• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Was Repeatedly Warned That Ukraine Conspiracy Theory Was ‘Completely Debunked’

CanadaJohn said:
So, as I see it explained here, it is only an impeachable offense to pressure a foreign government to fire an employee of a sovereign state if the person initiating the pressure is President Trump.

The hypocrisy, while breathtaking, is entirely expected when examining American politics. This is only an issue in Washington at this time because the Democrats and their media pimps have spent the better part of three years trying to find anything to justify their abhorrence of President Trump and their obsession with delegitimizing his administration.

As I've said previously - if President Trump is so bad that he must be removed, prove it to the American voting public and defeat him in November 2020. I'm guessing, looking at the sorry slate of options the Democrats have put forward for their nomination, most Democrats are rightly scared they just might lose to Trump once again.
Click to expand...

Trump isn't trying to get anyone fired.
 
Jesse Booth said:
Simple: one is for the purposes of using another country to further your own political campaign, and the other is not. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is.

Of course if Mr. Obama had been a "Republican" and if Mr. Trump was a "Democrat" then it would be the "Democrats" who would be claiming that what Mr. Obama did was totally wrong while what Mr. Trump is doing is just peachy-keen while the "Republicans" would be the ones who were claiming that what Mr. Obama did was just peachy-keen while what Mr. Trump is doing is totally wrong.

The matrix is

DONE BY
A
DEMOCRAT		DONE BY
A
REPUBLICAN
RATED BY
A
DEMOCRAT		ACTION IS
JUST
PEACHY-KEEN		ACTION IS
A
HORRIBLE CRIME
RATED BY
A
REPUBLICAN		ACTION IS
A
HORRIBLE CRIME		ACTION IS
JUST
PEACHY-KEEN

and that is all you need to know in order to make sense out of today's version of "American Political Discussion".
 
Scarab said:
Yeah, that's what I just said. Or did you think that your addition of the adjective "Jewish" made some sort of difference in the classification of Miller as a Nazi? If so, please go on.
Click to expand...

Actually when you label someone, especially a Jew, a Nazi, the burden of proof is on you, the name caller.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Indeed it is.

Of course if Mr. Obama had been a "Republican" and if Mr. Trump was a "Democrat" then it would be the "Democrats" who would be claiming that what Mr. Obama did was totally wrong while what Mr. Trump is doing is just peachy-keen while the "Republicans" would be the ones who were claiming that what Mr. Obama did was just peachy-keen while what Mr. Trump is doing is totally wrong.

The matrix is

DONE BY
A
DEMOCRAT		DONE BY
A
REPUBLICAN
RATED BY
A
DEMOCRAT		ACTION IS
JUST
PEACHY-KEEN		ACTION IS
A
HORRIBLE CRIME
RATED BY
A
REPUBLICAN		ACTION IS
A
HORRIBLE CRIME		ACTION IS
JUST
PEACHY-KEEN

and that is all you need to know in order to make sense out of today's version of "American Political Discussion".
Click to expand...

Although I agree with your post 100%, I'll take it a step farther. Done by an outsider
rated by a republican horrible crime
rated by a democrat horrible crime

Although there are republicans protecting POTUS, behind the scenes there are many more "establishment republicans" that want him gone, and not just because he is selfish embarrassing rube.

OPINION: The reason things have reached a fever pitch with everybody in the political establishment running around like their hair is on fire, is the insertion of Giuliani into the corruption investigation. JMHO
 
mrdeltoid said:
Although I agree with your post 100%, I'll take it a step farther. Done by an outsider
rated by a republican horrible crime
rated by a democrat horrible crime

Although there are republicans protecting POTUS, behind the scenes there are many more "establishment republicans" that want him gone, and not just because he is selfish embarrassing rube.

OPINION: The reason things have reached a fever pitch with everybody in the political establishment running around like their hair is on fire, is the insertion of Giuliani into the corruption investigation. JMHO
Click to expand...

