• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

The White House releases transcript of Trump call with Ukraine (OP Updated)

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,178
2,245
1,695
Montreal, Quebec
What does this even mean? The midterms showed a distinct backlash.
That had more to do with an overwhelming amount of misleading and intentionally deceitful media coverage which flooded news and entertainment alike. Russian collusion, "Muslim ban," Stormy Daniels/Michael Avenatti, Charlottesville, Kavanaugh/Roe v Wade, etc all weighed down the Republicans. The Democrats still have that media influence in their corner, so I do still warn Trump supporters that it could raise even the weakest 2020 candidate above Trump.

An interesting thing I've noticed in the House races is that the GOP, under Ronna McDaniels' leadership, is using the Dems' strength against them by running more women and minorities, so they're starting to level the playing field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: danielberg

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
6,430
2,588
1,500
She did beat him, though. By nearly 3 million votes. Trump won via an artifact of an antiquated electoral system still giving winner-takes-all votes in states that he barely scraped by in.

Them's the rules and them's the breaks, and mock Clinton's team for not recognizing that, but let's not kid ourselves into believing Trump's hilariously self-deluded fantasy that he won big time. He scraped into the White House by the narrowist of margins in key swing states. America didn't vote him in there by any stretch, given the popular vote. Americans have voted for the Democratic candidate for president in 4 of the last 5 general elections. The fact Republicans have held the office in 3 of those 5 terms is ridiculous.
"Antiquated"

Holy hell.

Just letting that one hang out there eh?
 

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,274
448
1,600
"Antiquated"

Holy hell.

Just letting that one hang out there eh?
Yeah, I guess so? Just like I've asked others here: can you tell me how this is wrong? Again, given the rules, Trump won. Nobody should be disputing that. Why the rules are what they are, though, seems to be more debatable to me.
 

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
7,091
4,860
1,400
I know a lot of people like Trump because he's not your typical dick-sucking politician, but I'd rather have a level-headed professional in office than a hypocritical narcissist criminal with visions of grandeur, but I guess I'm in the minority on that one here as a lot of you hold up Trump as some kind of perfect Saint and believe him when he says his wisdom is great and unmatched (he speaks at a 4th grade level).
I don't deny Trump is a flawed person. I voted for him because his ideas around immigration, trade, China, the economy, etc. If the Democrats ran someone professional with good ideas I'd be happy to vote for them. I haven't seen that from the current crowd. I've watched all the debates, a lot of the democrat townhalls and read up on things the best I can. I'll continue to do that up until I vote next year. I used to be a democrat. I'm not sure what the message is anymore or what they stand for. Then things like the way they treated Kavanaugh, constant impeachment, free everything for everyone, etc. just continue to push me further away. What you are missing is that instead of looking at Trump the person a lot of us are looking past that and looking at the ideas that will last long past Trump. (and I'm not saying all his ideas have been perfect. He's done some things well and some things I feel could have been done better)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

Derekloffin

Member
Jun 17, 2013
536
158
465
Yeah, I guess so? Just like I've asked others here: can you tell me how this is wrong? Again, given the rules, Trump won. Nobody should be disputing that. Why the rules are what they are, though, seems to be more debatable to me.
Well, if you're going with just the critique it is antiquate, ie old, then direct democracy, ie appealing just to the raw vote count, is even MORE antiquated as it is a considerably older concept.
However, if you want an actual reason why direct democracy is generally not a good thing, I'll attempt to explain.
Let start with this simple scenario, you have a room with 10 people. Each day they must elect one of their number to distribute a limited food supply to the group and in general there is not enough food for everyone to eat what they desire, but enough for everyone to survive, so some compromises will have to be made. In this simple scenario we get the rise of the direct democracy model that all 10 people should be able to vote equally and it works reasonably because all 10 people are ultimately answerable to all of the others. It seems like it should be okay... but...
Now, let's modify the scenario and say there is now 2 rooms, 1 room with 4 people, 1 room with 6. They have a audio video link but otherwise can't realistically interact. You can almost immediately smell how this would quickly degenerate into a total mess where the group of 6 will always win the votes, and have no reason to give any food to the group of 4. In fact, it may even be desirable not to do so as they will eventually starve the group of 4 so there is even less voting power against them if say 1 or 2 of the group of 6 is guilt tripped into voting with the other room.
This is why a simple direct democracy is bad. Majorities end up exploiting and ignoring minorities, and this 2nd scenario isn't even that outrageous. The US in particular is a big country so a person in New York has little care for a person in Colorado, and geographically they are so separated that they aren't really answerable to them either. And, just like starving that room, it will cause the power balance to further shift as time goes on to the majority as they have every reason to concentrate the benefits to themselves.

