• 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’s acting chief of staff admits it: There was a Ukraine quid pro quo

Anthony60 said:
I leave your entire post in there because it's funny when someone makes a fool of themselves in such a smug way.
So, where is the part where Trump says he will cancel any support until they investigate Biden and help him with his reelection? Please, where is it?

Or is it just the word "favor"? Because, we all know that once a President uses the word "favor", that's automatic impeachment! (As long as he's a Republican) LOL!

I know the left likes to say a falsehood over and over, like you did, expecting it to be believed if you say it enough. Sorry, not working here.
Click to expand...

See post 419 and 420 for a succinct summary proving my point.

As more facts keep coming out, the picture looks increasingly bleak for Trump. He will eventually be impeached for what he did. Suggestions to the contrary require a willful act of ignoring the actual facts.
 
Integrityrespec said:
Another bull s3!= attempt to impeach because they can't stand Trump and they can't win an election against him.
Click to expand...

Wait, didn't the OP, the post you respond to, admit quid pro quo? By tRUMP's mouth piece?

How's that BS?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, then why not make the bill authorizing that USAID funding contingent upon his removal and replacement by someone who would actually address known corruption? Why was Hunter Biden on a suspected to be corrupt foreign company's board?
Click to expand...

Is the our govt. now in the business of telling foreign companies who to hire? There was nothing illegal about hiring Hunter.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Trump is not going to get out of this by pointing his finger to the Bidens. What Trump did was wrong and he's going to be impeached for it.
Click to expand...

You know it's going to backfire. No matter what, the Democrats look like they're going off the deep end.
 
dairyair said:
Wait, didn't the OP, the post you respond to, admit quid pro quo? By tRUMP's mouth piece?

How's that BS?
Click to expand...

Obviously some Democrat forced Mulvaney to say it. Probably the same Democrat who forced Don Junior to accept an offer of dirt on Hillary Clinton from Russia.
 
American said:
You know it's going to backfire. No matter what, the Democrats look like they're going off the deep end.
Click to expand...

Biden should be held to account if he did something wrong. That's not backfire. That's the way the system should work. That's not allowing corrupt people to abuse their office.

We should all be on board with holding corrupt people to account.

And this should be true for you too. You should also acknowledge, and say the following, "You know what? I like Trump, but if he did something wrong, he should be held to account, just like anyone else."

You don't say that. Other Trump supporters don't say that. Why? Because you don't really care, do you? You don't care if he did anything wrong so long as he pushes the policies you prefer? Tell me that's not true.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Biden should be held to account if he did something wrong. That's not backfire. That's the way the system should work. That's not allowing corrupt people to abuse their office.

We should all be on board with holding corrupt people to account.

And this should be true for you too. You should also acknowledge, and say the following, "You know what? I like Trump, but if he did something wrong, he should be held to account, just like anyone else."

You don't say that. Other Trump supporters don't say that. Why? Because you don't really care, do you? You don't care if he did anything wrong so long as he pushes the policies you prefer? Tell me that's not true.
Click to expand...

Where were you when a Democrat run FBI let Hillary off the hook for 1) using a private email server for official business and 2) storing Top Secret classified data upon that server?
 
dairyair said:
Why was Guiliani, a personal lawyer, not part of the WH staff or an official of the USA, taking part in Ukraine dirt digging exercise?

If not for purely political campaign reasons.
A US private citizen, working directly for the prez, is trying to influence a foreign gov't to dig up dirt on a political rival. Meanwhile, aide is being held up by the prez.
Click to expand...

Because...Jesus...or something....and illegal immigrants need to go home.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Part 2.


--

In Mulvany's admission, Mulvany linked a withholding of the aid to an investigation into the Crowdstrike server conspiracy theory:

YouTube

Watch at 33 mins.

Pay attention to 35 mins and 20 seconds:

MULVANEY: So that was -- those were the driving factors. Did he also mention to me, in the past, that the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely, no question about that. But that's it. And that's why he held up the money. Now, there was a report...

QUESTION: So -- so the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he...

MULVANEY: it was on the...

QUESTION: ... to withhold funding to Ukraine?

MULVANEY: The -- the look back to what happened in 2016, certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.

QUESTION: ...withholding -- withholding the funding?

MULVANEY: Yeah, Which ultimately, then, flowed.

--

Now, put yourself in the shoes of the Ukrainian government.

1. For months prior to the phone call and prior to finding out the funds were held up, Trump's personal lawyer and various State Dept. officials kept pestering the Ukranians about the Biden stuff, and the Crowdstrike Server conspiracy stuff and they keep demanding an investigation into these kinds of things in return for things like an official government visit. They were even asking for a public announcement of this sort of investigation and were negotiating the details of such an announcement (see the Volker-supplied text messages).

2. And, then the President of Ukraine finally gets on the phone with Trump and is confronted with Trump personally demanding stuff like an investigation into the Crowdstrike server after asking for the javelin missiles, and also Trump links more sales of the javelin missile to an investigation into the Bidens and also the Crowdstrike server conspiracy theory.

3. And then about a month later the Ukrainian government is finally confronted with the fact that their military aid is being held up (remember Ukraine found in August the aid is held up, and the aid wasn't released until Sept. 11).

In various very direct, and sometimes indirect ways, the Ukrainians are being told that before they get stuff like a white house visit, military aid, and javelin missiles, they have to do specific things for Trump, personally.

All of this is important, and it all adds up to Trump basically demanding that the Ukranian government do a bunch of personal stuff for Trump's benefit in exchange for a benefit from the U.S. government.
Click to expand...

Love the way you laid it out, but here's the problem...you use words like PERSONALLY DEMANDING, (didn't happen) As of right now, you have no idea WHAT corruption they were asking about, Biden/Crowdstrike was part of it, yes, were they the ONLY part? What if the ask was, please look into corruption in your country, stuff like Crowdstrike and Biden, cuz I've heard about it, make sure there's nothing there etc etc....keep in mind, the US and Ukraine literally have an ANTI-CORRUPTION TREATY IN PLACE....so tell me again how looking into CORRUPTION is a personal favor?

As far as your thoughts after #3, that is conjecture.....
 
JasperL said:
There is no known U.S. investigation into Burisma and/or the Crowdstrike server BS or Joe or Hunter Biden. Barr denies any involvement, any role. There's been no evidence that the DoJ or FBI is investigating Burisma and/or the Bidens and/or the server. You keep insisting that this thing you cannot show exists does exist, so unless you post some evidence for this "ongoing investigation" I'll leave it here.

And, I'll just say again, if there was a U.S. investigation into any of that, the proper role for Rudy, lawyer to now indicted thugs involved in the Ukraine mess, is nowhere near any of it. Rudy told us he didn't care if the investigation he was in his personal capacity as Trump's personal lawyer was pushing helped the U.S. Rudy's loyalty is not to the interests of the United States but to his thug clients and to Trump, in his personal capacity.
Click to expand...

We dont know what Bursima and Biden are about. It could be a side issue-- you know the 'get the little fish so as to turn on the big fish' story we heard so much about in a different investigation over the past few years.
The investigation which is occurring pertains the investigation into the origin of the Russia probe. The theory has been that Ukraine is somehow involved.
 
iguanaman said:
The FBI was investigating why the Trump Campaign had 100's of contacts with known Russian operatives. You think it was wrong for the FBI to investigate a foreign power infiltrating a Presidential campaign?
Click to expand...

No, I think it is wrong for the party in power to use the powers of the federal government to try and help their own party stay in power. The Democrats are an "ends justifies the means" party, that is why they see nothing wrong with it when they do it.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
See post 419 and 420 for a succinct summary proving my point.

As more facts keep coming out, the picture looks increasingly bleak for Trump. He will eventually be impeached for what he did. Suggestions to the contrary require a willful act of ignoring the actual facts.
Click to expand...

So, you think they will get 67 votes in the Senate, if they even have a trial? Talk about willful ignorance.
 
American said:
Where were you when a Democrat run FBI let Hillary off the hook for 1) using a private email server for official business and 2) storing Top Secret classified data upon that server?
Click to expand...

This is a two part response, because I can't fit everything in one post.

1st Part:

Okay, are you ready? Pay attention. I am going to give you a full run-down on why loudmouths like Hannity have been selling you a false bill of goods:

The situation involving Clinton's e-mails is not that different than Mueller being unable to prove each element of the crime of conspiracy against Trump or his associates. Everybody knows Trump did shady things which looked like a conspiracy, but why couldn't Mueller prove a crime in that regard?

A prosecutor can't just charge someone for a crime because he thinks that a suspect did something wrong or unethical. A prosecutor has to think that they will eventually win at trial by proving each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury before they actually charge someone. With respect to the FBI's recommendation to not prosecute Clinton (and yes, I agree Comey's public statement was odd, out of place), the DOJ wouldn't haven't suggested anything different, The FBI looked at two possible crimes: 1) whether or not classified information was improperly handled in violation of a statute making it a felony to intentionally mishandle classified information, and they also looked at a second crime, 2) whether it was a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

1st crime - Felony: 18 U.S. Code SS 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

2nd crime - Misdemeanor: 18 U.S. Code SS 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

So, with respect to the first possible crime, the felony, a lot has been made about only gross negligence being necessary to convict someone but this is false. Although the statute in question does NOT include an intent element, nobody has ever been convicted on this statute on just gross negligence, and there is an actual Supreme Court ruling which indicates the statute may need to be construed as requiring an intent element (Gorin v. United States (1941)). So if the DOJ were to have prosecuted Clinton using this statute they would have had to prove Clinton intended to improperly handled classified information. There is a lot of confusion about this because military law does not require the element of intent to be proven for similar crimes. But Clinton was a civilian when she was Secretary of State, not a member of the military. And a lot of people during the Clinton e-mail controversy kept referring to examples within the military law context.
 
Last edited:
American said:
Where were you when a Democrat run FBI let Hillary off the hook for 1) using a private email server for official business and 2) storing Top Secret classified data upon that server?
Click to expand...


2nd Part

Then let's consider the facts of the case with regard to intent for a moment:

Point #1: The vast majority of the e-mails on her server were NEVER classified, ever. The FBI examined 30,000 or so e-mails, 27,890 or so emails were not classified, EVER. Not then, not now, not ever, not at any point in time. To clarify, that's about 93% of the e-mails which were never found to be classified at any time. That's a lot.

Point #2: Of those 30,000 e-mails 2,100 were up-classified afterwords. So at the time Clinton and her people were using her server, there were only about 110 e-mails that were classified at the time they were being transmitted. That's 0.36%. So out of 30,000 e-mails examined, 99.64% (approximately) were not labeled as classified.

Point #3: And then we have to add to that the fact that the vast majority of the 110 classified e-mail were not properly marked as classified. Only a handful of that 110 classified e-mails was marked as classified.

How would any prosecutor prove the intent element, the "knowingly" part given the above set of facts? If Clinton had intended to improperly store classified e-mail wouldn't the number of classified e-mails transmitted through her proprietary system be higher? Instead, 99.64% of the transmitted e-mails contained NO classified information had the time they were transmitted. And of the remaining 0.36% of the e-mails, the vast majority of them weren't properly labeled.

That's not inculpatory evidence. That's exculpatory evidence with regard to the intent element of the crime. It's crazy to assume that a jury would have convicted Clinton on this.

So, the felony is out, Clinton would have never been charged by anyone, no matter which administration, Republican or Democrat, for the felony, ever. It's out.

And, with respect to the second crime, the misdemeanor, the intent element is still there as well, "knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both"

--

It doesn't matter how much you hate Clinton, or how much you hate Obama, or how much you hate Comey, or how much you hate Trump.

Your hatred or love of various individuals, and your partisanship or preference for particular policies do not change the basic, publicly known facts about this case.
 
Anthony60 said:
No, I think it is wrong for the party in power to use the powers of the federal government to try and help their own party stay in power. The Democrats are an "ends justifies the means" party, that is why they see nothing wrong with it when they do it.
Click to expand...

LOL You must be kidding. The ongoing FBI investigation of Russian infiltration of Trump's campaign was not even revealed until after the election yet the FBI broke their rules and announced the reopening of Hillary's email investigation 2 weeks before the vote. If anyone has a beef it is the Democrats.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
2nd Part

Then let's consider the facts of the case with regard to intent for a moment:

Point #1: The vast majority of the e-mails on her server were NEVER classified, ever. The FBI examined 30,000 or so e-mails, 27,890 or so emails were not classified, EVER. Not then, not now, not ever, not at any point in time. To clarify, that's about 93% of the e-mails which were never found to be classified at any time. That's a lot.

Point #2: Of those 30,000 e-mails 2,100 were up-classified afterwords. So at the time Clinton and her people were using her server, there were only about 110 e-mails that were classified at the time they were being transmitted. That's 0.36%. So out of 30,000 e-mails examined, 99.64% (approximately) were not labeled as classified.

Point #3: And then we have to add to that the fact that the vast majority of the 110 classified e-mail were not properly marked as classified. Only a handful of that 110 classified e-mails was marked as classified.

How would any prosecutor prove the intent element, the "knowingly" part given the above set of facts? If Clinton had intended to improperly store classified e-mail wouldn't the number of classified e-mails transmitted through her proprietary system be higher? Instead, 99.64% of the transmitted e-mails contained NO classified information had the time they were transmitted. And of the remaining 0.36% of the e-mails, the vast majority of them weren't properly labeled.

That's not inculpatory evidence. That's exculpatory evidence with regard to the intent element of the crime. It's crazy to assume that a jury would have convicted Clinton on this.

So, the felony is out, Clinton would have never been charged by anyone, no matter which administration, Republican or Democrat, for the felony, ever. It's out.

And, with respect to the second crime, the misdemeanor, the intent element is still there as well, "knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both"

--

It doesn't matter how much you hate Clinton, or how much you hate Obama, or how much you hate Comey, or how much you hate Trump.

Your hatred or love of various individuals, and your partisanship or preference for particular policies do not change the basic, publicly known facts about this case.
Click to expand...

Those emails were for official business, and shouldn't have been stored on a private server. Secondly, the only way classified data was on that server, was because someone purposely put it there; that's willful. Thirdly, Clinton being a classification authority, just about everything that came out of her mouth pertaining to official business could be classified. So every single email was at a minimum sensitive FOUO, and didn't belong on a private server.

(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1)concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2)concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3)concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4)obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
sjmay said:
Love the way you laid it out, but here's the problem...you use words like PERSONALLY DEMANDING, (didn't happen) As of right now, you have no idea WHAT corruption they were asking about, Biden/Crowdstrike was part of it, yes, were they the ONLY part? What if the ask was, please look into corruption in your country, stuff like Crowdstrike and Biden, cuz I've heard about it, make sure there's nothing there etc etc....keep in mind, the US and Ukraine literally have an ANTI-CORRUPTION TREATY IN PLACE....so tell me again how looking into CORRUPTION is a personal favor?

As far as your thoughts after #3, that is conjecture.....
Click to expand...

Er, because the person asking happens to have the most sophisticated intelligence gathering and law enforcement/investigation capabilities on the plant at their disposal?
That what Trump is asking about is a totally 100% debunked piece of Russian disinformation.

FYI - The Crowdstrike CEO is RUSSIAN, not Ukrainian and the supposed "hidden server" is a myth.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
See post 419 and 420 for a succinct summary proving my point.
Click to expand...

OMG! Your "evidence" is an article that attempts to spin what is in the transcript. I can read the transcript for myself, I don't needs someone telling me what they want it to say. Classic left wing propaganda for the low information types.
 
tres borrachos said:
What objective? The objective to remove a corrupt prosecutor? Everyone with a functioning brain approved of that objective. And then we have Trump and his supporters.....

I didn't mention impeachment. You did. Scared?
Click to expand...

And yet-- No issue with interfering then.
 
upsideguy said:
You should read up on the Biden issue as its pretty clear you do not understand it. Its a story that has been conflated beyond the recognition of truth by most right-wing smut purveyors.

Shokin was not fired because he was doing his job in flushing out corruption. He was fired because he WASN'T doing his job. It wasn't only the US that wanted that prosecutor fired, it was the head of the IMF and various EU governments. He wasn't fired to protect Hunter. Hunter's role was irrelevant.

What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor
What Hunter Biden did on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma - Reuters

When you post here coming with a reckless disregard for the truth, you are ostensibly spreading lies. That makes you liar. You don't want to be that guy. So, study up and try again. Be the smartest, most informed guy in your party.
Click to expand...

The issue though is the response:
Trump did not conspire with Russia to fix the 2016 election, yet the Obama Admin had no qualms in launching such an investigation which claimed to the contrary.
 
iguanaman said:
The FBI was investigating why the Trump Campaign had 100's of contacts with known Russian operatives. You think it was wrong for the FBI to investigate a foreign power infiltrating a Presidential campaign?
Click to expand...

They werent investigating Russia efforts to infiltrate the Trump campaign; they were investigating whether Trump was part of the conspiracy.
 
sjmay said:
So the Allegation came out in 2016, and yet you want to blame Barr......interesting.
Click to expand...

I blamed Barr for what? I just read my posts and don't see anything that blames Barr for a rape accusation against Trump, but I'm sure you can point to that post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom