Crime
Crime
Posted on Sep 23, 2019
Trump says he discussed Biden with Ukrainian president and Democrats threaten 'new stage of...
3.99K
141
96
10
9
1
More information is coming out about the abuse of power by Trump, using foreign military aid to try and force an ally to conduct an investigation into a political enemy.
Trump says he discussed Biden with Ukrainian president and Democrats threaten 'new stage of...
Posted from cnn.com
Donald Trump
Ukraine
Congress
Crime
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 15
9
9
0
At this point, does it really matter? It just provides further evidence of how Trump supporters don't care that the person they voted for is entirely corrupt, and how their claims of support for the Constitution, accountability, and the rule of law, or anything else they say are hollow and meaningless. It also demonstrates how weak and prone to partisanship Congress and the accountability process actually are.
(9)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
LCDR Joshua Gillespie - Thing is, that is what is called a "false analogy" sitting on a "straw man". To bring it more into line with reality, you would have to include the facts that the Mayor is a mogul that made his bucks with fraudulent companies and scams like (Mayor University), failed to pay his contractors, ran businesses into the ground, and hired a campaign manager that put a different corrupt Mayor into power in a different town. Sure, he told people he would end corruption, because he told people exactly what they wanted to hear, and then went about doing the exact opposite. He said things like "believe me", and "trust me", and "many people are saying", without providing any substantive, and people just ate that stuff up.
Then the hypothetical mayor would have to attack the local newspaper, calling it "fake news" and "the enemy of the people" if it printed anything he didn't find flattering. Our hypothetical mayor would then have to go on Twitter and rant constantly, attack childishly, and advocate locking up political opponents at his numerous rallies that reflect places like Nuremberg. He would have to demonstrate nothing that resembled leadership, make adolescent boasts, and promises he couldn't keep... telling everyone that the next town over was going to pay for his pet vanity project. Then he would have to go and admit that he openly asked a mayor in different town or state to launch an investigation with the specific aim of hindering the political career of a citizen of the town that he leads. Now, many people in this town apparently hold no loyalty to the town or its citizens because they have absolutely no problem with the Mayor doing this for his own personal and political gain and selling out a fellow citizen that they happen to dislike.
And speaking of Trump's platform, can you name the single thing the Trump campaign forwarded to change the GOP platform during CPAC? Their one ask?
Then the hypothetical mayor would have to attack the local newspaper, calling it "fake news" and "the enemy of the people" if it printed anything he didn't find flattering. Our hypothetical mayor would then have to go on Twitter and rant constantly, attack childishly, and advocate locking up political opponents at his numerous rallies that reflect places like Nuremberg. He would have to demonstrate nothing that resembled leadership, make adolescent boasts, and promises he couldn't keep... telling everyone that the next town over was going to pay for his pet vanity project. Then he would have to go and admit that he openly asked a mayor in different town or state to launch an investigation with the specific aim of hindering the political career of a citizen of the town that he leads. Now, many people in this town apparently hold no loyalty to the town or its citizens because they have absolutely no problem with the Mayor doing this for his own personal and political gain and selling out a fellow citizen that they happen to dislike.
And speaking of Trump's platform, can you name the single thing the Trump campaign forwarded to change the GOP platform during CPAC? Their one ask?
(3)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
MSgt Steve Sweeney - Forgive me, but I understand the definition of a "straw man" argument to be an intentionally misrepresented analogy used to more easily win a debate. I seen nothing misrepresented by "fact" in mine-you and I simply have a different point of view regarding the "Mayor's" actions, and those of his political enemies. Regarding CPAC 2016-I presume you're referencing the purported request by the Trump campaign that support to Ukraine be "watered down". If correct, then respectfully, I'm not sure what line to draw between that "dot" and this one. Any Presidential candidate known for their "negotiating ability" and hinging their campaign on reversing the policies of the outgoing administration would've understood aid to Ukraine as being a potentially sensitive issue towards future negotiations with the Russian Federation-at a time when concurrent military actions in the Middle East presented potential for catastrophe. While embroiling ourselves in complex foreign conflicts certainly isn't "new" to the United States, I see nothing particularly sinister in that request...unless one presumes the patriotic duty of any Commander in Chief is to perpetually poke a stick at the eye of the second most powerful military on earth. In conclusion (because, with respect, I think it's safe to say neither of us is going to sway the other's opinion), I don't think this President is being pursued because those in authority are altruistically living by the letter of the law...but because he has challenged (for better or worse) the establishment of power in D.C. Ironically, if he is guilty of gross abuses of power, then it would seem his rivals are doing more harm than good to their cause by throwing bricks in glass houses.
(2)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
LCDR Joshua Gillespie - Look, if you are okay with the President of the United States engaging a foreign power to denigrate an American citizen and political rival, then there isn't much left to say. And if you are cool with the President appeasing and making policy decisions favorable to an adversary that is known to have conducted a broad cyber campaign against the United States, then so be it. It is easy to understand why Trump would be motivated to move closer to Russia given their assistance in getting him elected - and don't try to tell me the Russian influence campaign didn't work when I can see people who have pledged to defend the country now making wholesale excuses for those that attacked the country.
It appears our core principles do not align, so agree to disagree.
It appears our core principles do not align, so agree to disagree.
(0)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
MSgt Steve Sweeney - To me, it's all subjective; hearsay-frankly, too convoluted to draw any conclusions from in either direction-least of all about those attempting to make sense of it all. However, your are right about this-Russia is not our friend, neither would most civilized persons defend many of their foreign policies. That being said, Trump is very far from the first U.S. President to use negotiation to preserve peace with a potential adversary (Kennedy, Regan, Clinton just to rattle off a few), or limit aid in order to avoid creating international incidents (Eisenhower in Hungary); most seem to have been applauded for it. Who is the "good guy" exactly in places like Syria or Chechnya? So they initiated a cyber-campaign against our electoral process...I don't think there's an "open" response to that other that what we've done; investigate and prosecute if warranted-I don't think sending the Second Fleet to the North Sea would be prudent. As regards "core values", it remains clear to me that while the President may not reflect mine at all times...neither is he or his party committed to overturning them. If the Democratic Party wants my vote in the next election, then convince me-don't spend time fishing for obscurities that wouldn't come to the docket until long after the next election to begin with. Convince me that a Progressive Democrat as Chief Executive won't seek to repeal our Constitutional rights in the interest of placating fear...or permit the law to be turned against people because of their deepest held beliefs. Convince me that their economic plan doesn't include penalizing American citizens for being responsible, or shutting down wholesale industries in a futile attempt to control the cosmos. Put forward another JFK...I certainly can't say his "values" 100% matched my own, but he was a good President, in spite of that.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
I'm going to do something I normally don't do absent facts, speculate.
I think that this whole episode smells like a rat. That this is just another attempt to smear the President with bullshit in order to either damage him politically or ideally have him react in a obstructive way. The reason why I conclude this is that this is very, very similar to the manner other fictions were precipitated and perpetuated.
My theory: President Trump talks to the PM of Ukraine (who it should be noted, is no friend of Russia) and congratulates him for his recent electoral win. This is normal and routine. What is not routine is that Trump does Trumpy things like kick around the notion that Biden acted corruptly in 2015 - three governments ago for Ukraine, I believe - and someone who sees the transcript of the call decides to send up a holy shit flag to his/her agency IG. Of course, political enemies of POTUS want this to be an anti-Trump story and more grist for the "orange man bad" mill. But I would suggest a more insidious methodology here - this is a PSYOP. The Biden story of the then-VP WHICH HE HAS BRAGGED ABOUT PUBLICLY strongly suggests that Hunter Biden got a lucrative job for a natural gas company (gahhh! The Earth's demise is imminent!) in Ukraine based upon dad's job (not good), and dad interceded directly when Ukrainian prosecutors were drilling down on corruption charges against that company (really not good) and told them to do more or less THE SAME THING THEY SAY TRUMP JUST DID - withhold aid in exchange for a PM intercession on an investigation and fire the prosecutor assigned to the case (very, very not good) while on official business and traveling on Air Force Two. This is not in doubt, as Biden himself thought this was cool and bragged about it publicly. All this in the backdrop of Russia recently forcibly annexing Crimea, and seizing a number of offshore oil and gas fields. I think that this is a backfire, as we call it in IO. Putting pieces of the story out in such a way that it deflects attention from a matter concerning someone else and placing the blame on a chosen target, in this case Trump. I think that this Biden business was getting ready to drop and his allies in the media decided to play this little game.
Now it is normal for the President, any President, to conduct some casual diplomacy when engaging foreign leaders. Suggesting the Ukrainian PM proceed with certain actions is not illegal at all. Discussing that US aid is under review and may or may not continue without certain strings attached happens ALL THE TIME, and indeed the actual appropriation for this aid stipulates a number of conditions on those funds. Where we get sketchy and potentially illegal is if the money is EXPLICITLY (not inferred) to be tied to Ukraine checking out this Hunter Biden story.
I predict that this will fizzle out UNLESS Biden falls out of frontrunner status, which is possible. I think the details, once public, will be incredibly embarrassing for the former VP, and that the President and his Congressional allies will also have some interest in not having certain details bounce around publicly. Nothing to see here, move along.
If my prediction holds true, this is an absolutely brilliant use of a backfire. Textbook, in fact.
I'd congratulate them, if they weren't so crooked.
I think that this whole episode smells like a rat. That this is just another attempt to smear the President with bullshit in order to either damage him politically or ideally have him react in a obstructive way. The reason why I conclude this is that this is very, very similar to the manner other fictions were precipitated and perpetuated.
My theory: President Trump talks to the PM of Ukraine (who it should be noted, is no friend of Russia) and congratulates him for his recent electoral win. This is normal and routine. What is not routine is that Trump does Trumpy things like kick around the notion that Biden acted corruptly in 2015 - three governments ago for Ukraine, I believe - and someone who sees the transcript of the call decides to send up a holy shit flag to his/her agency IG. Of course, political enemies of POTUS want this to be an anti-Trump story and more grist for the "orange man bad" mill. But I would suggest a more insidious methodology here - this is a PSYOP. The Biden story of the then-VP WHICH HE HAS BRAGGED ABOUT PUBLICLY strongly suggests that Hunter Biden got a lucrative job for a natural gas company (gahhh! The Earth's demise is imminent!) in Ukraine based upon dad's job (not good), and dad interceded directly when Ukrainian prosecutors were drilling down on corruption charges against that company (really not good) and told them to do more or less THE SAME THING THEY SAY TRUMP JUST DID - withhold aid in exchange for a PM intercession on an investigation and fire the prosecutor assigned to the case (very, very not good) while on official business and traveling on Air Force Two. This is not in doubt, as Biden himself thought this was cool and bragged about it publicly. All this in the backdrop of Russia recently forcibly annexing Crimea, and seizing a number of offshore oil and gas fields. I think that this is a backfire, as we call it in IO. Putting pieces of the story out in such a way that it deflects attention from a matter concerning someone else and placing the blame on a chosen target, in this case Trump. I think that this Biden business was getting ready to drop and his allies in the media decided to play this little game.
Now it is normal for the President, any President, to conduct some casual diplomacy when engaging foreign leaders. Suggesting the Ukrainian PM proceed with certain actions is not illegal at all. Discussing that US aid is under review and may or may not continue without certain strings attached happens ALL THE TIME, and indeed the actual appropriation for this aid stipulates a number of conditions on those funds. Where we get sketchy and potentially illegal is if the money is EXPLICITLY (not inferred) to be tied to Ukraine checking out this Hunter Biden story.
I predict that this will fizzle out UNLESS Biden falls out of frontrunner status, which is possible. I think the details, once public, will be incredibly embarrassing for the former VP, and that the President and his Congressional allies will also have some interest in not having certain details bounce around publicly. Nothing to see here, move along.
If my prediction holds true, this is an absolutely brilliant use of a backfire. Textbook, in fact.
I'd congratulate them, if they weren't so crooked.
(8)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
LTC Stephen B. I believe the criminal referral to the DOJ from the Trump appointed IG trumps any claim that there isn't a whistleblower.
What a difference a day makes.
What a difference a day makes.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
LTC Stephen B. he didn't say it had anything to do with a prosecutor because of an alleged investigation into Hunter Biden. Not saying that wasn't a reason, but to claim so, lacks credibility. Trump's conversation, however, was clearly an attempt for personal gain.
(0)
(0)
LTC Stephen B.
1SG (Join to see) - Waited until there was an new, Acting DNI in the loop with the confirmation circus playing in the background. Also note that the rule which precluded anything other than first-hand information was recently and secretly changed. No one actually on the call thought it was serious enough to report, yet someone who wasn't even there files based on hearsay? Sorry, but I have no idea how you could find that remotely credible.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/
Intel Community Secretly Nixed Whistleblower Demand Of First-Hand Info
Federal records show the intel community secretly revised a whistleblower complaint form to eliminate the requirement of first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.
(0)
(0)
LTC Stephen B.
