Trump whistleblower brewing scandal

[timhau]

That's fair.

But keep in mind: conservatives on this forum take a lot of personal abuse, day in and day out, just for speaking their mind and arguing their opinions. Stuff that plays as a friendly joke in your head, and that might read to me as a friendly joke in a different context, is being read against that backdrop, here.

I'd look at that complaint a lot more charitably if it came with even the occasional condemnation of Trump's regular incivility.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

An attack on Trump is not automatically an attack on conservatives - but if they want to associate that closely to him that they are in the splash zone of him being criticized, that's their problem.
At this point, support for Trump beyond 2020 is not a valid position, for Conservatives or anyone else. The only thing we can argue about is how quickly he has to go.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But keep in mind: conservatives on this forum take a lot of personal abuse, day in and day out, just for speaking their mind and arguing their opinions. Stuff that plays as a friendly joke in your head, and that might read to me as a friendly joke in a different context, is being read against that backdrop, here.

I don't think this is a partisan thing. There are people from both sides who like to throw insults regularly, and I think the majority of people have done so from time to time.

It also seems somewhat off for you to be complaining about unfair treatment, given how much you like to bait people.

 

[acbytesla]

I'd look at that complaint a lot more charitably if it came with even the occasional condemnation of Trump's regular incivility.

Yes! It wasn't Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama who on multiple occasions suggested roughing up protesters.

I'm so sick of hearing about poor conservatives being insulted and being treated badly while they support a President who treats anyone that disagrees with him or refuses to put their noses in the crack of his ass badly. Everything in the GOP is a one way street these days. They will bend and break the rules and just say "so what?" .

 

[Stacyhs]

I'd look at that complaint a lot more charitably if it came with even the occasional condemnation of Trump's regular incivility.

They follow a man who is a horrible bully, disrespects women as a whole, mocked a disabled man, attacked a Gold Star family, repeatedly insulted a war hero who spent his entire adult life defending/working for his country and embraces despots like Kim and then complain about being victims of verbal abuse. Cry me river.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Except of course that no formal request for an investigation has been made by the U.S. (suggesting that this is more of a smear tactic than a legitimate investigation into corruption).

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukrai...-sonbut-only-if-theres-an-official-us-request

In addition you also have proportionality... Even if there is a legitimate reason to investigate Biden, making major foreign policy changes that can affect the geopolitical situation just because "Gosh, person X didn't pay their taxes" seems excessive (considering the Trump administration continues to support Saudi Arabia after they had a reporter actually killed.)

And finally... lets say there was a reason to investigate Biden. Lets say the crimes were serious enough to suspend aid if they were uncooperative.... The Trump administration may have still broken the law by not passing on a legitimate report to congress in a timely manner, as they were required to do.

(This is of course assumes the whistleblower complaint was about Trump/The Ukraine/Biden, and not some unrelated reason.)

It appears that the latest tactic of the Trumpettes is to claim that the 1998 Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters allowed Trump to request Ukraine to conduct an investigation. My uneducated opinion upon reading the president's submission to the senate


https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text


is that it while it requires each country to provide assistance to ongoing investigations by the other country, such as releasing documents and records that it already possesses, subpoenaing witnesses, and detaining suspects, there is no provision that requires either country to initiate an investigation at the request of the other country. Nor would I expect either country to compromise their sovereignty by allowing another country to dictate criminal investigations. It also appears to me that the treaty specifies that contacts are to be between the US Attorney General and the Ukrainian Prosecutor General or their designated subordinates, which leaves out the presidents.


Not to mention, of course, that there was no attempt during the Phone Call to use the treaty as a justification for having Zelensky start an investigation.

 

[quadraginta]

Except that on the issue of secret votes, he's right: I don't want my representative to vote against my interests, or I'll remove him and vote someone else in. But if he/she votes in secret, how can I do that? It subverts the democratic process.

Secret votes for impeachment trials are a bad idea. I am in unequivocal agreement with that.

But it is interesting to see the idea that if provided with political cover the vocal supporters of Trump would kick him out of office.

It points to one of the flaws in the checks and balances system. Decisions in a Senate trial, important ones bearing on the integrity of the presidency and our government are not made on the facts, they are made on political expediency.

Not sure if that's fixable, but the secret ballot conceit sure makes it obvious.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/1184914782253699072

Trump outside attorney Jay Sekulow to CNN: "The legal team was not involved in the Acting Chief of Staff's press briefing."

I'm not sure I understand why Trump's personal lawyers should be vetting the official statements of a government employee. Especially a high level one.

One might think there was concern that there was something which needed to be hidden simply to protect Trump personally from legal action.

 

[quadraginta]

No more than they are.

Personally I don't wish any Trump supporters dead. I want them alive to face the consequences... at least until the civil war begins.

If a civil war begins I would want them alive to face those consequences.

They should suffer with the rest of us.

 

[Babbylonian]

I'm not sure I understand why Trump's personal lawyers should be vetting the official statements of a government employee. Especially a high level one.

One might think there was concern that there was something which needed to be hidden simply to protect Trump personally from legal action.

It's just another case of an incompetent Trump employee who doesn't know when they should keep their mouth shut.

 

[Wolrab]

Civil war? That would be the last thing the left should want.

 

[mgidm86]

I am very literally at the point that if a friend who supported trump dies I am happy. When there is a terrible multi-vehicle accident on I-75 I only hope that more trumpists died than Americans did.

This country needs traitors’s blood.

Okay we see your outburst now let the adults in the room continue talking.

I keep saying we need a crying room here. We get posts like this all the time now.

"Oh I'm angry to the point of psychopathy, poor me, please look at me and agree!"

Your post is disgusting and what America does not need is people with your attitude. Neither does this forum. Go see a doctor if you need to talk about your feelings to someone.

What kind of response did you expect?

 

[Venom]

Civil war? That would be the last thing the left should want.

Why?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

Don't speak for me. Put him on ignore if you don't want to read his posts.

WTF? Where did I speak for anyone but myself?

I was replying to Joe directly.

 

[Wolrab]

Why?

The vast majority of current and former military personnel are right of center.

 

[acbytesla]

The vast majority of current and former military personnel are right of center.

So what? I know a lot of people in the military and almost every one of them identifies more with the Republican party. But every single one of them also hates Trump. Most with a passion.

 

[Wolrab]

They wouldn't be fighting for Trump. They would be fighting for their families and country.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The vast majority of current and former military personnel are right of center.

Something we're frequently told, but isn't often proven with evidence.

But then people also think the military is overwhelmingly straight, which is not so much the case.

 

[Venom]

They wouldn't be fighting for Trump. They would be fighting for their families and country.

Who the heck do you think are going to be the factions in this new civil war?

I bet any civil war would be across a few state lines at most before the military is called in as peacekeepers.

 

[Belz...]

I think it's also fair to say that when people do certain things, they deserve to die. Murder, perhaps. Violent rape. Assorted egregious betrayals. Stuff like that. Not sure "marked a ballot for Donald Trump" should be on the list, though.

Careful, you're being evil again.

No more than they are.

I'm not sure I'd want to follow the standard of people I despise.