Donald John Trump is no longer president: what does it mean for you?

Yeah, the BS comparison with child molesting is both overblown and in poor taste... If anything, it shows a lack of understanding in what's at stake here.

The whisteblower ain't some random person pretending they were part of a conversation / witness to a situation that no one else was privvy to. If that was the case, their identity and character would be of the utmost importance. By most accounts, they have no personal involvement in the larger picture. You can't argue Trump was baited or that this was entrapment. That's what makes this basically a moot point.

From what has been released, they're a government employee that had the courage of conviction to report through the proper channels that there is a transcript out there that shows the president may have crossed ethical boundaries.

The evidence itself is NOT the whisteblower's testimony, it's the recording / transcript. It's also in the further investigation and interviews that were conducted with key stakeholders afterwards.

The whisteblower may have set the ball in motion, but they're not a central figure in this investigation. The administration's ongoing effort to oust and smear them is a diversion.

Besides, this is still the preliminary part of the process. The investigation is still underway. Odds are that a significant amount of information will be turned over to the administration if / when formal proceedings get underway.

the fact that there's a lot at stake is what makes it important. it's easy to have a politically motivated person come out as "whistleblower" come in and try to dig into the files and see what scandal can they come up with. you're saying "significant amount of information" will be turned over. what other information? you said the transcript is everything. yet the transcript is iffy at best and if push comes to shove, insufficient to take Trump down. Biden is not only his political opponent, he's the former 2nd in command. he and his his son are both a Politically Exposed Person (financial terminology for someone who is at risk of being implicated in corruption) This is standard stuff. Trump's team will say he's investigating corruption and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. this is part of the smear campaign. It's a known fact that the institutions are all on the D side, so if the "whistleblower" is an FBI agent, it doesn't get any more obvious.

You know that the senate has to approve an impeachment, even if the house approves it, which it probably will, so it won't happen.
 
It's pretty heard to release the person's name when one, if not the most, powerful persons in the nation has pretty much said it's treasonous and should be punished by death.

Had he not played that card, it would have been ever so slightly more likely to happen. This is why you need to think before you tweet, Donald...

Even just now, he's asking on twitter where that person is... That ship has sailed...
the whistle blower becomes a public figure instantly. killing him makes him an instant martyr unlike Assange who is a traitor.

A federal judge has said yesterday that vetted information in the Mueller files may be worthy of impeachment and has turned it over to the dems.
Incorrect. a judge said that all of the information should be sent to the dems. the judge wasn't there to determine whether it's impeachment material or not, but whether it should be accessible. media spun it as "done deal"
There's so much out there, and you guys still claim Thanos did nothing wrong. Why, because media bad?
because see above. they made something out of nothing for the 15th time. if they can't take Trump down, which they won't, the dems are trying to smear Trump to the point where people will be tired of seeing Trump's name and think it's impossible that he hasn't done anything wrong with all these lawsuits (just like you're saying). media bad? media is biased. depends which media you are into. some are pro, some are against.
some of the lawsuits against Trump border on frivolous, but it's part of the smear strategy. it's pretty obvious that there is no Democrat in the running right now, so while they are still looking for their savior, they might as well throw everything at Trump and who knows, maybe something sticks. there's nothing to lose really. 1 year away from an election with no clear candidate doesn't sound good. the dems are hoping that the general feel for Trump will be so bad that they will only need a candidate with a pulse to win. Right now they stand to lose their minds because if nothing changes they'll have 4 more years of trying to find a candidate.
 
the fact that there's a lot at stake is what makes it important. it's easy to have a politically motivated person come out as "whistleblower" come in and try to dig into the files and see what scandal can they come up with. you're saying "significant amount of information" will be turned over. what other information? you said the transcript is everything. yet the transcript is iffy at best and if push comes to shove, insufficient to take Trump down. Biden is not only his political opponent, he's the former 2nd in command. he and his his son are both a Politically Exposed Person (financial terminology for someone who is at risk of being implicated in corruption) This is standard stuff. Trump's team will say he's investigating corruption and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. this is part of the smear campaign. It's a known fact that the institutions are all on the D side, so if the "whistleblower" is an FBI agent, it doesn't get any more obvious.

