Trump-Ukraine Megathread V8

[MMAisGod]

So you are basically saying your initial question about not following what’s been going on since V2 is bullshit because as you said “everything I’ve see” means you weren’t genuinely asking to be informed on the latest facts at hand.

No. I am admitting that I am uninformed of any recent events. Everything I have seen points to A). I am asking for people who have been following, who would be more informed than I am, if B) has happened, or if it's still A). From the responses, it seems like nothing new has happened.

 

[MMAisGod]

Those were facts, so you're off to a bad start.



Facepalm.

My statement is that at least (but probably several more) witnesses confirmed that there was a quid pro quo. There is now evidence that the money was actually held in order to get Ukraine to revive a CT that Ukraine was behind the server attacks (not Russia).



You're making a terrible mistake. We are not saying crimes were committed that would land him in jail here (Mueller did layout 10 counts of obstruction that would qualify) we are saying that he should be impeached.

And what are you talking about when you say it "hasn't been consistent"? Witnesses confirmed what we knew - Trump held back funds that were approved by Congress that were supposed to go to Ukraine for defense in order to revive a CT and to get dirt on Joe Biden. It's massively corrupt (hard to get more corrupt, quite frankly) and he should be removed.

And I like you man, but I have to point out you saying that "nothing has developed, call me when there's a smoking gun" is brain dead stupid. What we already know is a slam dunk case for impeachment. Hard stop.

Alright let's try this again.

Is there any hard proof of your claims? For example, Watergate. Or is there people saying things and two lines of a transcript? If there is hard proof, proof that I can look at and say "wow they got him", rather than things that are up for discussion, post it here in the reply so I can read/view it.

However, if this is a "slam dunk case for impeachment", then by your own statement, impeachment is but a foregone conclusion, yes?

 

[*Z*]

I can't, I'm at work. But if you have something that is absolute, direct in regards to Trump, rather than 3rd parties and such, I'm all ears. It's literally what I'm asking for.

It's literally what I'm giving you. Yet you blew it off before you even read it.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I've never had to deal with OLR but my understanding is:

• Fine
• Some sort of counseling or training
• Suspension temporary
• Suspension permanent

Are you a lawyer Bobby?

I am curious how much power a typical State Bar would have to call any lawyer to account if they perceive impropriety within the law?

my understanding is if you are licensed by them, and they get any report of impropriety they feel is worth investigating they can demand you appear before a committee, demand you defend your position or actions, and they can decided unilaterally whether they think you have lived up to the ethics requirements of that jurisdiction and suspend your license if they determine you did not.

Its not like the State Bar's shy away from holding powerful people to account. They went after Clinton's law license and suspended it but I think, ultimately struck a deal with him where he just agreed to restrictions rather than being fully disbarred.

If they will go after a sitting POTUS you would think they would go after a AG who has done much worse than lying about a blow job under oath.

 

[44nutman]

Even the Ukraine knew it was Quid Pro Quo.
Quid Pro Quo bad.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/ukraine-aid-freeze-impeachment.html
To bad the GOP is not made up of Conservatives from my youth. Those guys/gals put America over party. The current crop of the GOP puts their party above America and the Constitution.

 

[Rational Poster]

Remove the emotion, stick to hard facts. What you or I think of Trump is irrelevant. You're saying things like "basically confirmed", but that is not the same as "proven and confirmed". If nothing has changed in the last month, then we're literally at the exact same position.

Everything I have seen is "put the picture together", which is vastly different than "look at this absolute fact that would easily convict". I have seen/watched whistleblowers testimonies, interviews, etc, on numerous occasions, some even in threads in the WR, so I don't know what you mean there. Also, we were explicitly told he/she was going to testify and be present, only for it to change to whatever it is now. It hasn't been consistent at all.



I can't, I'm at work. But if you have something that is absolute, direct in regards to Trump, rather than 3rd parties and such, I'm all ears. It's literally what I'm asking for.



Point being, the whole "this is it" non-stop charade ended up being a massive waste of time since Orange Man is still running his gimmick while Cohen is the only one who "went down".

Just because nothing happened yet doesn't mean it won't.

You can't indict a sitting President and we're still going through the impeachment process.

 

[MMAisGod]

It's literally what I'm giving you. Yet you blew it off before you even read it.

If that is the case then I appreciate it. Need to see the juice. I'll check it out when I get off.

Just because nothing happened yet doesn't mean it won't.

You can't indict a sitting President and we're still going through the impeachment process.

Is it strong enough evidence on paper to break through the Mitch Wall of Fire?

 

[kpt018]

Alright let's try this again.

Is there any hard proof of your claims?

I am not making claims when I tell you what is reported. My claim that it is impeachable is hinged on the fact that Trump abused his power and that qualifies as a "high crimes and misdemeanor".

For example, Watergate. Or is there people saying things and two lines of a transcript? If there is hard proof, proof that I can look at and say "wow they got him", rather than things that are up for discussion, post it here in the reply so I can read/view it.

