The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

[fishonjazz]

Damn. I guess her sworn deposition is not enough.

Of course not. I would have to be at the party when it happened for it to count as proof.
You owe me 100 dollars now

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Is it your general position that all whistleblowers should be investigated, or just the ones who speak ill of Trump?

(Fwiw the view of essentially all rational people is that it's the CLAIMS that should be investigated, and that the whistleblowers as people should stay anonymous.)

There's a Whistleblower Protection Act that guarantees a government whistleblower freedom to make their claims (free speech) and be protected from prejudice, like getting fired or vilified for blowing the whistle. I don't think it says the whistleblower can remain anonymous. In most cases, who the whistleblower is, his/her experience, and the relation to the people being accused are all pretty relevant and important to establish the accusations as credible. That's usually why the first thing a whistleblower does is announce who he or she is.

If this person is CIA and needs to hide his identity as part of his job, then maybe that's different. It's possible he could testify behind closed doors. If it turns out this guy is working as a spy under cover in the White House, he may need to be reassigned. Trump probably also wants him removed.

 

[Deleted member 365]

There's a Whistleblower Protection Act that guarantees a government whistleblower freedom to make their claims (free speech) and be protected from prejudice, like getting fired or vilified for blowing the whistle. I don't think it says the whistleblower can remain anonymous. In most cases, who the whistleblower is, his/her experience, and the relation to the people being accused are all pretty relevant and important to establish the accusations as credible. That's usually why the first thing a whistleblower does is announce who he or she is.

If this person is CIA and needs to hide his identity as part of his job, then maybe that's different. It's possible he could testify behind closed doors. If it turns out this guy is working as a spy under cover in the White House, he may need to be reassigned. Trump probably also wants him removed.

A whistleblower protection that doesn’t allow the whistleblower to remain anonymous yet permits them to voice their complaint doesn’t seem to be any protection at all. The very point of whistleblower protection is to protect the whistleblower’s anonymity.

Could you imagine how many white supremacists and Russian agents would be hunting down the whistleblower today if we already had his/her identity? Trump’s biggest fans have already killed scores of people from new Zealand to El Paso to Pittsburgh to Charlottesville. White Van Boy could’ve killed scores more had his bombs gone off.

So yeah, I think it’s wise for the whistleblower to remain anonymous until the inquiry has gone further.

A question we should all be asking ourselves, “Why are Trumpers so much more eager to learn of the whistleblower’s identity rather than the corruption his/her complaint has exposed and continues to expose?”

 

[Deleted member 365]

Most of the President's calls are subject to being classified. This particular call had to be de-classified to be released. Trump also had to get Zellenskyy's permission to declassify the conversation and release the transcript. Included in this call was a discussion of the U.S.'s support for Ukraine vs. Russia, criticism of Angela Merkel/Germany and the EU for not supporting Ukraine enough, and the U.S. criticizing and replacing its Ambassador to Ukraine. Zellenskyy discussed plans to investigate corruption in his country and hire a state prosecutor that supports his administration. Both the U.S. and Ukraine would normally agree that such a conversation should be classified. Neither Trump nor Zellenskyy want to conduct their bi-lateral relations through the New York Times. If these conversations were public, then no one would dare to say anything sensitive. They'd just talk about the Mets.

The question here is whether Trump and Zellenskyy's discussion on corruption was legitimate, or whether it amounted to a form of bribery or blackmail on behalf of Trump's personal political campaign. Obviously, Trump denies this. Given that there is a history of corruption in Ukraine, given that the DOJ is actively investigating corruption on the part of U.S. officials in Ukraine, and given the admitted history of Joe and Hunter Biden, an argument can easily be made that discussing corruption and mentioning the Bidens is both legitimate and justified, especially when Zellenskyy was the one who raised the subject.

First off, only communications that endangers national security can be classified. A president cannot just classify whatever they want. See the post and times that have come out with articles over the past few days that have explained this.

Secondly, it has been explained ad nauseam that most communications aren’t classified. Michael Barbaro from The Daily (NY Times) had Julie Hirchfield Davis, a congressional editor, on Friday’s podcast to explain this. She also explained how Trumpworld was storing politically embarrassing communications on this classified server in order to keep things secret. But thanks to the whistleblower, that’s been exposed.

Lastly, if we don’t hold presidents accountable for (a) breaking laws, why should anyone follow them? If we (b) don’t compel the president to be transparent in his communications (as long as they aren’t endangering national security) then how can we hold him/her accountable? Remember, Trump released the sanitized version of his call and look at how devastating it was. We still don’t have the original.

Politically embarrassing calls are different than calls that pass along secretive information that can endanger national Security. Unfortunately, Trump and his followers equate his success to our national success. That’s why they broke the law and continue to spew disinformation today.

However, his personal success is not our national success. Especially right now, where our country would benefit exponentially if he just left office right now. But that’s ok, we’ll crowbar his *** out of the Oval Office and take his republican enablers with him between now and Nov 2020.

 

[silesian]

Of course not. I would have to be at the party when it happened for it to count as proof.
You owe me 100 dollars now

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Sorry I failed you, sir.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Soooooo no one else helped build our economy? He did it all by himself? I’m old enough to remember Obama saying...

And because the economy is good, it grants him the ability to break the law with impunity?

 

[JazzyFresh]

Julie Swetnick. Next question, please.

Not by Kavanaugh... Derp...

 

[fishonjazz]

Soooooo no one else helped build our economy? He did it all by himself? I’m old enough to remember Obama saying...

And because the economy is good, it grants him the ability to break the law with impunity?

Lol at entirely rebuilt our military. Wtf

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Yeah I've heard your spin on this situation laid out plenty already.

That isn't spin. It's a fact that Trump had to declassify the conversation and needed to get Zellenskyy's agreement to do it. All presidential conversations, especially with other heads of state, are privileged. That conversation had several sensitive topics in it from Ukraine's side as well as from the U.S. side.

You continue to ignore the troubling reality that Trump only asks about Ukrainian corruption as it pertains to his political adversaries.

No, you are repeatedly ignoring the fact that the DNC, FBI and CIA have been under investigation for corruption by the Justice Department since May of this year. That investigation involves Ukraine quite heavily. Zellenskyy is fully aware of it. It's a very relevant topic to U.S./Ukraine relations, and one that Zellenskyy first broached in the phone call.

I keep posting articles about this, from a variety of sources, but the pro-impeach zealots like you don't want to acknowledge it because it shows that Trump discussing corruption involving the Democrats in Ukraine is legitimate. This is going to come out in the impeachment process, and this is where I think the Dems are in for a let-down.

And in the case of the Bidens you continue to ignore the reality of Joe Biden's position on the corrupt prosecutor. That is that Joe pushing for a new Ukrainian prosecutor made Burisma more likely to be prosecuted, not less.

Maybe asking for that prosecutor to be removed was a good thing to do. There's some dispute over that. However, Biden threatening to withhold the $1 billion in aid if the prosecutor isn't fired that same day looks very suspicious. Even if that prosecutor wasn't doing his job, why blackmail a country to withhold $1 billion in approved foreign aid over it? That's a strange quid pro quo and is questionable conduct on Biden's part.

 

[JazzGal]

Not by Kavanaugh... Derp...

Check out the stories of Bill Cosby's victims. Dozens to choose from.

Sent from my moto z3 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Zombie]

That isn't spin. It's a fact that Trump had to declassify the conversation and needed to get Zellenskyy's agreement to do it. All presidential conversations, especially with other heads of state, are privileged. That conversation had several sensitive topics in it from Ukraine's side as well as from the U.S. side.



No, you are repeatedly ignoring the fact that the DNC, FBI and CIA have been under investigation for corruption by the Justice Department since May of this year. That investigation involves Ukraine quite heavily. Zellenskyy is fully aware of it. It's a very relevant topic to U.S./Ukraine relations, and one that Zellenskyy first broached in the phone call.

I keep posting articles about this, from a variety of sources, but the pro-impeach zealots like you don't want to acknowledge it because it shows that Trump discussing corruption involving the Democrats in Ukraine is legitimate. This is going to come out in the impeachment process, and this is where I think the Dems are in for a let-down.



Maybe asking for that prosecutor to be removed was a good thing to do. There's some dispute over that. However, Biden threatening to withhold the $1 billion in aid if the prosecutor isn't fired that same day looks very suspicious. Even if that prosecutor wasn't doing his job, why blackmail a country to withhold $1 billion in approved foreign aid over it? That's a strange quid pro quo and is questionable conduct on Biden's part.

That investigation into the DNC and others is based on a right wing conspiracy that there's a hidden server in Ukraine thats meant to prove that the attacks on the DNC and Hillary in 2016 was an inside job. I don't think anyone here, outside of Trump supporters, has any faith that this probe by Barr is based in good faith. It's just another example of the Trump administration targeting his political opponents in investigations.

As for Biden, it's been well established that the Ukrainian prosecutor was not cooperating with the UK government in their investigation into Burisma. Bidens threat to withhold aid was just one part of multinational effort to fight actual corruption in Ukraine. If that aid was withheld to encourage an investigation into Obama's political enemies you might have a point here.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I mean, Shokin's claim that there were never complaints about his performance before Biden got involved is just crazy. There's photos of protests, all from Ukrainians, specifically about him some six months before Biden's involvement.

View attachment 8279 View attachment 8280

Shokin was one of the least popular people in the country in Fall of 2015 through spring of 2016. Acting like he was doing a recognized good job until the Americans came in and took it from him is a truly laughable statement.

The person he's swearing a statement on behalf of, Firtash, is a Yanukovych administration figure - the same guy that is now living in exile in Southern Russia because he triggered a revolution in the country in 2014. This is one of the pro-Russia forces on the outs in Ukraine standing up for their own.

In summary, Shokin is not a reliable narrator when he says that everything relating to his job in Ukraine was fine until Biden was involved.

This post seems like a relevant response to @Catchall’s recent post of:

Maybe asking for that prosecutor to be removed was a good thing to do. There's some dispute over that. However, Biden threatening to withhold the $1 billion in aid if the prosecutor isn't fired that same day looks very suspicious. Even if that prosecutor wasn't doing his job, why blackmail a country to withhold $1 billion in approved foreign aid over it? That's a strange quid pro quo and is questionable conduct on Biden's part.

Of course, I’m sure @Catchall will ignore this post just as he did the last time kicky wrote this. But I’m hopeful others on this site won’t fall for catch’s deliberate misinformation campaign. Keep posting through it comrade. Eventually everyone will see Biden as slimy as we see Trump.