Trump Whistleblower and 'Promises' to Ukraine

[Crazyhole]

I need more info.

The whistleblower allegedly said that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine unless they found dirt on Biden.

Making popcorn.

So we have "allegedly" regarding Trump. No evidence, just an accusation. On the flip side, we have Biden on record bragging about how he was going to withhold aid unless they fired the investigator that was looking into his son and they did. This isnt even as benign as a double standard, it's just outright self-unaware.

 

[DaShuckster]

For as much as you claim he trashes the Constitution it should be pretty easy to cite some examples. The closest thing I can see is maybe pushing the boundaries on the emoluments clause but even that is questionable.

You're kidding, right?

Setting aside all the sordid crap involving paying for the silence of porn star, Stormy Daniels, the numerous examples of obstruction of justice outlined in the Mueller Report, the funding for 'The Wall,' and the widespread 'conflict of interest' when the military and members of the administration seek out Trump properties on trips at home and abroad, the latest 'whistleblower' controversy certainly looks to be yet another example of a steaming Trump dump on the Constitution.

Bribing a foreign power with a promise of military funding to dig up dirt on a major opponent is about an egregious example of abuse of office that one can find.

If this appears ambiguous or unclear to you guys, you might want to whip our your handy dandy Constitution and take special note of the fact that bribery is an impeachable offense.

 

[sk8knight]

You're kidding, right?

Setting aside all the sordid crap involving paying for the silence of porn star, Stormy Daniels, the numerous examples of obstruction of justice outlined in the Mueller Report, the funding for 'The Wall,' and the widespread 'conflict of interest' when the military and members of the administration seek out Trump properties on trips at home and abroad, the latest 'whistleblower' controversy certainly looks to be yet another example of a steaming Trump dump on the Constitution.

Bribing a foreign power with a promise of military funding to dig up dirt on a major opponent is about an egregious example of abuse of office that one can find.

If this appears ambiguous or unclear to you guys, you might want to whip our your handy dandy Constitution and take special note of the fact that bribery is an impeachable offense.

Cite the actual article of the Constitution that any of that violated. If you’re going to claim Constitutional crisis or that he’s trashing the Constitution, you need to at the very least tell us what part of the Constitution that he’s violating. Otherwise it just comes off as aimless ranting.

 

[DaShuckster]

Cite the actual article of the Constitution that any of that violated. If you’re going to claim Constitutional crisis or that he’s trashing the Constitution, you need to at the very least tell us what part of the Constitution that he’s violating. Otherwise it just comes off as aimless ranting.

Evidently you didn't read this part of my previous post:

If this appears ambiguous or unclear to you guys, you might want to whip our your handy dandy Constitution and take special note of the fact that bribery is an impeachable offense.

Since you're too disinterested to look it up yourself, Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

 

[NinjaKnight]

Evidently you didn't read this part of my previous post:
Since you're too disinterested to look it up yourself, Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

You do realize that when you are trying to use facts and logic as the basis of your debate against someone like these people who don't base their worldview on facts or logic that you are performing a futile exercise.

 

[sk8knight]

Evidently you didn't read this part of my previous post:
Since you're too disinterested to look it up yourself, Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Has he been accused of any of those in a court of law or any venue where evidence has to be presented under oath? For that matter, has Biden for doing at least as much with Ukraine?

 

[DaShuckster]

Has he been accused of any of those in a court of law or any venue where evidence has to be presented under oath?

Like the Nixon Oval Office tapes, all phone calls with foreign leaders are recorded so the same conversation that an intelligence operative found "troubling" will be available for Congress to hear....provided Trump's DOJ ever allows the evidence to be released.

Gee, I can't imagine why they won't release it since Trump swears nothing inappropriate was said.

 

[sk8knight]

Like the Nixon Oval Office tapes, all phone calls with foreign leaders are recorded so the same conversation that an intelligence operative found "troubling" will be available for Congress to hear....provided Trump's DOJ ever allows the evidence to be released.

Gee, I can't imagine why they won't release it since Trump swears nothing inappropriate was said.

I’m all for it as soon as they release all of the recordings of all Presidents’ discussions with any foreign entities. Let’s add the VPs for that matter. Let’s get a real good look at what diplomacy looks like.

