Impeachment

[Cerin]

So I found a youtube video of the speech Pres. Obama made the day after the election. I believe this is the remark that was quoted and commented on (comes at around the 8 min. mark):

'The point, though, is that we all go forward, with the presumption of good faith in our fellow citizens. Because that presumption, of good faith, is essential to a vibrant and functioning democracy. That's how this country has moved forward for 240 years.'

The root of our country's current divisions and the government's dysfunction, imo, is that Trump opponents did not understand or did not believe that the presumption Obama spoke of was essential to our democracy. Instead, the intelligence services, the media and Trump opponents had already made a different presumption -- that Trump was the personification of evil, an enemy of our country and a threat to our democracy. And that is why we find ourselves here. Imo.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SLfCkXDAf8

[yovargas]

So when the president openly undermines our norms and standards and laws, we should presume what exactly?

[elengil]

So when the president openly undermines our norms and standards and laws, we should presume what exactly?

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

Obviously.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It appears that you do not understand what a presumption is, Cerin. A presumption can and should be overcome by evidence to the contrary.

In this case, we don't know what the action was that was so concerning to an as yet unidentified intelligence official that he or she felt compelled to file an official whistleblower complaint about it. But we do know that the nonpartisan inspector general deemed it both urgent and credible and that it should be passed on to the appropriate congressional committees as required by law. And we know that the Trump administration has taken unprecedented steps to block that from happening. That in an of itself is highly concerning, regardless of what the substance of the complaint is.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[River]

It appears that you do not understand what a presumption is, Cerin. A presumption can and should be overcome by evidence to the contrary.

BTW, the IC IG who found the mysterious whistle-blower complaint credible is a political appointee.

[Frelga]

In the same way, the man climbing out of your window in a stripy jumper, a mask and a great hurry might merely be lost on the way to a fancy-dress party, and the man in the wig and robes at the focus of the courtroom might only be a transvestite who wandered in out of the rain. Snap judgements can be so unfair.
Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

[Voronwë the Faithful]

BTW, the IC IG who found the mysterious whistle-blower complaint credible is a political appointee.

You're right, and Atkinson was nominated by Mr. Trump, and confirmed by the GOP-led Senate. So any suggestion that he is politically motivated in finding that the complaint is urgent and credible, and that it should be passed on to the congressional committees, is all the more ridiculous.

[Griffon64]

I remember back when Trump supporters started claiming the man is so smart that he was playing multi-dimensional chess while his opponents played ... shoot, I don't remember the whole thing and don't care to Google for it and get mad all over again ... let's say, they were playing tic tac toe.

I thought that was ridiculous then, and I still think so. Trump is a blowhard bully, proudly uninformed, petty and mean, who believes himself to be awesome.

However, Trump is not stupid. He is really clever when it comes to manipulating people. I've read his supporters claim that all the petty drama that he's stirred up that the news media rushed to latch onto, all that was just a smoke screen, a distraction, so he could quietly do great things for them.

Well, they were half right. Trump successfully turned the media into the boy who cried wolf in the eyes of his supporters, and that is helping him do great things - great but terrible things, one could say.

But his supporters have the wool over their eyes if they think those things are for them, meant to benefit them, or will benefit them. They've installed a crook in the White House, and they will turn a blind eye to anything he does because he's given them the one thing that they are apparently all about: re-assuring them that through an accident of birth they are better than anybody else, thus freeing them from having to actually, you know, do something to show that they may be good people, better people, whatever it is they think they are obtaining from their accident of birth.

Only a fool will think that this issue, or any other issue, will prompt Trump's supporters to think otherwise about him, or do anything to loosen his grip on power. The man could literally do any horrible thing that you'd think an American citizen would be against and his supporters will think that it is fine. They're already doing it.

[Cerin]

Voronwë, to clarify, my remarks on presumption of good faith were in reference to the general political climate and attitude toward Trump, not in reference to the whistleblower situation.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Revelations bring Trump's whistleblower scandal into sharper focus

If in fact Mr. Trump promised to release the withheld military aid to Ukraine in exchange for their agreement to "investigate" Joe Biden, that would be a very big deal indeed.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[yovargas]

If that proves to be true - and if someone can provide evidence that it happened....dear lord, that would be massive. Not enough to shake his poll numbers too much, I suspect, but enough that there will be some Republicans in Congress with enough integrity left to agree that they can't just overlook something that corrupt.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Rudy ("the gift to that keeps giving") Giuliani admitted last night on CNN that he (Rudy) asked Ukraine to investigate Biden (seconds after he had denied doing so, in typical Rudy fashion). It certainly would not surprise me at all if Trump did the same. I'm doubtful as to whether it was done as a direct quid pro quo in exchange for releasing the military aid, because that is not usually Trump's style. I suspect that the message may have been communicated in a more oblique fashion. Whether or not we will ever know (if that even is what the whistleblower complaint is about) is still a very open question. But the way that details keep trickling out suggests that eventually it will come out, one way or another.

[RoseMorninStar]

I had heard the whistleblower didn't report a single instance, but multiple. What that exactly means remains to be seen.

Griffy, I agree. Trump is an expert at branding and manipulating reality and little else. One could almost call him an illusionist.

[elengil]

Rudy ("the gift to that keeps giving") Giuliani admitted last night on CNN that he (Rudy) asked Ukraine to investigate Biden (seconds after he had denied doing so, in typical Rudy fashion).

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/19/politics ... index.html

Link to article and video.

[Cerin]

This seems more and more confused as I think about it. A whistle-blower in intelligence would be complaining about some aspect of the functioning of the intelligence apparatus, but the President isn't part of the intelligence service, and a Presidential phone call isn't an intelligence activity. So what is the basis upon which this is being presented as a complaint about the intelligence service? If this isn't a complaint about the intelligence service, then the intelligence service complainant shouldn't be called a whistleblower, and the whistleblower statute (about turning over the complaint to Congress) wouldn't apply.

Mr. Maguire has not disputed the seriousness of the allegation but determined in consultation with the Justice Department that it was outside the scope of the law requiring whistle-blower complaints be forwarded to Congress. Any accusation that triggers the requirement must involve the funding, administration or operations of an intelligence agency.

Some legal experts said it was not obvious how an exchange between Mr. Trump and a foreign leader could meet the legal standards for a whistle-blower complaint that the inspector general would deem an “urgent concern.”

Under the law, the complaint has to concern the existence of an intelligence activity that violates the law, rules or regulations, or otherwise amounts to mismanagement, waste, abuse or a danger to public safety. But a conversation between two foreign leaders is not itself an intelligence activity.

And while Mr. Trump may have discussed intelligence activities with the foreign leader, he enjoys broad power as president to declassify intelligence secrets, order the intelligence community to act and otherwise direct the conduct of foreign policy as he sees fit, legal experts said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-AAHxDU9

This reminds me of what I've read about the beginnings of the Russia investigation, which reportedly involved rampant speculation in the media based on the fallacious Steele dossier, which had been leaked to the press by an intelligence official for the very purpose of beginning rampant media speculation that would undermine the President and eventually lead to an official investigation and hopefully, his downfall. It won't matter now if this complaint actually falls under the whistleblower statute, because, predictably, the press and the Democrats are off and running.

(I've been wondering if the media's obsessive and overwhelmingly negative coverage of Trump could conceivably produce a backlash against the media itself and result in a sympathy vote for Trump among uncommitted voters. I've also been wondering if reluctance to admit Trump support because of social media shaming could conceivably skew poll results.)

[Griffon64]

If that proves to be true - and if someone can provide evidence that it happened....dear lord, that would be massive. Not enough to shake his poll numbers too much, I suspect, but enough that there will be some Republicans in Congress with enough integrity left to agree that they can't just overlook something that corrupt.

Republicans in Congress represent their constituents, same as how Democrats in Congress represent theirs.

If you think that something that won't shake his poll numbers will move Republicans in Congress, well - I hope you're right but I think you are wrong. They will look the other way, because they represent the will of their constituents, who will think nothing of it. It speaks to their integrity that they will support Trump no matter what, because that is what their ( conservative ) constituents are doing and want them to do. For integrity issues, you have to look lower in a representative democracy.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This reminds me of what I've read about the beginnings of the Russia investigation, which reportedly involved rampant speculation in the media based on the fallacious Steele dossier, which had been leaked to the press by an intelligence official for the very purpose of beginning rampant media speculation that would undermine the President and eventually lead to an official investigation and hopefully, his downfall.

The Russian investigation started because George Papadopoulos got drunk and bragged to an Australian diplomat about the Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Steele dossier, or media speculation about the Steele dossier, which didn't even exist yet. The only role the dossier had was in being used as one potentially corroborating source for FISA warrant against Carter Page and even there it's status as a politically-funded document was made clear.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[River]

The only role the dossier had was in being used as one potentially corroborating source for FISA warrant against Carter Page and even there it's status as a politically-funded document was made clear.

True. And if you comb through the declassified but heavily redacted FISA warrants (they were released ~1 year ago) you'll find that each time the warrant got renewed there was more stuff blacked out, indicating that they continued to find stuff we don't know about that added up to probable cause.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yup. There is plenty we don't know, and probably never will.

Meanwhile, Trump asked Ukraine president to investigate Biden's son eight times in one phone call: reports

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Frelga]

But we already knew that Trump tried to get Ukrainian government to find dirt on Biden and son.

In the past, Trump successfully applied pressure on the Ukrainian government to make them stop cooperating with investigating Manafort. The American media happily reported this as Ukraine not having any evidence or ill will against Manafort. They conveniently ignored all the times Ukrainian media called for Manafort's ass on a spike for his alleged role in engineering the massacre of the Maidan uprising.

The new Ukrainian President politely declared his intention to stay the heck out of American election politics.