Be specific as to what you're asking for. Trump admitted that he withheld funds and claimed he wanted to clean up corruption in Ukraine. His press secretary admitted there was a quid pro quo (didn't use those words but it was an obvious admission). Then at least 2 witnesses confirmed it all. We also have the transcripts of the call, which are recorded, that lay it out as well.

However, if this is a "slam dunk case for impeachment", then by your own statement, impeachment is but a foregone conclusion, yes?

I'd say it's close to 100% that he is impeached.

 

[Bargey]

This is stating the obvious, but ...YES.

OK so another dumb Trumpster who does not know what the various State Bar associations do and represent.

The State Bar associations hold lawyers to account on matters of Law with regards to what they should or should not be doing. They basically police the lawyers, with their biggest sanction being to suspend the law license of a lawyer they have licensed. They will also often comment on items of legal importance to clarify the law.

It has been clear since the start that Bill Barr is a horrible conflict of interest any other responsible official would recuse himself from, but he just does not GAF. The WhistleBlower names Barr in his complaint, a complaint the DOJ has no chain of authority over nor any role in deciding its disposition and yet Barr jumps in and says 'don't worry, I've got this. I've reviewed it and I have determined this does not apply and therefore we will just keep this here in my office and not pass it on as the law requires. Case closed. I'm exonerated.'


Trump causes so many issues that could be pursued that he causes issue fatigue. But I hope when this is done, if the Dem's have any bullets left they go after and Sanction Barr, and submit a letter to whatever Law Society licences him for review as he WOULD lose his law license.

So in other words a political organization that is pretending to be apolitical and attempting to usurp Congress and the Senate’s role of impeachment and removal (if it came to that)

Pretty shameful - there are already constitutional mechanisms in place for removing an AG and Bar Associations are not part of it. Alas, just like the deep state, they know better than the people and the Constitution.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Remove the emotion, stick to hard facts. What you or I think of Trump is irrelevant. You're saying things like "basically confirmed", but that is not the same as "proven and confirmed". If nothing has changed in the last month, then we're literally at the exact same position.

Everything I have seen is "put the picture together", which is vastly different than "look at this absolute fact that would easily convict". I have seen/watched whistleblowers testimonies, interviews, etc, on numerous occasions, some even in threads in the WR, so I don't know what you mean there. Also, we were explicitly told he/she was going to testify and be present, only for it to change to whatever it is now. It hasn't been consistent at all.



I can't, I'm at work. But if you have something that is absolute, direct in regards to Trump, rather than 3rd parties and such, I'm all ears. It's literally what I'm asking for.



Point being, the whole "this is it" non-stop charade ended up being a massive waste of time since Orange Man is still running his gimmick while Cohen is the only one who "went down".

Nonsense.

You simply do not understand how cases are made and think I need to see the actual and literal smoking gun, and i need to see video of the guy firing it or nothing else is conviction worthy.

In the last month we have it established, without question that Trump was asking for a favour and that favour was to have Ukraine look into a political opponent. That is Impeachment worthy.

In the last month we have established beyond that Trump was requiring a quid pro quo, which was I will give you 'this' (money you need to survive and fight Russia) for 'that' (investigations into Biden).

However that quid pro quo may rise to the level of extortion or bribery and not just the lesser 'offer of exchange in a voluntary manner'. It could be argued that due to Ukraine literally having Russian guns pointed at them and Trump knowing and using that, that this would not just be considered 'an offer of exchange' that the other party could choose to accept or not (still impeachable) but the much worse extortion or bribery.

So if you want to argue anything is not advanced yet it is that last point only as it would take a prosecutor, typically in the DOJ to go after that last point.

 

[MMAisGod]

Trump admitted that he withheld funds and claimed he wanted to clean up corruption in Ukraine. His press secretary admitted there was a quid pro quo (didn't use those words but it was an obvious admission). Then at least 2 witnesses confirmed it all. We also have the transcripts of the call, which are recorded, that lay it out as well.

Trump himself admitted that? See I didn't know that, nor his own press secretary throwing him under. If that is the case that is new info, and changes the likelihood imo. Not sure in what way he'd defend himself against it, but that's much closer to a smoking gun than a lot of what I heard a while back.

I'd say it's close to 100% that he is impeached.

R.I.P. Orange Man. However, if he loses it'll all be a wash in the end, but at least it would set an example that you can't go renegade. Eventually it'll catch up with him, just wasn't sure this was the time, but if what you say is true it might actually BE it.

 

[kpt018]

Trump himself admitted that? See I didn't know that, nor his own press secretary throwing him under. If that is the case that is new info, and changes the likelihood imo. Not sure in what way he'd defend himself against it, but that's much closer to a smoking gun than a lot of what I heard a while back.

He's really not trying to. His argument is that he's the president and while Republicans in the Senate back him he can do whatever the fuck he wants. His lawyer just came out arguing that he's above the law.

R

.I.P. Orange Man. However, if he loses it'll all be a wash in the end, but at least it would set an example that you can't go renegade. Eventually it'll catch up with him, just wasn't sure this was the time, but if what you say is true it might actually BE it.

Not so fast. I have little faith (less than 5%, maybe worse?) that the Senate will remove him. The House will impeach him.

