So Who Did Trump Sell Us Out To? The Intelligence Agency Whistle-blower Scandal.

[Felya]

I support trump. But I think this is it. Impeachment will go on. He won't get reelected unfortunately and the collapse of USA will have begun.

Don’t worry. The last democrat president got us out of a recession and into a booming economy, that made Trump’s 15% tax cut on corporations possible. He had a deal with Iran, instead of sending troops to protect Saudi Oil from Iran. The democrat before that, actually left office with a balanced budget, excluding interest on existing debt. With the economy so good, that the following Republican President, gave the biggest tax cut to the wealthy in history. It was also the last time US wasn’t in a war.

In all 3 of those cases, the most embarrassing moments for US, caused by the president’s personality, was likely Clinton’s sex life and Bush’s unintentional comedic timing. Both of which get challenged by Trump on a regular basis. As you said your self, this is the straw that breaks the impeachment back... but... is it really? It might be the first time I see it from someone supporting Trump... but, I see people say it every week.

Every week a new scandal results in someone predicting impeachment. One one hand, that should give you solace in Trump likely shrugging this off. Like a secret meeting with Russians, before applying sanctions he has set on for 6 months. Why would this be any different? But... I hope there is at least a little voice in the back of your mind, asking how you can trust a man like that. I’m not going to change your perspective, but give that little voice a little more attention. What scandal is coming next week? When is it enough already? To paraphrase a comedy article... “What does a man have to do, to get impeached in this day and age?” - Nixon, from hell.

Even in this case. If your feelings are about impeachment being assured is related to the gravity of the incident. What if it results in nothing? Would this frame other incidents, with similar ire and result, in a different context? If trading aid, for election help, isn’t punished... how far do we push the power of the president to get away with everything? When does supporting Trump, become a problem, due to his consolidation of power and subversion of standards and practices? Bernie is already saying some stuff, I bet you wouldn’t like, while claiming he would push it through, using Trump’s tact in shifting legislative power to him self. What are the odds that a president wielding the power Trump has sucked up, is elected and you don’t support them?

Ah I don't care if he is or isn't. But democrats will destroy the country with their insane socialist shit.

Never trust Trump... not saying it just as a politics thing, but someone who grew up in NYC in the 90s, to see this shit show in it’s full elitist glory. From his investors and banks, to his biggest supporters that paid to go to Trump university. Never trust Trump. From all of his wives to his former doctor. Never trust Trump.

[Edge-]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...box=1569333429

I love how he just openly admits his crimes and lies.

"There was no call, FAKE NEWS!"

"Ok so there was a call, but it was all super proper I swear!"

"Ok, so we may have talked about Biden, but there was so much corruption! That was it though!"

"Ok, so I did withhold aide to them and threaten to continue doing so unless they supported me and attacked a political rival. Anyone would do that, so what?!"

Democrats need to start throwing people in jail until they see the whistleblower report. Now.

[Belize]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...box=1569333429

I love how he just openly admits his crimes and lies.

"There was no call, FAKE NEWS!"

"Ok so there was a call, but it was all super proper I swear!"

"Ok, so we may have talked about Biden, but there was so much corruption! That was it though!"

"Ok, so I did withhold aide to them and threaten to continue doing so unless they supported me and attacked a political rival. Anyone would do that, so what?!"

Democrats need to start throwing people in jail until they see the whistleblower report. Now.

At this point, people need to start spitballing at the wall, just to see what Trump will admit to.

[Breccia]

At this point, people need to start spitballing at the wall, just to see what Trump will admit to.

Actually...that thought had occurred to me. What if this was already happening?

Now, this case is a bad example. Whistleblowing is serious enough, but the ICIG isn't there to troll the White House.

But I remember an old story, where someone sent out a bunch of letters to a bunch of businessmen or stockbrokers or whoever "They know everything, run while you can!" The story ends with a bunch of people fleeing their offices, sometimes jumping out the window.

So imagine if, hypothetically, Cohen said "On Friday I will release a document from June 2016 that proves Trump committed a felony." If Trump knows for a fact he spent all June 2016 sitting on his giant obese fat ass watching TV, he'd just shrug that off. But if major news sources took that statement and tried analyzing it, and said

"Well it could be about the porn star he cheated on his wife with."
"No, it involves Cohen and a document, it must be the NDA."
"It could be the campaign funds illegally used."
"Wasn't Trump in Indiana then? It could be that air conditioner company. Maybe he offered them something in exchange for being a carnival sideshow attraction?"
"I DID NOT BIGLY BRIBE ANY AIR CONDITIONER COMPANY! FAKE NEWS! And if I did it was just investing!"
"..."

