Rational and civil debate between members of all religions and world views

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Reply to topic
historia
First Post
PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2019 7:05 pm  Trump impeachment Reply with quote

On September 24, 2019, the US House of Representatives began an impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump.

Most political analysts agree that the House, which has a Democratic majority, is likely to vote in favor of impeachment. While the Senate, which has a Republican majority, is unlikely to reach the two-thirds majority needed to remove Trump from office.

Questions for debate:

1. Should Trump be impeached?

2. Should Trump be removed from office?

3. If the process plays out as analysts expect, will this redound to the Democrats' or the Republicans' benefit in the 2020 elections?
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 21: Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:56 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 20 by Daedalus X]

Responding to Zelenskyy's comment on the US doing a lot for Ukraine and being ready for more cooperation between the two countries, and significantly on the purchase of military equipment, Trump said this:

"I would like you to do us a favor though..."

It's kinda hard to miss, so presumably you will tell me that I am reading too much into that part of the conversation.

While we are here, what you read is not a transcript but a memo.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 22: Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:16 pm
Reply

Like this post
Daedalus X wrote:

Danmark wrote:

Thus Donald Trump became guilty of the crime of bribery as soon as he asked for the favor in order to release funds he should already have released.


Are you reading the same transcript that I am reading? Where did Trump say to Zelenskyy "when you grant me the favor, I will release the funds"?

This is the transcript that I am reading

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

Yes, same transcript. If you can't see Trump conditioning the release of the $391 billion for the favor "I want you to do us a favor though..." then I don't think I can help you. But you might consider that immediately before Trump asks for the favor, he talked to Zelenskyy about the U. S. helping Ukraine and Zelenskyy replied they needed more missiles.
Trump does not use the words 'quid pro quo,' it's not even part of his vocabulary. But when he talks about a favor in his round about way, about investigating the Bidens in conjunction with providing military assistance, THAT is a quid pro quo, a 'this for that.'

This is the typical mafia lingo Trump uses as testified to by his former lawyer Michael Cohen. He avoids specifics in the conversation by referring to his personal lawyer and the Attorney General for the details. This is like the Maia boss talking to his hit man saying, "You know dat guy? Da guy we was talking about? Time to do da right ting."

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 23: Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:06 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 21 by Bust Nak]
You may be right, if we read the conversation in context, it looks like Trump got Zelenskyy to do something he had no desire to do.
Zelenskyy wrote:
I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

Trump wrote:
But, before we are ready to continue to cooperate with more aid payments, I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole siuation with Ukraine...

Zelenskyy wrote:
Dang it, President Trump, I don't want to investigate all that crap for you, but if the aid depends on it then I will do it.

If we could only see that which is not there, we could make any document say anything that we might want it to say.

[sarcasm]And, know this, Trump is a genius (he said so himself) so he knew then that this call would one day go public so he spoke in code to get his message to Zelinsky without actually verbalizing the bad stuff, dog whistle style. See, Trump plays 8 dimensional chess, if he wanted to say something overtly illegal, he would have sent the message by a trusted courier and nothing would ever have leaked out. I mean really, does anyone believe that Trump actually blurts out what is actually in his mind, noooo, it is all very carefully calculated to manipulate the whole world into the new Trumpocracy.[/sarcasm]

Bust Nak wrote:

While we are here, what you read is not a transcript but a memo.

Lt. Col. Vindman did listen to the call, did he dispute anything mentioned in the memo of the transcript?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 24: Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:11 am
Reply

Like this post
Danmark wrote:

If you can't see Trump conditioning the release of the $391 billion for the favor "I want you to do us a favor though..." then I don't think I can help you.

I can't see Trump conditioning the release of the $391 billion for the favor, and I see no evidence that Zelensky could see it either. What good does it do to hold up aid and not tell the person you are holding it from?
Put the definition of favor into Trumps request and you will see that it is innocuous. "I want you to do us an act of kindness beyond what is due or usual though..."
Read the conversation, the tone is very open and honest, it is not conspiratorial. Unless you really want to see it as a conspiracy.

If you are going to read meaning into words like this, you must have loved "Pizza gate". That is where a line like "I just got the new cheese pizza and my mouth is just salivating" actually means "I just got the new child porn and my member is throbbing in anticipation".

