Call transcript already Exonerates Trump

Speedwell said:

Subject, in some instances, to the advice and consent of the Senate.

Click to expand...

True

KCfromNC said:

Why would I say something so dumb?

Click to expand...

What is happening right now with these people is they are being asked for an opinion. Do they believe the president should have done something or not. Most that have offered opinions are doing so under "I am concerned". They are not offering that he did anything illegal. Now we know that the president may be impeached for anything at all. If the house brings articles of impeachment against the president, they would be based upon opinion and not anything concrete that an action was illegal.

They may hold an "opinion" that the president should not have done this or that, but it's weak.

At this point we have nothing more than opinion. Of course when all is said and done they may come up with something they believe he did that was illegal. That remains to be seen. At this point I see nothing but a bunch of opinions flying around that some people believe he shouldn't have done this or that. Well I certainly have opinions too and some that say Obama sure shouldn't have done this or that.

rjs330 said:

What is happening right now with these people is they are being asked for an opinion. Do they believe the president should have done something or not. Most that have offered opinions are doing so under "I am concerned". They are not offering that he did anything illegal. Now we know that the president may be impeached for anything at all. If the house brings articles of impeachment against the president, they would be based upon opinion and not anything concrete that an action was illegal.

They may hold an "opinion" that the president should not have done this or that, but it's weak.

At this point we have nothing more than opinion. Of course when all is said and done they may come up with something they believe he did that was illegal. That remains to be seen. At this point I see nothing but a bunch of opinions flying around that some people believe he shouldn't have done this or that. Well I certainly have opinions too and some that say Obama sure shouldn't have done this or that.

Click to expand...

If, during the 2012 election, President Obama withheld congressionally approved security assistance from Israel until the Israeli Prime Minister declared he was opening an investigation into John McCain, do you think that would be an impeachable offense?

wing2000 said:

If, during the 2012 election, President Obama withheld congressionally approved security assistance from Israel until the Israeli Prime Minister declared he was opening an investigation into John McCain, do you think that would be an impeachable offense?

Click to expand...

First off anything is an impeachable offense. Including a bad haircut.

Secondly if McCain may have been involved in corruption with a foreign government then I'd have no issue with it. We have a right to seek an investigation of possible corruption with a foreign government.

Thirdly McCain wasn't his opponant was he? I thought Romney was Obama's opponant? I don't recall if McCain was Romney's VP choice at the time.

rjs330 said:

First off anything is an impeachable offense. Including a bad haircut.

Secondly if McCain may have been involved in corruption with a foreign government then I'd have no issue with it. We have a right to seek an investigation of possible corruption with a foreign government.

Thirdly McCain wasn't his opponant was he? I thought Romney was Obama's opponant? I don't recall if McCain was Romney's VP choice at the time.

Click to expand...

McCain ran against Obama in 2008, Romney in 2012.

Speedwell said:

No, we don't know what it means, but the whole deal looks fishy so we want to find out.

Click to expand...

We know the ellipses mean Donald Trump said some things he does not want people to know he said.

rjs330 said:

First off anything is an impeachable offense. Including a bad haircut.

Secondly if McCain may have been involved in corruption with a foreign government then I'd have no issue with it. We have a right to seek an investigation of possible corruption with a foreign government.

Thirdly McCain wasn't his opponant was he? I thought Romney was Obama's opponant? I don't recall if McCain was Romney's VP choice at the time.

Click to expand...

Yes, Romney was the 2012 Republican nominee. I was thinking of 2008.

Thank you for answering. Yes, a President may ask for an investigation of an American on foreign soil, but he should do so using the proper U.S. government resource to conduct the investigation. However, that isn't the scenario I described.

Aldebaran said:

And we also have people pointing out things in the transcript such as the elipses (...) that "MUST" mean something is being hidden or left out because there's something to hide. However, just a bit of research is all it takes to understand otherwise. You won't hear that in the MSM reports though.

Click to expand...

At the bottom of that document is this:

So remember then to use an ellipsis wisely, but make sure you don't use it too often.

IIRC there are three ellipses in the same paragraph.

rjs330 said:

You just said what I said. The calls are not automatically unclassified. They don't start that way. They will start as classified until review and then have a status assigned. The fact that there is a special server for phone calls with foreign heads of state makes that call classified. And there are different types of classification. One can be Top Secret. So calls to foreign heads of state are classified. But different classifications can be assigned.

Click to expand...

No, that isn't what I stated. Calls are not classified, they start Unclassified. The are only moved to classified if classified information is actually discussed -- which does not typically occur with foreign leaders on phone calls.

Further, the server with calls that are held with foreign leaders is not classified. Very few government servers are "open" -- information tends to be kept private. Let's use, for example, IRS servers -- these are protected because of people's personal information that are held on these servers, however they are not "classified server," since tax returns are not classified information. Instead, they are subject to privacy laws and are protected accordingly.

The White House server where they keep calls with foreign heads of state is similar, it is not classified. Not being classified, however, does not mean it is "open" and that anyone can access it. Instead, it is protected to allow the many people who need to know -- again, those in the President's administration, the State Department, Intelligence services, etc. -- to be able to access calls where they need to know what was talked about while keeping those who don't need to know, and the general public, from being able to access the calls.

wing2000 said:

If, during the 2012 election, President Obama withheld congressionally approved security assistance from Israel until the Israeli Prime Minister declared he was opening an investigation into John McCain, do you think that would be an impeachable offense?

Click to expand...

If you replace McCain with Romney, I would think that was something Obama should have been impeached for. If he had asked the AG to open an investigation because of actual evidence, not just "having questions about what happened," I would have no issues.

There are right ways and wrong ways to do things, particularly when having a foreign power announce an investigation clearly seems aimed at harming a political opponents campaign -- there is typically no reason for a public announcement when an investigation is started.

rjs330 said:

What is happening right now with these people is they are being asked for an opinion. Do they believe the president should have done something or not. Most that have offered opinions are doing so under "I am concerned". They are not offering that he did anything illegal. Now we know that the president may be impeached for anything at all. If the house brings articles of impeachment against the president, they would be based upon opinion and not anything concrete that an action was illegal.

Click to expand...

They are concernd about the facts that happened directly in their eyes and ears. There is no opinino in an experience someone had: what he heard on the phone, read in a text message or letter, saw at mettings, etc. The reaosn they are concerned is they knew what they witnessed was illegal.

Aldebaran said:

Wouldn't they all have to be liars if all 5 of them left things out?

Click to expand...

Again, no idea how anyone would jump to that weird of a conclusion. Did you actually read Vindman's testimony? He explains what happened.

rjs330 said:

What is happening right now with these people is they are being asked for an opinion.

Click to expand...

Nope, that's not what is happening right now.

ChristianForCats said:

We know the ellipses mean Donald Trump said some things he does not want people to know he said.

Click to expand...

Speculation only. There's a lot of that going around.

wing2000 said:

Yes, Romney was the 2012 Republican nominee. I was thinking of 2008.

Thank you for answering. Yes, a President may ask for an investigation of an American on foreign soil, but he should do so using the proper U.S. government resource to conduct the investigation. However, that isn't the scenario I described.

Click to expand...

And I answered your question.

rjs330 said:

Speculation only. There's a lot of that going around.

Click to expand...

Why do you think it is only speculation when we have proof of what they mean?