 

[DaShuckster]

I’m all for it as soon as they release all of the recordings of all Presidents’ discussions with any foreign entities. Let’s add the VPs for that matter. Let’s get a real good look at what diplomacy looks like.

So now we're to believe our national security is all political??!?!?

Great rebuttal, sk8!!! Yeah, the "Deep State" is out to get our beleaguered President.

 

[NinjaKnight]

So now we're to believe our national security is all political??!?!?

Great rebuttal, sk8!!! Yeah, the "Deep State" is out to get our beleaguered President.

Again, you can't use facts and logic to change someone like sk8's mind when he doesn't use facts and logic to form his worldview.

You are literally wasting your time with that racist piece of shit.

 

[sk8knight]

So now we're to believe our national security is all political??!?!?

Great rebuttal, sk8!!! Yeah, the "Deep State" is out to get our beleaguered President.

Now you’re just playing the contrarian role.

 

[DaShuckster]

Now you’re just playing the contrarian role.

Really?

In the history of recorded phone calls, I can think of only two instances where intelligence officials spoke out about U.S. 'diplomats' who they reported to have made questionable statements to foreign leaders:

Trump's National Security advisor, Michael Flynn and Trump himself.

Contrarian or a Reality Check?

 

[sk8knight]

Really?

In the history of recorded phone calls, I can think of only two instances where intelligence officials spoke out about U.S. 'diplomats' who they reported to have made questionable statements to foreign leaders:

Trump's National Security advisor, Michael Flynn and Trump himself.

Contrarian or a Reality Check?

TDS. And FBI Director who was an HRC fanboy admittedly leaked to the media too. At some point, you gotta clean out the cockroaches.

 

[Crazyhole]

Evidently you didn't read this part of my previous post:
Since you're too disinterested to look it up yourself, Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

I'm not sure this meets the definition of bribery. If it's true, it probably is an impeachable offense but it's not bribery.

 

[DaShuckster]

I'm not sure this meets the definition of bribery. If it's true, it probably is an impeachable offense but it's not bribery.

Let’s read the transcript of the call before characterizing what Trump did or didn’t do.

 

[DaShuckster]

And FBI Director who was an HRC fanboy...

yeah, he was SUCH A FANBOY he singlehandedly elected Trump!

At some point, you gotta clean out the cockroaches.

yeah, those morally self-righteous whistleblowers are SUCH a pain in the ass!

 

[UCFBS]

I'm not sure this meets the definition of bribery. If it's true, it probably is an impeachable offense but it's not bribery.

Depends on the details.

There are a lot of questions surrounding a lot of lawyers of both parties and their roles in Kiev prior to the Russian intervention. So far no one has 'pressed the nuke button' which would launch a lot of MAD, and only the Trump administration has been investigated -- ironically the only person not actually in office or related to anyone in office at the time. So I'm curious what Trump was looking for, politically or otherwise.

There's a lot of special interest around. And nearly all go unprosecuted too.

E.g., the second round of funding for Solyndra is still my personal favorite. Not the first round, but the second round. It was a taxpayer bailout, and the business associations of Californian politicians with some of the benefactors that knowingly were not on-the-hook before the taxpayer as a result of the bailout still shocks me. But California is powerful.

 

[sk8knight]

I love the hypocrisy in the Democrat party. While they are desperately grasping at their latest straw in the "Impeach Trump" campaign, they have a clear frontrunner for their nomination that is on tape bragging that he withheld a billion dollars from Ukraine in order to get a prosecutor fired that just happened to be investigating his son. Oh, and shortly after the VP became the point man for Ukraine, Biden's son was hired for a job he had no prior experience or qualifications for supporting Ukraine. Yet another case of speck-plank syndrome from the Democrats.

 

[firm_bizzle]

I love the hypocrisy in the Democrat party. While they are desperately grasping at their latest straw in the "Impeach Trump" campaign, they have a clear frontrunner for their nomination that is on tape bragging that he withheld a billion dollars from Ukraine in order to get a prosecutor fired that just happened to be investigating his son. Oh, and shortly after the VP became the point man for Ukraine, Biden's son was hired for a job he had no prior experience or qualifications for supporting Ukraine. Yet another case of speck-plank syndrome from the Democrats.