Danmark wrote:

Trump does not use the words 'quid pro quo,' it's not even part of his vocabulary. But when he talks about a favor in his round about way, about investigating the Bidens in conjunction with providing military assistance, THAT is a quid pro quo, a 'this for that.'

Do you have a point? If you reply to my post then I will reply to your post, THAT is a quid pro quo, a 'this for that'. Is that a crime?
Trump simply wants to investigate all the corruption that happened before and after the election. The American people deserve to know. It is time to end this shroud of secrecy that has infested our government.

Danmark wrote:

This is the typical mafia lingo Trump uses as testified to by his former lawyer Michael Cohen. He avoids specifics in the conversation by referring to his personal lawyer and the Attorney General for the details. This is like the Maia boss talking to his hit man saying, "You know dat guy? Da guy we was talking about? Time to do da right ting."

Do you really believe that Giuliani and Barr are 'Mafia hit men'? They would turn their backs on Trump if he ever asked them to do anything illegal.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 25: Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:48 am
Reply

Like this post
Daedalus X wrote:

You may be right, if we read the conversation in context, it looks like Trump got Zelenskyy to do something he had no desire to do.

I failed to see the relevance of Zelenskyy's desire (or otherwise) to do as Trump asked, has on what Trump said.

Quote:
If we could only see that which is not there, we could make any document say anything that we might want it to say.

How about we just let the document do the speaking: Zelenskyy talked about getting help from the US, in particular with buying military hardware. Trump then asks for a favor in return. That much doesn't require making anything up now, does it?

Quote:
[sarcasm cropped]

Presumably your point was that Trump would have made it explicit, if he was after a quid pro quo. I would say he was explicit.

Quote:
Lt. Col. Vindman did listen to the call, did he dispute anything mentioned in the memo of the transcript?

He stated the memo omitted two key points relating to some tape on Biden, and investigating Burisma Holding. Does that count as a dispute? While we are here, why did you emphasize the lieutenant colonel's rank?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 26: Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:17 am
Reply

Like this post
Bust Nak wrote:

I failed to see the relevance of Zelenskyy's desire (or otherwise) to do as Trump asked, has on what Trump said.

There is no need to bribe the willing. When you go to Wal*Mart, you don't need to say to the cashier "here is $20 if you ring up my items". Rater, you say "here is $20 if you ring up my items and accidentally miss scan that $299 item".

Bust Nak wrote:

How about we just let the document do the speaking: Zelenskyy talked about getting help from the US, in particular with buying military hardware. Trump then asks for a favor in return. That much doesn't require making anything up now, does it?

He did ask for a favor, but he did not ask for a "favor in return", he did not need to condition the favor for the aid.

Bust Nak wrote:

Presumably your point was that Trump would have made it explicit, if he was after a quid pro quo. I would say he was explicit.

If reasonable people can differ, then it was not explicit. Would you say that all the Republican members of Congress are unreasonable?

Bust Nak wrote:

He stated the memo omitted two key points relating to some tape on Biden, and investigating Burisma Holding. Does that count as a dispute? While we are here, why did you emphasize the lieutenant colonel's rank?

I don't know if those two points would make any difference at this point. Mainly the transcript was not altered to skew it one way or the other, it was accurate.

"Lt. Col." is a passive aggressive way of saying "I am in charge here". When I wore my uniform, I never ordered a civilian to addresss me in any manner, I served them, they did not need to bow to me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqtYYYZkexA

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 27: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:18 pm
Reply

Like this post
Daedalus X wrote:

Bust Nak wrote:

I failed to see the relevance of Zelenskyy's desire (or otherwise) to do as Trump asked, has on what Trump said.

There is no need to bribe the willing. When you go to Wal*Mart, you don't need to say to the cashier "here is $20 if you ring up my items". Rater, you say "here is $20 if you ring up my items and accidentally miss scan that $299 item".

Bust Nak wrote:

How about we just let the document do the speaking: Zelenskyy talked about getting help from the US, in particular with buying military hardware. Trump then asks for a favor in return. That much doesn't require making anything up now, does it?

He did ask for a favor, but he did not ask for a "favor in return", he did not need to condition the favor for the aid.

This is an amazing display of 'not getting it.' You apparently don't know what a bribe is and can't follow a simple dialogue as presented by the President himself in his own words.

