contents of, and a whistle blower who nobody yet knows anything about, or the contents of his complaint.
Um... we know things about the contents of the call, we know things about the whistleblower, and we know things about the contents of his complaint. Like it's in all the papers. You should maybe read up on it a bit before you start making predictions.

We don't know everything yet, but that doesn't mean we know nothing.
  #111  
Old 09-25-2019, 07:28 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,698
I think the argument that impeachment puts the country in crisis is an overstatement. During and after the Clinton impeachment, things went on as usual. Clinton worked with Congress during the whole process to find common ground and get legislation passed. Are we afraid that with the impeachment trial that Donald is going to turn into an irrational compulsive tweet machine? If so, you're a bit late to the party.

I don't buy the argument that he loses only if the economy goes south. People don't vote their pocketbook anymore. They vote in their tribe. If their tribe is motivated to turn out in numbers, the tribe's candidate wins. It's that simple.
  #112  
Old 09-25-2019, 07:37 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,463
What's the point in getting the transcript of the call? If there were any smoking guns in the real call transcript, there is zero chance it would be in the transcript that was released. I wouldn't trust this administration to read me the weather, given their official lies to date. Off the top of my head: they lied to the Supreme Court about their reasons for putting in the citizenship question on the census; Barr lied, or spun to the point of lying, the contents of the Mueller report; NOAA lied about the predicted path of that hurricane to cover for an ill-advised tweet. Obviously, the president lies non-stop, but these are lies by others in his administration.

If they would lie to cover an idiotic tweet about Alabama, why wouldn't they publish a false, or redacted-to-the-point-of-misleading transcript, when the real one may end up with the president disgraced and maybe in jail?

Congress should demand the recording or nothing. A false transcript will have the same effect as Barr's false summary -- make this seem like no big deal, and then when the real transcript is eventually released, it will just seem like an incremental thing, rather than a blockbuster.
  #113  
Old 09-25-2019, 07:46 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,698
There was a fellow on The Last Word on MSNBC last night that explained that there are no recordings of calls and that there haven't been since the 1970s. As he explained it, a few agents listen in on headphones and type up the conversation in real time. Then they get together and compare notes and present a consensus draft for review, then a more senior official with more knowledge of the big picture might edit the transcript and the final official version is retained.

The administration is like the magician who shows you the rabbit in his right hand and is doing something with his left that you don't notice. Sure, the transcript is going to look innocent. So obviously there was something else that motivated the whistleblower to speak out, we just need to see what that was and we have to see the complaint report.
  #114  
Old 09-25-2019, 07:49 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
... If there were any smoking guns in the real call transcript, there is zero chance it would be in the transcript that was released...
True, and just because Trump says he's going to release something (cough: taxes) doesn't mean he's going to release something.
I still wonder if he's going to invoke some non-existing privilege for the whistleblower, and if the whistleblower is going to dummy up when questioned. I have a small amount of hope that if the whistleblower was alarmed enough to speak up in the first place, that they may also continue to put what's right for the country ahead of any corrupt white house direction.
  #115  
Old 09-25-2019, 07:55 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
There was a fellow on The Last Word on MSNBC last night that explained that there are no recordings of calls and that there haven't been since the 1970s.
The Ukrainians probably have recordings of the call.
  #116  
Old 09-25-2019, 07:58 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
The Ukrainians probably have recordings of the call.
Yes the guest (who formerly worked in the Bush and Obama White House) said that they sometimes suspect the other country involved may be recording the call. He thought some may and some may not record.
  #117  
Old 09-25-2019, 07:59 AM
Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
What's the point in getting the transcript of the call? If there were any smoking guns in the real call transcript, there is zero chance it would be in the transcript that was released. I wouldn't trust this administration to read me the weather, given their official lies to date.
Neither would I, which is precisely why the administration is promising to release it, especially given the delay in releasing it: if they do indeed release it, it will be only after they've redacted it so that it will control the narrative so that when the actual audio is released it will seem like an old story.
  #118  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:03 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Yes the guest (who formerly worked in the Bush and Obama White House) said that they sometimes suspect the other country involved may be recording the call. He thought some may and some may not record.
If the Ukrainians have a recording of the call and Trump puts out a false transcript, he will have literally created kompromat out of thin air for them. Trump himself might be dumb enough to do this, but surely there's at least one person in his inner circle smart enough to stop him from doing this.
  #119  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:03 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,132
On a side note, the new head dude of the Ukraine is speaking today at the UN. (If I heard the radio properly this morning...) It would sure be something if he had any "bombs" to drop.
  #120  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:10 AM
Hermitian's Avatar
Hermitian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
The Ukrainians probably have recordings of the call.
But they have zero reasons to release it.
  #121  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:12 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermitian View Post
But they have zero reasons to release it.
Like I said in post 118...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
If the Ukrainians have a recording of the call and Trump puts out a false transcript, he will have literally created kompromat out of thin air for them.
  #122  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:15 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,463
If the Ukrainians have a recording and the Democrats reach out to them for it, the administration will accuse the Democrats of doing exactly what they are accusing Trump of doing -- reaching out to a foreign country to get compromising information on a political rival.