Mr. Giuliani reminds me of what one of my mentors in criminal defence law once told me and that was (to paraphrase) "The problem is NOT getting the cops to stop questioning, that's easy because they almost always do when the suspect says that they don't want to say anything further. The problem is to get the dummass dolts to SHUT UP until you get there and to keep SHUT UP after you leave.".

I cannot swear that it's apocryphal, but there is the recurrent story of the person who provided as an alibi for a crime at "Location X" the fact that they were actually committing a different crime at "Location Y".

[Tactically, the best solution would have been to take both charges to trial, lose both of them, the appeal on the grounds that the findings were impossible to reconcile and, since the court had to have a reasonable doubt about he accused's commission of "Crime X" if they were actually committing "Crime Y" at the same time, and vice versa, then the only logical result would be to vacate BOTH convictions (and then use "issue estoppel" to prevent any further trials on either of the charges. NOTE - No guarantee is made that that would work, but it IS "the best" available.]
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Mr. Giuliani reminds me of what one of my mentors in criminal defence law once told me and that was (to paraphrase) "The problem is NOT getting the cops to stop questioning, that's easy because they almost always do when the suspect says that they don't want to say anything further. The problem is to get the dummass dolts to SHUT UP until you get there and to keep SHUT UP after you leave.".

I cannot swear that it's apocryphal, but there is the recurrent story of the person who provided as an alibi for a crime at "Location X" the fact that they were actually committing a different crime at "Location Y".

[Tactically, the best solution would have been to take both charges to trial, lose both of them, the appeal on the grounds that the findings were impossible to reconcile and, since the court had to have a reasonable doubt about he accused's commission of "Crime X" if they were actually committing "Crime Y" at the same time, and vice versa, then the only logical result would be to vacate BOTH convictions (and then use "issue estoppel" to prevent any further trials on either of the charges. NOTE - No guarantee is made that that would work, but it IS "the best" available.]
Click to expand...

If Joe Biden was not running for president, and not a political adversary of Trump, would Trump be guilty of an impeachable offense?
 
mrdeltoid said:
If Joe Biden was not running for president, and not a political adversary of Trump, would Trump be guilty of an impeachable offense?
Click to expand...

That's an interesting question so let me advance an imaginary scenario (and one that is incredibly unlikely to occur) that shows the disconnect that allows it to be asked:

  1. "John Smith" is elected to the office of President of the United States of America (due to the fact that sufficient Electors "go rogue" and vote for him even though he only received 0.5% of the popular vote).
  2. To celebrate his election, "President Smith" hold an Inaugural Dinner.
  3. At that Inaugural Dinner, "President Smith" personally slaughters a black, Jewish, mentally retarded, quadriplegic, six year old, girl.
  4. After slaughtering the black, Jewish, mentally retarded, quadriplegic, six year old, girl "President Smith" then eats the child's heart.
  5. After eating the child's heart, "President Smith" then defecates and uses an original copy of the Constitution of the United States of America to wipe his ass.
  6. After using the original copy of the Constitution of the United States of America to wipe his ass, "President Smith" then lights it and uses it to set fire to the US flag that flew over Fort McHenry as the inspiration for "The Star Spangled Banner".

Now, in that scenario, would "President Smith" be "guilty of an impeachable offence"?

NOTE - When considering your answer, remember these points:

  • it is contrary to the existing law of the United States of America to indict a President of the United States of America for any criminal offence;
  • under the existing law of the United States of America someone who has NOT been convicted (which means that they must have been tried [which means that they must have been indicted]) is **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T**; and
  • under the existing law of the United States of America someone who is **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T** of "X" cannot at the same time be guilty of "X".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
That's an interesting question so let me advance an imaginary scenario (and one that is incredibly unlikely to occur) that shows the disconnect that allows it to be asked:

