|
Replies: 29
| visibility 569
|
Heisman Winner [119571]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54415
Joined: 6/24/09
|
Re/ the Ukrainian issue and Impeachment
Dec 17, 2019, 1:05 PM
|
|
I heard stated on a news show a couple weeks ago that the conversation between Trump and Ukr president was the First ever conversation between an American Prez and the head of another nation that was made public, this one via whistleblower.
I do not know if that is correct, but if it is, do you think Trump is being treated differently/unfairly that all former presidents?
I’ll hang up and listen...
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I thought the President released the call record, not
Dec 17, 2019, 1:10 PM
|
|
the whistleblower.
It's probably unlikely it's the first time a whistleblower submitted a complaint about a conversation between a President and a foreign leader.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5508]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 3806
Joined: 8/23/13
|
Re: I thought the President released the call record, not
Dec 17, 2019, 1:21 PM
|
|
I think Trump was forced to release the call because Adam Schiff lied about what was said during the President's conversation-Schiff later said it was just "parody".
Schiff had gotten the information about the call from the whistleblower-even though he claims to not know the whistleblower's identity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3673
Joined: 11/18/00
|
Re: I thought the President released the call record, not
Dec 17, 2019, 1:23 PM
|
|
Uh no. Schiff's statement came after the release of the call record.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93607]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95384
Joined: 12/25/09
|
That's how I remember it.
Dec 17, 2019, 1:35 PM
|
|
I insist that Schiff and Pelosi knew the whistleblower's complaint was forthcoming due to Pelosi announcing an impeachment investigation before the complaint was reported by the IG. Swamp/deep state, take your pick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3673
Joined: 11/18/00
|
Re: That's how I remember it.
Dec 18, 2019, 7:57 AM
|
|
See my recent post below. The complaint was made on Aug 12th and the IG reported it to the Intelligence committee on Sept 9th. Trump released the aid on Sept 11th (because he knew he had been caught). House announced investigation on Sept 24th.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13359]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9885
Joined: 1/23/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
No, the transcript was released in September.
Dec 17, 2019, 1:50 PM
|
|
Your timeline is off, it seems.
Actually, I think you are referring to the "first call" transcript, which was released 11/15. That call, of course, nobody is much concerned with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3673
Joined: 11/18/00
|
Re: No, the transcript was released in September.
Dec 18, 2019, 7:55 AM
|
|
Just to clear up the timeline and bring facts to the table...
Aug. 12: The inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, receives the anonymous whistleblower complaint now at the center of the impeachment inquiry. It alleges "the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election."
Sept. 9: On the day that the congressional intelligence committees are formally notified of the existence of the whistleblower complaint, Ambassador Taylor in a text with Sondland says, "As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."
Sept. 11: Under pressure from lawmakers, the White House releases the funding for Ukraine without any explanation of what changed.
Sept. 13: The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., subpoenas the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, to provide the whistleblower complaint to Congress. Maguire had refused to do so, citing guidance from the Justice Department.
Sept. 24: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announces a formal impeachment inquiry. "The president must be held accountable," Pelosi says. "No one is above the law."
Sept. 25: The White House releases the rough transcript of Trump's July 25 call with Zelenskiy.
Although not mentioned in the article below, Schiff's "summary" of the phone call was given on Sept 26th preceding testimony from Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire.
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/12/768935251/trump-ukraine-and-the-path-to-the-impeachment-inquiry-a-timeline
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93607]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95384
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Trump's calls with Australian and Mexican presidents...
Dec 17, 2019, 1:33 PM
|
|
were leaked. I don't recall such happening before Trump. Trump was the first to release a transcript. That, my friend is the definition of transparency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56005]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31617
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Nothing says "transparent" like preventing witnesses from
Dec 17, 2019, 1:37 PM
|
|
testifying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13359]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9885
Joined: 1/23/06
|
Nothing says "justice" like proving your innocence.***
Dec 17, 2019, 1:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56005]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31617
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Nothing says "confusing non-sequitur" like your post.***
Dec 17, 2019, 1:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93607]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95384
Joined: 12/25/09
|
You mean like when Schiff/nadler refused...
Dec 17, 2019, 2:25 PM
[ in reply to Nothing says "transparent" like preventing witnesses from ] |
|
to allow witnesses to defend Trump in the house and justifying that by claiming they were following the rules which they'd designed just for such an impeachment investigation/hearing?
Of course not, you're talking about the pubs in the senate doing exactly the same thing. Why am I surprised that you're not more objective?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56005]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31617
Joined: 8/27/02
|
No, that's not what I mean.
Dec 17, 2019, 2:56 PM
|
|
I mean you believe Trump is transparent and he isn't. My example was when he prevented people in his administration from obeying congressional subpoenas and testifying during the House impeachment inquiry, so it's kind of on you to explain how Trump was being transparent by obstructing Congress and preventing people from speaking on the record.
Instead your response was, "But Democrats..." because that's what the playbook says to do. Never defend, always attack. So ok, let's go: Preventing Trump from calling defense witnesses during the impeachment inquiry is not an example of a lack of transparency on the part of House Democrats. It doesn't make any logical sense to call defense witnesses before the president has been charged with impeachable transgressions. It would make sense to call defense witnesses during a trial, which is what is supposed to happen in the Senate.
Message was edited by: Murcielago®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93607]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95384
Joined: 12/25/09
|
That's not what you said.
Dec 17, 2019, 3:46 PM
|
|
As far as Trump cooperating with house dems, the POTUS has every right to executive privilege just as you have the right to freedom of speech.
