Didn't he just release one transcript?


Oh, so he *did* execute E.P. You should try making up your mind. And what makes you think the president can say ANYTHING that would require E.P. unless it's a call that directly deals with military strategy? Nothing else a president says requires secrecy. He is not an investigator or a spy he is a head of state. If he is having secret conversations with other heads of state then he is the wrong person to have on the call.


Yeah about things he doesn't want the American people to know about. There is no reason why a conversation between two heads of state would ever be secret. I understand the military exception but that exception should be handled between heads of states and their generals or between generals of allied nations. Again, there is no reason for two heads of state to have secret conversations unless they are hiding things from their own people.


They're probably right. If a president is keeping his calls secret, then yes - he is hiding something.


That doesn't mean the absolute highest power in the land, the people, can't figure out that the president who serves the people is abusing that privilege and their representatives in government have every right to call him out on it.


Of what?


Yes, we do... 10 counts of obstruction from Mueller's report alone and that's just related to the Russian interference in our 2016 election. There is an abundance of proven violations of the constitution, especially the emoluments clause. The issue is not whether or not Trump is guilty of crime, we know he is. The issues is whether or not the government is willing to prosecute the president.

If a president gets away with murder it doesn't mean the murder didn't actually happen. ;)


Of course... This is what happens when you have a dictator-wanna-be colluding with other heads of state and trading in the interests of his own people for his own personal interests.

What does any of that matter?

...you know Trump can't do anything on his own.

There is no reason why it can't happen. Even with a Senate confirmation being so unlikely for now, it won't always be. Technically, the POTUS is a life-long title. We have several presidents. It's just that we only have one sitting president at a time. So technically a president can be impeached 10 years after he leaves office. As a result he is striped of the title and all it's life-long privileges, including $400,000 per year - AND he can never run for public office again.

I think there is value in making an example of him. It's not often we get a president that makes it this easy.

careful there sweetheart. ;)


$1000? Any ideas how we can secure this bet while maintaining anonymity? Maybe we can sticky-post it and just call it a grand.

Just to be clear, we are talking about after he is no longer presiding over our republic, when he can no longer seek executive privilege. No limits on time. If it takes them 10 years, so be it.

Still interested?

That's a really good question. I want to say no on the assumption that the founders had substantial reason for making a confirmation process a constitutional requirement. But that's a snowflake of an idea in this swirling fire of rhetorical warfare and government dysfunction today.

ahem... the wish department is down the hall.

Guliani is not employed by the government. Technically, he is a private contractor. The crazy thing is Guliani is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

If you think the Democrats are hurting for things to get Trump on, you are way off the mark. If they wanted to they could bring Trumps entire cabinet into question because NONE of them have been confirmed by Congress which is a constitutional requirement. That puts ALL their activity under scrutiny and given the extent to which the Trump Administration has cut off Congress and ruled the country on executive orders alone... I'm betting high that some legal lines have been crossed.

Mueller's findings were shit-canned because the president is being protected from the law. I guarantee you that if Trump is voted out in 2020 and becomes subject to law again, Mueller's findings will be instrumental in Trumps conviction.

LOL - I've never actually seen a sentient alien toe fungus but it does sound far less repulsive than Trump or Pence.

What's the matter Mike..? Can't figure out how to respond to my logic? LOL

OK, stop right there... Thousands of years of crime has taught us not to expect criminals to be obvious. This is why we have investigations. As the character Sherlock Holmes often illustrated, what we learn about crime is often revealed through active deduction, not passively waiting for criminals to make themselves obvious.

Of course Trump didn't make the threat to Zelenskyy obvious - he didn't need to. All he needed to do is remind Zelenskyy how generous the U.S. has been and that no one else (ie, Germany) is offering the same help, (which he did). The immediate segue into the request for a favor makes the conditions obvious enough for anyone to see... unless they don't WANT to see it - in which case, I suppose the only thing they have left to do is pretend crimes don't exist unless surrounded by neon signs and the criminal himself is selling tickets for all to see.

You folks need to stop trying to defend that piece of trash and start looking for someone else to represent you in the 2020 elections.

First of all, I want to applaud your effort to bring substance to this conversation. Pointing out this document is by far the most intelligent thing anyone on your side has offered. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I read enough to notice a few things...

1. The document you linked to is actually not the treaty itself but a 1999 letter from President Clinton to the Senate asking them to consider the ratification of the treaty. This wasn't actually done until the following year.
2. When the Senate DID ratify the treaty they set some limitations including this proviso...

(2) Supremacy of the Constitution.- Nothing in this Treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America that is prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States.

And the U.S.Constitution states in Article II, section 4 that...
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Then there is the transcript of the conversation provided by the Trump administration itself that makes it very clear that Trump was indeed bribing president Zelenskyy into complying with his request.

In case you or anyone else needs help...

bribery: verb - to persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement.

So... given the evidence... Trump bribed the president of Ukraine, which is a violation of the U.S.Constitution, which invalidates the treaty you apparently though was Trump's latest "Get out of Jail" card.

But seriously, thank you for at least challenging me.

Reading the transcript really clears this up zoo... You should try it.

When a president of a country in desperate need of help talks to the president of the U.S. he is NOT going to say anything to piss him off. That's would be biting the hand that feeds. He certainly isn't going to report that he was being pressured. But if you read the transcript you might notice it only covered three things... a congratulations on Zelensky's election, a confirmation of the Ukraine's dependency on U.S. aid and the favor Trump asked for.

So it doesn't matter what Zelensky says at this point, the pressure is obvious to anyone who understands the context and so is the case for impeachment.

Oh, and if you want to see a weak case for impeachment all you have to do is turn back the pages to when Republicans impeached Clinton for having an affair, which is actually not a violation of the constitution, nor did it involve the use of public funds as a bargaining chip for negotiating with foreign governments for personal gain.

LOL


LOL

Seems like the Trump groupies are a little agitated by all this. I guess all one needs to do is say they read the report and make some abstract comments about it then sit back and watch the groupies make fools of themselves in a desperate attempt to deny everything.

"Second-hand report" That's a good one... The whistleblower's report is technically the farthest possible thing from "second-hand".

And Donald... peg actually prefaced her post with "this is what struck me". That's not exactly asserting facts - so are you just practicing your denial skills?

I just read the transcript of the actual conversation as provided by the White House and here's the odd thing... The request to have Ukraine investigate Biden is actually right there in plain site. So the basic allegation in the whistle-blower report is actually confirmed as of yesterday when the transcript was released. So we may as well call that a fact. Gulliani's role is also exposed in the transcript, so that's a confirmed fact too.

I'm saying it's odd because I wouldn't think the Trump Administration would be so quick to release such a condemning transcript, but if you follow Gulliani's discussions with the media, it becomes clear that he just doesn't see the problem. He actually thinks it's OK to use presidential power to solicit foreign governments for dirt on political opponents. I'm guessing Trump doesn't see the problem either - or maybe they are pretending not to see the problem.

This might not be a dispute over facts as much as a dispute over what a president is allowed to do which will be a losing battle for Trump because unlike his finite base of unquestioning loyalty, most Americans are still in favor of a limited government with checks and balances.