So far, it seems like the whistle blower really wants to testify -- can the administration just restrict what he or she says or whether they can testify at all? What happens if the whistle blower testifies anyway?

Because so far, if the House wants something they are legally entitled to that the administration wants to withhold, the administration just says, no, you can't have it, sorry, see you in court.
  #123  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:32 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
surely there's at least one person in his inner circle smart enough to stop him from doing this.
Maybe there used to be, but it appears he's purged them all by now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
If the Ukrainians have a recording and the Democrats reach out to them for it, the administration will accuse the Democrats of doing exactly what they are accusing Trump of doing -- reaching out to a foreign country to get compromising information on a political rival.
Oh, there's no doubt the retort will be essentially "no u". It's happening already.

Quote:
So far, it seems like the whistle blower really wants to testify -- can the administration just restrict what he or she says or whether they can testify at all?
Add Obstruction of Justice to the charges, along with the ones from the Mueller report.

Quote:
Because so far, if the House wants something they are legally entitled to that the administration wants to withhold, the administration just says, no, you can't have it, sorry, see you in court.
United States v. Nixon is the precedent. Expect Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to be among the votes to overturn it - that's why they're there.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 09-25-2019 at 08:33 AM.
  #124  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:43 AM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Congress should demand the recording or nothing. A false transcript will have the same effect as Barr's false summary -- make this seem like no big deal, and then when the real transcript is eventually released, it will just seem like an incremental thing, rather than a blockbuster.
That is exactly their tactic, and how they buried the Mueller report. It lets the public accept it in several smaller stages which boils the frog slowly.
  #125  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:45 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,132
Speaking of the white house releasing documents, Faux news has an exclusive!
"A senior Trump administration official told Fox News late Tuesday that the administration will release a document showing the intelligence community inspector general found the whistleblower who leveled an explosive accusation against President Trump concerning his talks with Ukraine had “political bias” in favor of “a rival candidate” of the president."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...ss-white-house
  #126  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:52 AM
Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
If the Ukrainians have a recording and the Democrats reach out to them for it, the administration will accuse the Democrats of doing exactly what they are accusing Trump of doing -- reaching out to a foreign country to get compromising information on a political rival.

So far, it seems like the whistle blower really wants to testify -- can the administration just restrict what he or she says or whether they can testify at all? What happens if the whistle blower testifies anyway?

Because so far, if the House wants something they are legally entitled to that the administration wants to withhold, the administration just says, no, you can't have it, sorry, see you in court.
Meanwhile, Trump's Ministry of Truth is already springing into action to pre-smear the whistleblower's credibility using exquisitely concern-trolly headlines like "Questions about alleged political bias of Trump whistleblower emerge; Will impeachment probe backfire on Dems?"

It's gonna get really slimy, really quick.
  #127  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:04 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
How is a meaningless and impotent indictment "doing what's right for the country"? You are talking as if there is the slightest change trump will be removed- hint- he wont be.

4 more years of trump would be horrible.
What's right for the country is a complete public airing of how this POTUS has abused his power and how his party has not just turned a blind eye but actively abetted him. An impeachment inquiry is the most powerful means of making that airing happen.

Believe me, I get that actual impeachment will probably be a futile gesture and may even backfire. But at this moment, given the developments of the last week, the inquiry is what's right for the country.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #128  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:07 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Right there in your quote is a problem illustrative of what I've been saying about the claim that impeachment can only help Trump. They make a claim about independent voters and don't even say who they are or offer any proof of this. Can you, or anyone else, show me evidence that just because people in the past haven't been for impeachment, that this translated into more votes for the person being impeached? Not correlative evidence, but actual causal evidence? I've never seen it and would truly like to if it's out there. ETA: because if it's persuasive, I can shut up about my theory that impeachment might harm Trump more than help him.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 09-25-2019 at 09:12 AM.
  #129  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:08 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,749
The transcript is released. And for an exculpatory document, it's pretty damning. Trump asking the president directly to work with Barr and Giuliani to investigate Biden.

"The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great."

Last edited by Fiveyearlurker; 09-25-2019 at 09:09 AM.
  #130  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:13 AM
Lightnin''s Avatar
Lightnin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 7,487
Yesterday, the White House was planning on releasing a redacted version of the whistleblower complaint.

First of all, can we just take a moment to admire the shiny, solid iron balls it takes to try to pull something like that?