My 'but democrats,' response was to what you said:
"Nothing says "transparent" like preventing witnesses from
Posted: Dec 17, 2019 1:37 PM
Reply
testifying."
So what is it? You always thought not allowing witnesses to testify was wrong but you wait until it benefits dems rhetoric before you point it out? What's the word for that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56005]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31617
Joined: 8/27/02
|
A: He didn't invoke executive privilege.
Dec 17, 2019, 4:09 PM
|
|
B: There's court precedent that executive privilege doesn't cover obstructing justice (US v. Nixon).
C: How is invoking executive privilege an example of transparency?
But I guess you're right insofar as I should have been more specific. There are times when it makes sense to prevent people from testifying, like if they're called to testify about something they know nothing about. Preventing a person from testifying in that case doesn't reflect a lack of transparency, it reflects a process that follows appropriate rules and standards. And that's why Dems' refusal to allow defense witnesses during the inquiry isn't a reflection of a lack of transparency, since that's not the part of the process where the accused can mount a defense. The accused hadn't even been accused yet, so how could they?
Message was edited by: Murcielago®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93607]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95384
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: A: He didn't invoke executive privilege.
Dec 17, 2019, 4:27 PM
|
|
A to your 'B,' no one asked the courts to hear the case regarding these house subpoenas. Imo, that's because Trump isn't being charged with a crime as was Nixon. If they'd dems had uncovered a crime they would most likely be awaiting a SCOTUS decision now.
The SCOTUS just ruled last Friday that they would review the legality of the house dems' fishing expedition into Trump's taxes. That is some indication that the SCOTUS might be interested in hearing what house dems are doing asking Trump to supply witnesses.
B to your 'C,' Trump released the transcript which is unprecedented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56005]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31617
Joined: 8/27/02
|
It shouldn't have to go to court.
Dec 17, 2019, 7:16 PM
|
|
The administration should have complied with the subpoenas.
The courts don't move as quickly as you think.
Even if they did, there's no reason to expect the Trump administration to comply with their decision any more than they complied with subpoenas from the other co-equal branch of government.
Releasing a transcript of the call has nothing to do with ignoring subpoenas. Ignoring subpoenas cannot be mistaken for transparency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40342]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23461
Joined: 7/13/12
|
I may be confused here, but hang with me
Dec 17, 2019, 3:47 PM
[ in reply to No, that's not what I mean. ] |
|
Wouldn’t having witnesses from both sides be fair in an inquiry?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93607]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95384
Joined: 12/25/09
|
They followed the rules and that's all that matters.
Dec 17, 2019, 3:50 PM
|
|
signed
Prod
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56005]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31617
Joined: 8/27/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40342]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23461
Joined: 7/13/12
|
Care to elaborate?
Dec 17, 2019, 4:50 PM
|
|
All I’m getting from that is that the deck was stacked in order to make sure articles of impeachment were the foregone conclusion of the inquiry, thus rendering the inquiry useless?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56005]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31617
Joined: 8/27/02
|
When it comes to impeachment, the House is like a
Dec 17, 2019, 7:10 PM
|
|
Grand Jury who hears evidence and decides if charges should be filed. If the House decides there's sufficient evidence, the president is impeached and the charges are sent to the Senate for a trial. At that point the president can mount a defense.
You're right that the deck can be stacked during the inquiry because it's a decidedly one-sided process, like Grand Jury investigations. That's how the Founders set it up, so that's how it is. When people want to treat the inquiry like it's a trial they're putting the cart before the horse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93607]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95384
Joined: 12/25/09
|
It's nothing like a grand jury.
Dec 17, 2019, 7:21 PM
|
|
Grand juries testimonies are by law never released because they do not provide for due process. Investigators only name the accused and what they are being charged with if and when they are charged. That's because the accused are not represented in a grand jury.
Saying what Dems did in the house oversight committee hearing was like a grand jury is like saying Nancy Pelosi is like Elizabeth Taylor because they both have #######.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56005]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31617
Joined: 8/27/02
|
It's like a grand jury insofar as jurors hear evidence and
Dec 17, 2019, 7:32 PM
|
|
decide whether or not charges should be filed. The accused isn't entitled to a defense because they're not accused yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93607]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95384
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Are you going to claim that the dems didn't control...
Dec 17, 2019, 8:50 PM
|
|
everything that was made public and say that's how a grand jury works too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56005]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31617
Joined: 8/27/02
|
No. I will not claim that.
Dec 17, 2019, 9:24 PM
|
|
I hope this gives you a sense of closure and that we've reached a degree of mutual understanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93607]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95384
Joined: 12/25/09
|
You are quite entertaining and I respect your skill.
Dec 17, 2019, 9:49 PM
|
|
Thanks for the education, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I agree that the House inquiry wasn't conducted
Dec 18, 2019, 7:51 AM
[ in reply to It's nothing like a grand jury. ] |
|
like a grand jury, but I wish it had been. What would have helped is if members of the House had not, from the start, accused the President of wrongdoing, and then conducted an investigation. It should have been the other way around. As I've said before, ideally for fairness, we would never even known that an impeachment inquiry was going on, so as not to sully a reputation with unfounded charges. But I understand, practically, the House can't secretly conduct an impeachment inquiry.
At the same time, at some point, the people at large have to be responsible for treating the information the right way. We are responsible in our own minds for presuming innocence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 29
| visibility 569
|
|
|
50