Only the prosecutor wasn't investigating Biden's son. His deputy confirmed that.

 

[UCFBS]

Only the prosecutor wasn't investigating Biden's son. His deputy confirmed that.

The problem with Trump is that he listens and jumps on rumor way too much, with a lot of assumptions. Although I saw similarly out of Obama at times, nearly all during his 2nd administration when he didn't have to worry about re-election, it was no where near as often, or 'as unfiltered,' as Trump ... not even close.

 

[Crazyhole]

Let’s read the transcript of the call before characterizing what Trump did or didn’t do.

Would you say that the Cornhusker kickback was also bribery?

 

[Crazyhole]

Depends on the details.

There are a lot of questions surrounding a lot of lawyers of both parties and their roles in Kiev prior to the Russian intervention. So far no one has 'pressed the nuke button' which would launch a lot of MAD, and only the Trump administration has been investigated -- ironically the only person not actually in office or related to anyone in office at the time. So I'm curious what Trump was looking for, politically or otherwise.

There's a lot of special interest around. And nearly all go unprosecuted too.

E.g., the second round of funding for Solyndra is still my personal favorite. Not the first round, but the second round. It was a taxpayer bailout, and the business associations of Californian politicians with some of the benefactors that knowingly were not on-the-hook before the taxpayer as a result of the bailout still shocks me. But California is powerful.

So who is bribing who? This isn't like Trump was receiving money to use his authority to help someone else. I just can't see how he personally benefits from this in a way that article 2 applies for an impeachment hearing.

 

[UCFKnight85]

It's unfortunate for Biden I guess that investigating corruption in Ukraine involves investigating his son and his own actions when intervening in Ukraine as the Vice President.

 

[MACHater02]

It’s odd Moscow Mitch suddenly backed dollars for election Security, around the same time this nothingness came to light.

Why the change of heart?

Why is Bill Weld referring to this nothingness as treason?

 

[sk8knight]

Only the prosecutor wasn't investigating Biden's son. His deputy confirmed that.

Does it matter? And why did he want him fired then?

 

[DaShuckster]

I find it interesting that Trump Supporters want to paint this incident as 'the usual politics thing' (I.e. well, the Ukraine SHOULD investigate Biden, etc.) when 'the usual politics thing' is the very reason Trump crossed the line when he pressured the newly-elected Ukrainian leader to work with Rudy Guiliani to dig up some dirt on the son of his political opponent. Simply put, YOU. CAN''T. DO. THAT!

 

[UCFKnight85]

There is a video being re-released today that shows Joe Biden in 2018 openly bragging that he used a $1B aid payment due to Ukraine as leverage to pressure the Ukrainian Government to fire the very prosecutor who was spearheading the corruption charge into Burisma, who was the company who just happened to be paying Hunter Biden $50,000 a month for "consultancy".

Seems to me like THIS is the actual story needing hysterics and further investigation.

JB: Well, I was, not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over convincing our team, our, others to convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, try to guess the 12th, 13th time to Kiev, and I was going to, supposed to announce that there was another billion dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor, and they didn’t. So they said they had, they were walking out to a press conference, and I said no, I said I’m not going to, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said. I said call him. I said I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said you’re not getting the billion, and I’m going to be leaving here, and I think it was what, six hours. I looked. I said I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.

 

[DaShuckster]

Seems to me like THIS is the actual story needing hysterics and further investigation.

Bullsh*t. If it's the 'actual story' then Ukraine can pursue it without the POTUS using his position to pressure them to do so.

It's called abuse of power.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Bullsh*t. If it's the 'actual story' then Ukraine can pursue it without the POTUS using his position to pressure them to do so.

It's called abuse of power.

What do you call a sitting VP using a $1B aid payment in order to get the prosecutor investigating your son fired called then?

We call for better crackdown on corruption in countries all the time. We do not, however, routinely send Presidents or VP's over to threaten countries investigating their family members to fire the people doing the investigating, and using Congressionally passed US aid as leverage to do it.

