- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I need some explanation of this transcript
Posted on 9/25/19 at 1:10 pm to EthanL
Posted on 9/25/19 at 1:10 pm to EthanL
quote:
The other problem is Giuiliani. Besides his reckless mouth, he works for the President. He is his personal lawyer. He does not represent the interests of the United States.
He represents and advises the president, so it doesn't seem overly outrageous for him to be in communication with foreign dignitaries.
quote:
If this were truly about the interests of the U.S., Barr should be the one going over there, and he has already said he doesn’t know or didn’t know anything about anything
Maybe he hasn't decided to include Barr just yet. He's already pretty busy right now.
0
Posted on 9/25/19 at 1:25 pm to upgrayedd
How bout we go about it this way . . . you tell us what you think is illegal about The President being involved in the investigation of the illegal activities of a US Citizen already under investigation by The Department of Justice (a department of the Executive Branch)?
Posted on 9/25/19 at 1:27 pm to jawnybnsc
quote:
How bout we go about it this way . . . you tell us what you think is illegal about The President being involved in the investigation of the illegal activities of a US Citizen already under investigation by The Department of Justice (a department of the Executive Branch)?
This is exactly the kind of retarded response I was hoping to avoid. Goddamn, some of you people can't handle the fact that someone wants to ask a legit question in good faith.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 1:33 pm to upgrayedd
So this is the transcript of Trump's very first phone call to Zelensky after he was elected and Trump mentioned Biden how many times?
And this transcript is of a phone call that was made only ONE week after Trump held up the $400 million aid to Ukraine that Congress had already approved.
How many more phone calls did Trump make to Zelensky, and how many other phone calls were made to Zelensky by Giuliani and/or Pence while the $400 million aid to Ukraine was being held up by Trump?
And how many times did Giuliani and/or Pence meet with Zelensky while the $400 million aid to Ukraine was being held up by Trump?
Trump released the $400 aid to Ukraine TWO DAYS after the whistle-blower complaint was made public.
Curious, isn't it?
And this transcript is of a phone call that was made only ONE week after Trump held up the $400 million aid to Ukraine that Congress had already approved.
How many more phone calls did Trump make to Zelensky, and how many other phone calls were made to Zelensky by Giuliani and/or Pence while the $400 million aid to Ukraine was being held up by Trump?
And how many times did Giuliani and/or Pence meet with Zelensky while the $400 million aid to Ukraine was being held up by Trump?
Trump released the $400 aid to Ukraine TWO DAYS after the whistle-blower complaint was made public.
Curious, isn't it?
Posted on 9/25/19 at 1:33 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
It does sound like he's asking for a Ukrainian investigation here. I'm unfamiliar with the Crowdstrike issue as well. Is this legal?
It is absolutely legal to ask a government involved in our election process, investigated by the US already to continue to investigate their involvement and connections to the US, given our limited ability to do so.
quote:
It also sounds like he's asking the guy to investigate the Biden situation. Again, is this legal?
I do not believe there is any illegality into asking someone to check out criminal activity by a US citizen.
If the name was mitt romney, instead, would there be a legal issue. They are framing this as election interference. Much like he said to Russia, if you have the emails, send them over. Interestingly enough, they may have them..
Posted on 9/25/19 at 1:33 pm to texridder
quote:
Curious, isn't it?
Feel free to tell us what actually happened, tex
Posted on 9/25/19 at 1:34 pm to texridder
I need to know how many front doors Ukraine has before I pass judgement
Posted on 9/25/19 at 1:35 pm to texridder
quote:
So this is the transcript of Trump's very first phone call to Zelensky after he was elected and Trump mentioned Biden how many times?
And this transcript is of a phone call that was made only ONE week after Trump held up the $400 million aid to Ukraine that Congress had already approved.
How many more phone calls did Trump make to Zelensky, and how many other phone calls were made to Zelensky by Giuliani and/or Pence while the $400 million aid to Ukraine was being held up by Trump?
And how many times did Giuliani and/or Pence meet with Zelensky while the $400 million aid to Ukraine was being held up by Trump?
Trump released the $400 aid to Ukraine TWO DAYS after the whistle-blower complaint was made public.
Curious, isn't it?
Posted on 9/25/19 at 1:36 pm to texridder
quote:
Trump released the $400 aid to Ukraine TWO DAYS after the whistle-blower complaint was made public.
Curious, isn't it?
Can you actually credibly confirm the dates you are discussing above? I'm not saying they are not true, just not what I understand it to be.
I know the state department was involved and asked Rudy to be involved.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 1:36 pm to texridder
quote:
Curious, isn't it?
Nope
Posted on 9/25/19 at 1:37 pm to upgrayedd
quote:When the DNC server was "hacked" Debbie Whatshernameshultz would not turn the server over to the FBI to "investigate" the hacking. She turned it over to a third party-Crowdstrike to investigate.
Crowdstrike (still not familiar with that issue)?
Posted on 9/25/19 at 1:39 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
You understand that simply saying the word "reciprocal" doesn't mean that he's asking for some sort of nefarious reciprocity (QPQ), right? Context is pretty important.
Yes...should be clear from the context of my first post.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 1:40 pm to cwill
So why did you even bring it up?
Posted on 9/25/19 at 1:43 pm to GumboPot
quote:
In terms of the European Union.
He mentions it in regard to the US, too. He sets it up by referencing the EU.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 1:45 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
So why did you even bring it up?
Because the context isn't clear, it's troubling, and, as I mentioned in my first post, some context could be gained through the pre-call briefings. It may be nothing or it could be something, but I think you can't just dismiss it out of hand.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 1:47 pm to cwill
quote:
Because the context isn't clear, it's troubling
You're simply grabbing on to throw away lines. That statement was benign. Other statements could be used as an argument, but certainly not that one.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 1:55 pm to dafif
quote:This is basic stuff. What dates do you think are off?
Can you actually credibly confirm the dates you are discussing above? I'm not saying they are not true, just not what I understand it to be.
quote:I'm not sure the state department was involved. The only one alleging the state dept was involved was Trump.
I know the state department was involved and asked Rudy to be involved.
Do you have confirmation that the state dept was involved other than from Trump?
Posted on 9/25/19 at 1:56 pm to upgrayedd
quote:I don't think requesting an investigation and offering assistance is illegal in and of itself, especially since he at least provided a legal justification. I do find offering Rudy's assistance strange, but completely reasonable to offer the Barr's.
It also sounds like he's asking the guy to investigate the Biden situation. Again, is this legal?
Where the legal issue comes into play is if their assistance was a contingency to receive something in return, specifically something that he was not allowed to use as a contingency (like appropriate funds).
Obviously this memo (specifically says it's not a transcript) does not provide evidence of that contingency; however, there are three places where they placed ellipsis during Trump portions of it. And one of the reasons to do that is to show that portions were omitted, which based on how different the conversation was before and after them, appears to be the case. If so, I'm curious what was omitted.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 1:57 pm to texridder
quote:
Curious, isn't it?
Posted on 9/25/19 at 1:58 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Curious, isn't it?
quote:
Nope
Spoken like a true believer who has a debilitating case of Trump Authoritarian Syndrome.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News