Secondly, why the hell is the subject of a whistleblower complaint allowed anywhere near the chain of custody of the complaint?!
__________________
What's the good of Science if nobody gets hurt?
  #131  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:14 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Um... we know things about the contents of the call, we know things about the whistleblower, and we know things about the contents of his complaint. Like it's in all the papers. You should maybe read up on it a bit before you start making predictions.

We don't know everything yet, but that doesn't mean we know nothing.
Knowing an anti trump whistleblower leaked info to the press (or his advisors/coaches) claiming vague things is not “knowing something” at all.

Nobody in this thread knows shit, nor does anyone else.

But hey, every other time the left has tried this shit on it backfired spectacularly.
  #132  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:23 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
The transcript is released. And for an exculpatory document, it's pretty damning. Trump asking the president directly to work with Barr and Giuliani to investigate Biden.

"The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great."
And yet, I can see why Trump thinks it was a perfect phone call:

* He's told that Ukraine is learning from Trump and draining the swamp
* He's told that foreign leaders are staying at his hotels
* He's told that Merkel sucks
* He's told that Rudy has a direct line to a foreign president

I seriously wonder what Ukrainians are thinking, since their president has been exposed as such a MAGA sycophant.
  #133  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:33 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,566
Wow, that "transcript" is way worse than I thought it would be. I figured we'd have to wait for the whistleblower to testify to verify Trump specifically asked for a political opponent to be investigated by a foreign power. But it's right there. Hard not to at least consider impeachment when the wrongdoing is so blatant.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 09-25-2019 at 09:33 AM.
  #134  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:33 AM
Hermitian's Avatar
Hermitian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
And yet, I can see why Trump thinks it was a perfect phone call:

* He's told that Ukraine is learning from Trump and draining the swamp
* He's told that foreign leaders are staying at his hotels
* He's told that Merkel sucks
* He's told that Rudy has a direct line to a foreign president

I seriously wonder what Ukrainians are thinking, since their president has been exposed as such a MAGA sycophant.
When I read those in the transcript I genuinely laughed. That Ukrainian president is smart. He knows that the way to Trump's heart is through flattery and he layered it on so thick it would seem awkward to anyone else but Trump.

Last edited by Hermitian; 09-25-2019 at 09:33 AM.
  #135  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:38 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Wow, that "transcript" is way worse than I thought it would be. I figured we'd have to wait for the whistleblower to testify to verify Trump specifically asked for a political opponent to be investigated by a foreign power. But it's right there. Hard not to at least consider impeachment when the wrongdoing is so blatant.
Hard to see how he is not impeached. Then, let each GOP senator go on the record saying that this shit is just peachy.
  #136  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:44 AM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Wow, that "transcript" is way worse than I thought it would be. I figured we'd have to wait for the whistleblower to testify to verify Trump specifically asked for a political opponent to be investigated by a foreign power. But it's right there. Hard not to at least consider impeachment when the wrongdoing is so blatant.
So Trump says this:
Quote:
Will the Democrats apologize after seeing what was said on the call with the Ukrainian President? They should, a perfect call - got them by surprise!
And the folks over on r/Conservative agree wholeheartedly. The whole transcript is a nothingburger, they say, and it shows a perfectly normal call, nothing bad in it, nope, everything's fine.

So that's the angle. Commit wrongdoing right out in the open and pretend it's not wrongdoing.
  #137  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:52 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Senate business is what the Majority Leader says it is. The claim by the NYT is that there is no obvious means to enforce that said leader to bring it to the senate. How does it get there without that? By what mechanism? The NYT suggests that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. may actually wield that authority ... but it is not clear.

You have some text to quote that shows how business can get to the Senate without the Majority Leader bringing it there? Go ahead, show us. We'll wait.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
By not accepting the charge? What is to stop him from simply saying, "I will take the House's charges under advisement" and then sitting on them? Is that unconstitutional? Well, then it would go to SCOTUS to decide, no? Does the constitution have any more to say about such a situation than it does about an Executive who defies Congressional subpoenas?
I could have multi-quoted others, but there's no need, if the following is correct. Ahem:

Not even a subhuman like McConnell would try to subvert a Senate trial after a president has been impeached. What he did as far as Garland does not even merit discussion here. Nomination hearings are a dime a dozen. As we all know, impeachment is as rare as hen's teeth, and is undeniably one of the most important parts of the constitution. No, even McConnell wouldn't fuck with that.
  #138  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:54 AM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Wow, that "transcript" is way worse than I thought it would be. I figured we'd have to wait for the whistleblower to testify to verify Trump specifically asked for a political opponent to be investigated by a foreign power. But it's right there. Hard not to at least consider impeachment when the wrongdoing is so blatant.
Particularly when you look at the timeline:

One week before this phone call, Trump personally told his chief of staff to withhold the military aid that Congress had approved.

Then the phone call asking for favors.