 

[DaShuckster]

We call for better crackdown on corruption in countries all the time.

The classic Trump "well, whadda 'bout.." defense. The only problem is the 'whadda bout' you used is your usual tinfoil hat Conservative Conspiracy bullsh*t. Let me guess, "Q" told you this was true, right?

But even if Biden's son was involved in something, the POTUS can't constitutionally use his office to pressure an investigation of a rival's son for crying out loud.

Trump may like what Putin does, but this ain't Russia!!!

 

[UCFKnight85]

The classic Trump "well, whadda 'bout.." defense. The only problem is the 'whadda bout' you used is your usual tinfoil hat Conservative Conspiracy bullsh*t. Let me guess, "Q" told you this was true, right?

But even if Biden's son was involved in something, the POTUS can't constitutionally use his office to pressure an investigation of a rival's son for crying out loud.

Trump may like what Putin does, but this ain't Russia!!!

It's pretty hilarious how easily you're excusing Biden's clear abuse of power to benefit his family member while going into these faux hysterics over Trump asking Ukraine to investigate actual corruption cases, such as Joe Biden abusing the office of VP to get his son off the hook.

The WSJ already reported that nothing was "promised" in exchange for Trump asking for them to crack down on corruption that involved Biden and his son. Biden, on the other hand, is on record as admitting that he used US Aid dollars as leverage to threaten the Ukrainians to fire the guy investigating his son.

Please take your selective outrage elsewhere.

 

[Cubs79]

It's pretty hilarious how easily you're excusing Biden's clear abuse of power to benefit his family member while going into these faux hysterics over Trump asking Ukraine to investigate actual corruption cases, such as Joe Biden abusing the office of VP to get his son off the hook.

The WSJ already reported that nothing was "promised" in exchange for Trump asking for them to crack down on corruption that involved Biden and his son. Biden, on the other hand, is on record as admitting that he used US Aid dollars as leverage to threaten the Ukrainians to fire the guy investigating his son.

Please take your selective outrage elsewhere.

His son wasn't being investigated, it was a company he was a board member of, so making it out as his son was under criminal investigation or something simply isn't true. Secondly, the investigation was already over before Biden made his remarks or got involved, so it didn't impact the investigation at all. Trump's timeline of events is off.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/23/fact-checking-trumps-latest-claims-biden-ukraine/

 

[Cubs79]

So we have "allegedly" regarding Trump. No evidence, just an accusation. On the flip side, we have Biden on record bragging about how he was going to withhold aid unless they fired the investigator that was looking into his son and they did. This isnt even as benign as a double standard, it's just outright self-unaware.

You guys don't have all your facts straight on this. The investigation was already completed by the time Joe Biden asked that the prosecutor be removed. Secondly, he wasn't investigating his son. He was investigating a company his son happened to be a part of, but you guys are acting like his son was under criminal investigation or something, which simply wasn't the case.

 

[Poolside Knight]

 

[DaShuckster]

Please take your selective outrage elsewhere.

You excuse a clear cut case of Presidential abuse of power and push a fake conservative news story that supposedly is "the same thing."

Jeez, talk about selective outrage!

 

[UCFKnight85]

His son wasn't being investigated, it was a company he was a board member of, so making it out as his son was under criminal investigation or something simply isn't true. Secondly, the investigation was already over before Biden made his remarks or got involved, so it didn't impact the investigation at all. Trump's timeline of events is off.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/23/fact-checking-trumps-latest-claims-biden-ukraine/

lol so Hunter Biden just happened to become a board member of a business in which we had no idea what he was doing, and being paid $50,000 a month to do so. At a time when his father was the Vice President and there was an off-and-on-again investigation going on into Burisma that the Obama Admin had a personal stake in.

Your attempt to make this so clean for Biden is not going to pass muster here.

And hmm, why did the Burisma case get dropped the first time? Gee, it's so hard to say!

Concerns about Mr. Shokin notwithstanding, the cases against Burisma had high-level support from the Obama administration. In April 2014, it sent top officials to a forum on Ukrainian asset recovery, co-sponsored by the United States government, in London, where Mr. Zlochevsky’s case was highlighted.