You know that the senate has to approve an impeachment, even if the house approves it, which it probably will, so it won't happen.

By more information I mean documents generated as part of the complaint/ investigation that the whisteblower set in motion and the testimonies of all the players that were interviewed as a result. The fact this is still moving forward suggests that the information has been corroborated.

You're acting like this is a politically motivated "hit and run" but there's a lot at stake for the whisteblower too. The intelligence committee usually leans to the right; by "stepping out of line" they've put their career at stake over this. Surely not a decision one would take lightly.

I don't give two shits about Biden (much less about his son) or the democrats. You guys can redirect as much as you want, at the end of the day it doesn't change the facts.

You simply can't run a shadow foreign policy and have your personal lawyer act as an agent of the state.

Heck, even Mulvaney slipped and after numerous denials stated that it was quid pro quo.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mulvaney-admits-quid-pro-quo-military-aid-withheld/story?id=66353143
 
By more information I mean documents generated as part of the complaint/ investigation that the whisteblower set in motion and the testimonies of all the players that were interviewed as a result. The fact this is still moving forward suggests that the information has been corroborated.

You're acting like this is a politically motivated "hit and run" but there's a lot at stake for the whisteblower too. The intelligence committee usually leans to the right; by "stepping out of line" they've put their career at stake over this. Surely not a decision one would take lightly.

I don't give two shits about Biden (much less about his son) or the democrats. You guys can redirect as much as you want, at the end of the day it doesn't change the facts.

You simply can't run a shadow foreign policy and have your personal lawyer act as an agent of the state.

Heck, even Mulvaney slipped and after numerous denials stated that it was quid pro quo.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mulvaney-admits-quid-pro-quo-military-aid-withheld/story?id=66353143
I'm willing to bet that this is politically motivated. the whistleblower isn't someone inside Trump's caucus, as a whistleblower should be, it's someone on the outside.

I don't like Trump. I think he's making a mockery of the institution of the POTUS. That being said, he was elected to the office, and the parody couldn't be at a better time. If the masses voted for him, it's because the democrats forgot about Joe Blow except for that special time of year when you have to calculate the taxes. As far as I can see, he's neither the best nor the worst, by a long shot. He's honestly doing much better than I expected him to, and right around par for entertainment. The moment he does something, throw him out. Until then, it's all a big show and I for one am annoyed to see the elite come up with these phony excuses for reasons to throw him out. They are not trying to beat him fair and square, they're like a pack of coyotes trying to bite and run. Trump is not as stupid as the democrats think and say he is. I think he has twice Bush jr.'s IQ. I didn't want Clinton to get impeached, and so far I haven't seen a reason to throw Trump out. The democrats should be on high alert for next year, yet they make it seem like the gaping hole at the top if their party isn't there.
 
All this talk about the whistleblower serves a purpose: undermine and taint the process. That's what is politically motivated about all this talk. Trump decided he'd go balls out so right now he's striking everything that moves while we're all waiting to see what happens next.

The whistleblower allegedly served his country and would have sworn a number of oaths. It's good enough for me. If this was truly a political move it's not that great. The Dems weren't even all onboard at the onset. This is all pretty mild stuff in the grand scheme of things. You go at the king, you best not miss. You can't come up short a year away from the elections. This plays into Trump's style and you couldn't find a better way to motivate his base.

Bush Jr. wasn't that dumb. The "simple texan" persona was a political calculation. It did get him elected... There's video footage of him from "back in the days" and he wasn't acting as a simpleton. Then again, 2019 Trump isn't as sharp as he might have been back then either.
 
the fact that there's a lot at stake is what makes it important. it's easy to have a politically motivated person come out as "whistleblower" come in and try to dig into the files and see what scandal can they come up with. you're saying "significant amount of information" will be turned over. what other information? you said the transcript is everything. yet the transcript is iffy at best and if push comes to shove, insufficient to take Trump down. Biden is not only his political opponent, he's the former 2nd in command. he and his his son are both a Politically Exposed Person (financial terminology for someone who is at risk of being implicated in corruption) This is standard stuff. Trump's team will say he's investigating corruption and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. this is part of the smear campaign. It's a known fact that the institutions are all on the D side, so if the "whistleblower" is an FBI agent, it doesn't get any more obvious.

You know that the senate has to approve an impeachment, even if the house approves it, which it probably will, so it won't happen.

Trump can say he wants to investigate corruption but when you've been wanting to cut billions in funding for that exact purpose that statement holds very little weight.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-p...ams-aimed-fighting-corruption-ukraine-abroad/

The Trump administration has sought repeatedly to cut foreign aid programs tasked with combating corruption in Ukraine and elsewhere overseas, White House budget documents show, despite recent claims from President Trump and his administration that they have been singularly concerned with fighting corruption in Ukraine.

[...]

For example, the administration sought to cut a program called International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement. Among the goals of the program, as described in White House budget documents, is “helping U.S. partners address threats to U.S. interests by building resilience and promoting reform in the justice and law enforcement sectors through support to new institutions and specialized offices, such as Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau and Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office.”

The program directs specific sums of money to individual countries. In 2019, $30 million was directed to Ukraine, after Congress rejected an administration request to cut the sum to $13 million. In its 2020 budget request, released in March, the administration again sought to cut the program’s spending on Ukraine to $13 million. Congress seems likely to once again reject the proposed cut, although lawmakers have yet to agree on any spending bills for the 2020 budget year that began Oct. 1.

In another example, the administration sought to streamline a number of overseas democracy assistance and foreign aid accounts under one larger umbrella called the Economic Support and Development Fund. The White House believed that consolidation would cut those programs by more than $2 billion. This fund, too, is aimed at fighting corruption in countries around the world, among other goals, according to White House budget documents. Spending in Ukraine for the accounts in question was $250 million in 2018; the White House has asked for $145 million in 2020 under the new iteration of the program.

All the institutions are democratic? That's why comey and the FBI reopened the investigation into to Hillary in the weeks before the election, because surely that was going to help her?

Also not to be pedantic, the senate votes on removal, impeachment is a procedure that occurs in the House. You can be impeached and not removed. That's what happened to Bill.
 
Trump can say he wants to investigate corruption but when you've been wanting to cut billions in funding for that exact purpose that statement holds very little weight.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-p...ams-aimed-fighting-corruption-ukraine-abroad/



All the institutions are democratic? That's why comey and the FBI reopened the investigation into to Hillary in the weeks before the election, because surely that was going to help her?

Also not to be pedantic, the senate votes on removal, impeachment is a procedure that occurs in the House. You can be impeached and not removed. That's what happened to Bill.

why exactly should the USA pay to fight corruption in Ukraine (and other places too)? shouldn't those countries try to do that on their own? Trump has cut lots of spending on things that are not really necessary to the USA. The USA used to be the biggest funder of the UN. now the UN is begging for money, but after they put Venezuela on a panel for human rights and saudi arabia for women's rights, why should anyone really care about what they have to say?
I am not from Ukraine, but from a neighboring countries. I can tell you that "anti-corruption" funds generally result in some nice villas and some new cars over $100,000, which amounts to... corruption. it's a bit of a paradox.

when we talk impeachment, we talk about removal. getting impeached and not removed like Bill was amounts to a whole lot time and money thrown out the window.
 
why exactly should the USA pay to fight corruption in Ukraine (and other places too)? shouldn't those countries try to do that on their own? Trump has cut lots of spending on things that are not really necessary to the USA. The USA used to be the biggest funder of the UN. now the UN is begging for money, but after they put Venezuela on a panel for human rights and saudi arabia for women's rights, why should anyone really care about what they have to say?
I am not from Ukraine, but from a neighboring countries. I can tell you that "anti-corruption" funds generally result in some nice villas and some new cars over $100,000, which amounts to... corruption. it's a bit of a paradox.

when we talk impeachment, we talk about removal. getting impeached and not removed like Bill was amounts to a whole lot time and money thrown out the window.

Whether the US should be paying for another country's anti-corruption efforts is entirely dependent on your view of US foreign policy and what's in their "national interest"

Again not to be pedantic, Trump can't cut spending. Historically a president puts out a budget to outline their policies but it's more of a wish list and political document to say "this is what I'd do if I had budgetary control". Congress drafts and appropriates budgets, that's it's single biggest responsibility. Congress decides how much you must spend and on what. That's why Trump had such a hard time finding the money for his Wall and had to find it in a DoD discretionary fund for it.

Although the UN is having trouble with funding, it's not begging for money. It's cash crunched because many member countries haven't paid their dues on time.
 
Abu Bakr was a lame duck. He got fucked up in an airstrike in 2015 and had been mostly an absentee figure for the past 4 years. He wasn't even in charge of ISIS anymore. He got what he had coming, but this ain't a major strategical win by any stretch of the imagination.

This is a playbook diversion. The White House needed a win and tasked the armed forces to deliver a bad guy's head on a platter. Turkey and Russia were OK to see him removed from the face of the earth as well and for the U.S to take the credit. The "tip" probably came from foreign intel (and likely had some strings attached)

Now Trump can sidestep the "why did we leave before the Syrian situation was resolved" by saying they killed the (former) ISIS leader. This brings some sort of closure to the Syrian campaign.
 
Did Obama mispoke "we trained ISIL", like how he mispoke and say "my muslim faith"? This sometimes happens when the brain think one thing but the mouth say another thing.
 
Abu Bakr was a lame duck. He got fucked up in an airstrike in 2015 and had been mostly an absentee figure for the past 4 years. He wasn't even in charge of ISIS anymore. He got what he had coming, but this ain't a major strategical win by any stretch of the imagination.

This is a playbook diversion. The White House needed a win and tasked the armed forces to deliver a bad guy's head on a platter. Turkey and Russia were OK to see him removed from the face of the earth as well and for the U.S to take the credit. The "tip" probably came from foreign intel (and likely had some strings attached)

Now Trump can sidestep the "why did we leave before the Syrian situation was resolved" by saying they killed the (former) ISIS leader. This brings some sort of closure to the Syrian campaign.

So who's the big boss that is not a lame duck?
 
^^
lol, the guy is still right. Trump is full of shit again. All those detailed had come to my mind without this journalist pointing them out.
 
So the White House got in contact with Russia before the raid... but would not let congress know.
Trump's decision not to inform leaders is the latest example of the White House keeping Congress in the dark on foreign policy. U.S. officials, though, did provide a heads-up to Russia and other nations with military forces in the region. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News that he discussed the operation Saturday night with his Russian counterpart.
Trump told reporters Monday he didn't inform the so-called "Gang of Eight" because "Adam Schiff is the biggest leaker in Washington."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-al-baghdadi-raid-1.5337993

Lol... How petty is this.
 
President orange is a dumbass but the little lame bitch died like coward and blew himself up in a tunnel with 3 children.

NeGs2h4.jpg

JJ.jpg

99_jpg-1140489.jpg

88_jpg-1140488.jpg

66_jpg-1140487.jpg
 
Did Obama mispoke "we trained ISIL", like how he mispoke and say "my muslim faith"? This sometimes happens when the brain think one thing but the mouth say another thing.
this is nitpicking. he misspoke. every human will make a mistake every now and then, even when reading a prompter. it means absolutely nothing. Obama did not fund ISIS.
^^
lol, the guy is still right. Trump is full of shit again. All those detailed had come to my mind without this journalist pointing them out.
this is also nitpicking. maybe they saw his face before he blew himself up. maybe he heard it being mentioned in the internal communications. maybe one of the soldiers on the ground said he heard it. in any case, what do you want him to say? this man died with honor, a true patriot? Trump should have stuck with "he was killed in a raid" and not add his dramatic reality TV grain of salt.

ridiculous X2.
 
Back
Top