Jump to content

What's going on with this DNI Whistleblower ?

triplehorn

By triplehorn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Js1
Js1

I'm sure you took both sides of that debate. 

Crusher
Crusher

First off there was no extortion. That was not in the transcript. No quid pro quo. Why do you make up shit? Who do you think you are, Adam Schiff?  

Post Oak
Post Oak

I spent a lot of time thinking about this, unfortunately. You have to have so little self-respect that you are ok being lied to over and over.  You have to be ok with being told what to do.  You

Posted Images

SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Any other President would be impeached/convicted by both parties for attempting to break the law like this. But it seems like Trump can worm his way out of this in that he only came close to breaking the law, and actually never intended to break the law. Giuliani will explain that pretending to break the law is a shrewd international political move by all top politicians.  The Senate GOP will go along because all they care about now are judges.  With the loss of the House, McConnell's only priority is to get as many judges in place as possible by Jan 2021.

Side note: If you're a right leaning lawyer under 45, why haven't you been nominated for a district judgeship yet?

one of my R classmates became magistrate a year or two ago.  i've been speculating she'll become one soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Even when he tries to deny it, he admits to abusing the power of his office. 

To be fair, I watched this live, and this guy is cutting off Trump's quote in a misleading way.   By the last sentence, Trump meant that Biden was the one putting pressure on Ukraine for corrupt purposes when he was VP, and Trump made that clear (despite this confusing phrasing) with what he said immediately after this quote.   And that is obviously a bullshit attempt at distraction, etc., but that's a different story. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104156

Posted
Posted
And Guliani's conversations? And the ones that might have happened previously regarding withholding funding, regardless of who they were with?

You’re not going to get it . The self-serving narrative has been decided, and will dominate.

It’s over. He’s won. There’s no defeating someone who doesn’t have to follow any rules.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33769

Posted
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:


You’re not going to get it . The self-serving narrative has been decided, and will dominate.

It’s over. He’s won. There’s no defeating someone who doesn’t have to follow any rules.

could you.... maybe.... stop posting that for a while. let us idiots feel at least a moment of justice?

  • Like 7
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8656

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


You’re not going to get it . The self-serving narrative has been decided, and will dominate.

It’s over. He’s won. There’s no defeating someone who doesn’t have to follow any rules.

This time the House has the simpler narrative. The ask of Ukraine to investigate Biden’s kid is the whole thing. There doesn’t have to be a quid pro quo (there was, but it doesn’t matter). He and Giuliani already admitted to the impeachable offense and the abuse of power. Every slack jawed yokel should understand the President can’t get on the horn and pressure a foreign country to influence an upcoming election. It’s by definition un-American. Likely the Senate won’t convict, but this will be a major fucking deal in 2020 

Edited by Pig Bellmont
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kevwun

kevwun 15486

Posted
Posted (edited)

His name will also still go down with Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.  There's not a million moving pieces like with the Mueller Report.  You can sum up the entire scandal in 2 sentences and newspaper headlines will be clear and to the point.

Edited by kevwun
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

This time the House has the simpler narrative. The ask of Ukraine to investigate Biden’s kid is the whole thing. There doesn’t have to be a quid pro quo (there was, but it doesn’t matter). He and Giuliani already admitted to the impeachable offense and the abuse of power. Every slack jawed yokel should understand the President can’t get on the horn and pressure a foreign country to influence an upcoming election. It’s by definition un-American. Likely the Senate won’t convict, but this will be a major fucking deal in 2020 

I think it does for the bribery treason high crimes and misdemeanors part.  With the bare ask, he’s just soliciting help from foreigners.  You’d probably be able to come up with 100 historical interactions with Britain or Israel that could be similar.  With the quid pro quo, you get him interfering with a US governmental function (providing those funds for defense against Russia) in exchange for the personal benefit.  That tracks the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors.  

Edited by SuingToGetAMessageBoard?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
  • Author
Posted
22 hours ago, triplehorn said:

Also, keep an eye on the ball here.  Trump is trying a bait and switch between the whistleblower report and the transcript of his convo with Zelensky.  The WB report allegedly contains far more information, involves multiple events, likely involves additional individuals, and could depict malfeasance worse than extortion and bribery.  They want the public to think the transcript is a legit substitute for the WB report.  

VVV

18 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

aaaand there's the bait and switch.  

Full whistleblower report you cowardly mobbed up motherfucker.

 

called it yesterday.  saw it coming a mile away.  Don the Con.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SquishMitten

SquishMitten 10375

Posted
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

And Guliani's conversations? And the ones that might have happened previously regarding withholding funding, regardless of who they were with?

Nope. That's not how this game works. Not unless Pelosi begins impeachment.