  1. "John Smith" is elected to the office of President of the United States of America (due to the fact that sufficient Electors "go rogue" and vote for him even though he only received 0.5% of the popular vote).
  2. To celebrate his election, "President Smith" hold an Inaugural Dinner.
  3. At that Inaugural Dinner, "President Smith" personally slaughters a black, Jewish, mentally retarded, quadriplegic, six year old, girl.
  4. After slaughtering the black, Jewish, mentally retarded, quadriplegic, six year old, girl "President Smith" then eats the child's heart.
  5. After eating the child's heart, "President Smith" then defecates and uses an original copy of the Constitution of the United States of America to wipe his ass.
  6. After using the original copy of the Constitution of the United States of America to wipe his ass, "President Smith" then lights it and uses it to set fire to the US flag that flew over Fort McHenry as the inspiration for "The Star Spangled Banner".

Now, in that scenario, would "President Smith" be "guilty of an impeachable offence"?

NOTE - When considering your answer, remember these points:

  • it is contrary to the existing law of the United States of America to indict a President of the United States of America for any criminal offence;
  • under the existing law of the United States of America someone who has NOT been convicted (which means that they must have been tried [which means that they must have been indicted]) is **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T**; and
  • under the existing law of the United States of America someone who is **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T** of "X" cannot at the same time be guilty of "X".
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should've looked at it from the other end of the situation. Does being a political foe of a sitting president, in another country, shield one from being investigated by the administration of said president? Just curious. Isn't that why it's being alleged that he extorted the Ukrainian president into "making up lots of dirt", to quote Schiff, about his 2020 opponent? I mean, since the agreement between the 2 countries allows them to cooperate with investigations into corruption, the issue is the alleged corrupt actor being the son of a political opponent. Correct?
 
mrdeltoid said:
Actually when you label someone, especially a Jew, a Nazi, the burden of proof is on you, the name caller.
Click to expand...

He's a Nazi. I don't bother with people who say the equivalent of, "How do YOU know the sky is blue on a cloudless day? Prove it." I bet you think Trump has never lied, too.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
That's an interesting question so let me advance an imaginary scenario (and one that is incredibly unlikely to occur) that shows the disconnect that allows it to be asked:

  1. "John Smith" is elected to the office of President of the United States of America (due to the fact that sufficient Electors "go rogue" and vote for him even though he only received 0.5% of the popular vote).
  2. To celebrate his election, "President Smith" hold an Inaugural Dinner.
  3. At that Inaugural Dinner, "President Smith" personally slaughters a black, Jewish, mentally retarded, quadriplegic, six year old, girl.
  4. After slaughtering the black, Jewish, mentally retarded, quadriplegic, six year old, girl "President Smith" then eats the child's heart.
  5. After eating the child's heart, "President Smith" then defecates and uses an original copy of the Constitution of the United States of America to wipe his ass.
  6. After using the original copy of the Constitution of the United States of America to wipe his ass, "President Smith" then lights it and uses it to set fire to the US flag that flew over Fort McHenry as the inspiration for "The Star Spangled Banner".

Now, in that scenario, would "President Smith" be "guilty of an impeachable offence"?

NOTE - When considering your answer, remember these points:

  • it is contrary to the existing law of the United States of America to indict a President of the United States of America for any criminal offence;
  • under the existing law of the United States of America someone who has NOT been convicted (which means that they must have been tried [which means that they must have been indicted]) is **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T**; and
  • under the existing law of the United States of America someone who is **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T** of "X" cannot at the same time be guilty of "X".
Click to expand...

"What do you call your act?"

"The Aristocrats!!!"
 
Scarab said:
He's a Nazi. I don't bother with people who say the equivalent of, "How do YOU know the sky is blue on a cloudless day? Prove it." I bet you think Trump has never lied, too.
Click to expand...