Now does EC fix this? No. No one has ever come up with the silver bullet solution to this problem. This is a fundamental issue with democracy and the reason that we have the old saying 'democracy is a bad system, but all the others are worse.' However, EC does somewhat mitigate it, giving inflated power to minority areas.

And that is just the fundamental reason. There is also the issue that we are dealing with separate entities in the states, in the form of the states themselves. One can easily argue from this that the states themselves are the voting individuals and thus they should have equal power, means the EC actually skews in favor of more populous states giving them unequal power. So EC ends up actually the compromise here between the voting body being the people and the voting body being the states.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: infinitys_7th

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
39,940
15,557
1,395
The Pentagon
Yeah, I guess so? Just like I've asked others here: can you tell me how this is wrong? Again, given the rules, Trump won. Nobody should be disputing that. Why the rules are what they are, though, seems to be more debatable to me.
it's not really that debatable, the history of those rules is laid bare
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,066
8,221
880

Now, however, there is word of more evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower's part. Under questioning from Republicans during last Friday's impeachment inquiry interview with Atkinson, the inspector general revealed that the whistleblower's possible bias was not that he was simply a registered Democrat. It was that he had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge President Trump in next year's election.

"The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates," said one person with knowledge of what was said.

"The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates," said another person with knowledge of what was said.



Hmm is it possible one of the Dem candidates used this whistleblower for political gain to try and hurt Trump in the upcoming 2020 election?

Now the question is who are they allegedly connected to? Warren? Kamala? Yang? (LOL it won't be Yang).
 
  • LOL
Reactions: infinitys_7th

Dev1lXYZ

Member
Sep 1, 2017
788
536
380

Now, however, there is word of more evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower's part. Under questioning from Republicans during last Friday's impeachment inquiry interview with Atkinson, the inspector general revealed that the whistleblower's possible bias was not that he was simply a registered Democrat. It was that he had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge President Trump in next year's election.

"The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates," said one person with knowledge of what was said.

"The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates," said another person with knowledge of what was said.



Hmm is it possible one of the Dem candidates used this whistleblower for political gain to try and hurt Trump in the upcoming 2020 election?

Now the question is who are they allegedly connected to? Warren? Kamala? Yang? (LOL it won't be Yang).
I would bet on the whistleblower being tied straight to Biden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam

transformer

Member
Nov 5, 2013
535
194
365
Yeah, I guess so? Just like I've asked others here: can you tell me how this is wrong? Again, given the rules, Trump won. Nobody should be disputing that. Why the rules are what they are, though, seems to be more debatable to me.
The rules are what they are because after a revolution formed our country the founding fathers created a form of government to preserve freedom and individual rights. A key tenant was to prevent mob rule which would allow a majority to erode freedom. It’s worked out really well so far. However there are some nut jobs now advocated for mob rule over freedom.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: Oner

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,093
13,237
840
Why? This cuts both ways, people at all levels should have a voice in federal government and, in my mind, those voices/votes should be equal. The Senate already overly accounts for this too.
Why? My entire post was 'why'. We do not live in a direct democracy, and that's a very, very good thing. Tyranny of the majority is to be avoided.

Go read the Federalist Papers. Our founders laid out a case for the Electoral College, and all of their points still hold today.

The Electoral College literally gives minority populations a voice. Only the modern left could twist that into the exact opposite.
 

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
2,943
2,167
1,035
I can't wait for the IG report to drop on the FISA abuse and related fuckery which led to the RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA! debacle. That's due any day now, right?
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,178
2,245
1,695
Montreal, Quebec
I can't wait for the IG report to drop on the FISA abuse and related fuckery which led to the RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA! debacle. That's due any day now, right?
It keeps getting pushed back, but the last I heard about it came from Maria Bartiromo on Fox saying she heard it would hit October 18th and be "as thick as a telephone book."
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,093
13,237
840
I can't wait for the IG report to drop on the FISA abuse and related fuckery which led to the RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA! debacle. That's due any day now, right?
I believe we get a phonebook sized report on the 18th or so.

CNN already is preparing an article on why it's illegal to read it.

Edit: beat like my name is Hillary by Joe T. Joe T.
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
25,682
28,025
1,095
Nothing criminal going on here, guys
Move along

You do realize, you are going to get one sided political games like this since the left controls congress and they won't investigate themselves. If the house flips, you will see them under the spotlight as well, for the very same shit.

Oh the irony these people get arrested for something most political campaigns are guilty of for investigating the Clinton/Biden/Obama establishment cabal. You can set your clocks to this shit now.

That doesn't make Biden and crew any more or less suspect. Politics is run like a political mob.
 
Last edited:

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
You do realize, you are going to get one sided political games like this since the left controls congress and they won't investigate themselves. If the house flips, you will see them under the spotlight as well, for the very same shit.

Oh the irony these people get arrested for something most political campaigns are guilty of for investigating the Clinton/Biden/Obama establishment cabal. You can set your clocks to this shit now.

That doesn't make Biden and crew any more or less suspect. Politics is run like a political mob.
I agree that anyone who commits crimes, regardless of what party or branch they reside in, should be held accountable. Just because Congress found them guilty doesn't make them innocent. When Congress asked Trump to comply with their investigation, he flat out said No. Innocent people don't have anything to hide. If Biden is guilty, and I believe he is, the house should investigate him too. There's a clear bias on both parties and it's not how the system is supposed to work. Mitch already impied if Trump gets impeached he's going to exhonerate him anyway. Too many people, on both sides, are putting party above Country.
 

dolabla

Member
Oct 9, 2013
3,917
4,717
740
sometimes i wish pence was president just to see the crazies implode into a mist of giblets
They want Pence impeached too. They will not be happy until all power is ceded to them. They're authoritarian as fuck. These people deluded themselves so bad they honestly thought they were never going to lose another election. They're like a bunch of bratty children who you have to explain that you can't have it all and sometimes you win/sometimes you lose....... but they just continue to throw a tantrum while you're explaining.
 

transformer

Member
Nov 5, 2013
535
194
365
Nothing criminal going on here, guys
Move along

Unlike many democrats, I think most here will agree that if there is evidence of something fishy going on then investigate it. This article provides minimal details, but if there is sufficient evidence to investigate or press charges then I'm all for that. With that being said, Biden should be investigated for the same reason. And impeachment shouldn't be threatened against those who push for investigating corruption.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,066
8,221
880
Nothing criminal going on here, guys
Move along


The indictment also alleges that Parnas and Fruman conspired with two other defendants, David Correia and Andrey Kukushkin, to funnel money from an unidentified "foreign national" to various unnamed politicians and candidates to get support for a new recreational marijuana business that the men planned to launch. Notwithstanding the donations they allegedly made, the business venture never happened, according to charging papers.


LOL well I can't be too mad at em since they wanted to sell some weed. 4:20 even at the White House BAY BAY
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Oner

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
Unlike many democrats, I think most here will agree that if there is evidence of something fishy going on then investigate it. This article provides minimal details, but if there is sufficient evidence to investigate or press charges then I'm all for that. With that being said, Biden should be investigated for the same reason. And impeachment shouldn't be threatened against those who push for investigating corruption.
Agreed. Biden should be investigated as well. None of this party first bullshit.
The article doesn't provide a ton of details, but the indictment is available for viewing.
 

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
And impeachment shouldn't be threatened against those who push for investigating corruption.
They aren't trying to impeach him for investigating corruption.
They're trying to impeach him because a possible violation of U.S. Code § 872: “Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.” which says “Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” If he did dangle military aid for a meeting, one could make a case in court that it's extortion.

What isn't ambigious is his violation of U.S. Code § 192, “Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers,” punishable by a year in prison. The house did ask him to comply with the investigation and he refused. There is no arguing that.
 

gunslikewhoa

Member
Mar 3, 2014
2,294
1,011
535
No, there's no dispute as far as factual claims are concerned. The point is that context about facts matters and showing a map of counties doesn't address the context. A county's acreage has nothing to do with its relevance in real terms. So the map is ridiculously skewed when it comes to actually representing what happened in the election.
If that stupid fucking map is going to get folks like you this triggered, I need to put that thing on display as often as possible. This is like a football rival who lost a game years ago on what they believed to be a bad call and starts an argument over it every time they get drunk. How long are we going to debate this?

JFC. You're not telling anyone anything they don't already know. There isn't a single person here who doesn't understand what that map represents and what happened in 2016 in regard to both the popular vote and the electoral college.
 
Last edited:

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
The indictment also alleges that Parnas and Fruman conspired with two other defendants, David Correia and Andrey Kukushkin, to funnel money from an unidentified "foreign national" to various unnamed politicians and candidates to get support for a new recreational marijuana business that the men planned to launch. Notwithstanding the donations they allegedly made, the business venture never happened, according to charging papers.

LOL well I can't be too mad at em since they wanted to sell some weed. 4:20 even at the White House BAY BAY
Maybe if Trump took a puff he would legalize it federally! I think he could use it
 
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam

Kittehkraken

Member
Jan 14, 2017
882
1,501
400
They aren't trying to impeach him for investigating corruption.
They're trying to impeach him because a possible violation of U.S. Code § 872: “Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.” which says “Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” If he did dangle military aid for a meeting, one could make a case in court that it's extortion.

What isn't ambigious is his violation of U.S. Code § 192, “Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers,” punishable by a year in prison. The house did ask him to comply with the investigation and he refused. There is no arguing that.
Still on this train, huh.

Also, he didn't comply with part of the house that is blatantly lying and conspiring amongst themselves for obvious political gain. The other part of the house is completely in the dark regarding whats going on. Have fun going after ole Donnie for that one.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,066
8,221
880
Maybe if Trump took a puff he would legalize it federally! I think he could use it
Well he has been open to the idea of states having their own policy


Though it would be good if he went federally. Canada will eat USA lunch when it comes to the weed game if they keep dragging their feet.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,449
4,333
735
Well he has been open to the idea of states having their own policy


Though it would be good if he went federally. Canada will eat USA lunch when it comes to the weed game if they keep dragging their feet.
It is kind of shocking that he has not advocated for legislation either making it legal federally or officially letting each state decide with no federal ban. I'm a bit biased as I want to see it happen. But really, there's not a single influential campaign adviser pointing out the possibility that such a move would help his image with the people who want this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,066
8,221
880
It is kind of shocking that he has not advocated for legislation either making it legal federally or officially letting each state decide with no federal ban. I'm a bit biased as I want to see it happen. But really, there's not a single influential campaign adviser pointing out the possibility that such a move would help his image with the people who want this?
2nd term, 2nd term.

There is probably still a small part of his base that thinks Weed is the devil. Once he gets his 2nd term I think he will go all in on it.
 

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
Well he has been open to the idea of states having their own policy


Though it would be good if he went federally. Canada will eat USA lunch when it comes to the weed game if they keep dragging their feet.
So maybe I'm misunderstanding something but don't states have their own rights? If states want to legalize marijuana, do they need Trump's approval for that? I thought the only thing Trump could do would be at the federal level

Still on this train, huh.

Also, he didn't comply with part of the house that is blatantly lying and conspiring amongst themselves for obvious political gain. The other part of the house is completely in the dark regarding whats going on. Have fun going after ole Donnie for that one.
What? So if K-9 sniffs my drugs I can say I'm not going to comply because only the DEA knows what they're doing? A subponea is a subpoena.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,066
8,221
880
So maybe I'm misunderstanding something but don't states have their own rights? If states want to legalize marijuana, do they need Trump's approval for that? I thought the only thing Trump could do would be at the federal level
I don't know 100% but I think there is a federal ban on MJ. So if the federal ban is removed then states can decide. Again I am not sure exactly.

It seems Trump is open to legal weed, lets be honest Trump is a business man and he knows legal weed = $$$. Trump just needs some 'Tegridy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheContact

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
I don't know 100% but I think there is a federal ban on MJ. So if the federal ban is removed then states can decide. Again I am not sure exactly.

It seems Trump is open to legal weed, lets be honest Trump is a business man and he knows legal weed = $$$. Trump just needs some 'Tegridy.
tbh I'd throw all my 'tegrity out the window for any president that legalized it federally
 
  • LOL
Reactions: cryptoadam

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,449
4,333
735
2nd term, 2nd term.

There is probably still a small part of his base that thinks Weed is the devil. Once he gets his 2nd term I think he will go all in on it.
I highly doubt there is a significant part of his base who would say "Screw that hippy loving Trump, I'm voting for the communists." :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Getting to the second term is not going to be a cake walk I bet. He should go for it now as loud as possible. There is no better issue than this for him to get people to say "Well, he's not that bad."
 
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam

Kittehkraken

Member
Jan 14, 2017
882
1,501
400
So maybe I'm misunderstanding something but don't states have their own rights? If states want to legalize marijuana, do they need Trump's approval for that? I thought the only thing Trump could do would be at the federal level



What? So if K-9 sniffs my drugs I can say I'm not going to comply because only the DEA knows what they're doing? A subponea is a subpoena.
Just telling you why hes not complying and why it will be a tough mountain for the Dems to scale if they go after him for it. Going after someone for something like obstruction is a bit hard when you've been playing dirty and all that dirt will be investigated.
 
Last edited:

Trey

Member
Mar 3, 2010
27,858
586
815
It's a similar set up as states passing their own net neutrality rules, in that technically federal law can override state law, but if a state says "fuck that," it's generally not worth it for the fed to contest too much. Obama basically looked the other way when Colorado, Washington, et al paved the way for state level legalization, because technically the DEA can still make marijuana arrests.

Former AG Jeff Sessions was extremely against legal marijuana, and was allowed to mobilize the DOJ to crack down on what he considered an "epidemic" nationwide. Trump was noncommittal to that charge - didn't care or know much one way or the other - because his primary concern at that time was the Mueller investigation and immigration.

There is zero legislative apparatus from Republicans to address legal weed on any level or angle, nor a codified plan from the WH. That particular policy is entirely under the leadership of Democrats, and realistically, Trump addressing it at all would just be him hopping on to what the Democrats have going on, while alienating a large amount of his base.
 

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
6,430
2,588
1,500
Yeah, I guess so? Just like I've asked others here: can you tell me how this is wrong? Again, given the rules, Trump won. Nobody should be disputing that. Why the rules are what they are, though, seems to be more debatable to me.
Those antiquated rules as you put it, are what makes the United States, the United States. It makes sure that States with smaller populations also have a clear voice on a national stage. I could go on and on in just how important the electoral college is to the very foundation of this country, how it operates, and how it has become the most powerful nation state to have ever existed but it doesn't matter.

It's ingrained in the constitution, and nothing short of a constitutional convention, and 3/4 of the states to vote to change it, so it will never happen.

Complaining about it doesn't make a lick of difference, and it should never be changed less you only want a political voice to matter in a handful of locations. The popular vote does make a difference from, state to state, as it should. It also allows the electorates in the college make a different decision, if they feel it is safeguarding the constitution, and country.

It is another layer of fail safes, and representation not afforded to anyone else on this planet.

If it is changed, it will fundamentally alter the course of this country's history, period.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Ornlu

transformer

Member
Nov 5, 2013
535
194
365
They aren't trying to impeach him for investigating corruption.
They're trying to impeach him because a possible violation of U.S. Code § 872: “Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.” which says “Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” If he did dangle military aid for a meeting, one could make a case in court that it's extortion.
I agree that if he did do this, one could make a case in court regarding extortion. But we all know that's not the case. Call transcripts, accounts by multiple officials (both U.S. and Ukrainian), clearly indicate that there was no pressure, no quid pro quo, no extortion. The president of Ukraine has even gone on the record twice (from what I've seen) clearly stating that none of the claims of impropriety are true. Imagine this going to the Senate if the House does impeach. Every single person involved, and piece of first hand evidence, is backing up Trump. There is no way the Senate convicts.

What isn't ambigious is his violation of U.S. Code § 192, “Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers,” punishable by a year in prison. The house did ask him to comply with the investigation and he refused. There is no arguing that.
It's not a clear as you claim. No where close. Firstly, Congress must first issue a subpoena to hold anyone accountable. They haven't done so yet. They've sent a letter. The Trump administration sent a letter back saying no. No crimes or issues on either side pertaining to these requests and denial. Now if/when Congress issues a subpoena, there is legal ramification for not submitting the required information. Until then, there is nothing. Oh, and the president can just claim executive privilege and refuse to comply. This provides checks and balances on both sides. If they do reach this stale mate, then I think one side would have to cave or it would go to court to deem who is at fault here (Congress for abusing power or making unreasonable requests, or Trump for refusing to comply with a subpoena without due cause).

Regardless of where this goes, this is political theater now, not law breaking. The Dems in the house should make up their mind on what they want to do (impeach or not) and get on with it.
 

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
I agree that if he did do this, one could make a case in court regarding extortion. But we all know that's not the case. Call transcripts, accounts by multiple officials (both U.S. and Ukrainian), clearly indicate that there was no pressure, no quid pro quo, no extortion. The president of Ukraine has even gone on the record twice (from what I've seen) clearly stating that none of the claims of impropriety are true. Imagine this going to the Senate if the House does impeach. Every single person involved, and piece of first hand evidence, is backing up Trump. There is no way the Senate convicts.
Ukraine objectively is relying on the aid coming in. In fact, some of their soldiers died when it was withheld from them. If I was the President of Ukraine, I sure as hell wouldn't want to piss Trump off by saying that he withheld aid for a meeting. And if you read the memo of the call, on one line he talks about biden and then immedaitely after he asks "for a favor though". I think what the house is arguing is that there doesn't need to be a quid pro quo for it to be a crime; that simply asking a foreign power to investigate a political opponent is enough to impeach. I also wouldn't say every single person is backing Trump as there have been two whistleblowers now coming out against him.

It's not a clear as you claim. No where close. Firstly, Congress must first issue a subpoena to hold anyone accountable. They haven't done so yet. They've sent a letter. The Trump administration sent a letter back saying no. No crimes or issues on either side pertaining to these requests and denial. Now if/when Congress issues a subpoena, there is legal ramification for not submitting the required information. Until then, there is nothing. Oh, and the president can just claim executive privilege and refuse to comply. This provides checks and balances on both sides. If they do reach this stale mate, then I think one side would have to cave or it would go to court to deem who is at fault here (Congress for abusing power or making unreasonable requests, or Trump for refusing to comply with a subpoena without due cause).

Regardless of where this goes, this is political theater now, not law breaking. The Dems in the house should make up their mind on what they want to do (impeach or not) and get on with it.
Good info. I guess time will tell what happens.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
1,076
1,224
420
I think what interests me most with this whole theater is where the logical implications of impeaching a President for basic diplomacy lead:

1. Potential political rivals receive extra protections vs the Executive branch, and all agencies contained therein.
2. Any and all communications the President must now be reviewed by the House, no communication at all may be had in confidence.
3. The President may not engage in any foreign deals or activity that may potentially aid him politically in any way in the future.
4. The President must expect that their entire tenure in office shall be mired in one long House investigation, with no clear reason required, no set conditions for clearing the President of wrongdoing, and no clear end date.

Number 3 especially would have monumental detrimental effects to the Executive branch. The President would no longer be able to execute any foreign policy until after winning their second election, as any "win" could be construed as a foreign power granting the President a political advantage over a future political opponent. This could easily be spun to include trade deals, wars, UN summits, etc.

I was listening to a piece last night that was twisting itself in knots to argue that the President had, in fact, undeniably committed campaign finance violations in the future by talking about a potential 2020 political rival. The tortured interpretation of logic and law required to make that leap is baffling, but fascinating.
 

Oner

Member
Jun 19, 2015
69
51
295
Well he has been open to the idea of states having their own policy


Though it would be good if he went federally. Canada will eat USA lunch when it comes to the weed game if they keep dragging their feet.
Exactly.


So maybe I'm misunderstanding something but don't states have their own rights? If states want to legalize marijuana, do they need Trump's approval for that? I thought the only thing Trump could do would be at the federal level
Yes State have their own rights and do not need POTUS approval, but it makes things harder. Trump has Federal powers and could direct entities to keep/apply pressure on a legal front (though he has not as shown above by C cryptoadam ).


I don't know 100% but I think there is a federal ban on MJ. So if the federal ban is removed then states can decide. Again I am not sure exactly.

It seems Trump is open to legal weed, lets be honest Trump is a business man and he knows legal weed = $$$. Trump just needs some 'Tegridy.
Yes, there is a Federal ban, but you know States rights and stuff allow them the ability to go against Federal impositions (which is also why the Electoral College & Convention of States is SO important).


tbh I'd throw all my 'tegrity out the window for any president that legalized it federally
I truly think POTUS is holding on to this as a Trump card if things somehow seem to be going bad leading up to Election 2020 (though I honestly don't think he's in any trouble...but that's my personal opinion) or he's waiting to use it to pull the rug out from the Dems if they try to use it as a campaign promise (which is more likely).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam

transformer

Member
Nov 5, 2013
535
194
365
Ukraine objectively is relying on the aid coming in. In fact, some of their soldiers died when it was withheld from them. If I was the President of Ukraine, I sure as hell wouldn't want to piss Trump off by saying that he withheld aid for a meeting. And if you read the memo of the call, on one line he talks about biden and then immedaitely after he asks "for a favor though". I think what the house is arguing is that there doesn't need to be a quid pro quo for it to be a crime; that simply asking a foreign power to investigate a political opponent is enough to impeach. I also wouldn't say every single person is backing Trump as there have been two whistleblowers now coming out against him.
"Whistlebowers" with second/third hand information (hearsay) that is not backed up by the primary evidence. In other words, just enough information to start an "impeachment inquiry" without really doing impeachment, but not much more.