Congress authorized $391 million in military aid to Ukraine. Trump held that up for months to aid the Russians. When the heat got turned on him for not giving the aid to Ukraine, he tried to extort a favor from Zelenskyy, to get him to find dirt on the Bidens despite the fact that false conspiracy theory had long been debunked.
THAT is both an attempt to extort AND an offer of a bribe, specifically named as grounds for impeachment in the U.S. Constitution, along with 'other high crimes and misdemeanors. This has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and Trump will be impeached. He would also be removed by an impartial Jury, but he gets one in the Senate that his highly biased in his favor.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 28: Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:10 pm
Reply

Like this post
Danmark wrote:

Congress authorized $391 million in military aid to Ukraine. Trump held that up for months to aid the Russians. When the heat got turned on him for not giving the aid to Ukraine, he tried to extort a favor from Zelenskyy, to get him to find dirt on the Bidens despite the fact that false conspiracy theory had long been debunked.
THAT is both an attempt to extort AND an offer of a bribe, specifically named as grounds for impeachment in the U.S. Constitution, along with 'other high crimes and misdemeanors. This has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and Trump will be impeached. He would also be removed by an impartial Jury, but he gets one in the Senate that his highly biased in his favor.


1. How do you know that Trump held up the aid to help the Russians? How did it help the Russians?

2. How do you know that trump tried to extort Zelenskyy when the heat got turned on?

3. What is this 'false conspiracy theory' that you speak of, and how was it 'debunked'?

4. What do you mean by 'find dirt'? Would that be actual crimes committed by Biden or just embarrassing but still legal acts like Trumps infamous 'pee tape'?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 29: Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:33 am
Reply

Like this post
Daedalus X wrote:

There is no need to bribe the willing. When you go to Wal*Mart, you don't need to say to the cashier "here is $20 if you ring up my items". Rater, you say "here is $20 if you ring up my items and accidentally miss scan that $299 item".

Alternatively, the cashier being bribed is willing exactly because of the bribe?

Quote:
He did ask for a favor, but he did not ask for a "favor in return..."

Sure he did, is the word "though" not significant? There would be some wiggle room without that word.

Quote:
… he did not need to condition the favor for the aid.

He did not need to or he did not? What he needed to do is irrelevant as to whether he did it or not.

Quote:
If reasonable people can differ, then it was not explicit. Would you say that all the Republican members of Congress are unreasonable?

I'd rather keep my evaluation to myself. It can be seen as an insult to judge them unreasonable here. Suffice to repeat my observation, "I want you to do us a favor though..." was an explicit quid pro quo. More to the point, as I pointed out before, merely soliciting help to provide dirt on his political rivals is enough for it to be illegal. Where it takes the form of an extortion, a bribe or charity is irrelevant.

Quote:
I don't know if those two points would make any difference at this point. Mainly the transcript was not altered to skew it one way or the other, it was accurate.

There are ways of skewing things without being inaccurate, right? Simply removing unflattering banter (which should rightly be removed from an memo) would skew things for Trump. Perhaps more sinisterly, maybe the exact phrase Trump used was even more explicit than "I want you to do us a favor though..." It's seen accurate because the memo kept its explicit nature, but skew things enough for Trump and friends to rally around.

Quote:
"Lt. Col." is a passive aggressive way of saying "I am in charge here". When I wore my uniform, I never ordered a civilian to addresss me in any manner, I served them, they did not need to bow to me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqtYYYZkexA

I see, you were not emphasizing his ranks as such, but emphasizing his emphasis on his rank.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 30: Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:57 pm
Reply

Like this post
On Tuesday, December 3, 2019, the House Intelligence Committee completed its report, concluding:

House Intelligence Committee wrote:


The impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States, uncovered a months-long effort by President Trump to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election.

. . . President Trump’s scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential reelection campaign. The President demanded that the newly-elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, publicly announce investigations into a political rival that he apparently feared the most, former Vice President Joe Biden, and into a discredited theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

To compel the Ukrainian President to do his political bidding, President Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcement of the investigations: a coveted White House visit and critical U.S. military assistance Ukraine needed to fight its Russian adversary.



The inquiry now turns to the Judiciary Committee.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version