 

[Rational Poster]

If that is the case then I appreciate it. Need to see the juice. I'll check it out when I get off.



Is it strong enough evidence on paper to break through the Mitch Wall of Fire?

Trump signed the checks to reimburse Cohen himself while he was in office..

 

[MikeMcMann]

...

Is it strong enough evidence on paper to break through the Mitch Wall of Fire?

Asking is it 'strong enough', is not the right question as Mitch and the Republicans are not honest brokers here who just need good strong evidence to do the right thing. They will cover up and deny any crime as long as they think Trump nets them more votes than he costs them.

The question you need to ask and watch is 'is the evidence strong enough to break thru to more voters'?

Recall the MidTerms and how you saw Republicans laughably scrambling to say 'they are the ones to save medicare...' because the polls told them they were losing all the independent voters and were going to lose lots of seats.

If Trump support remains high due to his unethical and immoral base but support for average republicans keeps plummeting they will not sacrifice themselves to save him. As soon as they see Trump costing them more votes than he gets them, they will abandon him.

That is the calculus to pay attention to here.

 

[Strychnine]

Even the Ukraine knew it was Quid Pro Quo.
Quid Pro Quo bad.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/ukraine-aid-freeze-impeachment.html
To bad the GOP is not made up of Conservatives from my youth. Those guys/gals put America over party. The current crop of the GOP puts their party above America and the Constitution.

 

[MikeMcMann]

So in other words a political organization that is pretending to be apolitical and attempting to usurp Congress and the Senate’s role of impeachment and removal (if it came to that)

Pretty shameful - there are already constitutional mechanisms in place for removing an AG and Bar Associations are not part of it. Alas, just like the deep state, they know better than the people and the Constitution.

WTF?

Geez man, shut up and learn and be less stupid in your comments.

State Bars are not political. They police matters of the application of the law, abuses and ethics amongst the layers who apply to be licensed by them.

Matters of recusal are not political. They are expected when conflicts appear that jeopardize objectivity. If the State Bar has some of its ethics experts examine any situation where a lawyer might be abusing the ethics of his position by not recusing, they would investigate, call him to account and maybe ask him to appear before a panel of various experts on that State Bar panel.

Bill Barr would have the chance to make his case, but they are the jury and judge and will decide and enact punishment. Politics would have nothing to do with this. Either Barr IS or IS NOT violating the State Bars ethical requirements and they will determine that.

 

[Strychnine]

As far as trying to smear and destroy the standing of Diplomat Bill Taylor, Bloomberg Politics managing editor John Heilemann said that he was WITH Steve Bannon when that strategy was coming across the newscrawl...

He qouted Bannon as saying "They need to change strategy, I know him, it's not going to work. He's 100% credible. This strategy will fail, they need to change direction now."

 

[MikeMcMann]

And a reminder to the dumbest Trumpsters amongst us.

These are hearings, this is not a trial and it should not be conducted as a trial with the accused meeting his accusers, etc. This is like the police out gathering evidence to present to the prosecutor who then decides if its enough to go to trial. If they don't go to trial the person being investigated has no reason to be questioning and confronting every witness. It is once it goes to trial and those witnesses and info is produced the Defense and accused will have every opportunity to challenge it.

As Trey Gowdy very clearly explains below. And please do not be stupid Trumpsters as Gowdy's comments the logic underpinning to them apply to ALL HEARINGS. He is not saying just his type of hearing becomes a circus but others do not. He is pointing out the problem with PUBLIC HEARINGS, period. And we know that circus is exactly all the Repubs care about here. They don't want voters to be able to focus on the facts coming out. They want them to get so frustrated by the circus they tune out.

"...Well, our private hearing was much more constructive than the public hearing. I mean, public hearings are a circus, Margaret, I mean that's why I don't like to do them. I don't do many of them. I mean it's a freak show. I mean the private interviews are much more constructive. ..."

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

And a reminder to the dumbest Trumpsters amongst us.

These are hearings, this is not a trial and it should not be conducted as a trial with the accused meeting his accusers, etc. This is like the police out gathering evidence to present to the prosecutor who then decides if its enough to go to trial. If they don't go to trial the person being investigated has no reason to be questioning and confronting every witness. It is once it goes to trial and those witnesses and info is produced the Defense and accused will have every opportunity to challenge it.

As Trey Gowdy very clearly explains below. And please do not be stupid Trumpsters as Gowdy's comments the logic underpinning to them apply to ALL HEARINGS. He is not saying just his type of hearing becomes a circus but others do not. He is pointing out the problem with PUBLIC HEARINGS, period. And we know that circus is exactly all the Repubs care about here. They don't want voters to be able to focus on the facts coming out. They want them to get so frustrated by the circus they tune out.

"...Well, our private hearing was much more constructive than the public hearing. I mean, public hearings are a circus, Margaret, I mean that's why I don't like to do them. I don't do many of them. I mean it's a freak show. I mean the private interviews are much more constructive. ..."

This too will be ignored

 

[zebby23]

Why is the right so violent?