Early that year, Mr. Archer, the Kerry family friend, and Hunter Biden were part of a wave of Americans who would come from across the Atlantic to help Burisma both with its substantive legal issues and its image. Their support allowed Burisma to create the perception that it was backed by powerful Americans at a time when Ukraine was especially dependent on aid and strategic backing from the United States and its allies, according to people who worked in Ukraine at the time.


So Biden is on record having bragged about waving $1B in aid money in their face to force the firing of a prosecutor (which in itself is suspect) at the same time as when Burisma hired Hunter Biden to create an outward perception of AMerican backing in order to secure needed aid money. Hmmm. Yep nothing going on there!

 

[Cubs79]

lol so Hunter Biden just happened to become a board member of a business in which we had no idea what he was doing, and being paid $50,000 a month to do so. At a time when his father was the Vice President and there was an off-and-on-again investigation going on into Burisma that the Obama Admin had a personal stake in.

Your attempt to make this so clean for Biden is not going to pass muster here.

And hmm, why did the Burisma case get dropped the first time? Gee, it's so hard to say!

Concerns about Mr. Shokin notwithstanding, the cases against Burisma had high-level support from the Obama administration. In April 2014, it sent top officials to a forum on Ukrainian asset recovery, co-sponsored by the United States government, in London, where Mr. Zlochevsky’s case was highlighted.

Early that year, Mr. Archer, the Kerry family friend, and Hunter Biden were part of a wave of Americans who would come from across the Atlantic to help Burisma both with its substantive legal issues and its image. Their support allowed Burisma to create the perception that it was backed by powerful Americans at a time when Ukraine was especially dependent on aid and strategic backing from the United States and its allies, according to people who worked in Ukraine at the time.


So Biden is on record having bragged about waving $1B in aid money in their face to force the firing of a prosecutor (which in itself is suspect) at the same time as when Burisma hired Hunter Biden to create an outward perception of AMerican backing in order to secure needed aid money. Hmmm. Yep nothing going on there!

THe prosecutor was fired at the behest of the World Bank, IMF, and several of our Western Allies. It wasn't a personal thing because of Joe Biden.

And again, your timeline is wrong. Hunter Biden had already worked for Burisma and the investigation was already completed. Your own post references the Hunter Biden started working for them in 2014. Joe Biden's wanting the prosecutor fired wasn't until 2016. That isn't "the same time as when Burisma hired Hunter Biden to create an outward perception of AMerican backing in order to secure needed aid money." That was two years prior. You are trying to make it out this was all simultaneous, and it wasn't.

 

[sk8knight]

THe prosecutor was fired at the behest of the World Bank, IMF, and several of our Western Allies. It wasn't a personal thing because of Joe Biden.

And again, your timeline is wrong. Hunter Biden had already worked for Burisma and the investigation was already completed. Your own post references the Hunter Biden started working for them in 2014. Joe Biden's wanting the prosecutor fired wasn't until 2016. That isn't "the same time as when Burisma hired Hunter Biden to create an outward perception of AMerican backing in order to secure needed aid money." That was two years prior. You are trying to make it out this was all simultaneous, and it wasn't.

Why does it have to be simultaneous for it to be a problem?

 

[Cubs79]

Why does it have to be simultaneous for it to be a problem?

I didn't say it had to be simultaneous to be a problem. Simply correcting one of his points where he is clearly trying to make it out to be simultaneous and all connected, which simply isn't the case. Facts matter.

 

[MACHater02]

THe prosecutor was fired at the behest of the World Bank, IMF, and several of our Western Allies. It wasn't a personal thing because of Joe Biden.

And again, your timeline is wrong. Hunter Biden had already worked for Burisma and the investigation was already completed. Your own post references the Hunter Biden started working for them in 2014. Joe Biden's wanting the prosecutor fired wasn't until 2016. That isn't "the same time as when Burisma hired Hunter Biden to create an outward perception of AMerican backing in order to secure needed aid money." That was two years prior. You are trying to make it out this was all simultaneous, and it wasn't.

Why does it have to be simultaneous for it to be a problem?

The timing of it changes the entire narrative.