Complaint against Trump misses key objectives of whistleblower act
The complaint appears to contain opinion and does not fit within the objectives underpinning the 1998 law.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
You just never get tired of chasing these stories like a mad dog chases a car. Oh no, this is the latest story that will prove the end of Trump, egad! We have him for sure now. What an abuse of power. To be followed in a week or two my whimpering on another clean miss. How many of these will it take before you ask a few questions first and jump second or maybe not at all?
(7)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
Capt Gregory Prickett - So, it appears the "whistleblower" did not even have first hand knowledge of the call where these comments were supposedly made. It appears it may be hearsay. Hmmm, imagine that.
You are going down the same path you do with every one of these stories. I read your comments for two years on Mueller. You were wrong at every turn and insisted there would be charges of conspiracy, obstruction and a host of other things.
This is your new scandal which I am sure you are salivating over and you are sure this will bear fruit in the form of charges/impeachment etc. You are already referring to it as an "abuse of power" and you have no evidence of anything yet. You are not exactly the voice of reason on anything Trump related.
So what do you think about the video (posted in this thread) with Biden bragging about a quid pro quo on withholding government funds if a prosecutor investigating his son was not fired? I am sure that passed muster with you doesn't it?
You are going down the same path you do with every one of these stories. I read your comments for two years on Mueller. You were wrong at every turn and insisted there would be charges of conspiracy, obstruction and a host of other things.
This is your new scandal which I am sure you are salivating over and you are sure this will bear fruit in the form of charges/impeachment etc. You are already referring to it as an "abuse of power" and you have no evidence of anything yet. You are not exactly the voice of reason on anything Trump related.
So what do you think about the video (posted in this thread) with Biden bragging about a quid pro quo on withholding government funds if a prosecutor investigating his son was not fired? I am sure that passed muster with you doesn't it?
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Cpl Jeff N. - no, and I don't have a problem with going after Biden either, although there appears to be information that indicates that it is not what you are portraying it as. But regardless of whether Biden engaged in misconduct or not, Trump apparently engaged in a serious abuse of power, which brings up another question. If Trump did do what was reported, and to which he freely admitted to later, are you OK with that? Is it OK for a president to go to a foreign leader and ask that the leader investigate a political rival? And to withhold aid approved by Congress until that foreign leader complied with the president's demand? If it is not OK for Biden to do it, then why is it OK for Trump to do it?
(1)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
Capt Gregory Prickett - Well, Trump said yesterday he will declassify and release the transcript of the entire call. Perhaps the democrats just walked into an ambush on this topic.
What Biden did is sell influence to the Ukrainians by having them put his son on a board making about $50k per month in an industry he had no experience in. What do we call that???
When there was an investigation by a prosecutor doing his job, Joe Biden demanding he be fired or the foreign aid to the Ukraine would be stopped. Joe was the point man for Obama in the Ukraine. The prosecutor was removed and his son was protected. Nothing was said or done by anyone, anywhere. That Greg is corruption
We will see what the phone call transcript yields. Trump would not be so willing to release it if there was anything there. My guess is that you will remain, hat in hand, when this is over but too proud to admit it just like at the end of the Mueller investigation.
What Biden did is sell influence to the Ukrainians by having them put his son on a board making about $50k per month in an industry he had no experience in. What do we call that???
When there was an investigation by a prosecutor doing his job, Joe Biden demanding he be fired or the foreign aid to the Ukraine would be stopped. Joe was the point man for Obama in the Ukraine. The prosecutor was removed and his son was protected. Nothing was said or done by anyone, anywhere. That Greg is corruption
We will see what the phone call transcript yields. Trump would not be so willing to release it if there was anything there. My guess is that you will remain, hat in hand, when this is over but too proud to admit it just like at the end of the Mueller investigation.
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Cpl Jeff N. - yet you still won't answer a question if it means you have to be critical of Trump.
I'll ask the questions again.
If Trump did do what was reported, and to which he freely admitted to later, are you OK with that? Is it OK for a president to go to a foreign leader and ask that the leader investigate a political rival? And to withhold aid approved by Congress until that foreign leader complied with the president's demand? If it is not OK for Biden to do it, then why is it OK for Trump to do it?
I'll ask the questions again.
If Trump did do what was reported, and to which he freely admitted to later, are you OK with that? Is it OK for a president to go to a foreign leader and ask that the leader investigate a political rival? And to withhold aid approved by Congress until that foreign leader complied with the president's demand? If it is not OK for Biden to do it, then why is it OK for Trump to do it?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google