Well, we know what the real answer is, don't we?

[cubby]

I'm sorry cubby, I agree with you a lot, but you're wrong here.

Who gives a fuck what Trump says at this point? I mean seriously, even if ti went through he'd lie about it. You're playing scared and you have to quit worrying about Trump's base. They are NEVER going to change their minds. He said it himself, he could murder someone in the street and it wouldn't affect his voters.

All that matters is the moderates. That's it. They protest voted Trump in because they were upset about status quo politicians being corrupt. Nothing would be a bigger sign of that changing then signing your name to the impeachment, letting the corrupt Repubs block it and putting someone through that isn't Biden.

And I agree about getting something with signatures saying yay/nay to Trump's corruption - I think that document would be very valuable.

I also agree with you that Trump's base will never change. They not only drank the kool-aid, they went back for seconds. And they're chuggers.

You make an interesting point re moderates - and I agree that they are all that matter in this election (that and getting the Dem base out in droves, something Abrams as VP would do quite nicely). An Impeachment document would be a sign of the times 'a changin'. Hmmmmm.... I share @Skroe's point of view that of the leading Dem candidates, only Biden has the ability to draw in those moderates we really need (i.e. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania - the states Trump won by a small margin and that are key to winning the EC in 2020).

Warren worries me because she is almost too progressive for the field we need to conquer. I like her, a lot. But me liking her doesn't mean that the welder in Wisconsin is going to vote for the 50-point plan of whatever that she keeps touting. To me it's a strategy of winning those people, taking the White House (and maybe the Senate), and righting the ship, getting the Commission up and running, and then having someone from the next generation take the reins (Abrams for instance).

Sanders isn't even a conversation. He's nutty. He looks nutty. And everyone who matters in this election thinks he's a socialist. Is that fair? No. Is politics fair? No.

[Bodakane]

And I agree about getting something with signatures saying yay/nay to Trump's corruption - I think that document would be very valuable.

I also agree with you that Trump's base will never change. They not only drank the kool-aid, they went back for seconds. And they're chuggers.

You make an interesting point re moderates - and I agree that they are all that matter in this election (that and getting the Dem base out in droves, something Abrams as VP would do quite nicely). An Impeachment document would be a sign of the times 'a changin'. Hmmmmm.... I share @Skroe's point of view that of the leading Dem candidates, only Biden has the ability to draw in those moderates we really need (i.e. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania - the states Trump won by a small margin and that are key to winning the EC in 2020).

Warren worries me because she is almost too progressive for the field we need to conquer. I like her, a lot. But me liking her doesn't mean that the welder in Wisconsin is going to vote for the 50-point plan of whatever that she keeps touting. To me it's a strategy of winning those people, taking the White House (and maybe the Senate), and righting the ship, getting the Commission up and running, and then having someone from the next generation take the reins (Abrams for instance).

Sanders isn't even a conversation. He's nutty. He looks nutty. And everyone who matters in this election thinks he's a socialist. Is that fair? No. Is politics fair? No.

Biden is has the same main problem Hillary did....he's a longtime politician. That's what moderates don't want.

Virtually anyone but Clinton would have crushed Trump last time and the same thing this time with Biden.

Playing safe let Repubs put Trump in office and destroy the SCOTUS.

Shift the paradigm.

[Breccia]

"Ok, so I did withhold aide to them and threaten to continue doing so unless they supported me and attacked a political rival. Anyone would do that, so what?!"

We're not there yet. But we're close.

Trump in his own words, in public

President Trump confirmed to reporters at the UN General Assembly on Tuesday that he withheld almost $400 million in military aid to Ukraine, but claimed that he did so to force other European nations to contribute.

"I want other countries to put up money. I think it's unfair that we put up the money. Then people called me, they said 'Oh, let it go.' And I let it go. We paid the money. The money was paid. But very importantly, Germany, France, other countries should put up money. And that's been my complaint from the beginning."

Bolded for emphasis.

See, here's the thing: Mr. Best Bigly Memory Ever forgot that, despite his claims about the hurricane, he doesn't actually have time travel.

There is no message from the WH at the time in question that suggests what Trump said is true. These other countries would be more likely to help, if Trump had actually asked them.

