1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Ukraine scandal Megathread

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by NewRoxFan, Sep 18, 2019.

  1. AleksandarN

    AleksandarN Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,444
    Likes Received:
    5,860
    How do you know he worked for Biden? What is the whistle blower’s name? I am curious since you posted it as fact without anything to back it up.
     
  2. AleksandarN

    AleksandarN Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,444
    Likes Received:
    5,860
    Where are you getting the information the whistle blower worked for Biden?
     
  3. dachuda86

    dachuda86 Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2008
    Messages:
    16,308
    Likes Received:
    3,580
    I guess I should say allegedly a democrat who worked for Biden. I am not above admitting something I see as incorrect when pointed out. But you should stop posting like a know-it-all twat if you don't want me to do that same back. So here goes.

    I agree that it shouldn't be taken as fact 100% but going by everyone here and their actual lack of a bar for 100% evidence, I am not disappointed to see how this type of argument is only convenient when it isn't being wielded against Trump. Also the transcript does not confirm the allegations. They simply don't. Learn to read and nothing was explicitly said. Also Marie Yovanovich has every reason to gun for Trump, claiming he had tried to oust her. Her testimony cannot be trusted in full because she could have a revenge motive to leave things out or out right lie. I think you and a lot of other people are getting your hopes up on impeachment as well because it just doesn't seem like the type of thing that will get him removed, even if the Democratic run house votes to impeach. By the way, did they start the investigation? What's the hold up?

    As for you saying asking for assistance for an election is illegal, Trump didn't ask for assistance out right. Asking about white house corruption is not illegal in and of itself. You can't prove the election is his motive, unless you want to mind read. We have a guilty until proven innocent legal system in the United States, and I would advise you to study up on the rudimentary process it takes to charge someone with a crime and then prove it.

    Also as for Biden, running for president doesn't exempt you from investigation. And it is the leader of the White House's job to inquire about said corruption if he has a reason to believe it prudent. All of the accusations you and your partisan group are pushing are just not backed by statements. They are backed by assumptions. Non-100% assumptions. The same kind you yourself complained about to me, and the same kind you will gloss over, ironically.

    Finally, I really love how bitter you are about my so-called "defending" the president, when I have said countless times investigate him. I just challenge the notions being put forward by the eager beavers in this forum and thread. Sorry you don't like to have to prove something, but the claims are huge and the case is weak from a evidence standpoint. Even though your feelings are making you interpret the transcript the way you want, it isn't actually spelled out enough to fly as solid proof. A jilted employee's testimony is also not enough. You are talking about the first steps of removing the President so you'd better have something solid. Speaking of... Where is that investigation and how is it going?

    I am actually in favor of investigating Trump and Biden because both are public officials and the best way to keep these politicians honest is by continuing to shine light on them. I am very far from siding with Trump and fully supporting him. I agree on some things he does, and other things I disagree with. I would say any partisanship you see is just me disagreeing about the grounds of impeachment and the evidence. It makes you angry to see people challenge something you overlooked and thought was a slam dunk. And instead of listening, well, you just assume people who have different opinions than you must automatically be wrong. Continue on with your condescension because what do I know. I am just some Trump supporter who calls for him to be investigated, doesn't vote for him or want to, and openly has explained why I don't like him on this board before.

    Ask yourself... would a non-partisan obsess over Trump and how bad he is? Or would he have both good and bad things to say about him? If you answer the first one, then you should look in the mirror. You'll probably see big old Donkey.
     
  4. AleksandarN

    AleksandarN Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,444
    Likes Received:
    5,860
    Again if this was just about the president clamping down on corruption as Trump says. Why did he cut funding for international corruption. This is a blatant lie.
     
    DaDakota, B-Bob and vlaurelio like this.
  5. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    23,888
    Likes Received:
    19,690
    Your whole post and argument means nothing. He could be on Bidens payroll and it doesn’t matter.

    The facts align to both the call memo/transcript, the texts, and Trumps own admissions.

    Stop trying to derail and conflate the fact that Trump held up aid to Ukraine and used as leverage to extort the new President to help him politically against Biden for 2020.

    You say you are objective and not a Trump supporter but you do his bidding and defend his case any chance you can.
     
    Rashmon, DaDakota, havoc1 and 2 others like this.
  6. dachuda86

    dachuda86 Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2008
    Messages:
    16,308
    Likes Received:
    3,580
    Can you prove it was a quid pro quo reason and related to his election? Can you prove it with the transcript? Or are you guessing?

    Go ahead and investigate. Let's do this and get it all out in the open.

    Did they vote for the investigation yet? What's the hold up?
     
  7. dachuda86

    dachuda86 Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2008
    Messages:
    16,308
    Likes Received:
    3,580
    When was that said? Prove it. All I ask for is proof, otherwise you're just spinning your wheels with nothing.

    Also yeah it would matter. Being tied to the political opponent of someone matters. It is more than enough to cast doubt on the testimony. And again it is just one person's testimony. It is still not enough evidence. People can lie, and they can definitely be put up to lie.

    It must really hurt to not have a compelling case and want impeachment sooooo badly. I feel bad for you and the others like you who are emotionally invested in this.
     
  8. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    23,888
    Likes Received:
    19,690
    You are a complete idiot if you don’t read the transcript and see clear as day what he’s asking for. Is something wrong with you or are you just trolling?

    Trolling.... yep that’s what I thought.

    I’m not wasting a minute of my time today trying to make a case with someone who obviously isn’t debating in good faith. You read the transcript and are just messing with people to argue process so you can support Trump. Congrats on earning your tenderfoot patch in the Trump cult.
     
    mdrowe00 likes this.
  9. AleksandarN

    AleksandarN Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,444
    Likes Received:
    5,860
    Again did Trump asked a foreign government to investigate a political rival? Yes or no?
     
  10. AleksandarN

    AleksandarN Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,444
    Likes Received:
    5,860
    If you are going by the premise that people can lie then we can’t trust Trump at all; given his history of lying. What is more likely a person who has a history of lying or the other person’s recollection of events?
     
  11. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    23,888
    Likes Received:
    19,690


    Sondland believed the military aid was tied to help investigating Biden.

    Dach does not apparently. Further evidence his opinion should not be taken seriously be anyone here.
     
  12. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,669
    Likes Received:
    17,295
    I believe his attorney said that he has been in government for a number of years and has had business with two or more presidential candidates. We don't know for sure that it is Biden, but it makes sense that he would have had business contact with the VP.
     
  13. AleksandarN

    AleksandarN Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,444
    Likes Received:
    5,860
    The lawyer denied working for Biden directly. That’s like saying the park ranger works for trump. A career cia agent would working the White House. Works for the people not for the individual.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/news...r-or-advised-political-candidate-lawyers-say/

     
    FranchiseBlade likes this.
  14. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,669
    Likes Received:
    17,295
    Yep, you are correct. I should have looked into it further.

    But I don't really care whether he did or didn't, it doesn't change or nullify his report and Trump's confirmation.
     
  15. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    53,795
    Likes Received:
    53,587
  16. Nolen

    Nolen Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    2,718
    Likes Received:
    1,261
    ZING!!! :D:D
    Welp, I appreciate that you put in more effort this time, thanks for that.

    I'll be generous in assuming that you of course meant "innocent until proven guilty," but if you're going to insult and condescend to me, at least get your terms right, Mr. Smarty Pants. :)

    The Constitution grants extremely broad power of the House to impeach. There are almost no guidelines in the constitution for how it is carried out. Back in the 1800s the House impeached Jackson without even having the articles describing what it was for. There is no perfect civilian parallel for the process of impeaching the president of the United States, but generally the impeachment in the House is like an indictment handed by a grand jury, and the conviction in the Senate is like a trial determining innocence or guilt.

    Should the House impeach president Trump, and a "trial" begins in the senate, then that's where the parsing of "you have to do us a favor, though" comes in. Of course senate republicans will take your interpretation, though many of those same republicans won't believe it themselves. And there could be a lot more admissible evidence between now and then.

    You seem to be insisting that the crime being discussed, asking a foreign national or government for assistance in an election, can only reach a guilty verdict in trial when intent is perfectly proven, as if in a particular type of civilian trial for murder or manslaughter. The villain, twisting his mustache, perfectly enunciates "I intend for you to interfere on my behalf in an upcoming election" for the microphone. Anything short of this in your mind means the accused is innocent. If there are any trial lawyers here, please feel free to chime in on the bar for evidence of conspiracy (for example) when accusing a mob boss.

    But the hypothetical trial of the president in the senate isn't a civilian trial. You and I both know that both sides in both houses of congress will be motivated by partisanship as well as the facts. You or I could say "you can't do that" when it comes to impeachment, but as we see, whoever has the votes can do whatever the f*ck they want. The house democrats could hold a vote and impeach on Tuesday and be within bounds of the constitution. The senate republicans could rush a trial to be over in a week, vote him innocent, and be done with it, and it would be "legal" regardless of actual innocence. (Or McConnell might even refuse a trial altogether.) Let's not confuse what is right and true with what is legal and permitted in this case, for either side.

    Of course it does. In addition, Trump has twice said on national television that he asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. He also asked China, which was so brazenly stupid that republican colleagues had to resort to the "he's just joking" defense.

    For us to believe your defense that Trump did not want Ukraine to interfere on his behalf, we have to believe that Trump is on the phone with many or most world leaders telling them to investigate corruption, and Ukraine just happens to be one of them. Next we have to believe that his repeated asking for investigation specifically into the Bidens is purely coincidental, even though corruption could take many forms and not just the board of an energy company. We have to assume that Giuliani's months-long campaign to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens is irrelevant. We have to believe that the fact that Biden is, or was at the time, Trumps' number-one rival for the 2020 election, is purely coincidental. (We also have to believe that the holdup up 400 million to Ukraine at the president's behest, already approved by congress, is purely coincidental, but again- it doesn't have to be quid pro quo for there to be a crime.)

    Most people who are not blinded by partisanship are unable to accept the above. It strains credulity. It's really very silly that you keep asking all of us to accept this narrative.

    You have repeatedly demonstrated that the things you choose to believe are selective. The things you choose not to believe are selective.

    You know as well as anyone that Trump lies often. His former personal lawyer is in prison. His former campaign manager is in prison. His current personal lawyer is likely to be indicted. He himself lies, constantly, about things big and small. Yet you choose to believe the most generous interpretation of events, framed by him, and to disbelieve a woman who has been a diplomat for 33 years under presidents of every stripe and testified under oath to congress, for which there are serious penalties for perjury.

    And then, of course, there's you ridiculing the rest of us for believing a NYT report with unnamed sources while you immediately accept as fact that the whistleblower worked for Biden.

    I don't mind that you're partisan. So am I; I just try to temper it as well as I can when discussing matters. It's ridiculous that you pretend not to be.

    Um, watch the news much? There's important events in the investigation just about every day so far. Or if you don't think it's an investigation, we'll call it a "subpoena and testimonial fiesta" instead?

    Nope. Not when it comes to asking a foreign national or govt to investigate your political rival.
    I'll let conservative legal analyst Judge Napolitano field this one. The video is only five minutes, give it a look: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-trump-attacks-presidency
    "If the favor was to help American law enforcement investigate Joe Biden, there's be no impropriety. But there's no federal investigation of Joe Biden for any crime."
    The bureaucracy of American law enforcement is huge. CIA, NSA, FBI, homeland security, on and on. You ask us to believe that the chief executive must call the president of another nation to investigate his main political rival, and it's coincidence? He's concerned only with truth and justice? That's third-world-dictator sh*t right there. If the fool wanted to cover up his crime he could have at least started a legit investigation in the USA, and not said Biden's name out loud 1000 times. But his corruption is naked.

    Look up "projection" sometime, Señor Haughtypants.

    Off the top of my head:
    • Giuliani is probably being investigated by the feds. Might be indicted.
    • Giuliani has repeatedly, openly stated that he's been lobbying Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. He also says he acts under the direction of the president.
    • Two of Giuliani's associates have been arrested for funneling Russian cash into the election. They're connected with trying to oust Yovanovich from her post, reportedly because she was trying to investigate corruption. Theirs.
    • At least one more whistleblower will submit testimony. More are reportedly considering joining in.
    • Perry has been subpoenaed.
    • The recordings of the Ukraine conversation and (reportedly) another with China have been stored, against protocol, on a different type of secret server. No one knows why.
    We're, what? Two weeks in? Three? I'm wondering when we'll get to a bombshell-every-other-day pace, rather than every day.

    ohhhhhh BURN! you are so MEAN!
     
  17. heypartner

    heypartner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 1999
    Messages:
    62,496
    Likes Received:
    56,074
    This is what I meant when I said the military aid as part of quid pro quo is more of a smoking gun, if provable.

    "If he testifies to this, it's big"

    h/t @dobro1229 for posting, reposting without quotes for emphasis

    While it was clear to all of us that military aid was being without as part of this, we have to have testimony, because the texts don't clearly state it.

    I didn't say the WH visit is not also illegal, nor did I mean to imply that both of them aren't provable. Obviously, they can attempt to pressure Ukraine by withholding both, but a visit is at the discretion of the Oval Office, but aid passed by Congress, not so much.
     
  18. saitou

    saitou J Only Fan

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    3,490
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Ah ok I get where you're coming from. I think (and probably sondland thinks so too) that it'll be hard to deny knowledge of aid being withheld after taylor stated it so explicitly. Let's hope he is sufficiently motivated to save himself and testifies honestly,

     
  19. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,147
    Likes Received:
    25,187
    What's their excuse for holding defense authorized funding for two months? They, by coincidence, released it when Congress got wind of this and communicated up channel.

    That's why they're trying to say this doesn't matter in the first place.

    If it were Cheney, he would've shot those ducks down before pulling shenanigans like this.
     
  20. No Worries

    No Worries Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    29,829
    Likes Received:
    16,682
    Hey Rudy G, I got a hat for you ...

    [​IMG]
     
    RayRay10 likes this.

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now