Also, one has to look at Guilani's trip to Ukraine.

It's blatantly obvious to all but those who are firmly in the Trump Camp.
  #139  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:58 AM
Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
No, even McConnell wouldn't fuck with that.
  #140  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:58 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,562
This transcript is fucking insane. Imploring the Ukrainian President to find a secret DNC server in his country?

Imagine his other calls to world leaders.

Last edited by JohnT; 09-25-2019 at 10:00 AM.
  #141  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:59 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I could have multi-quoted others, but there's no need, if the following is correct. Ahem:

Not even a subhuman like McConnell would try to subvert a Senate trial after a president has been impeached. What he did as far as Garland does not even merit discussion here. Nomination hearings are a dime a dozen. As we all know, impeachment is as rare as hen's teeth, and is undeniably one of the most important parts of the constitution. No, even McConnell wouldn't fuck with that.
Sure he would. (I desperately hope I'm wrong.)
__________________
* "Former President Trump" -- saying it until it becomes true.
  #142  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:59 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,698
If Donald passed a note to a bank teller demanding money, he'd present the note in his bank robbery trial as absolute proof of his innocence. Geez-o-petes, I thought the transcript would not be a smoking gun, else he wouldn't have ordered it released. But it's right there! Forget the whole Mueller Report, just proceed with impeachment on this one incident.
  #143  
Old 09-25-2019, 10:08 AM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
No, even McConnell wouldn't fuck with that.
Moscow Mitch would give nuclear weapons to terrorists if that meant he could stay in power.
  #144  
Old 09-25-2019, 10:10 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,562
"Transcript" should read "call summary". Specifically "memorandum of phone conversation".

Any one else notice that only Trump's remarks contain ellipses? (...)

Last edited by JohnT; 09-25-2019 at 10:12 AM.
  #145  
Old 09-25-2019, 10:14 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,562
Wonder how this memorandum will play in Ukraine? The President of Ukraine sounds like a simpering toady.
  #146  
Old 09-25-2019, 10:19 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
How is a meaningless and impotent indictment "doing what's right for the country"? You are talking as if there is the slightest change trump will be removed- hint- he wont be.

4 more years of trump would be horrible.
Thank you for your concern.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Really? It didnt for Johnson or Clinton, and those are our only two examples.
.
Could it not have been because those two examples were cases of Political Butt-Hurt?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Let me know when we get 16 Republican senators. bring pie.
Apple or lemon meringue?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmkeller View Post
HurricaneDitka:

What, from Clinton? Clinton was much more charming and therefore popular than Trump is. Clinton's popularity and PR skills intimidated the Senate into holding a weak half-trial. Trump has no such asset on his side. Trump's best hope is that the over-eager media has made this Ukraine whistleblower thing seem like way more of a slam dunk than it really is, as they did with the Mueller report. But counting on one's opponents to slip up is not a great formula for victory.
I think any weakness in the Senate's trial had less to do with Clinton's popularity than the fact that half the Senate were egregious adulterers trying to Call the Kettle Black. Besides Newt "Served Divorce Papers on Dying Wife in Her Hospital Bed" Gingrich, there was Henry "Pass Off Illegitimate Daughter as a Youthful Indiscretion" Hyde and Bob "Paid for Mistress' Abortion" Barr. Wotta swell bunch of guys.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #147  
Old 09-25-2019, 10:25 AM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
"Transcript" should read "call summary". Specifically "memorandum of phone conversation".

Any one else notice that only Trump's remarks contain ellipses? (...)
Agreed. The Globe and Mail headline specifically calls it a "call summary".

And the Guardian noted the ellipses, which occur particularly around the time Trump brings up Biden. I suspect this call summary has been "sharpied" a little bit.
  #148  
Old 09-25-2019, 10:26 AM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Wonder how this memorandum will play in Ukraine? The President of Ukraine sounds like a simpering toady.
If it was my leader, I'd be OK with that. It's the only way to play Trump to your advantage. It's an act.
  #149  
Old 09-25-2019, 10:27 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
So that’s it?

Seems the motivator here circling the wagons around their best 2020 chance - Biden - and doing a massive deflection.
  #150  
Old 09-25-2019, 10:28 AM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post

I think any weakness in the Senate's trial had less to do with Clinton's popularity than the fact that half the Senate were egregious adulterers trying to Call the Kettle Black. Besides Newt "Served Divorce Papers on Dying Wife in Her Hospital Bed" Gingrich, there was Henry "Pass Off Illegitimate Daughter as a Youthful Indiscretion" Hyde and Bob "Paid for Mistress' Abortion" Barr. Wotta swell bunch of guys.
I think there are parallels in today's Senate Republicans.

Besides Moscow Mitch (yes please Mr. Russian oligarch, please send money to my state), there are, I suspect, many other Republicans with deep connections to shady Russians.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017