Let's review the timeline:

July 13, 2019: Trump flat-out tells ABC News that, if a foreign country offered dirt on a political rival, he would absolutely accept it.

I think you might want to listen, there isn't anything wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent' -- oh, I think I'd want to hear it

July 18, 2019: DoD announces plans to provide aid to Ukraine, including money for "sniper rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and counter-artillery radars"

Sometime before August 3: Aid is put on hold. Trump has admitted this. Here's the thing: we don't know when. It was done behind closed doors, and not even Congress was told the reason. This immediately invalidates Trump's defense. If he wanted other countries to help, why did he block the aid and say absolutely nothing to even his own government?

We know the aid was finally given Sept 12 due to pushback from Congress. We know that foreign aid was being blocked in August but don't know the time Ukraine specifically was mentioned. The story, at the time, was that cutting foreign aid was about spending too much.

"The president has been clear that there is fat in our foreign assistance and we need to be wise about where U.S. money is going,” said a senior administration official. “Which is why he asked the administration to look into options to doing just that. It’s clear that there are those on the Hill who aren’t willing to join in curbing wasteful spending

That is an anonymous official, true, but there are official lines too including from Trump about spending too much. Where is Trump saying "Ukraine is corrupt" like he tried earlier this week? Where is Trump saying "Other countries should help too" like he said today? Can anyone find it? June 18 2019 to Sept 12 2019 isn't a lot of time for such statements to happen.

And we're not done yet.

July 25, 2019: Trump is known to make a call to the Ukrainian President. It's strongly believed this is the call in question, as such a call would 100% be monitored.

July 28, 2019: Dan Coats resigns or is fired.

Aug 3, 2019: OMB writes a letter to Congress, saying that the aid is being put on hold. The letter is not Ukraine specific. The letter does not mention corruption or other countries. The letter is about funding.

Aug 8, 2019: Trump nominates Maguire. Coats calls his deputy during a meeting and asked her to resign. She does.

Aug 12, 2019: Whistleblower reports to ICIG.

Aug 26, 2019: ICIG reports to Maguire.

Sept 2, 2019: A week passes. By law, Maguire blew the deadline, by not reporting the whisteblower to the House and Senate.

Sept 9, 2019: Two weeks have passed. ICIG goes to Congress directly.

Sept 10, 2019: Schiff writes to Maguire, demanding the whistleblower info.

Sept 11, 2019: Trump's hold on the Ukraine funds suddenly ends. Trump adds $141 million to it. Also Bolton resigns, which could possibly be related, but I don't think that's the case. Feel free to opine otherwise.

Sept 13, 2019: Schiff subpoenas Maguire.

Sept 16, 2019: Three weeks have passed. ICIG goes to Congress again.

Sept 18, 2019: WaPo breaks story.

Sept 19, 2019: Maguire talks to HIC behind closed doors. Schiff is unimpressed, saying Maguire did not give the relevant info, and that he believes the relevant info is being intentionally withheld.

I believe that there is an effort to prevent this information getting to Congress, and if the assertion is accurate that the Department of Justice has made and the DNI has affirmed, that this involves a potentially privileged communication, then at one level or another, likely involves either president or people around him

We're basically caught up.

There's a 1974 law we've discussed before called recission.

Legislation passed in 1974 and signed into law by President Richard Nixon allows the president to put a 45-day hold on already-passed funding and ask that Congress rescind particular items — a process known as "rescission." It only requires a majority vote to pass in each chamber and therefore is not subject to a 60-vote threshold in the Senate. If Congress doesn't act on the request within the 45 days, however, the money is released again.

I do not believe Trump used this, but I could be wrong. If he did, the timeline started with the Aug 3 letter and Sept 11 it was about to expire anyhow. However, other than the Aug 3 letter about costs, I can find nothing before this week (no time travel) that says Trump said anything about other countries, or anything about corruption, when withholding aid. I cannot find anything Ukraine specific from that limited time frame, either.

"I want other countries to put up money. I think it's unfair that we put up the money. Then people called me, they said 'Oh, let it go.' And I let it go. We paid the money. The money was paid. But very importantly, Germany, France, other countries should put up money. And that's been my complaint from the beginning."

Liar.

Trump hasn't invented time travel, and the internet never forgets. Trump is now on his third, different excuse on withholding the aid, but the second and third are irrelevant. He didn't mention those at the time to anyone. Trump is lying, and by doing so, he personally invalidates the first excuse, also.

[Vago]

Biden is has the same main problem Hillary did....he's a longtime politician. That's what moderates don't want.

Virtually anyone but Clinton would have crushed Trump last time and the same thing this time with Biden.

Playing safe let Repubs put Trump in office and destroy the SCOTUS.

Shift the paradigm.

Sanders is the only solution, I don't believe it is so much as longtime politicians vs a change in ideology or for lack of a better term change in status quo; and that goes for both parties. Biden will do what Biden has always done. His numbers will start free falling, no one has really every liked him and he will get destroyed by Trump in the general election. Sanders started a fire in Washington to the point where other members of his party, the same ones that screwed him in the last election, had to take note and run with his ideas. He technically is the president of the new, "progressive" Democratic party.

[cubby]

Sanders is the only solution, I don't believe it is so much as longtime politicians vs a change in ideology or for lack of a better term change in status quo; and that goes for both parties. Biden will do what Biden has always done. His numbers will start free falling, no one has really every liked him and he will get destroyed by Trump in the general election. Sanders started a fire in Washington to the point where other members of his party, the same ones that screwed him in the last election, had to take note and run with his ideas. He technically is the president of the new, "progressive" Democratic party.

He is nothing that you have described above. If anyone is the leaders of the progressives, it's Warren. Sanders isn't even a Democrat.

[Slybak]

He is nothing that you have described above. If anyone is the leaders of the progressives, it's Warren. Sanders isn't even a Democrat.

Sanders being "the only choice" is overdetermined, but the criticism that "he's not even a Democrat" is flatly bizarre. The only people who have a legitimate case to care about that shit are Party Men who depend upon patronage and sinecures and loyalty to a decrepit power structure for their livelihoods, and anyone who even maintains a nominal left of center ideology ought to, if only out of necessity, want those kind of people as far from the levers of power as possible.

[Bodakane]

Sanders is the only solution, I don't believe it is so much as longtime politicians vs a change in ideology or for lack of a better term change in status quo; and that goes for both parties. Biden will do what Biden has always done. His numbers will start free falling, no one has really every liked him and he will get destroyed by Trump in the general election. Sanders started a fire in Washington to the point where other members of his party, the same ones that screwed him in the last election, had to take note and run with his ideas. He technically is the president of the new, "progressive" Democratic party.

Warren is what you're claiming.

[Bodonius]

Sanders looked ok until he took in some people that are clearly racist.

[mvaliz]

He is nothing that you have described above. If anyone is the leaders of the progressives, it's Warren. Sanders isn't even a Democrat.

Why are people doing this "team Bernie/Warren" shit? o_O

...sometimes, I feel like the only person in the world who understands that they're good friends and agree on practically everything - and by design they're going to work together no matter who gets the progressive majority in the end.

It's like arguing which is better, Apple Pie with Cinnamon or Apple Pie with Brown Sugar. At their core, it's still Apple Pie and they both taste damn great - and that's what matters most! >_<

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/st...64220407767042

Whistleblower wants to talk. Wonder if Trump will let them or if he'll continue to violate the law and refuse to pass along the complaint to Congress.

[Felya]

https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/st...64220407767042

Whistleblower wants to talk. Wonder if Trump will let them or if he'll continue to violate the law and refuse to pass along the complaint to Congress.

Breaking now:

https://mobile.twitter.com/mviser/st...68142992203783

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is preparing to announce formal impeachment inquiry today

President Trump is preparing to release transcript of call with Ukrainian president tomorrow

Whistleblower is preparing to testify before House Intelligence Committee as early as this week.

[cubby]

Sanders being "the only choice" is overdetermined, but the criticism that "he's not even a Democrat" is flatly bizarre. The only people who have a legitimate case to care about that shit are Party Men who depend upon patronage and sinecures and loyalty to a decrepit power structure for their livelihoods, and anyone who even maintains a nominal left of center ideology ought to, if only out of necessity, want those kind of people as far from the levers of power as possible.

He wants the Democratic nomination for President. I don't think pointing out that he's not a Democrat is "bizarre". It's certainly accurate. And if he doesn't like the Democratic party, then start his own. I'm aware of how difficult that is in the United States. But that's not my fault. And it won't be solved by Sanders seeking the nomination of a party he deems to not be worth of his affiliation.

[Breccia]

Breaking now:

President Trump is preparing to release transcript of call with Ukrainian president tomorrow

Considering the whistleblower is trying to come forward, Trump is low on options. I don't even think releasing a fake/edited transcript is an option anymore. If he lies, and gets caught, he's admitting guilt. If he redacts it, he's pulling a Nixon, and that will be seen as suspect too.

[Felya]

Considering the whistleblower is trying to come forward, Trump is low on options. I don't even think releasing a fake/edited transcript is an option anymore. If he lies, and gets caught, he's admitting guilt. If he redacts it, he's pulling a Nixon, and that will be seen as suspect too.

I don’t see the point in redacting anything. The whistle blower will speak regardless. The impeachment inquiry has already started. Right now it’s just trying to act as transparent as possible, while ignoring it took a threat of impeachment and whistleblower speaking in congress, to actually release anything.

[Breccia]

Schumer says the transcript is not enough.

He's right.

Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) on Tuesday said releasing the transcript of a call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky doesn’t go far enough and says Congress needs to see the whistleblower complaint the administration has held back.

“We need the complaint. We need the complaint of the whistleblower as sent to the IG,” Schumer said, referring to a complaint filed by an unnamed whistleblower to Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.

“It’s nice to have the transcript. We don’t even know right now what the complaint is about, in part or in whole,” Schumer added. "And without the complaint, we don’t know what the IG thought was so urgent.”

“So simply releasing the transcript does not come close to ending the need of the American people and the Congress to see what actually [happened,]” Schumer said.

Schumer made his comments at the start of a press conference about 20 minutes after Trump said he would release an unredacted transcript of the call.

- - - Updated - - -

I have a Trump quote and picture courtesy of Axios:

I am currently at the United Nations representing our Country, but have authorized the release tomorrow of the complete, fully declassified and unredacted transcript of my phone conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine. You will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate call. No pressure and, unlike Joe Biden and his son, NO quid pro quo! This is nothing more than a continuation of the Greatest and most Destructive Witch Hunt of all time!

"Har har. How long did you image search to find something that makes Trump look that bad?"

Zero. Axios put it right above the quote.

Well, you heard the man. Full and unredacted, fully declassified. His hands were tied, and he knows it.

[cubby]

Let's review the timeline:

July 13, 2019: Trump flat-out tells ABC News that, if a foreign country offered dirt on a political rival, he would absolutely accept it.

July 18, 2019: DoD announces plans to provide aid to Ukraine, including money for "sniper rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and counter-artillery radars"

July 25, 2019: Trump is known to make a call to the Ukrainian President. It's strongly believed this is the call in question, as such a call would 100% be monitored.

July 28, 2019: Dan Coats resigns or is fired.

Aug 3, 2019: OMB writes a letter to Congress, saying that the aid is being put on hold. The letter is not Ukraine specific. The letter does not mention corruption or other countries. The letter is about funding.

Aug 8, 2019: Trump nominates Maguire. Coats calls his deputy during a meeting and asked her to resign. She does.

Aug 12, 2019: Whistleblower reports to ICIG.

Aug 26, 2019: ICIG reports to Maguire.

Sept 2, 2019: A week passes. By law, Maguire blew the deadline, by not reporting the whisteblower to the House and Senate.

Sept 9, 2019: Two weeks have passed. ICIG goes to Congress directly.

Sept 10, 2019: Schiff writes to Maguire, demanding the whistleblower info.

Sept 11, 2019: Trump's hold on the Ukraine funds suddenly ends. Trump adds $141 million to it. Also Bolton resigns, which could possibly be related, but I don't think that's the case. Feel free to opine otherwise.

Sept 13, 2019: Schiff subpoenas Maguire.

Sept 16, 2019: Three weeks have passed. ICIG goes to Congress again.

Sept 18, 2019: WaPo breaks story.

Sept 19, 2019: Maguire talks to HIC behind closed doors. Schiff is unimpressed, saying Maguire did not give the relevant info, and that he believes the relevant info is being intentionally withheld.

Great timeline summary. Thank you for doing that.

To me, those two dates and events associated are key. Maguire didn't report when required by law, and there is no excuse even offered for why this crucial deadline was missed. Especially considering what the purported information was regarding. Then we have Schiff saying "that's not what you're required to provide and report by law", or something to that effect.

I'm guessing the transcript, when reportedly has 8 separate quid pro quo asks in it, is even worse than we've heard so far.