Look, saying the sky is blue isn't the equivalent with calling someone a Nazi. And the last accusation is called a deflection. I understand why you deflected, and I don't blame you, but since you believe one can tell Stephen Miller is a Nazi by looking at him, let us in on what gives it away, like his clothes, or skin shade, or maybe the way he stands??? I don't see it.
 
mrdeltoid said:
Look, saying the sky is blue isn't the equivalent with calling someone a Nazi. And the last accusation is called a deflection. I understand why you deflected, and I don't blame you, but since you believe one can tell Stephen Miller is a Nazi by looking at him, let us in on what gives it away, like his clothes, or skin shade, or maybe the way he stands??? I don't see it.
Click to expand...

Not by looking at him. By characterizing his actions. Why are you deflecting so much?
 
mrdeltoid said:
If Joe Biden was not running for president, and not a political adversary of Trump, would Trump be guilty of an impeachable offense?
Click to expand...
Yes, it could still be an impeachable defense. Especially as someone who was involved in politics "on the other side", a side this President has labeled "the enemy" on many different occasions despite simply being the main political opposition.

Now, if the person were an unknown, of no political importance, it would still have to be investigated as to why the President would even care about such a person, investigating such a thing. In fact why this person, why now, in a way that does not appear to benefit anyone, including the US in any legitimate way? It would be different if no one specific were named and/or multiple different people and/or companies, entities, especially of high profile, with no apparent relationship or commonality, were to be investigated, above board, via the DOJ, even in cooperation with other countries. That would indicate that the purpose was actually to legitimately fight corruption rather than gain some political advantage or personal revenge against opponents, "the enemy".

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
MTAtech said:
Trump Was Repeatedly Warned That Ukraine Conspiracy Theory Was ‘Completely Debunked’


Whether it is just Trump’s penchants to tell lies, or mental illness, or his inability to separate facts from convenient fiction but it’s becoming increasingly clear that he isn’t capable of holding the office that he has. Even his staff is disturbed.

This is abnormally behavior for an American president and he not only is an embarrassment but a security risk. This guy has the launch codes.
Click to expand...

Lol. The New York Times!


Well.....how come Biden and his son doesn't sue Trump for defamation, if his accusations aren't true?
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm not a Trump fan, but this seems to me to be a totally partisan investigation. By his own admission, while Vice President, Joe Biden on behalf of the Obama Administration insisted that the previous prosecutor investigating corruption at the business that Hunter Biden was a director be fired or the Obama Administration would withhold over $1 billion in foreign aid to Ukraine. How is that even marginally any different from Donald Trump asking the President of Ukraine to resume the investigation of the business Hunter Biden was associated with?

Seems odd to me that this business was paying Hunter Biden $50,000 a month as a director when he had no experience or expertise in that business. Nice work if you have a daddy who can insist on you being hired.
Click to expand...
The previous prosecutor was fired for NOT investigating Burisma....
 
mrdeltoid said:
Look, saying the sky is blue isn't the equivalent with calling someone a Nazi. And the last accusation is called a deflection. I understand why you deflected, and I don't blame you, but since you believe one can tell Stephen Miller is a Nazi by looking at him, let us in on what gives it away, like his clothes, or skin shade, or maybe the way he stands??? I don't see it.
Click to expand...

Stephen Miller has been on record many times as an open White Nationalist, he's a Nazi...a real one
 
MTAtech said:
Trump Was Repeatedly Warned That Ukraine Conspiracy Theory Was ‘Completely Debunked’


Whether it is just Trump’s penchants to tell lies, or mental illness, or his inability to separate facts from convenient fiction but it’s becoming increasingly clear that he isn’t capable of holding the office that he has. Even his staff is disturbed.

This is abnormally behavior for an American president and he not only is an embarrassment but a security risk. This guy has the launch codes.
Click to expand...

Joe Biden, B. Obama, H. Clinton, J. Clapper, Brennan, Strzok, Comey, McCabe, Rice, Power, Orr, Weinstein, Podesta and a hundred other Trump haters warned Trump long ago that there was no there there in Ukraine. Trump is not convinced. Democrats claimed Russians in Ukraine hacked the DNC computers and conspired with him to steal the 2016 election. Trump knows that was a lie so he is convinced the democrats may have colluded with Russians in Ukraine to invent the lies they still claim were never invented in the first place.
 
marke said:
Joe Biden, B. Obama, H. Clinton, J. Clapper, Brennan, Strzok, Comey, McCabe, Rice, Power, Orr, Weinstein, Podesta and a hundred other Trump haters warned Trump long ago that there was no there there in Ukraine. Trump is not convinced. Democrats claimed Russians in Ukraine hacked the DNC computers and conspired with him to steal the 2016 election. Trump knows that was a lie so he is convinced the democrats may have colluded with Russians in Ukraine to invent the lies they still claim were never invented in the first place.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, "Democrats" didn't claim that Russians in Ukraine hacked the DNC computers. Democrats went along with the 17 U.S. intelligence services absolute conclusion that Russia hacked the DNC. You said, "Trump knows that was a lie so he is convinced the democrats may have colluded with Russians in Ukraine to invent the lies they still claim were never invented in the first place." No, Trump doesn't "know" this. He believes what confirms what he already believes and he is susceptible to conspiracy theories that fit the narrative he wants to believe. Trump said, “I heard it’s [CrowdStrike] owned by a very rich Ukrainian; that’s what I heard.” Except that it isn't. More than two years later, Mr. Trump was still holding on to this false conspiracy theory. In his July call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.

As a result, we have the Secretary of State and the Attorney General flying all over the world asking world leaders for information to confirm conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theory was already widely debunked that had already been dismissed by his own diplomatic envoy.

Mr. Pompeo said to journalists in Athens it was the “duty” of the Trump administration to pursue whether efforts to tamper in the United States election were rooted in Ukraine, even though the American intelligence agencies have long concluded Russia was to blame.

So, while our top foreign policy team is running around the world on wild goose chases, think of all the actual foreign policy objectives are slipping through the cracks.
 
tosca1 said:
Lol. The New York Times!


Well.....how come Biden and his son doesn't sue Trump for defamation, if his accusations aren't true?
Click to expand...

You may have something there. In the landmark Supreme Court case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a public figure can't engage into a successful defamation (libel and slander) lawsuit unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice by knowing the falsity or by reckless disregard for the truth. Since Trump says EVERYTHING with malice and reckless disregard for the truth in near all cases, Biden may have a case.
 
MTAtech said:
Excuse me, "Democrats" didn't claim that Russians in Ukraine hacked the DNC computers. Democrats went along with the 17 U.S. intelligence services absolute conclusion that Russia hacked the DNC.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Crowdstrike was hired by the DNC to secure its computers from hacking. After Crowdstrike secured the computers some insider at the DNC stole the emails that were then given to Assange. Crowdstrike was the only entity who examined the computers and they blamed the Russians for the hack. The problem with Crowdstrike's claim is that it did not prove the impenetrable DNC computers had been hacked and it did not prove it was Russians who did it if it had been hacked.

Trump-hating US intelligence officials by the manure cart load rubber stamped Crowdstrike's claim without ever examining the DNC computers themselves for verification.
 
Its not a conspiracy theory, Trump is not a conspiracy theorist, he is a liar.
 
marke said:
Wrong. Crowdstrike was hired by the DNC to secure its computers from hacking. After Crowdstrike secured the computers some insider at the DNC stole the emails that were then given to Assange. Crowdstrike was the only entity who examined the computers and they blamed the Russians for the hack. The problem with Crowdstrike's claim is that it did not prove the impenetrable DNC computers had been hacked and it did not prove it was Russians who did it if it had been hacked.

Trump-hating US intelligence officials by the manure cart load rubber stamped Crowdstrike's claim without ever examining the DNC computers themselves for verification.
Click to expand...

Look-- there is a reason why Assange has not been prosecuted for his role in the whole hacking of the DNC. And that reason is because the government, in a court of law using rules of evidence, cannot prove that Russia actually hacked the DNC and transmitted the files to Wikileaks. Part of that reason is, indeed, because the feds never actually examined the DNC files and instead relied upon the Crowdstrike conclusion (at least in part) in drawing a conclusion that Russia hacked the DNC.

But that is different than saying we should not be suspicious whether Russia hacked the election.
Legal decisions deal with reasonable doubt; Intelligence conclusions deal with probabilities.
Russia hacked the DNC.
 
Jesse Booth said:
None of the investigations into Ukraine found any wrongdoing on Hunter Biden's part, and while it probably would have been wise of Joe to recuse himself from this committee, there simply isn't any evidence of wrongdoing. As your own article from the Hill pointed out, the money transfers that occurred while Hunter was working with Burisma were entirely legal in the context of Ukrainian business practice.
Click to expand...
So why do democrats care if Trump was digging for dirt on Biden there if theres no dirt there to be found? If Biden is innocent (and i assume he is) then whats the objection to Trump sending people to investigate?

As you stated it would of been smart for him to of recused himself but he didn't. If he had nobody would be questioning his involvement.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
So why do democrats care if Trump was digging for dirt on Biden there if theres no dirt there to be found?
Click to expand...

If there's a potential crime being alleged, it's a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. DOJ/SEC investigate FCPA violations. Ukraine, China and Rudy have nothing to do with a potential investigation of alleged FCPA violations as they don't investigate potential violations of US law.

If Biden is innocent (and i assume he is) then whats the objection to Trump sending people to investigate?
Click to expand...

1. The President should have nothing to do with an investigation into a political rival and should keep as much distance between themselves and the investigators to avoid even an appearance of impropriety
2. In that regard, Trump should have nothing to do with "sending people to investigate"
3. If this was a legitimate investigation, DOJ and SEC would open investigations, commit resources to them, and refuse to discuss any ongoing investigation
4. If there were a legitimate investigation, DOJ and SEC would not be pressuring Ukraine to openly announce anything related to the matters at hand related to the investigation, and definitely not through the President or Gary Sondland
 
marke said:
Wrong. Crowdstrike was hired by the DNC to secure its computers from hacking. After Crowdstrike secured the computers some insider at the DNC stole the emails that were then given to Assange. Crowdstrike was the only entity who examined the computers and they blamed the Russians for the hack. The problem with Crowdstrike's claim is that it did not prove the impenetrable DNC computers had been hacked and it did not prove it was Russians who did it if it had been hacked.

Trump-hating US intelligence officials by the manure cart load rubber stamped Crowdstrike's claim without ever examining the DNC computers themselves for verification.
Click to expand...
You know all this, how, exactly? It's a rhetorical question, I already know:

WaPo:“This is insane,” said Robert Johnston, CEO of Adlumin and a former CrowdStrike investigator who worked on the probe into the hacking of Democratic National Committee computers. “This is absolute babbling to the president of Ukraine. It’s hard to finger exactly which conspiracy theory he’s subscribing to. But none of them have any grounding in reality.”
The month before the Ukraine call, Trump voiced dark suspicions about CrowdStrike in a call with Fox News commentator Sean Hannity. That same day, Breitbart News had published a story, based on documents that had emerged in Stone’s trial on charges of lying, obstruction and witness tampering, about how the FBI relied on information from CrowdStrike in its probe of the DNC hack.
...
The Silicon Valley-based cybersecurity firm’s assertion in June 2016 that Russia had hacked the DNC has been repeatedly confirmed by the Justice Department, members of Congress and Mueller’s office, which indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers last year for their role in the breach.
Nevertheless, the company has become a boogeyman of right-wing conspiracy theorists, who have falsely claimed that the company helped Democratic leaders cover up what they insist was a breach by a secret party insider.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom