Transcript released - WH - No quid pro quo

a reply to: Wayfarer

As I was mentioning to Shooterbrody, there seems to be at least another transcript, if not a couple, that are still unreleased. Perhaps at some point in the future you and I will get to view those to make a determination further.

There are literally thousands of transcripts. Every call made between Trump and any other foreign dignitary has one.

I find it strange that this fact was not brought up previously. The DNC talking points are that this issue is literally death to the Republic! So, if that is true, why were they not clamoring for 2, 3, 47 transcripts initially? Why demand the "least damning" one and wait for it to be a fail before mentioning there are more?

Is the DNC that clueless?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer

As I was mentioning to Shooterbrody, there seems to be at least another transcript, if not a couple, that are still unreleased. Perhaps at some point in the future you and I will get to view those to make a determination further.

There are literally thousands of transcripts. Every call made between Trump and any other foreign dignitary has one.

I find it strange that this fact was not brought up previously. The DNC talking points are that this issue is literally death to the Republic! So, if that is true, why were they not clamoring for 2, 3, 47 transcripts initially? Why demand the "least damning" one and wait for it to be a fail before mentioning there are more?

Is the DNC that clueless?

TheRedneck

The whistleblower mentioned multiple 'acts'. The other transcripts I'm referring to are those containing those other 'acts' if they were calls/discussions (which is what I am assuming they were).

The Trump administration is stonewalling by not releasing the others. They have selectively released just this one, as I mentioned already, because prescriptively its the least damning.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer

You and I have the same extensive legal background.

Good! We got that argument out of the way.

However to put it clearly what you're arguing isn't a crime because of semantics. When the president is extorting a foreign official, anyone who enables that extortion on behalf of the president (Guliani) is also committing a crime.

That is true, but you assume extortion. There is no proof of extortion. There is only an insinuation on your part that I find difficult to see.

It is common for more than one subject to be breached within a single phone call, and those multiple subjects need not be related. The Ukrainian President indicates his own desire to have investigations into allegations of corruption in previous administrations. At one point, they discuss a female ambassador who has been replaced as someone who opposed the new administration's goals because of allegiance to the old administration. That sounds eerily familiar to what Trump has experienced.

There is no extortion when both parties agree to cooperate. Extortion implies that one party is exercising unwanted control over the other. There is simply no indication of that in this transcript. Without that premise, your legal argument falls apart.

TheRedneck

Just like my lawyer fiend said in the link I provided earlier, despite the fact that the Mobster never explicitly said "do this or I will burn your shop down" is inconsequential as its the meaning behind the words rather than the words themselves.

Ummm...so...now your back to trying to prove...intent...

As the last administration...and the former head of the FBI succinctly stated...that's an impossibility...

I'm surprised your lawyer friend didn't get that memo...perhaps he should text the honorable James Comey...for some advise in that regard...





YouSir

a reply to: YouSir

You don't understand.

Allow me to explain it.

Orange man bad. Orange man, bad. Orange, man bad. Orange-man, bad.

And finally, Orange man, well, bad.

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer

You and I have the same extensive legal background.

Good! We got that argument out of the way.

However to put it clearly what you're arguing isn't a crime because of semantics. When the president is extorting a foreign official, anyone who enables that extortion on behalf of the president (Guliani) is also committing a crime.

That is true, but you assume extortion. There is no proof of extortion. There is only an insinuation on your part that I find difficult to see.

It is common for more than one subject to be breached within a single phone call, and those multiple subjects need not be related. The Ukrainian President indicates his own desire to have investigations into allegations of corruption in previous administrations. At one point, they discuss a female ambassador who has been replaced as someone who opposed the new administration's goals because of allegiance to the old administration. That sounds eerily familiar to what Trump has experienced.

There is no extortion when both parties agree to cooperate. Extortion implies that one party is exercising unwanted control over the other. There is simply no indication of that in this transcript. Without that premise, your legal argument falls apart.

TheRedneck

Just like my lawyer fiend said in the link I provided earlier, despite the fact that the Mobster never explicitly said "do this or I will burn your shop down" is inconsequential as its the meaning behind the words rather than the words themselves.

Ummm...so...now your back to trying to prove...intent...

As the last administration...and the former head of the FBI succinctly stated...that's an impossibility...

I'm surprised your lawyer friend didn't get that memo...perhaps he should text the honorable James Comey...for some advise in that regard...

YouSir

Well, I think you were trying to be snarky, but in fact you're right insomuch regarding the fact that they're looking to prove intent. The assumption is with Trump making this request multiple times with the Ukranian PM (and in theory in much more direct fashion) than what we've already seen should make proving intent achievable.

a reply to: shooterbrody

"no Honest just ONE more conversation"..


OMG

like a too clingly boyfriend


Ewwwww

a reply to: Wayfarer
so potus making continuing investigative requests to an incoming administration of an ally are now illegal?

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: shooterbrody

"no Honest just ONE more conversation"..


OMG

like a too clingly boyfriend


Ewwwww

i dont know
sounds to me the dems have effectively removed potus' constitutional power over diplomacy

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer
so potus making continuing investigative requests to an incoming administration of an ally are now illegal?

If it's for the purpose of affecting an election by hurting your rival through the mechanism of US foreign policy, yes.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

I'm a little confused. Is Trump suggesting that the DNC e-mail server is in the Ukraine?

It seems also that he is conflating Crowdstrikes bad intel and wild guesses about some software/malware in the Ukrainian conflict, with Crowdstrike's involvement in finding out the alleged details of the hack and attempting to secure the DNC server after it was compromised.

They were separate events in different countries.

Also, I think that Crowdstrike's problem is that they assume that because they have an expensive AI that makes inferential links, that the things that the AI tells them are essentially true. You cannot blame an AI for doing what it was programmed to do but you shouldn't just trust it, just because...

Actually, to me that whole section in the transcript seems very vague and out of place. The rest of the conversation is quite clear and in whole sentences, then you get this section that seems to be off topic and doesn't even have complete sentences, just vague references. If the topics were important to the presidents, then I would think that there would be clear and specific descriptions about the things that should be investigated, rather than some vague name dropping exercise.

a reply to: Wayfarer

The whistleblower mentioned multiple 'acts'. The other transcripts I'm referring to are those containing those other 'acts' if they were calls/discussions (which is what I am assuming they were).

Without knowing what those other "acts" were, how can anyone release anything about them? That's simply impossible.

Again, I ask, if the whislteblower (who has, incidentally, been revealed as not having direct knowledge and having a political bias against Trump) announced these other acts, why did the Democrats in the House not immediately demand information on these other acts? Why would they concentrate on trying the "least damning" evidence exclusively?

And why would the whistleblower not lead with these other acts?

Assume for argument a man steals a car, goes on a joyride, crashes it into a group of people, jumps out with a stolen gun and starts mowing down the crowd, engages in a shootout with police, and kills 5 officers. The police charge him with all crimes I mentioned. The Police Chief them holds a news conference and says "The suspect has been charged with speeding and other acts."

How ridiculous is that to lead with the least damning?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Gorgonite

By all means, explain under what circumstances Trumps personal attorney should be involved in ”chief law enforcement officer of one country having a conversation with his counterpart in another country about possible crimes and corruption.”. Please explain what legitimate reason Rudy has to be involved in that conversation?

Maybe because Guilliani has relevant information which would be of use to the Ukrainian President? That is what Trump said in the transcript.

Hint: some of us read it. That was the first thing I did when I heard it had been released.

TheRedneck

It sounds like you are sure its completely legal for the president to involve his personal attorney in matters of state......

Can you link, or point me in the direction of a federal statute that says otherwise?

This is not the first request for said statute, yet no one has come up with one.

And please, do do what the other poster did when asked, which was to list a bunch of laws that didn't pertain to the presidents use of a private attorney, whatsoever.

a reply to: Wayfarer
and you found that purpose where specifically?
the crowdstrike investigation preceded trump taking the oath, as did the hunter biden prosecutor firing

these are not new investigations...... perhaps if they were new I would agree with you
these preceded both leaders; their discussion only shows both are serious about rooting out corruption, does it not?

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer

As I was mentioning to Shooterbrody, there seems to be at least another transcript, if not a couple, that are still unreleased. Perhaps at some point in the future you and I will get to view those to make a determination further.

There are literally thousands of transcripts. Every call made between Trump and any other foreign dignitary has one.

I find it strange that this fact was not brought up previously. The DNC talking points are that this issue is literally death to the Republic! So, if that is true, why were they not clamoring for 2, 3, 47 transcripts initially? Why demand the "least damning" one and wait for it to be a fail before mentioning there are more?

Is the DNC that clueless?

TheRedneck

The whistleblower mentioned multiple 'acts'. The other transcripts I'm referring to are those containing those other 'acts' if they were calls/discussions (which is what I am assuming they were).

The Trump administration is stonewalling by not releasing the others. They have selectively released just this one, as I mentioned already, because prescriptively its the least damning.

So, the threshold for initiating an investigation of the Potus is someone "mentioning" (read making up) acts, that he was not in a position to have had first hand knowledge?

a reply to: Wayfarer



Ummm...so...how else would you define attempting to scry..."the meaning behind the words...and not the words themselves"...

That's all highly subjective...and falls under the aegis of...intent...

But you knew that already...methinks this is red herring day...down at the DNC cafeteria...

Would you like a side of fry's with that...?







YouSir

a reply to: Mach2

I'm sorry, I was being snarky/sarcastic before in that comment (though in retrospect I wasn't obvious about it). I'm using 'matters of state' to reference what seemed a pretty coercive request by Trump. I should have just simply put, if Trump is doing something illegal, then when his attorney gets involved on his behalf, he's also doing something illegal.

www.govinfo.gov... well there was this passed in 1999 when bill clinton was president and biden was the chair for the senate committee on foreign relations

MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE TREATIES Overview I will now comment briefly on the mutual legal assistance treaties with Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Nigeria, Romania, the Russian Federation, South Africa, and Ukraine, as well as the Inter-American Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters with Related Optional Protocol. The Department of Justice will speak on these treaties at greater length. These mutual legal assistance treaties before the Committee are similar to thirty-six bilateral MLATs that have entered into force with countries throughout the world. The U.S. Government's mutual legal assistance treaty program is relatively new when compared with extradition, but has fast become a central aspect of our international law enforcement cooperation program. As a general matter, MLATs obligate the Requested State to provide the Requesting State with certain kinds of evidence, such as documents, records, and testimony, provided that treaty requirements are met. Ratification of the MLATs under consideration today will enhance our ability to investigate and prosecute a variety of crimes, including violent crime, drug trafficking, terrorism, and money laundering and other financial crimes. All of the bilateral MLATs require the Contracting Parties to assist each other in proceedings related to the forfeiture of the proceeds and instrumentalities of criminal activity, to the extent such assistance is permitted by their respective laws. Such assistance may prove invaluable insofar as it is used to deprive criminals, including international drug traffickers and members of organized crime, of the benefits of their criminal activity. The bilateral MLATs also provide that forfeited and seized assets or the proceeds of their sale may be transferred to the other Party. As is the case with all MLATs currently in force, there are exceptions in all of these instruments to the obligation to provide assistance. Although the language varies to a certain extent among the treaties, all of the pending MLATs provide that requests for assistance may be denied if their execution would prejudice the essential interests of the Requested State. All of them also contain a useful provision that ensures that our obligations under the treaty do not interfere with our own domestic law enforcement efforts by providing that the Requested State may postpone assistance if it determines that execution of a request would interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation or proceeding. For all of the treaties, the provisions relating to procedures to be followed in making requests and the type of assistance to be provided are similar tothe other MLATs currently in force.

from the treaty it seems to imply that we have a mutual assistance treaty as far as criminal investigations goes with Ukraine (among others) and seems to imply they(ukraine) is treaty bound to assist us government and DOJ/FBI ETC with criminal investigations so if it has to do with a treaty im pretty sure its well with in the presidents right to ask about potental criminal matters with Ukraine

en.wikipedia.org...

The Treaty Clause is part of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which, upon receiving the advice and consent of a two-thirds supermajority vote of the United States Senate, become binding with the force of federal law.

so as the treaty was allready signed perhaps trump reminded them that this treaty of cooperation existed

I've never seen so many delusional, lying people in all my life. The fact that anyone, ANYONE can read these transcripts and still toe the party line and screeeetch and reeeeeee about impeachment, is not only disgusting, but makes me extremely sad that the human race has sunken so low. The IQ pool is wasted.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer

The whistleblower mentioned multiple 'acts'. The other transcripts I'm referring to are those containing those other 'acts' if they were calls/discussions (which is what I am assuming they were).

Without knowing what those other "acts" were, how can anyone release anything about them? That's simply impossible.

Again, I ask, if the whislteblower (who has, incidentally, been revealed as not having direct knowledge and having a political bias against Trump) announced these other acts, why did the Democrats in the House not immediately demand information on these other acts? Why would they concentrate on trying the "least damning" evidence exclusively?

And why would the whistleblower not lead with these other acts?

Assume for argument a man steals a car, goes on a joyride, crashes it into a group of people, jumps out with a stolen gun and starts mowing down the crowd, engages in a shootout with police, and kills 5 officers. The police charge him with all crimes I mentioned. The Police Chief them holds a news conference and says "The suspect has been charged with speeding and other acts."

How ridiculous is that to lead with the least damning?

TheRedneck

We'd all love to know what the other acts were, but Trump instructed his administration to scuttle the whistleblower request and prevent anyone outside from seeing the other transcripts.

The Dems did in fact demand to see everything, and that's when Trump and co told them to take a long walk off a short pier. The Dems are likely aware that what Trump has released is the least bad for him, and the other unreleased information probably is worse (hence why he doesn't want it out).

The whistleblower complaint calls out all the acts, but since Trump has hidden the complaint and any/all access to it or the relevant transcripts it mentions, we are left to wonder....

It seems like you and I have entirely different sources of whats going on with this, as everything I've read up to this point has explained your queries above.

What an embarrassing time to be an American. The Democrats, have become rabid dogs. I did not see any laws broken in the transcripts. So lemme make sure I am in the same reality as everyone else.

Strong economy check

We are at peace in the world for the most part check

We are building a wall and working on positive immigration law check

Regardless of creed color or religion prosperity under this president is the best it ever has been check

Yet the Democrats are demanding impeachment over what again?

Insanity. Gotta be a fool to believe this bullcrap. The way I see it these loony Democrats are the problem. Only laws i see broken are in regards to the Biden's democrats.

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

I am outta here I dont have any more time to waste on bullcrap I am working.