TGHusker Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 It seems to me that certain admin, embassy and security staff would not be so alarmed about the call if it were so PERFECT. It seems it was not such a 'Perfect little call" as Trump said. Kind of reminds me of "I did not have sex with that WOMAN". https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-lawyer-moved-transcript-of-trump-call-to-classified-server-after-ukraine-adviser-raised-alarms/ar-AAJC8D7 Quote Moments after President Trump ended his phone call with Ukraine’s president on July 25, an unsettled national security aide rushed to the office of White House lawyer John Eisenberg. Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine adviser at the White House, had been listening to the call and was disturbed by the pressure Trump had applied to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate his political rivals, according to people familiar with Vindman’s testimony to lawmakers this week. Vindman told Eisenberg, the White House’s legal adviser on national security issues, that what the president did was wrong, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post Scribbling notes on a yellow legal pad, Eisenberg proposed a step that other officials have said is at odds with long-standing White House protocol: moving a transcript of the call to a highly classified server and restricting access to it, according to two people familiar with Vindman’s account. The details of how the White House clamped down on information about the controversial call comes as the House impeachment inquiry turns its focus to the role of Eisenberg, who has served as deputy White House counsel since the start of Trump’s administration. House impeachment investigators on Wednesday evening announced they have asked Eisenberg and a fellow White House lawyer, Mike Ellis, to testify Monday. 1 Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 Who refers to a phobe call as perfect anyway? Its just weird wording to me. Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 44 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said: Who refers to a phobe call as perfect anyway? Its just weird wording to me. falls in line with "most ever" and "biggest in history" and "my daughter is hot"... 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 1 hour ago, Nebfanatic said: Who refers to a phobe call as perfect anyway? Its just weird wording to me. a guy with a fifth third grade vocabulary perhaps 1 Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 23 minutes ago, DevoHusker said: falls in line with "most ever" and "biggest in history" and "my daughter is hot"... 4 minutes ago, TGHusker said: a guy with a fifth third grade vocabulary perhaps I guess its par for the course Link to comment
schriznoeder Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 The amount of misinformation being slung around is mind-boggling. The fact that Scalice, McCarthy, Jordan, Gaetz, etc. can hold public office speaks to the ongoing bastardization of American free-thinking. 1 Link to comment
QMany Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 The yays have it. Republicans are going to get their televised hearings and ultimate vote, and they won't like it. 1 Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 15 minutes ago, schriznoeder said: Wowza! Also I keep saying Republicans say testimony is very concerning and not very good, but nothing impeachable. I ask whoever said that, what is considered impeachable?? 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 In the near future there may be a new movie named RUDY. But it won't have the same feel good ending as the original. Long article details Rudy G's relationship wt Trump and how that relationship may provide the downfall of each. https://time.com/5714722/rudy-giuliani-transformation/ 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 12 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said: Wowza! Also I keep saying Republicans say testimony is very concerning and not very good, but nothing impeachable. I ask whoever said that, what is considered impeachable?? More Mob/Mafia tactics - bribe those who might be your judge - kill them (politically speaking) if they don't participate in taking your bribe. 1 Link to comment
schriznoeder Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 18 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said: Wowza! Also I keep saying Republicans say testimony is very concerning and not very good, but nothing impeachable. I ask whoever said that, what is considered impeachable?? 5 minutes ago, TGHusker said: More Mob/Mafia tactics - bribe those who might be your judge - kill them (politically speaking) if they don't participate in taking your bribe. You can't spell "jury tampering" without "Trump". 2 1 Link to comment
Ulty Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 So constitutionally, I wonder what the possible ramifications could be. If these payments are legally challenged as "bribes" before an impending impeachment hearing, I assume it would be SCOTUS who would hear the arguments...then what? Could some Senators be disqualified from taking part in the process? If so, would removal from office then be up to two-thirds of the remaining number of eligible jurors instead of the original 100? Is the President's impeachment trial put on hold while the Senators who accepted the bribes are themselves impeached and potentially removed from office first? There may not be constitutional language to address such a situation, because the founders may not have imagined this level of corruption actually existing! 1 Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted October 31, 2019 Share Posted October 31, 2019 2 minutes ago, Ulty said: So constitutionally, I wonder what the possible ramifications could be. If these payments are legally challenged as "bribes" before an impending impeachment hearing, I assume it would be SCOTUS who would hear the arguments...then what? Could some Senators be disqualified from taking part in the process? If so, would removal from office then be up to two-thirds of the remaining number of eligible jurors instead of the original 100? Is the President's impeachment trial put on hold while the Senators who accepted the bribes are themselves impeached and potentially removed from office first? There may not be constitutional language to address such a situation, because the founders may not have imagined this level of corruption actually existing! This is along the line of what I am also wondering. What stops Trump from committing more crimes to distract us from the original and stop the investigation all together? 1 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts