Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Raptor Witness

Trump’s Loose Lips with Ukraine

2,642 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ExpandMyMind

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/

I give this thread 24 hours, tops.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
DieChecker
14 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Is there then a good explanation of why President Obama offered an apology, and multiple people resigned? Simply political prrssure??

Just because a check over a longer time span showed equal treatment does not show there was no attempt. And it is the attempt, apparently (See Trump impeachment) whichis the real crime. 

Otherwise why did people resign and Obsma appologize?

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
10 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

Reminds me of Grandma Waters and her incitements, multiple times, on national TV, to violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
15 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Is there then a good explanation of why President Obama offered an apology, and multiple people resigned? Simply political prrssure??

Just because a check over a longer time span showed equal treatment does not show there was no attempt. And it is the attempt, apparently (See Trump impeachment) whichis the real crime. 

Otherwise why did people resign and Obsma appologize?

The lawsuit. The IRS used their resources inappropriately for sure. What they didn't do was use those resources inappropriately in a left /right biased manner. Or to juxtapose with Trump/Ukraine it wasn't done for the personal gain of the officeholder. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

CNN: READ: Adam Schiff's opening statement in the impeachment hearing.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/politics/adam-schiff-impeachment-hearing-opening-statement/index.html

I can see some bias in the statement, with the exact wording, but most of the facts are correct it seems.

Apparently the required "Public Statement" on "corruption" was from an assumption by Sondland?

Quote

In a sworn declaration after Taylor's testimony, Sondland would admit to telling the Ukrainians at a September 1st meeting in Warsaw "that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks."

Closing statement...

Quote

This is what we believe the testimony will show — both as to the President's conduct and as to his obstruction of Congress. The issue that we confront is the one posed by the President's Acting Chief of Staff when he challenged Americans to "get over it." If we find that the President of the United States abused his power and invited foreign interference in our elections, or if he sought to condition, coerce, extort, or bribe an ally into conducting investigations to aid his reelection campaign and did so by withholding official acts — a White House meeting or hundreds of millions of dollars of needed military aid — must we simply "get over it?" Is that what Americans should now expect from their president? If this is not impeachable conduct, what is? Does the oath of office itself -- requiring that our laws be faithfully executed, that our president defend a constitution that balances the powers of its branches, setting ambition against ambition so that we become no monarchy -- still have meaning?

I'd vote for get over it. I believe the swamp dwellers who say it happens all the time. Schift and Pekisi both know this, but has decided this is their "last best hope" to give Trump a black eye before the elections. Entirely and completely partisan and political in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

The lawsuit. The IRS used their resources inappropriately for sure. What they didn't do was use those resources inappropriately in a left /right biased manner. Or to juxtapose with Trump/Ukraine it wasn't done for the personal gain of the officeholder. 

I'd agree to the point Obama didnt order anything, but I do believe, still, that the official in charge meant to attempt to cause political damages to one, or both, sides of the political equation. And that the motivation would be a desire to preserve Obama's presidency. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

CNN: READ: Adam Schiff's opening statement in the impeachment hearing.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/politics/adam-schiff-impeachment-hearing-opening-statement/index.html

I can see some bias in the statement, with the exact wording, but most of the facts are correct it seems.

Apparently the required "Public Statement" on "corruption" was from an assumption by Sondland?

Closing statement...

I'd vote for get over it. I believe the swamp dwellers who say it happens all the time. Schift and Pekisi both know this, but has decided this is their "last best hope" to give Trump a black eye before the elections. Entirely and completely partisan and political in nature.

This is exactly how the swamp is formed , filled and expanded however. 

"Yeah it's dirty but it's my guy so it's ok "

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
On 11/9/2019 at 11:20 PM, DieChecker said:

It wasn't criminal changes he was supposedly being saved from, but rather possible financial loss, if the company folded, or was sold off, or seized. At least that is the arguement as I've read it.

Well, he is supposed to be a smart man from his dossier.  He was being paid big bucks to sit on the board, hopefully he took it in cash and not stock options.  Did he have an investment in the company?  If so, he might be at risk, but on the other hand that can explain quite nicely his membership on the board.  

With a Ukrainian oil company on his CV, finding another position might be easy.  Even Rex Tillerson might put in a good word for him. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
On 11/10/2019 at 4:19 AM, DieChecker said:

I'd disagree, the whole story would not have ever made news other the the "Whistleblower" coming forward. How can it be said Trump did it to fuel his base, when the base had no idea it went on?

Now, that perhaps Trump wanted this to be a Gotcha in some debate, I'd say is possible.

Well now it is just what is in the testimony, but the notion is that President Trump asked for the President of the Ukraine to make a public announcement of an investigation, not conduct a secret announcement.  

If there had been no "Whistleblower" then  Zelensky might have come forward and said his country was Investigating the Bidens and the claim that it was the Ukraine and not Russia that tried to meddle in the 2016 election.

That would have cast doubt on Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton even if it was only a speech and no investigation at all.  It would have been vindication for Trump, weakening of a chief rival, and I would say that would probably fire up his base and make for some exciting rallys.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
On 11/12/2019 at 6:23 AM, RoofGardener said:

sadly, I can't read the article as it demands I remove my add-blocker

Don't do it man.  Build that firewall.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Otherwise why did people resign and Obsma appologize?

Maybe because he was made aware of a problem that was happening on his watch and corrected it.  Although not everybody does it, some people do apologize.

He didn't apologize for refusing to give lethal aid to the Ukraine while Russia was invading, nor any of the consequences that followed.  That has had some major repercussions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
16 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Maybe because he was made aware of a problem that was happening on his watch and corrected it.  Although not everybody does it, some people do apologize.

Yeah, but according to Farmer there was never a problem. It was all political theater, he says.

Yet Obama did appologize. Meaning a significant amount of his aids/advisors must have thought there was something to the story. In other words, they thought is certainly COULD have happened.

Quote

He didn't apologize for refusing to give lethal aid to the Ukraine while Russia was invading, nor any of the consequences that followed.  That has had some major repercussions.

True. I thought the US should have helped Ukraine back when the Russians first seized the Crimea. To me that is like Mexico seizing Texas. I'd expect our allies to help out in such a situation.

Trump should not have done what he did. At least not in the way he did it. I will agree to that. Whether that is worth impeachment... I think is a bad idea. Every little scandal going forward, for any, and all, presidents are going to have the threat of impeachment hanging over them now. I can imagine a president like Warren being impeached a half dozen times. It will not be a matter of IF, but of how many... Very Sad, if you as me.

All for political Revenge, if you ask me. A very low point in American politics for ALL INVOLVED, IMHO.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
DieChecker
34 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

That would have cast doubt on Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton even if it was only a speech and no investigation at all.  It would have been vindication for Trump, weakening of a chief rival, and I would say that would probably fire up his base and make for some exciting rallys.

As an aside...

People say Trump in no 3D chessplayer. But, going off Schift's statement today...

We're to believe Trump started to act against Biden starting in January, almost four months before Biden declared his candidacy. And then, singlehandedly, against all his advisors, maintained contacts with Ukraine and kept pressure on. Even unilaterally withholding aid, again against his advisors. And would have got away with it if not for the "Whistleblower".

How 3D chess is that?

What has he been doing to get Warren, or Sanders, or Mayor Pete? Surely he's been as active with them, and simply hasnt been caught.

The man is Smart, if overly direct. People call him dumb, but they are the dumb ones if they let themselves believe that.

If Trump decided to game the system, rather then be the "bull in a chinashop" on everything, he'd be unstoppable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

As an aside...

People say Trump in no 3D chessplayer. But, going off Schift's statement today...

We're to believe Trump started to act against Biden starting in January, almost four months before Biden declared his candidacy. And then, singlehandedly, against all his advisors, maintained contacts with Ukraine and kept pressure on. Even unilaterally withholding aid, again against his advisors. And would have got away with it if not for the "Whistleblower".

How 3D chess is that?

What has he been doing to get Warren, or Sanders, or Mayor Pete? Surely he's been as active with them, and simply hasnt been caught.

The man is Smart, if overly direct. People call him dumb, but they are the dumb ones if they let themselves believe that.

If Trump decided to game the system, rather then be the "bull in a chinashop" on everything, he'd be unstoppable. 

President Trump is an absolute genius in his field, public relations with himself as the product.   Nobody should underestimate that quality.  Dull boring people, no matter how smart or truthful simply do not make as much of an impression as one who seems flashy, self-possessed, confident, and successful.  The funny part is, it doesn't really matter if it is all a fake it  until you make it act; it still works.

Not very likely that President Trump was concerned with Joe Biden in January.

But he has had a thorn in his side that might have been bothering him since 2016.  Russian meddling in the US election, the possible ego damage of Hillary getting more popular votes legitimately, and the email server with possibly damning Hillary reveals.  I can't read his mind, but he has talked about that more than once.  Way back in about that time frame, Paul Manafort was being exposed  as on the take from the outgoing  Ukrainian  president in some irregular dealings.  Along comes Rudy with a genuine desire to help the president, but maybe a chance to help himself and a couple of friends too. Rudy in an effort to protect Donald Trump put out that the Ukrainians did that to embarrass Donald Trump and help Hillary.

Rudy met with the Ukrainian foreign minister twice in late 2018 and early 2019.      Maybe chasing the lost server and other evidence that it was the Ukraine that meddled in the US election and not Russia.  Rudy has a couple of friends that are loyal  Republican donors and know their way around the Ukraine.  They wanted to get rid of the ambassador who was seen as an impediment to their business aims. That is the stuff that was going on in 2018- early 2019.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
4 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Well now it is just what is in the testimony, but the notion is that President Trump asked for the President of the Ukraine to make a public announcement of an investigation, not conduct a secret announcement.  

If there had been no "Whistleblower" then  Zelensky might have come forward and said his country was Investigating the Bidens and the claim that it was the Ukraine and not Russia that tried to meddle in the 2016 election.

That would have cast doubt on Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton even if it was only a speech and no investigation at all.  It would have been vindication for Trump, weakening of a chief rival, and I would say that would probably fire up his base and make for some exciting rallys.

If Trump's rallies get any more exciting, his proponents will be driving home in wet pants.

Harte

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

What has he been doing to get Warren, or Sanders, or Mayor Pete? Surely he's been as active with them, and simply hasnt been caught.

The man is Smart, if overly direct. People call him dumb, but they are the dumb ones if they let themselves believe that.

If Trump decided to game the system, rather then be the "bull in a chinashop" on everything, he'd be unstoppable. 

I don't believe the President thought the other three were credible threats,  He has been quite dismissive of them all.  He has out ,maneuvered Bernie since 2016.  The whole Pocahontas thing was a masterful stroke.  It sent Elizabeth Warren scrambling for a DNA test then an apology when most Indians felt that didn't cut the mustard. Mayor Pete is trailing.  He has already painted him as Howdy Doody in the minds of some.  

Not everybody has skeletons in their closet, but the President is a genius at sniffing out weakness and exploiting it.  A mole on your nose you are sensitive about?  He will waste no time in pointing it out to everybody, calling it ugly and disgusting.   It gives him advantage.

President Trump has gamed the system all his life, even by his own admission. He is proud enough about how much a rich guy can get away with when dealing with women, you have heard him brag about that.  He faked his way into the fortune 500 by overstating his earnings and understating his debts.  Reason being?  Status and more business opportunities open up for a guy on the fortune 500 list.    Gaming his charity and inauguration committee for personal funds?  Apparently  Inflating his grades and reputation at Wharton business school?  Who knows.

Most of that stuff is not illegal.  Some would call it smart business, some would say it is gaming the system.

The $64 dollar question is not whether he will continue to game the system, but whether he will do it for the country or for himself.  Guess we will see.

.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
4 hours ago, Harte said:

If Trump's rallies get any more exciting, his proponents will be driving home in wet pants.

Harte

Considering the demographics at those rallies its a safe bet that a decent percentage already are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.