The complaint was based on a series of events, but the general media narrative is "the phone call." Standing alone, the transcript isn't likely to be much of anything more than we already know. Fox will run with the "See! Another witch hunt by the Dems! Suck it, libs!" approach. The actual media will focus too much on the transcript, and most will utterly fail to reiterate that the complaint is based on much more. It'll be the same slow-trickle effect we saw with the Mueller report. If everything came out at once, it would have been Earth-shattering. Instead, we were subjected to bits and pieces over a period of time longer than our collective attention spans can handle. Pelosi will have to get everything out in the public fast or this ship will sail like all the others.

Edited by SquishMitten
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8656

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think it does for the bribery treason high crimes and misdemeanors part.  With the bare ask, he’s just soliciting help from foreigners.  You’d probably be able to come up with 100 historical interactions with Britain or Israel that could be similar.  With the quid pro quo, you get him interfering with a US governmental function (providing those funds for defense against Russia) in exchange for the personal benefit.  That tracks the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors.  

You’re over thinking. The ask is a felony by itself. 

I mean, yes to bribery too, but committing a felony should be “high crimes and misdemeanors”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
  • Author
Posted
50 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

👀

The gas just got turned up on acting DNI Maguire.  He's in violation of the law right now by not forwarding the full WB report to House Intel.  The WB report was filed in accordance with all existing rules and regulations.  An independent Trump-appointed IG, Michael Atkinson, already determined it to be credible and urgent.  

If there's a a public move to impeachment before Thursday's House Intel hearing with acting DNI Maguire and IG Atkinson, and he fails to show or provide the WB report as the law requires, he'd be planting himself squarely in the scope of obstruction of Congress.  Your move, Maguire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SimonBolivar

SimonBolivar 10852

Posted
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, kevwun said:

His name will also still go down with Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.  There's not a million moving pieces like with the Mueller Report.  You can sum up the entire scandal in 2 sentences and newspaper headlines will be clear and to the point.

Probably, but he's also the 6th president in a row (only 13th total) to have someone call for a house resolution on impeachment. Tells you where our cultural war is at.

Edited by SimonBolivar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104156

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

could you.... maybe.... stop posting that for a while. let us idiots feel at least a moment of justice?

I see you guys doing the Aggy roller coaster.....

1CaVO00.jpg

....and friends don't let friends do the aggy roller coaster.

This all ends in "Furk."  It always has.  Don't get on the roller coaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kevwun

kevwun 15486

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Big difference between someone "calling for it" and "there actually being a reason to call for it"

Yeah, there isn't a comparable sized scandal to this one until you get to Reagan and Iran-Contra and there is no disputing the President's involvement in this one.

Edited by kevwun
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45322

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I see you guys doing the Aggy roller coaster.....

This all ends in "Furk."  It always has.  Don't get on the roller coaster.

You need to commit to buying us all a round of scotch at an Austin bar of our choosing should he actually be impeached, just as penance for constantly subjecting us to your cocksure apocalyptic testimony over the past couple of years.  I will commit to buying you a scotch should he not be impeached.  Limit $20, I'm not metaphorically flying your ass to Edinburgh. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104156

Posted
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

You need to commit to buying us all a round of scotch at an Austin bar of our choosing should he actually be impeached, just as penance for constantly subjecting us to your cocksure apocalyptic testimony over the past couple of years.  I will commit to buying you a scotch should he not be impeached.  Limit $20, I'm not metaphorically flying your ass to Edinburgh. 

"impeached?"  Naah, I won't take that bet.  The House is free to flail about pointlessly.  Issue a billion articles of impeachment for all I care.

CONVICTED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE PURSUANT TO THOSE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT?  Now that's a bet I'll take.  Because if I'm wrong, and that happens, I'll be so euphoric I'll be happy to buy a round for the house that night, no questions.  Nothing would make me happier than to be 100% wrong on that point.

Still....a flight to Edinburgh would be nice.  Just sayin'.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28685

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, Lagunamadre said:

So it seems like the Trumpkin line is that politicians kids shouldn't be out there trying to make money for themselves. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! OK, good one, let's start with the Trumps. 

I'm also hearing a lot of the Fox talking heads talk about how Hunter Biden isn't qualified to be on their board because he was not in the Natural Gas Business, which is just, I mean, do they know how corporate boards work? Exxon's current board is comprised of a couple former pharma execs, a former Pepsi exect, an academic, former Caterpillar exec, former IBM exec, former Insurance exec and a former Johnson and Johnson exec. I doubt any of their past experience in medicine, insurance, soft drinks, baby diapers and tractors taught them anything about petroleum and chemical engineering, hydraulic fracturing or crack spreads. 

I'm not saying Hunter Biden's decision to take that board seat was smart considering the possibility of bad optics, but to say a Yale Law Grad former board member of Amtrak (appointed by GW Bush), former Chairman of the Board of the World Food Programme USA, practicing lawyer and head of a hedge fund would be unqualified for any board seat.  

Jared Kushner has an office in the White House and is in charge of making peace in the Middle East. And they want to argue qualifications? Fuck them. Now and forever. They should never be taken seriously again. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

You’re over thinking. The ask is a felony by itself. 

I mean, yes to bribery too, but committing a felony should be “high crimes and misdemeanors”

I think you would be walking on pretty thin ice to go forward with something that wasn't an abuse of the office itself.  Treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors does not mean "crimes."  It has elements of using the office for inappropriate ends.  And anyone can call up someone and ask for help in an election -- Warren could do that today.  What makes it a high crime is flexing the power he has because of the office to aid in it.  In this case, it is withholding the funds or pressuring related to the funds.

There are of course felonies that would be impeachable themselves.  "Shooting someone on 5th Avenue," etc.   The campaign finance violation might qualify, but it would be a tougher argument to make.  (Note the weird effect of just saying "felony does the trick":  You don't want to basically put in the hands of Congress the right to write statutes to post-hoc change the meaning of the constitution, which would be the case since they define what is a felony).

Hugo  Charles Black wrote a good book on it from Nixon's time and Phillip Bobbitt has an update for the present.  It goes through the whole process and includes a pretty in depth look at what the debate was all about in 1789.  It's pretty excellent.

Edited by SuingToGetAMessageBoard?
charles, not hugo. goddammit stiglitz, you are in my brain too much
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1949

Posted
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:

"impeached?"  Naah, I won't take that bet.  The House is free to flail about pointlessly.  Issue a billion articles of impeachment for all I care.

CONVICTED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE PURSUANT TO THOSE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT?  Now that's a bet I'll take.  Because if I'm wrong, and that happens, I'll be so euphoric I'll be happy to buy a round for the house that night, no questions.  Nothing would make me happier than to be 100% wrong on that point.

Still....a flight to Edinburgh would be nice.  Just sayin'.

Was there ever any thought that the Senate would remove trump? If so, I missed it.

This has been and will only be about the 2020 election. That’s the only way trump is removed from office. That has been the only purpose to impeachment, a political process - will it increase or decrease potential for trump losing in 2020.

Impeach and then removal was never a consideration. The GOP would never let that happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8656

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think you would be walking on pretty thin ice to go forward with something that wasn't an abuse of the office itself.  Treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors does not mean "crimes."  It has elements of using the office for inappropriate ends.  And anyone can call up someone and ask for help in an election -- Warren could do that today.  What makes it a high crime is flexing the power he has because of the office to aid in it.  In this case, it is withholding the funds or pressuring related to the funds.

There are of course felonies that would be impeachable themselves.  "Shooting someone on 5th Avenue," etc.   The campaign finance violation might qualify, but it would be a tougher argument to make.  (Note the weird effect of just saying "felony does the trick":  You don't want to basically put in the hands of Congress the right to write statutes to post-hoc change the meaning of the constitution, which would be the case since they define what is a felony).

Hugo Black wrote a good book on it from Nixon's time and Phillip Bobbitt has an update for the present.  It goes through the whole process and includes a pretty in depth look at what the debate was all about in 1789.  It's pretty excellent.

We’re just going to have to agree to disagree. 1) there is no doubt in my mind he withheld the aid to pressure Ukraine. 2) you can’t convince me that a sitting President committing a felony isn’t impeachable. End of sentence. A felony is serious, especially one involving the very integrity of our fucking democracy. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

We’re just going to have to agree to disagree. 1) there is no doubt in my mind he withheld the aid to pressure Ukraine. 2) you can’t convince me that a sitting President committing a felony isn’t impeachable. End of sentence. A felony is serious, especially one involving the very integrity of our fucking democracy. 

sounds like we don't disagree, since that is flexing the power of the office in aiding his improper ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32289

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Maybe the Republicans WILL save us!
 

 

McConnell sees the writing on the wall. He's getting ahead of this as much as he possibly can + try to get some daylight between he and Trump.

 

I'd say at this point, he's looking more at covering his ass for November 2020 and hopefully keeping the Senate with the GOP rather than running interference for Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SimonBolivar

SimonBolivar 10852

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

McConnell sees the writing on the wall. He's getting ahead of this as much as he possibly can + try to get some daylight between he and Trump.

 

I'd say at this point, he's looking more at covering his ass for November 2020 and hopefully keeping the Senate with the GOP rather than running interference for Trump.

I just don't see it and no way he is willingly giving up on Trump (look at Trump's numbers with the base compared to Mitch's). This is all about talking points.

Edited by SimonBolivar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...